Loyola Hearn

[Defence Production Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question. It was coincidental perhaps that as my colleague was speaking I was reading an excerpt from the press that says “Canada gets duty free zones” and talks about Liberal MPs supporting it.

In the case of my own province of Newfoundland, we are the most easterly point in the country, the nearest point of entry into Europe from the western side. We see what is happening in Ireland because of their geographic location, even though it is not necessarily duty free. Does the member think that the creation of free trade zones would benefit specifically a place so strategically geographically located as the province of Newfoundland?

[Emergency Service Volunteers, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard not what were the comments of a private member but perhaps the official government position on the motion. If there was ever a bureaucratic analysis of a motion we just heard it with every typical government response and every reason in the world why something cannot be done. Instead of finding a way to make sure it can be done, let us find every angle there is to keep a benefit away from people who serve us all and get absolutely nothing.

I would be remiss if I did not speak on this motion because I come from a district that covers large rural sections. Each rural area has a fire brigade. Years ago they had many more fire brigades. When I served in the local fire brigade in my home town each community had a fire brigade. Each community managed to come up with a small fire truck. Each community had a fire pump and enough hose to get to most houses around. Living near the ocean, we always had a supply of water.

However over the last few years, mainly because of government cutbacks in funding to municipalities, federal government cutbacks in infrastructure funding to provinces and provincial cutbacks in funding to municipalities, local fire brigades have found themselves trying to survive on their own merits.

They have done that in two ways. One way is to amalgamate. What that means is the people who volunteer now have to serve areas much larger than their own home region. They cover areas many miles from the base of their current fire station or the fire truck which they might have. These people are on call all hours of the day or night. Many of us are looking at our watches and saying “It has been a long day”. Many of those people are also going home after long day not knowing what hour tonight or tomorrow morning they will be called to go fight a fire.

What do they get paid? The right hon. member who introduced the motion quoted an excerpt from an advertisement in a British Columbia paper which said they get smiles and occasional thanks. That is about what the volunteer firefighter gets.

In the area that I mentioned, the summer is not so bad. In winter, when we have to plough through snowbanks and shovel lanes to get to fires, these people do double duty. Nobody recognizes the amount of effort volunteer firefighters make except the firefighters themselves, their families and the people who they assist.

In many rural areas we hear stories of lives saved, premises saved and losses diminished simply because of the quick and efficient work of fire brigades. These people ask for nothing. They volunteer their time, efforts and energy for for all of us so that we can go to bed knowing that if anything happens somebody will come to our rescue. What do we say to them? We smile and say thanks.

As members of this honourable House can do a little more. We can approve the motion. We can pass the motion introduced in the House to at least show them that we recognize the work they do. The $500 tax credit that we are suggesting is very little. In relation to their time and effort it means absolutely nothing in the monetary sense. However, there is a sense of principle, a sense of recognition and is of some assistance to these people. Many of these people who live in rural areas, and that is where we have our volunteer fire brigades, live in areas where there is very little employment which means that their incomes are exceptionally small. As small as this little gesture might seem, to them it is beneficial.

To hear people talk about how we can connive to prevent the passage of a motion that would deliver this small token of appreciation to people who give their time and effort for our safety and the safety of our families is an insult to the House. Hopefully by the time we vote on the motion the hon. members opposite will see the light. They can listen to one of their colleagues who stood up and volunteered to educate the financiers in the government and to explain to them the reality between dealing with numbers and dealing with people.

We are not talking about saving a few dollars. We are talking about people who save lives. There is quite a difference. In the larger areas of the country we have our fire departments staffed by great firefighters but for them it is a job. It is a trying job, it is a job that not many people would want to have but at least they get paid for it.

The volunteer firefighter in reality does the very same work under adverse and trying circumstances. What does he get? He or she might get our thanks or a smile and sometimes perhaps not even that. We have a chance to do something for them. We have a chance to at least acknowledge the work that they do.

