Loyola Hearn

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the question is one of trust and who should trust whom. It might be interesting for the member to read the polls and find out who Canadians trust in relation to leadership. He will find that the one at the bottom of the poll is his own leader.

Why? Certainly, the way he is manipulating the budgetary process is one reason. The way he is deceiving the people is another, as the member opposite is deceiving people when he talks about a deal with the Bloc. At no time, and the Bloc will verify this, did any of us have a deal with the other. It just happened that we were against corruption and we voted the same way on that issue.

The NDP members, by the way, were also against corruption and voted against the budget until they were bought off by the corrupt government, so that makes us wonder who can trust whom.

If we were to check Hansard over this past year, it would be very interesting to see who propped up whom throughout the process and how often on different bills, including the same sex marriage bill. In fact, the Bloc voted twice as often with the Liberals this past year than it did with our party.

If the hon. member wants to talk about deals, perhaps he should get his facts straight. If he wants to talk about trust, maybe the one thing we should ask is, how can we trust a Prime Minister who says he knows nothing about the sponsorship scandal when he was Minister of Finance for nine years, when he was vice-chair of Treasury Board, the division that allocates the funds to different groups and agencies, and was the chief minister in Quebec where all the money went? Either he is not telling the truth or he is completely and utterly incompetent. Is that the type of person we want to trust to run our country? I do not think so.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words in the debate tonight.

People watching think we are debating the budget, but that is not factual. The bill implementing the budget has already passed through the House and is in the Senate. Hopefully, it will receive royal assent shortly because it contains a lot of good things.

I would like to give the House a bit of history. When the government was elected last fall, it found itself in a minority position. It then brought in its budget, which was carefully doctored around the concerns of the opposition. All parties in the House can take credit for suggesting, pushing and ensuring sure certain items were included.

The Atlantic accord was a Conservative initiative, a Conservative commitment. It was included in the budget. We were the ones who pushed to get it in there. We had tax cuts, with which the government played around, that would stimulate the economy, create jobs, employ people, bring in more taxes and put money into social programs, all indirectly. We had included help for the homeless, an issue about which every party in the House talked. Generally it was a budget to satisfy everybody. It was not a Liberal budget. It was a parliamentary budget.

Consequently, the Liberal Party voted for the budget. The official opposition did not vote. If we had voted against it, we would have sent Canadians back to the polls. The NDP and the Bloc voted against the budget. Thanks to the official opposition, the government survived and things began to progress.

As things were progressing here, they were also progressing at the Gomery commission. We heard very heated and pointed testimony, pointing clearly to the involvement of the Liberal Party and high profile Liberals in the scandalous operations during the sponsorship time in Quebec. Unfortunately, the people of Quebec grew tired with a lot of the accusations. We have said many times that it was not a Quebec scandal; it was a Liberal scandal.

As a result of that, the government found itself in a very precarious position. People across the country were getting upset. Pressure was put on opposition parties to get rid of the government, to make changes. Liberals being Liberals, hanging on by their fingernails, tried to find ways to stay in power.

One of the members just asked if that was not what minority governments should do. He asked if we should form coalitions to try to beef up support to stay in power. My answer to that is yes. A government gains the support of other parties in the House, whether it be a four party system, as we have here, or a 25 party system as we see in other places, by being responsible, by providing good government and by being the type of government that opposition parties, especially fringe parties, can feel proud to support and keep in power. Is that what happened here? Not at all.

In trying to find ways to hang on to power, the Prime Minister knew he could not get support from the chief opposition party. He knew he could not get support from the Bloc after what the Liberals had done to the province of Quebec. His only choice was to try to buy out the NDP. Therefore, there was a hurried meeting in a hotel room.

Let me tell the House how hurried it was. The topics that were mentioned were the environment, public transit, energy efficient refits of low income housing, training programs, access to post-secondary education, including aboriginals, affordable housing, including aboriginals, and foreign aid.

It seems that there must have been a rapidly called meeting and the leader of the NDP must have rushed there not knowing what it was about. When the Prime Minister said that he wanted to make a deal with him, he must have had a copy of the budget. Trying to come up with a quick answer to satisfy the Prime Minister, he rattled off these topics because these very items are well spelled out in Bill C-43, the budget.

It talks about the implementation of a tax exemption for employer provided transit benefits, investment in communities, sharing gas tax revenues for sustainable infrastructure, and the amount of $5 billion over five years for public transit et cetera. In large urban areas investments would target one or two of the following priorities including public transit.

