Jean-Yves Roy

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, according to recent data produced by biologists, the situation of groundfish is alarming. Stocks are not returning to anticipated levels, which could compromise the next fishing season.

In light of the very real possibility that the federal Minister of Fisheries will impose a moratorium, there is increasing concern in Quebec's maritime regions. Now is the time to plan the assistance to the communities that will be affected by this moratorium.

Will the Minister of Fisheries give a positive response to the repeated requests of his Quebec counterpart to set up a federal-provincial committee to discuss the groundfish issue?

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his excellent speech.

We both come from regions. I remind members opposite, including the hon. member for Peterborough, that what the federal government collects in taxes does not belong to it. It belongs to the people of Canada and Quebec.

When the Quebec National Assembly unanimously asks the federal government to reinvest in the health system and the federal government says no, I do not think that it is using the taxes paid by Canadians and Quebeckers properly.

As I was saying, I come from a region and I would like to ask my colleague a question. I am personally aware of the impact of the underfunding of health and social services in a region like mine.

The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques and I both come from the same region. I wonder if he could give us his view of the impact of the underfunding of health services in a region like mine.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague wants to propose a motion or an amendment to that effect, he is free to do so. We will discuss it. We are not here to discuss a possible amendment that he could propose to the motion before us, to which an amendment has already been proposed.

I would like to come back to what I was saying earlier and would like to add that democracy must never be taken for granted. We must never forget that anything done secretly, anything that prevents the public from being informed is dangerous for democracy.

The fact that we live in a democratic society does not mean that democracy can be taken for granted. Democracy can never be taken for granted.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will not respond to the last part of the statements made by the member for Brampton Centre because I think that it would be pointless. However, I will say that Quebeckers as a whole are very well informed as to what goes on in Quebec. They are very much aware of what goes on in Quebec; in terms of democracy, it is superior to what goes on here. I hope that my answer is clear, that he heard it well and understood it well. I will repeat it if necessary.

He said at the outset that getting out of the country makes one realize how good things are here. In Quebec, things are good also. We have a great democracy in Quebec. That does not mean that Canadian democracy is not good. However, there is a danger, for example, in believing that it cannot be improved and that it cannot change for the better. It is very dangerous to think that democracy can be taken for granted in a country such as this one where more and more decisions are made secretly in the backrooms without consulting the public and without informing the public.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the motion presented by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. First, I want to point out that I will share my time with the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Just mentioning the name of her riding takes close to a minute of my time.

In the last little while, a number of hon. members, particularly those who sit across the floor, have said that the motion of the Bloc Quebecois and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mercier were pointless. We were just told that this already exists under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

I think there is a failure to understand the motion before us and I think that members opposite are changing the content of the motion slightly. What is the purpose of the motion presented by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier? It is very clear.

I will repeat the motion, so that members opposite clearly understand. The motion reads, and I quote:

That... government appointments of ambassadors, consuls general and heads of regulatory bodies and Crown corporations should automatically be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons for consideration, and that the relevant Standing Orders of the House of Commons should be amended accordingly.

I have the relevant standing orders and I will get back to them later on.

The hon. member for Mercier added a very important amendment asking that appointments be “referred before confirmation of the said appointments”.

Once an appointment has been confirmed, even if we call the appointee to appear before the committee and ask him all kinds of questions, that person has already been appointed and nothing will change. This is what the Bloc Quebecois wants people to understand with this motion. It wants people to realize that there is a very important lack of democracy in this process and, as others have mentioned, we are not talking about one or two appointments.

We are talking about 3,500 positions, about order in council appointments, which include some 1,000 judges, some 100 heads of missions abroad, including ambassadors, senior public servants, 500 full time employees and 1,900 other part-time employees in all sorts of organizations, commissions, committees and so on, created by the government.

This brings me to the democracy in which we live. I would like to talk, among other things, about the standing committees of the House of Commons, to which the Standing Orders refer. It is said that appointments should be referred to these committees.