I feel proud to stand as a former volunteer firefighter who has many friends who are volunteer firefighters. I saw their work when they saved the house of a family member of mine. I saw lives saved because of their efforts. I saw volunteer firefighters push their way through snowstorms, through hailstorms and through all kinds of adverse situations in order to be where they were needed. Perhaps now it is time for us to stand up when we are needed and be there for them.

With that, I congratulate the right hon. member for introducing the motion on behalf of one of our colleagues who previously proposed the motion and who will be here again to do a repeat after the next election. I ask hon. members on the other side of the House to reconsider their stance, to listen to their colleagues who have agreed to educate them, to listen to the members of the NDP who have supported this motion and to vote accordingly when the time comes.

[Employment Insurance, October 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The premium rate is much higher than necessary, even according to HRDC's own actuary. Will the government take decisive action on this hidden tax on employment and reduce the premium to at least $2 right now?

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the heart of the matter, I would be remiss not to make a few comments on the speech by my colleague in the NDP. For a change, I have to say that I agree with some of what he said.

As it pertains to the cost of oil, gas and fuel at the present time and the effect it is having on a lot of people in our country, the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned that we could not control the price of oil. What the government can control is the effect it is having on the poor of the country and on the people who are living on fixed incomes and suffering drastically because of escalating prices.

If the government cannot control or lower the price of oil, it can certainly lower the taxes. As the price of fuel goes up, the amount of money that governments make, both provincially and federally, increases dramatically. If they were satisfied with a certain fixed income, then the balance of the amount of taxation which is now being charged could revert to the user and that would be substantial. There are all kinds of other ways that the government can help the poor people of the country.

One of the other items that the hon. member mentioned, which is an extremely important to people of Labrador, is the effect this is has on the people who depend on fuel in Labrador. The fuel is brought in during the summer months. Earlier this year, of course, fuel was at a relatively low price. Prices escalated and are those people paying the earlier price at which the owners of the shipping companies bought the fuel? No, they are paying the higher price which is now being charged. That is extremely unfair to the users.

However, that is probably where my agreement with my colleague in the NDP ends. My feeling on the divestiture of Petro-Canada as such is entirely different from what the hon. member feels. Even though we appreciate, perhaps more in Newfoundland than anywhere else in the country, what Petro-Canada has done for oil and gas development in our province, we also must realize that to grow companies need investment. We cannot restrict that investment or we are putting companies at a disadvantage.

Any legislation respecting ownership of Petro-Canada is bound to draw considerable attention in my home province of Newfoundland. Petro-Canada, as a crown corporation and a private company, was and remains a key player in the Atlantic oil and gas industry. Petro-Canada was a partner in the Hibernia oil discovery off Newfoundland in 1979, as well as in gas discoveries off Nova Scotia. It now shares in substantial revenues from the very successful development of the Hibernia field.

When the Tory government bought shares in Hibernia and invested heavily in Hibernia development, many naysayers condemned it for throwing money into such a development. The Canadian Alliance talked about throwing money into a sinkhole. Today, the Government of Canada benefits greatly from the development of Hibernia and will continue to profit for years to come from the developments off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador.

A year later, in 1980, Petro-Canada was the operator of an oil and gas exploration off Labrador. While it may be some time before the oil and gas from the Labrador fields hits the market, there is no doubt that the Petro-Canada shareholders will reap substantial benefits from their investment in that first class property.

In 1984 Canada Petro-Canada made its first large offshore oil discovery as an operator at the Terra Nova oil field and is now just a few months away from getting first oil from that property. Petro-Canada is also a significant partner in the White Rose oil field which will likely follow Terra Nova as the third producing oil property in offshore Newfoundland.

Along the way the company became a key investor and owner in building an oil transshipment terminal port at Whiffen Head which will be the storage and distribution centre for all the Newfoundland offshore oil. I doubt very much that there would be an offshore oil industry today in Newfoundland without the initiative, the drive, the risk, the faith and the determination of Petro-Canada and its only shareholder for most of that time, the Government of Canada.