Then we go to renewable energy and we talk about capital cost allowances for investment in efficient and renewable energy generation.

When we look at the post-secondary scholarships for aboriginal Canadians, there is a $12 million endowment, $10 million more for a post-secondary education program administered by the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation. Then we talk about affordable housing with $340 million over the next five years for first nations housing on reserves.

On foreign policy, there is $500 million over five years, and I could go on, but these are items that are in the budget, Bill C-43.

If these items were there with a plan to spend x number of dollars over x number of years, why would the leader of the NDP say that we needed to put money into these five or six areas? They are already there. He says and the NDP will say that it is to up the ante; it is to sweeten the pot.

If we look at Bill C-48, we will find that this extra upping the ante only kicks in if there is a $2 billion surplus which the government will not know until August 2006.

Justice Gomery is supposed to report in November with a final report in December. The Prime Minister said that he would call an election within 30 days of Gomery reporting. Therefore, somewhere between now and August 2006 we are undoubtedly going to have an election which means that the promises to the NDP mean absolutely nothing. Am I the only one saying that? No, not at all. Let me read what the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre said:

It is my personal belief that the Liberal Party of Canada is institutionally psychopathic. Its members do not know the difference between right and wrong and I condemn them from the highest rooftops. But before the last Liberal is led away in handcuffs, we want to extract some benefit from this Parliament and that means getting some of the money delivered to our ridings before this government collapses.

That is what he thinks about the party opposite. Perhaps I should read what the member for Vancouver East said. She said, when asked if she believed the Liberals were going to deliver, “Who does one trust? How do we trust someone? We are adults. There is no perfection in those guarantees for sure”. The NDP members do not even think they are going to get the money. They just said that they made a point. They did make a good point and I congratulate them for it.

However, the whole thing is a sham and we are here debating a bill which is nothing but a sham. This bill will deliver nothing to anyone in the country. The main components are already in Bill C-43 which has passed.

How can the members stand and ask the people of the country to support this ill-conceived bill, completely outside the budgetary process, listing items that are already in the main budget, and with no intention of delivering the promise? It is just a matter of sucking in the NDP, like the Liberals tried to do with the people of Canada.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that we have no time for questions because I am sure many of us would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a number of questions.

I want to thank my colleague from South Shore--St. Margaret's for bringing Bill S-14 to the House. The legislation has been on the go for quite some time and has been driven by two senators, the hon. Pat Carney from the west coast and the hon. Mike Forrestall from the east coast. Senator Carney has been a champion for protecting our lighthouses over the years, trying to keep them active and ensuring they are not forgotten by the people who have been served by them for so long. Senator Forrestall has done a similarly good job.

Maybe we should bring a bill in the House outlawing parliamentary secretaries because these are dangerous positions. Until members become parliamentary secretaries, they are ordinary people and they do what they are supposed to do on behalf of their constituents. Once they become one, they have to do what government tells them to do, and one of those things is to read a prepared government speech.

I just listened to the parliamentary secretary. He has been a champion for people involved in the fishery and marine life over the years. I was sure if there were anyone we could count on from the governing party to support Bill S-14, it would have been the hon. member. I think in his heart he does support the legislation, but I also think he is being pressured by government to come up with some excuses for not supporting the bill.

I believe the Speaker's ruling earlier today clarified the fact that Bill S-14 would not hamstring the government in relation to expenditure. It depends on what happens afterwards, and of course expenditure could be spread around.

Lighthouses have played a significant part in the lives of people in our country, particularly on the east and west coasts. On the east coast, where we have extremely heavy ocean traffic and abundant fog and storms, lighthouses have saved the lives of numerous people on many occasions.

The area in which I live and represented before the boundary change and to some degree part of which I still represent was known as the graveyard of the Atlantic. Hundreds of shipwrecks occurred in that very region because it was the turning point for ocean going traffic. It has a very rough and rugged coastline. For many years that area did not have the type of aids available today to those who ply the Atlantic or the Pacific or the Arctic.

The people who operated these lighthouses were on constant guard. It was only because of the fact that these facilities were located in strategic positions that many mariners were warned of the impending danger of the rocks and cliffs and consequently had the opportunity to veer clear. On many occasions, the people who lived in the lighthouses or associated dwellings saw from their vantage point ships in danger, took early action and saved numerous lives.