Even in the committees there is a democratic deficit. We are very much aware that the government always has a majority on these committees. Once that majority is questioned by an opposition MP, as my colleague for Québec has just said, the members are automatically called back, as they are often absent—which I ought not to mention—they are called back urgently to stop the opposition motion from getting through.

When the committees are sitting and there are public hearings, people ask us “What is the point of appearing before a committee if our position is opposed to that of the government majority? We won't get heard anyway or, if we are, it won't be taken into account”. I think we have had some fine examples of that in recent years.

My colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is here to confirm that, but I did not want to revisit the business of the unanimity on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. All members had called for major changes to the Employment Insurance Act. What happened next? The government totally thumbed its nose at them; it ignored the recommendations of its own MPs.

We have seen this in other areas as well, and I have had personal experience with it on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Last spring, a unanimous report was tabled by all members of Parliament, those in the government majority as well as those in the three opposition parties. We adopted a unanimous report so that an important fisheries-related issue might be settled. What good did it do? The government did not take it into consideration.

As citizens, the question we must ask ourselves is the following: do we still live in a democracy or in an apparent democracy? I think that we live in a partial democracy, but there is a vast part of government that is neither accountable, nor transparent.

People wonder why citizens these days are losing interest in democracy. One only has to look at voter turnout in the last election to see this. We wonder why citizens are not getting involved in our democracy. This is dangerous, because, as people gradually lose interest in our parliamentary system, as they gradually stop going to the polls, as there are fewer and fewer of them to exercise their rights, our democracy becomes threatened. I think we need to think about this.

The motion moved by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier is very specific, even though it only refers to appointments. When I say only, I should be careful. When we are talking about 3,500 positions, all of the government is involved. There are a great many decisions involved that have a direct impact on citizens.

My colleague, the member for Trois-Rivières, spoke of the appointments of returning officers in every riding, but we could just as well mention—because my colleague, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques may well talk about it briefly—the appointment of those who, for example, preside over employment insurance cases at the Tax Court of Canada.

Again, these are political appointments. These are people who know quite well that they were appointed by the majority,and who are aware that they must respect government orders from on high. This does not do justice to taxpayers, to the citizens who are called to appear before the courts and who no longer believe in justice. As a result, they lose faith in the impartiality of the courts. Given that the judges are political appointees, people have severe doubts regarding the impartiality of the courts in which they must appear.

We could also have a look at the way board members of crown corporations are appointed. Here again, when private citizens have to deal with crown corporations like Canada Post, they are bound to think that decisions will not be free of bias. There is always some bias because the role of the executives is to defend the government policies. These people are appointed as directors or chairmen of the board precisely in order to uphold the policy of the government in office.

The motion before us raises the question of whether we are in a democracy and why we elect governments. Why do citizens elect a Parliament and form governments?

I think the primary role of the government is to serve all citizens and to redistribute services and wealth fairly. That is why we are a democracy, and not a dictatorship where a small group has total control of the government. We vote for members throughout the country, in Quebec as well as in Canada, so that they can speak for us, and express our ideals and our vision of our society.

To conclude, I think the way this government works and the way preceding governments have worked, for this has been going on for some time, is very dangerous for democracy. The manner of appointments and an increasingly secretive government are dangerous for democracy.

[Civets de la nature, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a business in my riding that employs 12 persons and that has only been in existence for one year.

The Civets de la nature de Carleton, on Chaleur Bay, was recently been awarded two gold medals and two silver medals at the Masters européen de dégustation, an international culinary competition for fine preserves, held in Brussels.

The company, led by Michel Massouty, prepared a very creative menu quite typical of the region. This was not the first time that chef Christian Menant has won the award. He won honours at the Masters in 1999, when he lived in France.

It is worth noting that the award-winning food products almost never reached Brussels, because of long negotiations with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which refused to issue an export permit.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give my colleague from Joliette a chance to make up for this to a certain extent, although you did warn him about the quotes he used.

