Loyola Hearn

[Labrador Riding, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, they used to picture the minister milking the cows and now they picture him milking the farmers.

Labrador has been without an MP for some time. The concerns of the region are numerous: natural resources, fisheries, transportation and aboriginal affairs issues, and a long term plan for 5 Wing Goose Bay. These issues are too important and too pressing for Labrador not to have a member of Parliament.

Would the Prime Minister inform the House when he plans to call the byelection?

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board has operated for the past three years. It is authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the Oceans Act. It is recognized as an innovative governance model for ocean management.

This is what it has become: an innovative group. This board has been able to bring all the stakeholders to the table and the members have been able to work cooperatively to meet the great challenges facing the area. We now see cooperation instead of confrontation.

The mandate of this board ends March 31, 2005. We urge the minister to extend the mandate so that the good work can continue and a model for other areas can be established.

[Canada Shipping Act, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has a great interest in facilities generally, particularly as it relates to his fishermen.

Occasionally we see in various budgets commitments to invest in infrastructure. However, the infrastructure is in such bad repair across the country and the needs are so great that as good as the commitments seem to be, they have a very minimal effect.

Two years ago people from Small Craft Harbours told us it would take $400 million just to bring their solely owned facilities up to date. Under pressure from the standing committee, it put in $100 million above and beyond. It did not make a dent, and we are still falling behind.

Does the member find that in his region, as in mine, funding provided by government is not meeting our needs?

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware that in the 1990s when the airports were privatized, government until then had been providing a subsidy each year. It was a cost to government to keep the airports going. Since that time it has not cost the government anything and the airports themselves have invested roughly $9 billion in infrastructure.

Our own small airport in St. John's has benefited greatly from the privatization aspect. We have seen some real investment which we had not seen when it was controlled by the government. Now it has been informed that this coming year it will have to pay $600,000 to the Department of Transport. How can small and medium size airports be expected to progress? Of course the worst part is that this is downloaded on to the customer. How can we make it possible for people to move throughout this great country of ours and encourage people to come especially to the smaller rural areas, if we are going to hit them with such tax levels at the top where it goes down into the--

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, the member who shared his time with the hon. minister could not stay for questions and answers, so we saved five minutes. I am wondering if that five minutes could be added to the minister's time, so we would have more time to ask questions?

[Natural Resources, March 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after months of dithering the government made the same commitment to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Prime Minister said, “Legislation will be brought in as quickly as possible”.

Would the minister clarify for the House what does it mean when the Prime Minister says “as quickly as possible”?

[Agriculture, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the government brags about investing in research, it is closing the only agricultural research facility in Newfoundland and Labrador without even consulting the provincial government which shares the facility.

The Minister of Natural Resources says that there is a silver lining: jobs might stay in the province at the university. This is impractical and that minister always settles for silver rather than gold.

Before the minister rushes off to meet his program review commitments, will he discuss this with the provincial government, industry and his own people in the province?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member, I congratulate him on a pretty good speech.

We have heard a couple of things in the debate on this issue that I think have perturbed more people than anything else. The first is on rights, that we are depriving people of their rights if we do not pass this legislation. I would like to know what the member thinks about that.

The other is the fact that we look upon marriage as the union of one man with one woman. Throughout the world this is basically the accepted norm. Of all the countries that have looked upon same sex marriage and the possibility of introducing it, only two countries in the world have gone along with it. Does the member not think that if it is such an abuse of rights that more countries would have accepted the same sex marriage situation than has happened?

[Fisheries, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the federal agency responsible for the management and conservation of wild salmon and trout stock in Atlantic Canada. Instead of reacting to the declining stock by reducing catches and closing rivers, why is DFO not trying to prevent the decline by trying to find out what caused the decline in the first place?

[Civil Marriage Act, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on what I thought was an excellent speech on this issue. However, as he is well aware, those who speak on the other side from his point of view basically say that they do so because the legislation ensures that the people involved have rights, that their rights are protected and that we should not be taking away their rights.

The member addressed that very clearly in his speech but I wonder if he would elaborate a little bit because the crux of the matter seems to be that we are depriving people of rights if we do not support the legislation.