There are about 500 extremely important lighthouses throughout the country. The parliamentary secretary has made it clear that only 13 of those 500 are national historic sites. Many others deserve recognition. All of them deserve protection because of the role they have played. All of them deserve protection not because of history alone but because of their future potential.

In many marine areas the big draw is the lighthouse. Peggy's Cove was mentioned by our colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. One of the draws at Peggy's Cove is not just a painted up building and cute little fishing area. It is the lighthouse.

I represent the most easterly point in North America and that is Cape Spear. The lighthouse there has been designated as a national historic site. It is a tremendous draw all year but particularly during the tourist season which would be from perhaps May to November.

These are unique facilities. They bring money into the area because of their draw and history. I do not think we have dug into this at all. Having known many of the people who have manned these lighthouses over the years, at least rough notes have been kept and people remember the stories. There are many anecdotes about what went on during the existence of the lighthouses and the part they and the people around them played in the culture and history of our provinces. I am sure what is true for Newfoundland and Labrador is true for British Columbia, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and the rest. I believe only two provinces do not have lighthouses and those are in the prairie section of the country.

Properly researched and documented, stories of these experiences would add tremendously to our history, our culture and our folklore. They become a draw and tie in with the little museums we now see in many of the lighthouses.

I mentioned Cape Spear which is an extremely important one. It is in the most easterly point off North America. However, there is another one in the area that is well known. There are several lighthouses throughout my riding, but one in particular is the lighthouse at Cape Race. For years Cape Race has been on the turning point of ocean going traffic. It is around that area where the so-called graveyard of the Atlantic is located, with over 600 documented wrecks in that immediate area alone over the years.

When the Titanic hit the iceberg, the only message received in North America was at the radio room associated with the lighthouse at Cape Race. It then was relayed to ships that headed off to try to do what they could to rescue the people who were thrown from the great ship. That is just one example of how important it was to have the facility there at that time. What would have happened if the message had not been picked up at Cape Race? It was a disaster, as we know. How bad would it have been had the message not been relayed as quickly as it was?

That particular lighthouse and the radio room associated with it has been refurbished to some degree. The room has been rebuilt. It has become a tremendous attraction. Right next door to it, on the way out to the lighthouse, which is about 12 miles off the main road, there is a cliff where one can walk out and look at fossils which are spread out as if we spread pennies on a carpet. The fossils are 620 million years old. Not only the lighthouses themselves but everything surrounding them add so much and they should not be forgotten.

One of the reasons people are concerned with money is that the government has done such a poor job over the years to keep these in half decent shape. At times now it takes a lot to bring them up to par, but it has to be done. It is worth doing it. Therefore, we support the bill.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the last question, let me pick up on what the member was saying. He is a member of our standing committee and knows full well some of the serious issues we have taken up.

In fact, over the last four years that I have been on the committee, we has undertaken some major studies. I would suggest that there are issues being dealt with today which would never have surfaced if our standing committee had not done a great job. We have been able to do it because we have been strictly non-partisan. At our committee meetings it is very difficult to tell who represents which party. That is the way it should be; perhaps that is the way it should be here in the House.

One of the issues we dealt with certainly was the major report on the Fraser River. We have done it with infrastructure. We did a great report on overfishing. This coming fall we will be starting to ask the question of what happened to the northern cod and why it has not come back after 12 years. I hope we never get to the day when we are asking where the Fraser sockeye have gone and why they have not come back after x number of years. The committee does a good job.

In relation to Mr. Williams' report, I really cannot answer, because I do not know Mr. Williams. I have never met him. I do know that a lot of concern was expressed, not because of Mr. Williams but because of the way the department operates. Quite often it tries to sneak in some kind of activity to try to cover up for its inadequacies, and it appeared the government was picking someone who would probably tell it what it wanted to hear. It might have tried that with Justice Gomery and it was wrong there also.

I will be the first to admit that Justice Williams picked a very good representative group of people to be on his committee. Originally there was talk about bringing in everybody involved, over 30 people, to the committee, but no one thought that would work properly. He put together a concise committee of people heavily involved in the fishery, all of whom were stakeholders, many of whom also had concerns about how well the committee would operate, and they did a very good report.

I would say to the member that it was no better than our own, maybe not as pointed but a very good report, because we were dealing with the same topic and talking to the same people. One of the reasons our committee tabled its report before Justice Williams' report was so the minister could easily see that this was all legitimate.

