Loyola Hearn

[Employment Insurance, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is the peak time when people are applying for unemployment insurance benefits. It is also approaching Christmas. Instead of a four or five week wait, which is too long anyway, they are now waiting eight to ten weeks. These facts and figures are coming right from the minister's own department.

Every other province has received either overtime benefits or extra staff. Why is the government discriminating against Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Employment Insurance, November 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals came to power in 1993, federal employment in Newfoundland and Labrador has declined by 39%. Now we see another example of cutbacks.

During this season when many people are filing for EI benefits, Service Canada has a backlog of about 4,000 applications. Why is Service Canada providing neither overtime nor extra help to deal with the backlog?

[Trade Compensation Act, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of shooting the minister, nor do I have any intention of talking about the people who work in search and rescue. Every time they go to work, they put their lives at risk and do a great job.

My target is the Department of National Defence and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for the lack of management and coordination. It does not matter how many resources we have or where they are placed if they are not managed properly.

This is a prime example of complete and utter mismanagement of resources in an area where we cannot afford to mismanage them. Because of complete and utter incompetence in this case, lives were lost. It should never happen again and to ensure it does not, I am asking the minister, on the record, to have a judicial inquiry into this incident.

[Trade Compensation Act, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I asked some questions about a tragedy that happened off our shores earlier this year when the fishing boat, the Melina and Keith II , sank with a loss of four lives. The amount of time it took search and rescue to get to the site was thoroughly unacceptable.

I know the parliamentary secretary is going to get up soon and read the prepared script, but before he does, I want him to listen to some of the facts, which I usually do not read into the record.

It took over four hours for search and rescue to reach the Melina and Keith . The beacon was released at approximately 3:26 p.m. Search and rescue was aware of that, but had to determine the validity of the distress call. It took them approximately 40 minutes. They had to call around to different people to try to find out whether or not this was legitimate, including family members of the crew. That was unnecessary, as I will mention in a moment.

Why was the crew, which was on duty at 3:26 p.m. and would not leave until 4, allowed to leave when it was known that there was distress at sea?

The position was determined shortly after 4, shortly after the crew was allowed to go home. Search and rescue, as I mentioned, had called around, trying to determine whether or not the Melina and Keith was at sea and roughly where it was so that the distress call could be validated. Family members, as I mentioned, were called.

Each boat at sea in that class has a black box. It is required. This lets DFO, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, know the location at all times. The position is updated every hour. The Melina and Keith was fishing fixed gear, gill nets. It moved less than a mile in the three hour period and DFO knew exactly where it was. During all the time search and rescue was calling around, spending 40 minutes to determine the location, DFO could have told them in seconds where the Melina and Keith was if these departments had been coordinated.

To add insult to injury, the DFO surveillance plane was in the air at that time, flying in or near the Bonavista corridor. The operators heard about the incident. They asked permission to fly over the distress area not once but twice. They were told, “It's in hand. It's covered. You don't have to go there”.

The plane could have drawn attention to nearby boats and a rescue could have been effected hours earlier. Fifteen minutes of time saved would have saved one life. Twenty-five minutes would have saved at least two lives.

Meanwhile, back on shore, once the 40 minutes had elapsed and position had been determined, it took the search and rescue crew one hour and 55 minutes after the location had been determined, for a total of over two and a half hours, to get a chopper off the ground. This is unacceptable.

We have a search and rescue unit operating eight hours a day, five days a week, with other crews on standby. Standby is no good in a place like Newfoundland.

As we speak this evening, we have been informed that another tragedy has occurred off the coast of Newfoundland. Whether search and rescue could have done anything or did do anything there is not the case. We are talking about a case here where the time it took to respond cost lives. It should never ever happen again.