Today, oil exploration, development and production in offshore Newfoundland is one of Petro-Canada's four core businesses. The others are the oil sands production and development in Alberta and other developments in northern Alberta, natural gas exploration and production in western Canada generally and refining and marketing of petroleum products including lubricants.

Petro-Canada's mandate is obvious in its core businesses. It was formed by the Government of Canada in 1975 to do what private investors were unwilling to do. That perhaps is the greatest legacy that Petro-Canada leaves the country. The public investment in Petro-Canada was the catalyst for drawing other private sector investors at that time who, perhaps because of exorbitant costs of development of oil fields in rough and rugged areas or unchartered areas in the country and perhaps because of the uncertainty of such developments, could not take the risk on its own. It was the Government of Canada, through Petro-Canada, that was the catalyst to start some of the major developments in the country which have proven to be extremely successful and rewarding to the country.

Private companies were reluctant to take the risks or to invest in new technologies that would be needed to explore and develop these frontiers. Petro-Canada gave Canada a presence and a voice in the corporate culture where attitudes were formed and decisions were made about potential for private sector investments in these areas.

It provided the government with a corporate investment that it could use to form partnerships with the private sector, companies to undertake projects such as Hibernia, which would never have been undertaken without the incentive that the government provided through Petro-Canada.

I am not normally a fan of public sector competition in the private sector but Petro-Canada is different. It is a case where the public sector attracted private sector investment in projects that might not have been developed.

Petro-Canada is a success story. It demonstrates how the public sector can open the door to new areas of investment. Thanks in large measure to Petro-Canada and the former PC government, the Newfoundland offshore is highly profitable, although still a difficult area for private investment solely.

Everything changes. Petro-Canada is now a private company, although the federal government retains 18% ownership. It has to look to private investors for the capital it needs to operate and to expand its core business. It must find the capital in the global financial markets that are increasingly attracted to the size of the profits that we see happening.

I can understand that the present level of ownership restrictions on Petro-Canada may have a negative impact on its ability to raise new capital. We had an example of that with a former public company in Newfoundland, Fishery Products Limited, which was privatized under great restrictions. The company now readily admits that the limit on these restrictions have to be changed because in order to draw the investment that will make the company grow, prosper and be competitive it must be able to encourage investment.

Now that the private sector has experienced firsthand that the energy frontier in Canada is a good place to invest, it may not be necessary to insist that Petro-Canada be majority owned by Canadians.

It is important to avoid a reign takeover of Petro-Canada and the 20% restriction on individual ownership might help do that. If Canadian investors continue to put their money into Petro-Canada so that we continue to have a primarily Canadian owned company playing in the major leagues of global energy exploration, development and production, it is worthwhile to keep the requirement that a majority of directors be Canadian citizens, but it may be more window dressing than substantial.

We have an old saying that says, “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. Undoubtedly, the investors or shareholders in any new company will be the ones who will direct the board of directors. By having that clause in the bill, which says that everything will be okay because the directors will be mainly Canadian, it will probably be just window dressing.

We are not against the bill. It is something that had to come. Petro-Canada has played an extremely important role in the oil and gas development, particularly in my own area of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, times change and new outside interested investment is required to make companies grow, prosper and be competitive in this global market.

We will be supporting the bill. However, just because we are opening up the country to investment, I hope it does not mean that we ourselves will be bought or owned by anybody else. The remarks of my hon. NDP friend that one day we will see the American flag flying over the country, surely we as representatives in this great Chamber and as Canadians generally, know we will never let such a thing happen. We are Canadians and we stand for Canada first. Any decisions we make in this Chamber will be for the betterment of the country and not to weaken it or give it away.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-14, an act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of lands, and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba.