The bottom line is that two good reports were done. It is the response that concerns us.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to how often concerns about the Fraser have come up, I have been here five years. Every year since I have been here, and for my four years on the committee, there has always been a problem, last year of course highlighted by the fact that it was a disaster. Every year stakeholders are expressing concerns.

The positive things that have happened around the west coast salmon fishery resulted basically from the part played by the different stakeholders through their organizations. They have done a great job, but of course they are not the ones to call the shots. They can set the scenario. They can make the recommendations. It is up to the government to carry out the recommendations.

It is the same thing on the east coast. The government has done a tremendously poor job of managing the stock, a lot of that because it has no real scientific basis. The science is readily available because the people involved in the fishery know exactly what is going on. It is a matter of collection, coordination and involvement. The department has done a tremendously poor job of that.

In relation to the loss to the B.C. economy, I think it would be much greater than $80 million. There are three main aspects we have to look at: the recreational fishery, the commercial fishery and of course the aboriginal food and ceremonial fishery. All of these are extremely important to the different sectors. All of them benefit greatly and all of them add tremendously to the economy. It is hard to get a handle on one.

To give the members an example, this year alone, one of the major concerns is what the department has been or was planning. Departmental people were telling me as late as yesterday that they have not made a final decision, but it looked as if the department was going to limit the sockeye fishery on the Fraser to try to preserve the colonies of sockeye. There are only a handful of them left. In order to prevent the complete decimation of that stock, they are limiting the fishery. With the small numbers, limiting the fishery has very little effect on the rebuilding of the colonies, but it has a tremendous effect on the fishery; in fact we are told it is perhaps as great as $60 million to the commercial fishery alone. That is just one phase of the total problem.

I would say that the effect on the province of British Columbia is astronomical, but if we let things go on the way they are and there is no science, no management and no enforcement, then a few years down the road the salmon fishermen in all sectors in British Columbia will be like the cod fishermen in Newfoundland. They will be asking the government if it will allow them to go out for one day to catch one fish just to set her back on the water and that is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans presented to the House on Tuesday, March 22, be concurred in.

I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Vancouver Island North for seconding the motion.

We raise this issue at this time because of the start of the salmon fishery in British Columbia and the concerns that all those involved, all stakeholders, have in this industry.

Yesterday we were presented with responses to two major reports on the failure of the sockeye fishery on the Fraser River last year. One of these reports was tabled by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. It is a comprehensive, pointed report that deals with the crux of last year's situation.

The recommendations made by the standing committee were responded to, and let me give the minister and his department credit, much more quickly than in ordinary situations. The committee emphasized to the minister the need for a quick response, so that action could be taken this year to prevent what happened last year where we saw the near decimation of the sockeye fishery on the Fraser River.

The second report was done by Justice Williams which was tabled shortly after the report presented by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and the minister has also responded to that report.

One of the reasons the department was able to respond relatively quickly to both reports is that both were very similar. When we have thorough investigations, then we are going to get the same kind of evidence. There is only one way to respond to such evidence, and that is with clarity and truth. The two reports presented to government were very similar. They basically made the same recommendations and outlined the same problems.

In the past we heard that complaints were hearsay and we could not react to hearsay. We could not react to innuendo and we could not react to accusations or local jealousies. That has now been dispensed with and we are concentrating on the facts.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans visited the area and had extensive hearings earlier this year. The Williams committee of course has been having hearings as well, throughout the late fall and into spring. Every stakeholder involved had the opportunity to come forward to express their various concerns about what happened last year and to emphasize to the department that action had to be taken to ensure that such a disaster would never happen again.

In one case last year on one of the runs, a provision had been made by the department, through its counting efforts and its monitoring, to actually start off with about 90,000 salmon reaching the headwaters for spawning purposes. Last spring and early summer, the temperatures were relatively high in the Fraser. This raised concerns because the higher the temperature the greater the stress on the salmon, particularly if there are other stresses up the river, such as gillnets, drift nets, overfishing, or whatever.

An allowance was made that there would be some losses due to mortality because of the water temperatures. The number of breeders was raised to 129,000. We had a significant increase in the number. When the count was finally made, of the 129,000 salmon expected to reach the headwaters it was discovered that only 9,000 salmon reached the headwaters for breeding purposes.

This means that four years from now, when the salmon return to the river, that run in particular will be to the point where it will be unable to be fished. If t it happens again this year and over the next couple of years, we could see the complete destruction of the salmon fishery on the mighty Fraser River.

