Rex Barnes

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am going to be the last speaker. I have been on the road since 4 o'clock this morning to get back to Ottawa to speak on this very important issue.

Of course we are supposed to learn from our history lessons throughout life, but it seems that for some reason or other the federal government has not learned its lesson. In the early 1990s when we had the major collapse and the TAGS program was brought in for our fishermen, it appeared that the process should work. But it did not work and of course today we are back again with the same problem.

The minister of fisheries had an opportunity to basically make history where no other minister has had the opportunity, that is, the minister should have listened to the all party committee report that was formed by all political stripes in Newfoundland and Labrador, including senators. We gave him a plan. As politicians who are close to the people, who know about Newfoundland and Labrador, who know the industry, we felt that we gave him a plan that would have worked if he had listened and implemented it. However, he chose not to. Of course as a result he has to live with that. And we, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, have to live with it, unless the people tell him differently and rise up, unless they tell the minister that what he has done is not good enough and that we need better representation than what the federal government is giving the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have a right to determine our own future. That future has been taken away from the fisher people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We now are more dependent on the federal government than ever before. We have the best resources anywhere in Canada with the fishery and with the oil. However, for some reason or other, Upper Canada seems to want to keep us back and not let us have what we rightly deserve.

Of course the fisheries minister is at it again. The federal government is at it again. Now what are the fisher people going to do? The fisher people in Newfoundland and Labrador have been down before. They are used to fighting back the battles. They are going to continue the battles, because they will rise again and be successful like they were in the past. We are going to make sure that the minister, the federal government and whoever is here understand that and are accountable to the people.

The government talks about having to conserve the stocks. No one in their right mind would say, “Take it all out”. We know, and we were there to conserve the stocks. We are not stupid people. For some reason or other, the government must think that we are stupid people. No, we are intelligent people. We understand that this is our resource. We are not going to destroy our own resource. We are going to work together as a people to make sure we get the most out of our resource so that we can continue.

Fogo Island, an area I represent, put $38 million into the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador last year, I believe. I know it is not cod we are talking about with this issue of Fogo Island, but it was $38 million. I would say that for all the province it is $100 million or more that the fisher people of the province are putting into the economy of the whole country, because they are not spending just in Newfoundland and Labrador, they are spending everywhere in Canada.

We have taken away their livelihood. What are they going to do? I will tell members what they are going to do. I will tell members what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are saying. We have seen the burning of the flag, which I know we do not take too lightly, and we should not take that too lightly. People said only just this weekend that when people start burning their country's flag it shows that there is major unrest. With major unrest come problems for the country, and more than problems, because we have just seen what happened over in Iraq with the burning of the U.S. flag. The Iraqis did not want the U.S. there. If we want to use that analogy, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not want to be a part of Canada because it is not taking care of the people it is supposed to be taking care of.

As a result, they burned the flag as a symbolic gesture to let Canada know and to let the Prime Minister and everyone in the country know that they are very unhappy and unsettled about the future for themselves and the province.

We can look back and talk about what has caused all this. We can look at a gentleman who was called Captain Canada. We were all so proud in Newfoundland and Labrador when he took on the overfishing. We were very proud. I do not think there was a Newfoundlander who did not say that it was the first time the federal government had the guts to do what it should have done. But where did it get us? Nowhere. It did not get us anywhere. It did not get us anywhere because it was done for political reasons, for all the wrong reasons.

[The Environment, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, representatives of Newfoundland and Labrador met with the hon. Minister of the Environment in an effort to have the minister reverse his decision to downscale the weather station in Gander.

The province submitted a proposal to keep the station active for the purpose of maintaining a public and marine forecasting service. The minister is well aware of its history and purpose. The people of the province maintain that the changes to the Gander weather office would, in effect, penalize the province, compromise the safety of the individuals and industries which depend on accurate and timely forecasting.

The proposal given to the federal government would continue to provide public and marine weather forecasting, thus maintaining the federal government's presence in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will take 11 forecasters to do the public and marine forecasts for the province, whether they are located in Gander, Halifax or anywhere else. The advantage is that the experience of forecasting is already in Newfoundland and Labrador and is right in Gander.

If Atlantic Canada is destined to have only one weather forecast production centre, then it should be the Newfoundland and Labrador Weather Centre.

[Airline Industry, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport said that government assistance to Air Canada would not come in the form of a cash bailout. He would not rule out any loan guarantees or other financial arrangements. Earlier today Air Canada filed for bankruptcy protection, and a related announcement by the Government of Canada is imminent.

Could the Minister of Transport outline what guarantees he has received from Air Canada that this most recent bailout will be effective? Has he asked to see a new business plan? Has he seen a restructuring plan?

[Airline Industry, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on paper Air Canada is now worth $300 million. Its debt is $12 billion. The Minister of Transport says that he is keeping his options open in regard to the Air Canada monopoly. Does this include a government aid package that will be in excess of Air Canada's current market value?

[Airline Industry, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is widely believed that Air Canada is on the brink of bankruptcy. It has a $12 billion debt and its CEO is on the record stating that the company business model is broken.

Will the minister now bail out Air Canada to allow it to continue its core business model or will he do the right thing, like any other company would have to do, and let it file for protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act?

Why will the minister not come clean and declare that Air Canada will not receive special treatment without having to go through proper business practices?

[Airline Industry, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Air Canada is in trouble. Could the Minister of Transport inform the House whether the government is considering any scenario where it will buy shares in Air Canada?