He was however successful in summarizing what happened in 1982 and 1983 and in describing how the federal government at the time, a Liberal government by the way, tried to bring the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec to heel. As he mentioned, it is ironic that the same government would, 36 years later, set up a similar institution for the benefit of all Canadians.

I would like my colleague from Joliette to go a bit further and tell us about the benefits Quebec has reaped from the Caisse de dépôt et placement. I would remind the House that the caisse has been in existence for 36 years now and has become a major investor in our economy. Unless I am mistaken, it is the eighth biggest company in terms of the assets it manages.

I do hope that the board being created here today by the federal government will benefit Canada as much as the Caisse de dépôt et placement has benefited Quebec.

I would like my colleague to elaborate a bit more on the Caisse de dépôt et placement and on the context in which it was set up. It was created during the Quiet Revolution, at a time when there was an increase not only in economic activity, but also in the business of all Quebec institutions. I would like the member to briefly comment on this.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just wind, as pointed out the hon. member for Sherbrooke. It is a concrete reality. We must give up this idea of investing more in nuclear energy when people and countries around the world that are affected by nuclear energy are hoping to reduce its use as much as possible.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the amendment proposed by my colleague from Jonquière, seconded by our colleague from Joliette who has just spoken, and I congratulate him on his speech.

What both my colleagues are proposing is a six month hoist, so that people can be consulted and have the opportunity to express their views on the bill in question.

I would remind hon. members that Bill C-4 is a carbon copy of a bill from the last session. I recall at the time expressing my great surprise that the present government would want to ram through such a bill at any cost. I am equally surprised today.

The purpose of Bill C-4 is to totally absolve financial backers of responsibility vis-à-vis the nuclear industry. What this amendment would do is exempt backers from liability in the nuclear sector. This means that corporations which make loans to nuclear facilities will no longer be liable. They will be able to make loans without subsequently assuming liability if there is contamination when these sites are abandoned. One day or other, they will be abandoned, and they will have to be decontaminated in any event. We know that this will have to be done at most sites.

What does Bill C-4 say? That backers will not be held liable. A corporation could declare bankruptcy tomorrow morning, disappear, and responsibility for decontaminating the sites in question would revert to the government.

There have already been many problems with contaminated sites in the past, including in the oil industry. Companies disappeared, and today the government has to take over responsibility for these sites. When companies disappear and leave contaminated sites, in the end it is the taxpayers who are responsible. They are the ones who have to pay to decontaminate the sites in question.

There is a good example in my region, with which my colleague, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is very familiar. It is a recent and very obvious example. It does not involve nuclear contamination, but a large company, Noranda, in Murdochville.

Over its 50 years in Murdochville, if my memory is correct, I believe it is 50 years, Noranda contaminated one site and two ports, Mont-Louis and Gaspé. Today the company is leaving the sites and it is completely exonerated of its responsibility to decontaminate them. The Government of Canada is being asked to clean up the Mont-Louis and Gaspé ports because they belong to Transport Canada and are managed by Transport Canada.

Really, it is the responsibility of the company; it is the company that contaminated the site and the ports. Today, the company is leaving to set up shop in South America. As a result, it will be up to taxpayers to cover the cost of the cleanup.

Are we going to do the same thing with the nuclear industry? That is my question. It seems clear to me that with Bill C-4, as my colleague, the member for Sherbrooke mentioned, the lenders no longer have any responsibility. We are saying to them, “you can lend money for nuclear energy”, even though it is an obsolete energy, as far as I am concerned and despite the fact that many countries around the world would like to replace it.

We are telling them, “You can lend them money; you will not be held responsible”. That is what the bill being considered says. To paraphrase, it says, “Go ahead, lend them money. Regardless of their responsibilities, regardless of what they do, in the end, if the company disappears, the state, we the taxpayers, will have to take on the responsibility”. Obviously, I cannot support such a proposal. I find it dangerous and risky.