People would think this is unheard of, but I remind them that 30 years ago one could go anywhere off the coast of Newfoundland and catch cod using any method whatsoever. Cod was in abundance. People never thought they would see the day when they would be unable to catch one fish for a meal of fresh cod, which they were used to having, certainly during the summer and fall. The same thing can happen to salmon on the west coast if we are not careful.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans presented a pointed report to the minister. The Williams commission did the same thing. Both reports were very similar. If we listened to the evidence presented by stakeholders involved and if we used the collective experience around both the tables of the standing committee and the Williams committee, the recommendations would have to be similar because the people involved have a concern about the future of the stocks.

The minister's response, even though there are positive components, does not give many of us a hope that much work will be done to preserve the stocks. It has an awful lot of what I refer to as government wording, such as “we have to study”, “we have to monitor” or ”testing will determine”. All these things are wonderful, but the monitoring, testing and experimentation have been done. It is over with. The evidence is hard and fast that we have a major problem with the salmon fishery on the west coast. Fingers were pointed at certain aspects of the harvesting and it is up to the minister to respond.

When we met with the various stakeholders, it was made quite clear that the department's monitoring of the stock was inadequate. The enforcement certainly was inadequate.

The minister this year says that the government will to zero in on enforcement. That seemed to be the biggest problem, as highlighted by both committee reports. He has not said the government will increase the number of fisheries officers on the river. He has said it will give them overtime, let them work a bit longer.

Fisheries officers are very dedicated individuals. They do not just sit around when there is work to be done. They do not necessarily work their eight hour days, punch the clock and go home. Many of these people work a lot of overtime anyway. Many of them work a lot of overtime for which they never get recognition or pay. Therefore, to ask them to work overtime will not give us the type of surveillance that is necessary on the river. It was recommended by the standing committee that the number of fisheries officers be greatly increased, that it be brought up to the number of officers who originally patrolled the great Fraser. The minister refused.

The other consolation he has offered is if we need other fisheries officers above and beyond what we have now, they will be taken from other parts of the province and moved into the Fraser. Unfortunately for the minister, and fortunately for the people involved in the fishery, salmon do not stop and wait until the fisheries officers come back before they head off to the various rivers. They do not stop and wait to go up certain rivers because the fisheries officers have gone up the Fraser.

The salmon runs approximate each other in most rivers. At the time when the fisheries officers on the Fraser are busy, they are busy everywhere else. To think that we can move fisheries officers around during peak season is a pipe dream. If we try to solve a problem in one area, we create a bigger one somewhere else.

It was a disappointment to us when the minister refused to add to the fisheries officers on the Fraser. He did say, however, that we would have more overflights with helicopter and fixed wing aircraft. Having said that, he admitted that a lot of the overfishing, for want of a better word, took place in the canyons.

Flying through canyons is not a pleasant chore for anybody. The minister also mentioned, maybe without thinking, that a lot of the overfishing and the illegal fishing went on at night time. Can hon. members imagine what it would be like to fly a fixed wing aircraft through the canyons off the Fraser at night time? I do not know if the department will call for proposals for kamikaze pilots, but that is what we would need. It is impossible to patrol the Fraser by air at night time, certainly in the areas of the canyons.

This does not make any sense whatsoever. It is a big area so overflights in the day time would be of some help. I am not trying to belittle the amount of assistance being provided. I am just saying it is completely inadequate.

The main concern I have is that in response to all recommendations, at no time does the minister show or give us any encouragement whatsoever that there will be stronger enforcement. The one word that predominated at all meetings with all witnesses last year during our hearings and at the meetings held by Justice Williams was “enforcement”.

We have had fishery officers, people who fish on the river, all types of people state that they have been witness to blatant, illegal overfishing. In many cases nothing whatsoever is done. Either there is a lone fisheries officer or a couple of fisheries officers and the people involved greatly outnumber them. It is the fear factor. Other times, they do not want to cause a stir because it would cause poor relations, maybe with native bands.

It should not matter who is doing the overfishing. If somebody is illegally fishing, whether it be a recreational fisherman, or a trawler, or somebody with set nets, or somebody illegally using drift nets, or an aboriginal or a tourist, it should not matter. If people are deliberately destroying a stock, they should be punished for it. That has not happened. If we let people break the law, they just take it for granted that it is their God given right to do so and they continue to do it.

