Loyola Hearn

[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.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly answer. I would ask my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador if he would talk to his friends and aboriginal families across the country, including the chiefs of many of the groups across this great country. He should ask them what they think of the performance of this minister and the work we are doing with them to make sure that we have a part as we move forward in the fisheries of this country.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member who ducked away from supporting our committee to go to Newfoundland so that we could hear what the people had to say and that we made the proper decisions in relation to the fishery.

The biggest problem we have in Newfoundland is an oversupply of one fish. It is called the shrimp.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know and does know that he should not be reading NDP published press releases because what he is talking about are interim figures that are tabled that have no reality to the budget that will be presented next spring.

Our budget will not be cut. We are in the process of helping people, not hurting them. They had enough of that in years past.

[The Environment, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the commitments of this government were quite clear. We have lived up to every commitment we have made.

When the time comes, I will say for my hon. colleagues, they will see legislation tabled of which all of them should be very proud, because instead of reacting and spending billions of dollars to get nowhere, we are developing a plan, an approach and an agenda with the stakeholders in this country which will be legitimate, which will be solid and which will deliver results.

[The Environment, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members have been complaining all morning about nothing happening in relation to climate change. They know full well that in order to change this country in relation to our environmental structures, after having taken over from the party opposite, it takes time, it takes planning and, most of all, it takes consultation with the stakeholders involved.

The minister has met with several of them and is continuing to meet with them. That is the how we put together a long term plan that is supported by the partners in this country.