The banks and the lenders that are asking for this legislation are doing so because they simply do not have faith in nuclear energy or because they do not want to take on the responsibilities that they have to clean up the sites. There are also responsibilities in cases of accidents, but I am speaking for the most part of responsibilities regarding the cleanup of sites.

One does not deal with nuclear energy the same way as with copper, in Murdochville for instance, or oil. In fact, when talking about nuclear contamination, we are not talking of hundreds of years, but rather of thousands of years before the sites in question can be completely decontaminated.

It is much simpler with oil, of course. Let us be clear, however. Oil spills in oceans are not simple to deal with. Cleanup is possible nonetheless, whereas it is a totally different ball game with nuclear energy.

For years, in society at large, businesses have been asked to assume their responsibilities. The will is expressed to adopt a principle, and the principle is adopted with respect to certain businesses in the pulp and paper sector or other sectors, namely the polluter pays principle. I have a hard time understanding why nuclear industry backers should be given the significant advantage of being relieved of responsibility when any other industry is required to assume its responsibilities.

Let us take a look at how things are done, for example, in agriculture. Farmers are held responsible when there is pollution. In any other area, be it transportation or manufacturing—I mentioned pulp and paper earlier, but I could list many other examples—the polluter pays principle is widely accepted.

If you invest in a business as a lender, if you agree to lend money to any business and this business is not, or is no longer, creditworthy, naturally, the lender has a responsibility.

Looking at the bill before us, which, I repeat, is a repetition of the legislation that was put before us in the last session, one wonders why such a privilege should be given to the nuclear industry.

I cannot agree with giving such a privilege to the nuclear industry.

We in the Bloc Quebecois hope that the Kyoto protocol will be ratified and that it will even go a little further. If we adopt Kyoto, some companies will have to make adjustments. They will have to progressively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. I am referring to nuclear energy, but if we want to force companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, they will say “Why do you grant such a privilege to the nuclear industry while we are forced to be clean?”

This is a double standard. The government is basically saying “We are granting privileges to the nuclear industry, but we refuse to grant privileges to those who produce greenhouse gases”. It is basically saying “You are responsible, but the other industry, which produces nuclear energy, cannot be held responsible. We cannot hold his lender, or the bank that lends money to him, accountable”.

I cannot agree with such an attitude. When this bill was first introduced, the current Minister of Natural Resources clearly said, and I quote:

These companies must have access to commercial credit to finance their needs, like any other enterprise. This amendment will allow the nuclear industry to attract market capital and equity. At the same time, we can continue to ensure that nuclear facilities are managed in a safe and environmentally sound manner.

I have a bit of a problem with that. The minister is basically saying “No one wants to lend them money, but we will open a door by taking away their liability”. We cannot agree with that. That is totally unacceptable. As a member representing the Gaspe region I refuse to support this bill, particularly since we in the Bloc Quebecois have proposed alternative energies that could be developed, that would create more jobs and that would allow my region, among others, to develop new technologies, including wind energy.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, obviously that is what I would hope. Canada being a diamond producer, the more diamonds we produce, the more control we will have, provided international rules change in the diamond industry.

We are debating Bill C-14, but this legislation will not solve all the problems. It must be understood that the diamond industry is controlled by huge international companies. As we know, some of them, and one in particular, are considered to be monopolies. The one that I am referring to is considered by the Americans to be a monopoly and is not allowed in the United States. This is because that company has too much control and is considered to be a monopoly.

If we get confirmation that there are enough diamonds to mine, this can only benefit the hon. member's region, just as it will benefit mine. The hon. member's riding is right across from mine, on the other side of the St. Lawrence River. So, this could only benefit regions such as ours.

But in my opinion, the rules of the game will have to change in order for the workers of these companies, and all Quebeckers and Canadians, to benefit, and to have better control over the diamond industry.