[Trade Compensation Act, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-364. One reason why I want to speak on this is it has been put forth by the hard-working member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

One might ask what is the connection between the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl and the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca. There are very few Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who do not have someone in Fort McMurray. Because of what has happened in our own province over the years, due to government neglect and mismanagement, many of our young people have had to leave and go west. Fort McMurray is the third largest Newfoundland community. That will give members an idea of how many of our people are in Fort McMurray. Any interests which the member for Fort McMurray has, is an interest for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other question people might ask is why am I speaking to the bill. Even though it does not mention softwood lumber, most of us are aware that the big issue around which the legislation is built is the softwood lumber dispute and the shafting the producers and exporters have had because of government inaction.

I do not have a lot of softwood exporters or producers in my riding. It is more or less an urban riding now. When I had the rural section of it, we did not have many trees and the ones we had certainly were not very big. It has not been an issue with which I have had direct contact. However, we have many softwood producers as well as exporters in the province. Mainly they are in the area of two Liberal members of Parliament, and I will not draw attention to them. They are in Newfoundland and Labrador today making a political announcement on infrastructure, one that was made in Newfoundland and Labrador about a month ago. When an election is coming, Liberals love to make the same announcement twice, maybe three times or four times.

The funny thing about today is when the two members arrived in Newfoundland and Labrador to make the announcement, they arrived independent of each other, each not knowing the other was coming. Apparently both showed up to make the same big announcement. On our local stations this evening there is quite a story on how the members of Parliament could not get their act together.

Since they could not be here, someone has to stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have found that is common practice.

The major concern the bill points to is the period after having signed a free trade agreement, an agreement which the government opposite said originally it would never support. When free trade was introduced by the Mulroney government, the Liberals at the time not only said they would not support it, they said that if were ever elected, there would be no free trade. We all know they said the same thing about GST.

They were elected, and we have free trade and GST. It is a good thing we do. These days the only thing the Liberals can crow about is the fact that we have a surplus. We have had one for a few years. Looking ahead, if the Liberals do not squander it all, which they are certainly doing these days, we will continue to have a surplus. However, they talk about the great fiscal policies.

We know how we really got the surplus. The surplus came to us because of three programs, the main one being free trade. There is no one in the country who doubts that free trade gave us most of the money that we now receive. Second, is the GST, and no one likes it. The government was going to get rid of it, but it brought in a lot of money. It helped balance the budget.

We on this side of the House, leading into the Christmas season, cannot take all the credit for bringing in the plan to address the major deficit of the past, a deficit we inherited from the Trudeau government, which grew when interest rates went up over 20%. However, we had the plan. It was free trade and GST, and it addressed the deficit.

Let us give the Liberals credit for their contribution. They also contributed to creating the surplus. They cut social programs. That was their major contribution to the deficit. All we have to do is look at what happened to our health and education transfers over the years under the Liberal government. The social programs across the country have been cut and cut. Now in the last few days we have seen billions of dollars going back into them without any management plan.

Having given the Liberals all the credit they are due, let us look at the situation at hand.

Producers and exporters have an amount of $5 billion sitting outside their pockets and outside the country, which they should have if there were any leadership by the government or any international presence. We are a joke on the international stage.

I want to get away from the softwood lumber issue for a minute because everybody else is talking about it, about duties and about the lack of ability by government to get the countries which have signed the NAFTA, the United States in this case, to live up the agreement. It is inconceivable. It just lack of leadership.

Let us go to another issue. Back about four years ago, we on this side of the House, and some of us down in the corner at the time, consistently asked the international trade minister when he would address the upcoming softwood lumber negotiations. He would say, and the record will show, that we should worry about it, that Canada had never lost an international ruling. It was not going to be an issue. Suddenly, the time period was up. What happened? All we have to do is ask our exporters and our producers. The government fiddled while Rome was burning.

At the same time, we also asked him questions about the tariff on shrimp going into the European market. If Canadian shrimp is cooked and peeled here, when it is sent to the European markets, it is subjected to a 20% tariff. One might say that the Europeans can afford it. If that were all there was to it, it would not be problem. The problem is in our kindness we give huge allocations of shrimp to the same European countries that are blocking our excess to the markets. They can go home duty free and put their shrimp into the same markets we sell our shrimp at 20% less than we can do it. Every time the quotas off our coast are increased, Canada is the major beneficiary, but the foreign countries get a quota also.