We would like to have detailed commentary on the bill. However, due to time constraints, we realize that the passage of the bill is a lot more important to the principles involved than having our few words on the record. We will be brief to make sure that the bill can be passed in a timely manner.

The legislation speaks to two issues: the Norway House Cree Nation's master implementation agreement resulting from the flooded lands, and the reserve establishment, particularly in reference to the Manitoba treaty land entitlement framework agreement of 1997.

First, however, we are hardly impressed by the combination of these issues that the legislation represents. The two main issues addressed in this bill are far too important to have them lumped together. We certainly realize that the issues are related, but these issues should be addressed separately in order to provide each bill with the attention it deserves.

Legislation is not necessary for the implementation of this agreement since it is already going ahead. Instead, this legislation is another step toward implementing the terms of the northern flood agreement and the federal government's obligations under the agreement with regard to the first nations that have signed implementation agreements.

One advantage of this legislation should be the opportunity to move away from the the dispute resolution process to a more conciliatory form of negotiation and discussion. This is something we would all welcome.

I would like to address the second part of this legislation, establishing reserves in the province of Manitoba. Part 2 of this legislation is expected to assist in establishing reserves where an obligation exists in a current or future agreement to set aside land for this purpose. Part 2 appears to be beneficial to the first nations by allowing them to take advantage of conditions on a timely basis and speeding up the process of reserve creation. Because of that, as I mentioned, there are a number of intricate terms we would have liked to explore, happenings of the past that we would like to rehash.

Again because of time constraints, and although it would have been great to get all of that on the record, in doing so we would compromise the possibility of getting the legislation put through.

[Income Tax Act, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I pleased to speak to Bill C-211. My colleague from the Bloc has put forward a pretty interesting proposal. However, when we look at the forest worker separated from a lot of others in the same categories, I have some concerns.

I look at the proposal that a low paid seasonal worker is asking to reclaim some of his expenses through the income tax source. The other interesting part is that he would be able to claim his vehicle or the costs of his travel back and forth, including the cost of the interest on his loan to purchase his vehicle. I wonder if we are just talking about cars and trucks here. As the hon. member knows, some people travel by Sea-Doo. Maybe they should be able to claim them also.

Unfortunately a dual economy is developing. There are areas that are flourishing. Employment rates are extremely high mainly around our urban centres and people are doing very well. In many of the rural regions people are trying to eke out a living. Forestry workers, fishery workers and construction workers are some of those groups.

Because of the way the present government has operated and because of the CHST cutbacks over the last number of years, most of the provinces have put the meagre income they have into health care more than anything else. In most provinces, except for the two or three more affluent ones, there is a lack of construction work. Many construction workers who worked on our highways, municipal projects and water and sewer projects now have to travel all over the place to get enough hours of work just to qualify for EI benefits during the long hard winters.

The hon. member who presented the bill has an issue. He is on to something but he needs to broaden the base considerably.

There has been a lot of discussion tonight on the methods of taxing people. Alliance members talked about their proposals, the flat tax. Let me tell them that many seasonal workers certainly would not benefit from the flat tax. They would just be flattened a little bit more by the flat tax.

Some might say that the government's proposals are going to be generous. Let me say to them that again, the rich will become richer and the poor will become poorer. We are seeing this more and more. When I use the word poorer, I am not talking about poor in the sense of resources, but poor simply because they have been downtrodden by the Liberal government over the last 10 years to the point where they cannot gain from the development of the great resources they have.

There is no greater example than my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are an extremely rich province with a tremendous amount to offer, but because of the policies of the government, we are not gaining at all from the development of our resources. We see some employment in the urban centres, but the employment levels in the rural centres are going down.

We see among our fishery workers what the hon. member sees among his forestry workers. In order to gain meagre employment, they have to travel miles and miles. Before, many of our communities had large fish plants where the local fishermen came into their own wharf. People in the area worked in the processing plant and did very well.