This is where I see the response completely and utterly fails. I will just read a couple of general elements of the response.

It says that additional resources will be provided in 2005, and we thank the minister and the department. However, additional resources mean nothing if they cannot be properly used and if there is no result to their effect.

Here is what the department will do. It will allow for more patrols, better surveillance and increased operational activities, including more helicopter and overflights. I am quite sure nobody has ever been charged yet from an overflight. All they can do is spot the activity and try to relay it to people on the ground. It depends on when, where, how far away and how many fisheries officers they have, and that is a difficult chore.

All these words are great but there is not one thing about taking action against those whom they catch breaking the law, using illegal gear or blatantly fishing illegally or overfishing.

It says that the department will increase catch monitoring and provide for better tracking of the catch. That needs to be done because there are questions as to how good the actual count was at Mission last year and whether the department had a good handle on the numbers. We know a lot of fish disappeared going up the river, but it is almost impossible to tell how many. People do not know how many went through the bridge in the first place.

It says that it will “evaluate”, another beautiful word, the feasibility for improved assessment of Fraser River sockeye abundance at Mission, using two technologies. This is wonderful, consoling stuff. We do not want evaluations. We do not need any more feasibility studies. We have all the information we would ever want. What we need is concrete action.

Another one says that the department will improve estimates and timeliness of environmental and fishing impacts. What we need to do is improve the conditions that are created by the impact of overfishing.

This is a beaut and a real dilly. It says that it will provide for specific research such as a drift net study to evaluate the implications of fishing methods and fishing plan preparation. In other words, it is not saying that drift nets should not be used, as everybody wants, except mainly those who illegally use them. It does not say that there are certain times or places where set nets should not be used. Nobody knows how much loss occurs from dropout from these nets which sometimes are left untended for days.

The department is not taking action against illegal drift netting or banning drift netting. It says that it must do more research to see the effects. Talk to the fishermen. It does not matter which type. They will tell us that there are negative effects. They will tell us that there is illegal drift netting taking place. How can the salmon get up a river if there are wall to wall nets? Salmon are great at jumping. I have seen them jump through waterfalls, but it is very difficult to keep jumping. Trying to go up the Fraser River is just like doing the hurdles at the Olympics. That is not how we will get salmon to survive. Also, water temperatures, stress and everything else are factors which negatively impact the salmon stocks on the Fraser.

What should we do? The minister is concentrating on trying to work his way around the real issues. Saying that he knows what is causing the decline of salmon on the Fraser and saying that he is going to take action and anybody who is involved in impeding the progress of salmon illegally will pay a price, would give us some consolation in that area.

However, just stopping people from fishing is not enough. Salmon, like cod, is a renewable resource. Once we understand what is causing the destruction, we must also be prepared to build the biomass. We must look at improving the habitat. We must concentrate on factors that will help grow the stock. Maybe some day will come when the amount of salmon we are taking now we can take legally because collectively we all work together to build the stock.

This is a serious situation. It does not seem that this year will be any better than last year. If we do not wake up, there will not be a tomorrow to worry about.

[The Budget, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43, including the Atlantic accord provisions, has now gone through all stages in the House and on to the Senate, where we are guaranteed, at least by Conservative senators, that it will receive speedy passage.

Let me ask the minister this. When can the province of Newfoundland and Labrador expect to get its cheque and will we be paid the $40 million in interest we have lost since the signing of the agreement in February?

[Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, June 15th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here this afternoon to speak to this significant piece of legislation.

Let me first say, and this might be a precedent, that I am speaking really on behalf of the member for St. John's East and myself. We were thinking about making a joint speech, but I do not think we would be allowed to read it. I speak much more quickly than he does, so that might not have worked out either, but everything I say, I know I am saying for him as well.

I know the House generally and certainly the people from Labrador are very proud of the work that my colleague from Calgary Centre-North has done on this file. I had the privilege early last fall to introduce the member to Mr. Anderson from the Labrador Inuit Association. Since that time he has been heavily involved in the file and helped to push it along. He apologizes that this legislation is not being delivered by a Conservative government, but I say to him that without the input of Minister Rideout and Premier Williams and the Conservative government in Newfoundland and Labrador, it would not have reached here so fast, so there is some consolation in that.