The thing about Canada is we fish what we are given. They fish sometimes up to 10 times as much as they are given. Last year when Denmark was given a quota, it used the objection procedures and said that it did not accept that. It said that it would fish 10 times more than it was given. The Danish fished seven times more, and that is on paper. We can imagine how much they really fished.

What is happening to Danish shrimp? It is going into the European markets. Who is really blocking Canada? Who is really trying to ensure that 20% tariff stays? The Danish. What are we doing about it? There are people in the country who could say what we are more quickly and in fewer words. However, we are doing absolutely nothing. It is the same thing we are doing about the softwood lumber. We are showing no presence on the international stage. We are becoming the laughing stock of the world, and our people are the ones who are suffering.

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the testimonies just keep on coming because again we are hearing people say that the finance minister was directly involved, but he did not know what was going on. The former prime minister, Mr. Chrétien, who chaired cabinet as prime minister, said that he knew as well as everyone else knew.

To say that he is exonerated, certainly. We did not say, the Bloc did not say nor did the NDP say that the present Prime Minister was there and supervised who received what share of the money from what good friend in the promotions company. Oh, no. Mr. Gomery said that he was not involved in the supervision but he did not say that he did not know.

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for telling me, telling you and telling the whole House how incompetent the minister of finance really was.

I was in government and I was a minister. I ran the department and I knew what was going on in my department. I did not get in trouble nor did any of my people because we did what we were supposed to do. We looked after the money that came to us from Treasury Board and Finance but we had to account for it.

Government or ministers of finance or presidents of Treasury Board or treasury boards do not throw out money to departments and say, “Here you are, little boys and girls, do whatever you want with that money”. Everyone has to be accountable, which means that the people in charge of the purse, Treasury Board and Finance, must follow the dollar. In this case, they did not follow the millions of dollars, not to say the dollar.

Can we absolve the Prime Minister because as minister of finance he did not know? If he did not know, he should have known.

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate. The big question is does the House have confidence in the government? The answer to that is a resounding no from every opposition member in the House.

One might ask why I, coming from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, would not have confidence in the government? Unfortunately, an end has to come to this debate tonight and unfortunately there will be a vote Monday and we will leave here. I could go on until some time well into next week giving reasons why I have absolutely no confidence in the government.

Last year we saw a battle in the House like none ever fought before on behalf of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It came as a result of game playing by the government opposite.

In the last election, the government committed to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador that it would provide greater benefits from the revenues derived from offshore development. It made the promise simply because the Conservative Party had made a solid commitment to the province in writing, which the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, being the smart individual he is, held up and asked the Prime Minister to match. Under pressure, the Prime Minister did but never in writing.

What did we see after the election? We saw the government back away from the commitments. We saw it trying to twist and turn every way it could to get out of delivering to our province the promises it had made. The provisions from the development of the offshore oil resources are so abundant off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Conservative Party and its leader, along with all members, not only Atlantic members, tried to convince the Prime Minister to deliver on his promise. Not only had Newfoundland and Labrador received such a promise, so had Nova Scotia. Members from Nova Scotia and my province, including the member for St. John's East and myself, along with the leader and every member in the Conservative caucus and others helped in this effort.

It took constant pressure day after day. It took the province to get down on its knees, eventually taking down flags to draw attention to the problem, before the Prime Minister relented and was forced into delivering. People ask why we should have confidence in the government. That is one of the answers.

Let us look at the fishery. During the Prime Minister's visit to my province prior to the last election, he promised that we would take custodial management of the fisheries off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. When the campaigning started, the government said that we would take custodial management. We have not heard the words mentioned since by the government. In fact, we have seen it back away.

Before I go too far, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Durham.

It was promise after promise, and we have seen it happen again. Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans came to my province. He talked about all the things the government was doing to preserve our cod stocks. He did it because tomorrow the standing committee will be tabling a report which will show to the House and the country what the government has done to try to protect and enhance the stocks off the coast of eastern Canada. Game playing is absolutely at its fullest.