Because of the depletion of our resources and in particular the mismanagement by the government, there is absolutely no scientific research involved in order to dictate how we should handle our resource. We see the decimation of the fishery. Fewer people are fishing.

Fisher persons themselves have to travel further and further to get to the wharf that they use and to the place where they now must store their boat. Many of them have to go from the smaller boats to the bigger boats to travel further afield to catch the meagre resource. Fish plant workers who work practically next door travel in excess of 100 miles a day in order to get enough work to qualify for EI benefits.

I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. member is saying. Construction workers day in and day out travel over 100 miles to get to a place where they have a few weeks of work.

When we look at changing the tax structure, instead of looking at across the board cuts that the members opposite say will benefit everybody, perhaps we should look at adjustments within the system that will benefit those who really need the tax breaks.

When the federal government cuts taxes by 5%, 10% or whatever, it brags about it. Everybody gets a break. But for the people in Newfoundland who pay 69% of the federal rate in their personal income taxes, it does not mean a thing. It means that the provincial government is taking in fewer dollars. It means absolutely nothing in the sense of attracting investment because the playing field is not level. Again, the rich benefit more. They can offer more incentives to people to invest. The poorer provinces such as the Atlantic provinces in particular cannot compete with the more lucrative ones because they cannot offer the same tax incentives.

Across the board cuts and made in Ottawa solutions might be looked upon as being equal, but they are certainly not fair for many regions. Not only are rich, poor and some in between regions developing, the same thing is happening in sectors within our provinces.

People in the rural areas of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in particular are finding it more and more difficult to find employment. The expense of going to their job and the expense of being involved in the workforce are getting so great that people need some kind of a break.

I support in principle what the hon. member is proposing. I hope we will use this as a catalyst to help other sectors, not just the forestry workers. Their case might be unique in certain areas of Quebec, but the fishery workers in Newfoundland are just as unique. The construction workers in Atlantic Canada and Quebec are just as unique. Perhaps it is time that we looked at developing tax policies that benefit those who need help.

Members opposite brag about the $12 billion, $14 billion or $15 billion surplus. They should be on their knees thanking the Tories for their initiatives. Back in the early nineties when they brought in free trade, the members opposite said no, that it would destroy the country. What happened after the election? The Liberals went along with free trade and today they see the benefits. Every night they should give thanks that Prime Minister Mulroney had the fortitude to do what the Liberals did not have the fortitude to do.

The other great income generator is the GST. Once again those hon. members said that we could not have this terrible tax. What happened? They had the terrible tax. We can go back to the government of the hon. leader of our party which was defeated when it increased the gas tax. When the members opposite came into power, they doubled it right off the bat.

The Liberals can brag about the surplus for two other reasons. It is not only because of good Tory policies but they have also shafted the people on health care and have held back billions of dollars that should be going to the sick and the poor. People are suffering because of seasonal employment. The government has cut their legs out from under them with the EI benefits. This has helped fill the government coffers and it is nothing to brag about.

Maybe it is time for the government to change its mind and support the hon. member's bill and help the people who really need the help.

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The points he raises are extremely important ones. Two major developments are under discussion in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. One is the development off Voisey's Bay and the other is the development of the Lower Churchill.

Pointing to this piece of legislation, I say again that it is a time when we see the major players coming together wanting to offer solutions.

We cannot go out as environmentalists and put a hold on everything that is happening in the country. Neither can we go out as developers as in the old days when we jumped on a D-8 full steam ahead and cleared out everything ahead of us.

In order for people to survive, two things are necessary. We must make a living and we must assure that life goes on around us. There is no reason at all that major projects cannot be developed and still be very conscious of the general habitat and the wildlife around them. We do not have to destroy major areas of a country or a province just because it is a megaproject. In this day with the scientific knowledge we have, certainly with proper planning and with the involvement of all the groups, we can work hand in hand.

I say to the member, as these projects press forward and are developed, they must be done in a very sensitive way. I am not convinced that cannot be done; in fact, I am sure it can be done.