[Employment Insurance Act, March 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me tonight to speak on Bill C-206. Of course my learned friend who brought it forward is a very kind and compassionate person. He cares about what happens to individuals all over the country.

People have to forget the fact that it is going to cost money. It will cost money up front, but we will save money in the long haul. We could sit down and talk about all the bills that come through the House, and when all is said and done, there is no bill that will affect people as much as this bill will. Bill C-206 is a bill for the people. It is an excellent, caring, compassionate bill, which we sometimes do not see from politicians. Today we have a chance as a country and as politicians to stand up and say that we care for the working people of this country in a way that we have never cared before.

We all know that the workplace is very stressful. For 22 years I worked as a front line worker in health care. That is a long time. I have seen a lot in 22 years. I have been with family members who cried, who had stress and who did not know where their next dollar would come from because they were too emotionally upset to work. They had no plan so that they could go off work and have some income. They did not know where their next dollar was coming from.

This bill gives them hope. Bill C-206 gives them some type of peace of mind for the future and the people they love and will care for.

Bill C-206 raises legitimate points. Certainly all members sympathize with and respect those who are left with no other choice but to leave their employment due to the illness of a family member. Whether it is a parent, a sibling or a child, it does not matter.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada certainly believes in assisting Canadians who are in need of help. Bill C-206 will bring a great sense of peace of mind to people who are in need. The government gives parental leave and maternity leave, so what is wrong with the government giving compassionate leave to the people who need it the most? Bill C-206 gives it to the people.

I know that the hon. member is looking for 52 weeks and I know that the Liberal government put 6 weeks in the budget. I commend the government for that. Six weeks is a good starting point. This is a good start to move forward to make the bill better than ever before.

I am sure we all know people who have been in situations where they could not go to work because of stress and because they wanted to take care of a loved one on the last leg of the journey. As a result, they did not know where they were going or if they would have any money.

Bill C-206 gives them hope. I could tell story after story of people whose lives have been torn apart, but unless people go through it themselves they do not really understand it. I have been through this experience with my father-in-law who had cancer. He was diagnosed in December and before the trout season began he passed away. The only reason the family had peace of mind was that there were family members in the house. One could afford to take time from work and there were two family members who were not working at the time and they spent every day and rotated shifts.

The bill would give those family members a chance to say, “I can take legitimate leave from work, stay off and take care of our loved ones”. The hon. member should be congratulated. We have an old saying: the people in this country should be kissing his feet, because we have a kind politician, a politician who means a lot to this country. We as politicians can change the time and change the image of politicians if we do things right. This is what it is all about.

All of us should vote in favour of the bill. No one should object to the bill. We should unanimously support the bill, give the people something that they rightly deserve and give them hope for the future.

[Transportation Amendment Act, March 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, some days there is never an easy question.

The important thing is to look at the rural areas and population decline, but individuals still need air transportation and a transportation service. There is a cost sometimes to help out the people most in need. The urban centres are getting all the big breaks with regard to the transportation sector.

I firmly believe that we have to sit down and talk to the stakeholders, talk to people from the areas that are affected and come up with a Canadian plan for Canadian taxpayers that will have little impact on the taxpayers themselves but more of an impact on the fact that Air Canada and other carriers provide an equal level of service for all of Canada.

[Transportation Amendment Act, March 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, this year I think the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador may only receive approximately $3 million to $5 million for highway development. It has already been stated in the province that it will be short approximately $50 million to keep up with the basic needs of the province. The province is spending about $50 million right now and it will be short approximately $50 million. When we talk about $3 million for the whole national scheme, it seems like a lot of money but it is not a lot.

As a result, only a small amount of dollars will be spent in Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada. I do not think there is any doubt that the provinces will have to come back to the federal government for more money.

In Newfoundland and Labrador right now the cost to fly out of the province is tremendous. People are being taxed to death. Airport authorities have been asking the government to get rid of the passenger tax because it has been a major hindrance. Airport authorities are being burdened to death with the excise tax with regard to fuel. If some of this money were rebated to the airports then a lot of the airports could stay more competitive than what they are today.

I think the government has missed the boat in that area. It has to start rebating some of the money it is taking from airports throughout Atlantic Canada. If it does not eliminate the tax totally, some of the airports in Atlantic Canada will not survive. If the government does not totally eliminate the tax, there will be a very negative impact on the whole of Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canada cannot afford that because it will be the one hardest hit throughout the country. The government needs to start listening to airport authorities and the people who use the system.

[Transportation Amendment Act, March 18th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, with the whole picture of transportation it is important that we look for a balance. There is no doubt that what the hon. member has said is true. One of the biggest things is that sometimes government interferes too much in the private sector. As a result of that we try to do too much for the private sector.

This special quota needs to be done, but should it be done with the public purse and should it be heavily subsidized? While I think that we as a government should be in the business of lending a helping hand, to what extent do we do that? I think that if we do it for one we will have to do it for all.

It is important to remember that consumers will pay for whatever happens in the transportation industry. If we are going to ask taxpayers to pay on one side, why should we as a government bail the industry out on another side? We need to find a balance. It is important that we talk to all stakeholders and find out what the best route is to take.

The minister seems to be putting a huge chunk of the transportation money into central Canada and forgetting about the other areas. The problem is that he has not listened to what people have been saying. If he had listened, he probably would have found a better way to come up with this plan.