Let me also congratulate the member for Labrador on his first speech in the House. I am sure that he will make many over the years but none will be as memorable and I would suggest to him, none as important as the one he has made today on this very significant occasion.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the late Lawrence O'Brien. All of us who knew Lawrence and called him a friend would appreciate how important this day would be for him if he were here, but I know he is looking down on us from a much higher seat than any of us will hold for awhile, at least I hope. Let me also thank the member for Nunavut for her participation. We know how proud she is today at this great event.

Many of the people who really made it happen of course are in the gallery. President William Anderson has done such a wonderful job, not just recently on this agreement but for years. I have known him for many years and this has been an issue close to his heart. The MHA for the area, Mr. Wally Andersen, is here as is the minister who was introduced earlier, Mr. Rideout from the Newfoundland government. He has worked so closely with everyone to ensure this happened.

That is how we get things done. We see a challenge, we get together, and we face it collectively. We look at the strengths, the weaknesses, and what it takes from each of us to make it happen and then put it all together. It is a great day.

Those who are not familiar with the area and who have not been to the north coast of Labrador are missing something. In a former life, as a minister of education, I visited every, if not almost every, community along the coast. I visited all the schools, met with the people and took some time to hunt and fish.

We talk about history. I have heard members from Alberta, with all due respect to my colleagues, talk about the history of their province. We do not know the history of this country until we have visited Labrador. We do not know scenery unless we have seen the Torngats. We do not know fishing unless we have fished in Labrador.

We see people who are the kindest and most dedicated people in the world. People who have, not just for years but for centuries, eked out a living from the land and have seen others perhaps take more advantage of their resources than they did themselves. All that is going to change because of the work of some of the people we mentioned.

Today is a whole new day in the life of Labrador. I am reminded of the poem The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost. Robert Frost, of course, was one of the greatest poets who wrote poems that really expressed local situations. The Road Not Taken probably describes today what is happening to the Inuit people along the coast of Labrador.

Years ago they had the choice of continuing to do what had gone on for centuries. They had the choice to let others dictate their future to them or, when they came to the fork in the road, they had a choice to perhaps set off in a new direction, to take the road not taken, and to lead to an area where they themselves would control their own future and destiny. That is not always the easiest choice.

I am sure the new member for Labrador, who in his own right has fought many battles for his people, knows it is not easy. It is very easy for people to sit back and let somebody else do everything for them. It is a lot harder to stand and fight for what a person knows is right, to fight for what belongs to that person, and to fight for what that person knows he or she should control. This is what Mr. Anderson and his people have done.

In just a few moments, after we hear from two or three other speakers, the legislation will go through the House. What the Inuit people have wanted for a long time will be delivered to them. I want to tell them that they took the road not taken, but certainly, as the poem ends up, it has made all the difference.

I know it will make a lot of difference to the people of Labrador and the Inuit along the coast because their destiny is now in their own hands. History will show that we could not have turned the control of this destiny over to a better people. I wish them all the best and certainly appreciate being a little part of this whole exercise.

[Fisheries Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I notice we are rapidly running out of time. I am thinking about the people who have tuned into us all night, having missed a very good baseball game with Halliday pitching and missing Duffy's countdown. Perhaps we could have Duffy do a countdown on useless regulations that governments try to introduce.

I hesitated to get up because I thought some of the Liberal members would stand to defend their minister and what he was trying to do in this scenario, particularly when we have such knowledgeable fisherpersons like the members for Whitby—Oshawa and Saint Boniface. The chair of the finance committee might want some comic relief by participating in this debate in order to come down from the evening he had earlier. That is not the case so we will have to finish up with a few remarks.

The member for Winnipeg Centre said earlier that what the minister was trying to do was put conditions on licences with no statutory authority to do so. That is exactly what the minister is trying to do. The government was trying to pull a fast one and got caught.

This is not the situation that occurred last week when we suddenly had to rush a two clause bill out to the members with absolutely no background or explanatory notes. It was only upon a hurried request from members asking what it was all about that a briefing was given. Then we were told that it was absolutely nothing, that it was to correct a problem in the Ontario regulations to ensure that everything flowed properly.

On investigation, we found that was a long ways from the truth. This is only a two clause bill, but the ramifications of this will echo from coast to coast to coast. It gives the minister, as the member for Winnipeg Centre said, carte blanche to impose upon people involved in the fishery fines up to half a million dollars and jail time up to two years less a day, which he does not have the authority to do at present.