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

I asked the question and I got the answer, Whitehorse. I believe that, but I also suggest there are not many places where we can do it. When we look to Yukon or the Northwest Territories we sort of expect that. We expect to see it. We do not expect to see it in the rest of the country but we can in Newfoundland. We can drive and see caribou on the sides of roads. We can get out of our car on the other side of the road and watch whales in the ocean. We can watch seals. We can watch ducks fly about.

We can walk through the various paths in the woods. There is a tremendous trail being developed from St. John's right around the Avalon called the East Coast Trail. A lot of dedicated workers are involved and a lot of government money, to the credit of the government for investing in such projects. It is tying together not only the historic sites and the culture of the area but also giving people a chance to move right into the heart of wildlife habitats. The variety is such that anyone who has not experienced it would not believe if we tried to explain. We can stop by salmon rivers and fish when the season is open. We can pick almost any kind of berry imaginable as we walk through this area.

After one day we could see caribou, whales, seals, moose, rabbits galore running around, and all kinds of species of birds. A greater variety of birds than perhaps any other part of the country congregate in that small area of the Avalon.

We have three or four major wildlife reserves. The Cape Saint Mary's Bird Sanctuary is known all around the world. There are also a couple of great islands off a community called Witless Bay where a number of species of birds attract attention from all over the world.

Without getting into the numerous other things in the region I could mention, we still have regions in the country where wildlife abounds, due to the dedication of the wildlife officers and perhaps the education of the people.

People have become educated about how important it is to preserve. Many people have seen our wildlife being endangered. They have seen some species even become extinct. They are now concerned to the point where they realize that we perhaps have one more shot at doing it right.

The government is attempting to follow up on legislation originally brought in by the Tory government. In those days the bill was given an A rating by everybody. Now after several years the government is bringing in a bill to ensure proper preservation of wildlife. However it is doing so simply based upon perhaps what the minister thinks should be done. That may not be and certainly is not what most agencies in the country feel should be done.

The legislation should be brought out for public input. We should take our time. We should listen to the groups and agencies that have much to offer. We have seen a variety of groups. Many of them have not been working hand in hand over the years. In fact they have been operating in opposite directions. When we see them willing to come together to effect a piece of legislation that will be good for all of them, we will hopefully see a piece of legislation of which everyone can be very proud.

I support the hoist so that we have time to assess this major piece of legislation. Then when it is finally brought into the House for a vote it can be passed unanimously because we will know it has the teeth to do what a good piece of legislation should do.

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

I will leave to the member's own interpretation as to whether or not I am speaking about wildlife because he knows his colleagues much better than I do, but I assure him we are not too far from the topic.

Concentrating on the bill itself, when I was growing up in Newfoundland, some years after my distinguished colleague for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, it was still at a time when there seemed to be an abundance of everything. As a youth we would spend our evenings on the wharves. We could stand there looking at the eels and small cod fish that swam right into the harbours and by the wharves. We used our trolling poles to try to catch them.

It is now almost impossible to find codfish in Newfoundland. During the recent recreational fishery that we had in the areas where for years there was an abundance we did not see any at all. Luckily some bay stocks still exist. Perhaps, if we are very careful, they will regenerate the growth that is necessary for the fishery to rebuild. However with the lack of scientific information that is a major concern.

One morning when I was teaching school I was driving toward the community where I taught. I stopped by the roadside to look at a small fishing area just off the coast. I counted 127 boats fishing a very lucrative area within a mile of the coast. In this one small place the codfish were so plentiful that there were 127 boats. When I talk about boats I am talking about boats from 20 feet to 40 feet, not big draggers but small inshore fishing boats. This fall during late August and September, which should be prime fishing time, no one could find one codfish on that same ground. It just shows what happens when we are not careful about protecting species that can easily be destroyed.

