Loyola Hearn

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that all of us are concerned about what goes on in the ocean. We have been saying that for many years.

For five years I was a member of the standing committee. We kept trying to convince the then government that it should do something about what is going on in the ocean and protect our stocks. We saw absolutely no leadership, but we are seeing it now.

Not only is Canada showing leadership, but many other countries are willing to work. It was just a matter of somebody going to the table and asking them to participate. We are glad--

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that the minister is mixed up considerably between the environment and the fisheries.

If the former minister had done his job when he was the minister of fisheries, like many of his colleagues, we would not be in the mess we are in today. But by taking some leadership and bringing our international partners onside with us, things are changing. Hopefully the brain food that all of us need will be there when we need it. It is too bad the Liberals did not use it when they had the opportunity.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a report put out recently certainly put everybody on notice that if we had kept going the way the Liberals were going, we probably would not have any fish left 50 years down the road.

However, we have made major changes not only in how we operate in our own country but how we operate internationally, because for once in many years, Canada has taken the lead in dealing with fishery problems around the world. If the Liberals had done that several years ago, we would not have such a report on the record.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things. Number one, Canada has taken the leadership in approaching this crisis. By using the precautionary principle not only ourselves but in encouraging other countries around the world, we have taken the leadership.

The member might be talking about bottom trawling, one subset of a major problem base. We are not the only country, by ourselves, and all the fishing nations in the world support Canada's stand, because that is only one part of the problem. We have to deal with the full problem or we are going to be in trouble.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very legitimate concern. It is something we have been aware of for quite some time. That is why we completely revamped NAFO. That is why we are taking a leadership role at the United Nations. We have to preserve and regrow our stocks. We have to preserve our habitat. We have to protect the ecosystem. If not, we could end up in such a disastrous situation.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has been on the standing committee for quite some time and has made a great contribution, as have other members. I heard the member for Cape Breton—Canso a while ago talk about the harmony on that committee. I am well aware of that. I was on the other side of the House and a member of the committee for five years. I know how well members of the committee have worked together. In fact, just about all the reports, if not all of them, were unanimous ones. When I say that I find that most of the members think alike, it is very seldom that members are on different sides of any issue the committee is talking about.

I am somewhat concerned that a study is being done in relation to fees in the north in light of the fact that this is an evolving issue. I am also concerned that a member would raise this as an issue for debate in the House before all the facts and figures came out. This might lead some people in the north to think this is some kind of a big government decision that is going to help them save a lot of money, when in reality what is being asked for is a favour by the shippers that the fees north of 60 be eliminated, which would be a benefit to them.

Will the shippers pass that saving along to the customer in total, spread right across the north, including the provision of goods and services brought to the diamond mines and the oil industry? The total cost is $100,000. We can figure out what it means to an average individual living in the north. It is practically nothing.

In light of the fact that fees generally are being looked at and that this has a minuscule effect, does the member really think we should be creating an illusion here that might make the people in the north feel that somehow or other we are trying to pass along great benefits to them when it is certainly not the case at all?

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the concern I have about a debate like this is the perceptual image that is created by it. It seems people are debating whether we should give major breaks to people who live in the north because of the cost of goods and services. If we were debating something like that, undoubtedly, we would be debating with a tremendous amount of input by all sides. We realize the costs to live anywhere in the rural parts of ours country, particularly the north.

However, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, we do not have any costs in relation to ice breaking, and we are not talking about that. We are not talking about eliminating the costs of freight, which the private sector charges.

I will use one example. A very popular machine in the north is the Ski-Doo. The cost of a reasonable one now is about $10,000, and that is not a good one. I understand the cost of sending that to the north is about $300 in freight. We are not talking about eliminating that. This amount is charged by the company that transports it.

We are talking about the fees associated with placing the navigational aids and structures to help these boats cross the 60th parallel and move into the north. It collects for us only $100,000. The cost passed on to the consumer by the company that pays the fees will be $1 on that Ski-Doo.

We just brought the GST down from 7% to 6%. This alone saved the individual buying the Ski-Doo $7. The 1% drop in GST was seven times the amount of any fees passed along by a company bringing stuff to the north.

In light of his mention of tax breaks as a way to help people get money directly in their pockets, does he not think that is a pretty good deal?

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. Our fisheries officers boarded the Spanish boat and found that the captain was misreporting catch. Our colleagues from the EU came on board and verified that. Spain immediately ordered the boat out of the NAFO zone.

When the Liberals were in power, our patrol boats did not have any fuel, relations were bad with the EU and we had a confrontation with Spain. What a difference.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that ensuring that the inshore fishers in Atlantic Canada are independent is one of our top priorities. I say to him that doing things does not cause a problem whatsoever. It is undoing things that really cause the problem, but to quote Mike Duffy, with apologies to him, I say to the hon. member, just trust me.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is one person responsible for fisheries in this country and that is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Our policies are clear cut.

There is one way to move ahead in this country. We take all the players that are involved, bring them around the table and make sure that they agree to a process that suits everybody.

That is exactly what we are doing. The Prime Minister, myself and everybody else are in the one boat on this.