One of the things that has happened, in this cloud of confusion the government tried to create and the hoax it tried to pull on its counterparts in Ontario, is the minister seems to have vanished from the scene and left this to float, hoping it will go away. It has been around for a long time. It was not introduced last week when all the flurry happened. The bill has been on the go for 18 years. It was 1987 when this regulation first got the notice of people in Parliament.

On at least two occasions since then, bills have been introduced to try to correct this measure. One did not get beyond first reading and the other died when Parliament died. First, the government must not think it was very important or the majority of the members in the House did not think it was important to make this correction.

Right out of the blue, at the last minute because of pressure put on by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, the minister tries to make blanket changes without giving the facts involved. That is what I think upset most people in the House. If this had gone through unnoticed, every person involved in the fishery in would be in a much more tedious position than he or she finds himself or herself in at present.

Regulations always have to be reviewed, updated and changed, but they have to be done properly. The rule of law can never be overlooked in this honoured hall of operations, but this is what is being done here. The rule of law has been pushed aside and the minister, for his own sake, is trying to ram through a bill which certainly will be more detrimental than any effect of not doing it.

We wonder sometimes why the minister is not as concerned about other regulations. Why is the minister not concerned about overfishing regulations? We hear all kinds of platitudes. We do not see any action.

Why is he not concerned about the rules and regulations that surround quotas? That is a major one. As we speak here in the House about a regulation which should never have been brought to this place, back in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland tomorrow, and today for those watching back home, a debate will continue on the future of Harbour Breton, tied in with the future, perhaps, of Fishery Products International.

It is a very serious debate, a debate that has gone on for two full days, a debate in which the government will play a very important role, because the result will be determined on a large scale by what the government is going to do to assist people in Harbour Breton who have been put out of work by the closure of their fish plant.

The fish plant closed simply because the company that operated it, Fishery Products International, says it does not have product enough to operate all its plants so some have to go. Harbour Breton was the first on the chopping block.

The big question is, what do we have in the ocean in relation to quotas that could be made available to companies or to areas, whatever the case might be? Let us just say we mean quotas which could be caught by people involved in the fishery to be brought ashore and processed by people involved in the processing end. The answer to that is simply that we do not know because there have been such great cuts in science that we have no idea, really, of what is available.

The set-up of the department, the regulations under which the department operates, basically gives large companies carte blanche to do what they want with a resource that we are told clearly by the minister, by government, is a resource belonging to the people. I have asked the question directly to the minister. Others have also. Who owns the fish in the ocean? The answer always given is, “The people of Canada own the fish. It is managed on their behalf by the minister and the Department of Fisheries”.

I have been here five years. I have seen four different ministers of fisheries and I can say it does not give me any great consolation to know that these people are the custodians of our resource, because we have seen it completely and utterly mismanaged. We have seen it abused. We have seen it destroyed by foreigners and by our own people. We have seen it used for everything except what it is supposed to be used for, that is, the benefit of the people.

We are a country rich in resources, whether it be our fishery, minerals, water power, forestry, farming or tourism. We can go on and on. It is a country that is extremely rich. When we look at the small population of our country and the abundant resources, and when we realize that the economy basically is developed upon the development of these resources, why are all of us not very rich?

Why is every person who wants to work in the country not working? Because the “custodians” or the managers of our resources have not done a very good job in managing them. If only we knew what is available in the ocean and what is capable of being harvested.

If we knew when to harvest that resource and under what conditions the resource could be harvested, just imagine how much product could be brought into the various processing facilities around the country. Just imagine if we could eliminate the waste, catching the undersized, and the abuse in the fishery, the people of places like Harbour Breton would not be wondering about the future of their fish plant because they would not have time to worry. They would do what they did some years ago. They would be working round the clock.

The plant in Harbour Breton, by the way, just a few years ago was processing 30 million pounds of fish a year. At that time the value was roughly $20 million. That was one small fish processing plant in one small rural community. We can imagine the contribution to the area, to the province and eventually to the country.

[Fisheries Act, June 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member. I agree with him when he says that the fisheries critic has a great interest in the fishery and has done a lot of work. In fact, he sits with us on the fisheries committee. On many issues he along with others on that committee work closely together for the good of those involved in the fisheries in the country.

We are dealing with the subamendment, although we have got away from that. However, according to the government, the main motion is only a minuscule one, a two-liner that will solve all the problems. We have found it will create a tremendous number of problems in the country.

When we talk about rules and regulations, from the member's experience and involvement in his own region, how many rules and regulations does he see in the fishery that negatively affect the people trying to make a living in that industry?