The country behind most of our rural communities always abounded in ducks, beaver, muskrat, moose, caribou and dedicated wildlife officials. Perhaps no thanks at all to the governments as such but to the wildlife officials, they took it upon themselves to make sure that the herds were protected. We still have in many cases an abundance of wildlife in Newfoundland.

I suggest to my colleague from Bonavista—Trinity—Conception that perhaps in this great country of ours Newfoundland can be looked upon as the last frontier. It is rapidly becoming a tourist destination for many people from within and outside the country. In particular we are drawing a lot of tourists from Europe, simply because of the habitats that still exist exuding different types of wildlife whether it be animal or plant varieties. It is providing a tremendous attraction for people who appreciate these things and who come from far away countries just to see them.

Where else in the country can we fly into the capital city as we can into St. John's, Newfoundland, and drive in a circular direction for four hours and see herds of caribou grazing on the side of the roads and see whales—

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on this extremely important piece of legislation. I will be speaking in favour of the hoist motion.

We feel that this is a bill that has been rammed through under threat by the minister to pull the legislation if there is any movement in relation to amendments or adjustments. That certainly is not the way to handle not only a piece of legislation that is important and as sensitive as this, but any piece of legislation.

We might say that this legislation will become as quickly extinct as some of the species if we do not soon get our act together and do something about it. The government cannot ram through legislation just because it is an arrogant government in power when it affects so many people and so many species.

There are a number of agencies that have grave concerns about what is happening in relation to our existing wildlife. These are not people who are just concerned from an environmental point of view. Many of them are very ordinary citizens who are not necessarily caught up in the protective groups. They are people who love what this country has to offer. They are members of industry who realize that even though their livelihood sometimes depends upon hurting the environment or destroying habitats, they are beginning to be aware only too well that in order to preserve our great country and continue to make a living they also have to be very conscious of the environment and the habitats that surround them.

We are seeing, as we never saw before, a coming together of the different fragmented groups for the purpose of preserving what we have and what we are rapidly losing. These agencies have a tremendous amount to offer if we give them a chance, if we listen to them and if the committee goes out and hears their presentations. If we pick the best of what each group has to offer, if we look at putting together the solid recommendations that are coming to us and if we listen to the concerns that have been expressed, surely we can come up collectively with legislation that will not only do the job but will do it well.

When many of us were growing up in this great country, particularly those of us who grew up in the rural parts of the country, we remember living in a society where we worked and operated hand in hand with nature.

If we take time to listen to our elders we hear them talk about how they practically lived off the land. They did that not by raping what the land had to offer but by taking carefully as they needed while always making sure that there was something left for tomorrow because they knew the food they put on the table and their livelihood and the livelihood of their children depended on it.

If we go back to the opening up of the country and the days of the fur trade, perhaps in those days people thought we had so many animals that we could take more than was necessary or more than we should to preserve the species. However they quickly learned. As the animals they were hunting at the time became scarce in the areas in which they operated, they moved farther afield.

Perhaps we could even thank them for their concern about not depleting different groups of animals. They were forced westward and the country was opened up, not just because of curiosity of seeing what was beyond the next mountain but because these people pushed forward, in the fur trade in particular, in order to make a living for themselves and in order not to destroy what existed closer to the places where they had originally settled.

We should learn from the past. For years and years the country continued to produce the different species that were here originally, but it seems that somewhere along the line we forgot about it. With our concentration on opening up great towns, cities and building freeways we sometimes forgot the damage we were doing to the habitats for a lot of these species.

In my own province of Newfoundland everybody remembers the great auk, which is as extinct as the Liberals will be in Newfoundland after the next election. The only people who will survive are those who will not run.

My great friend from Bonavista—Trinity—Conception must be delighted this morning that the effort by the provincial Liberals to rid themselves of his colleagues did not work. The member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte will be back for a while in the House. The member for Labrador will also be back, I understand. Both of them won their nominations handily, as they should. It shows that the other agenda that is working certainly has not paid off for those who were perpetrating it.