What about search and rescue? Why did it take a search and rescue helicopter over two hours to leave the ground when a distress signal had been received from an overturned boat? It took half an hour or so to identify where the signal came from.

I realize it is a big ocean and it probably does take some time, but officials were phoning everywhere to determine whether the boat was at sea and whether it was a valid call. All the Department of National Defence had to do was call the Department of Fisheries to find out. With the black boxes that are on our boats now, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is updated every hour as to where these boats are. One call to one of the government's own departments could have told them in seconds where the boat was. It took over half an hour of phoning all over the place in an uncoordinated manner to determine whether the signal was legitimate.

When it was determined that the signal was legitimate, it took 1 hour and 55 minutes to get a chopper off the ground. Why? It was because the search and rescue crews work eight hours a day, five days a week. Unfortunately, the original eight hour shift was still on duty when the signal was received but they were let go and the standby crew had to be called in. It gets worse but I will go on more with this story later this evening because there were some other complications.

However the loss of time also meant the loss of lives unfortunately. Two people died within 25 minutes of rescue arriving. If the rescue had been more efficient those two crew members would have been saved. Should we have confidence in a government that runs an operation that way?

With respect to our seniors, we saw the charade being played here yesterday when the Liberals tried to say, in supporting one of the bills brought forth, that they support seniors. However when they were asked by the Bloc who put forth the motion if they would be willing to have the bill go to third reading, which the NDP, the Bloc and ourselves agreed to, they declined to do so.

The charade is up front. The Liberals make commitments and promises before an election but they do not deliver afterward. The people of Canada are sick and tired of it. The only people rewarded by their promises are their friends, which Justice Gomery did a good job of pointing out.

Liberal members have stood in their place time after time and said that Justice Gomery has cleared the Prime Minister. Justice Gomery said that the Prime Minister should be exonerated from the management and the direction of the program. He did not say that he did not know or that he was not involved. In fact, Justice Gomery said that ministers turned their backs on what was going on. He said that Treasury Board abdicated its responsibilities.

Who was the vice-chair of Treasury Board? Who was the minister of finance who directed funding? Who was the key minister, the spark plug from Quebec, in the government? Everybody knows it was the member for LaSalle--Émard, the Prime Minister.

Is anyone going to believe that somebody who was the minister of finance, the vice-chair of Treasury Board, the key man in Quebec, did not know what was going on during the scandal? There are two options: first, the truth is not being told; or second, the individual had to be totally incompetent. Either way, members of the House of Commons and the people of this country would have no confidence in somebody running this country who fits into either one of those categories. They would certainly have no confidence in the way ministries are run.

As I said, I could go on well into next week with other reasons but I have agreed to split my time and I will certainly do that with the member for Durham.

[First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in answering a question, the hon. member mentioned that we should get people involved, the bureaucrats who do good work. All our bureaucrats do. It is the direction they are more concerned about. He mentioned we should get them at the table to really get the job done. I totally agree with him.

We talk about all these big conferences, and we heard the Prime Minister talk about how important this conference is. I remember when we had another crisis, when we talked about foreign overfishing, the Prime Minister convened a big conference. He goes around the world and wherever there is an issue, the Prime Minister invites people to come to Canada for a big conference. The conference occurs, he gets coverage and nothing ever happens.

I am with the hon. member. It is not the Prime Minister I want to see at the table, it is the people who can get the job done. I am just wondering if he feels the same way.

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member two questions. My first question relates to the comments made this morning by the government House leader. I am not sure whether the member heard them or not.

Basically, the government House leader was telling us about all the opportunities we have had to bring down the government if the opposition had wanted to. I wondered, while thinking back, how many times this government, especially through the government House leader, has stymied the democratic right of this House. I would appreciate the member's views on that.

My second question is, if the hon. member were a member of the governing party, would he not want to prevent an election? If there is an election, there is always the opportunity that he might lose and somebody else might win, and somebody else might see the books. I would appreciate the member's perspective on that as well.