Loyola Hearn

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, October 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know if the member can assure us that federal powers will prevail in relation to a clause which says that the Tlicho government has the power to enact laws in relation to fish harvest licensing, the use of water for aquaculture and other activities, fish harvest limits, fishery openings and fish gear.

We all saw the fiasco that took place on the Fraser River this year. Fingers were pointed at the different groups involved. Some said that the problems were caused because of agreements or whatever. If in any part of a river one group or another has control and the federal government cannot assert its jurisdiction, that is asking for trouble.

I am more perturbed by another clause which says that the local government will have control or prohibition of transport, sale, possession, manufacture or use of weapons or dangerous goods. Surely to God the government is not going to give up control of the manufacture of weapons in this day and age in any area, regardless of who is in charge of that territory or province. Hopefully the federal laws will prevail, but the big question is whether they will or not in relation to this agreement.

In these two areas, and I am sure there are more, we have very grave concerns.

[Natural Resources, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the only person in Newfoundland and Labrador who believes this is a good deal is that very minister, who in a letter to his constituents said that the Prime Minister promised to finalize the deal to give Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its revenues without affecting equalization. Every Liberal candidate in the election reiterated that promise.

Why has the Prime Minister not lived up to his commitment, and what part of 100% does the Prime Minister not understand?

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member to comment on something a bit different from what he spoke about, but something that deals with the topic generally.

Throughout the country we have several strategic areas, and we have seen government cut back and cut back in relation to our bases. In my own province, I am thinking of places like Goose Bay in particular, Gander and Stephenville. At a time when security is so important, when we talk about defending and protecting our nation, surely this is not a time for weakening our defences or our presence in strategic locations. I know in the member's own province, certainly in the north and Goose Bay would be in that category, our presence at this time is imperative, with our own people ensuring that the rest of us are protected.

I would like to know the member's views on this. Does he agree with the government's idea of downsizing our forces and our presence, especially in strategic locations throughout the country?

[Natural Resources, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources said that the Prime Minister gave him the job of working out the deal.

However, at the recent meeting of health care ministers, the Prime Minister promised the premier of Newfoundland that a deal would be delivered before October 26, six days from now.

Will the Prime Minister live up to his promise and deliver the deal, the whole deal and nothing but the deal, by October 26?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, fishermen on the east coast of Canada who know what is happening are having the biggest laugh of their lives. This has to have been the biggest joke they have heard in quite a while, to say that the government is putting an end to illegal fishing. Just before the election, a couple of extra boats were sent out and the government held a press conference to tell people that it was going to take care of this problem.

I do agree that there are not as many boats out there today as there were. The only reason the boats are gone is that the quotas have been capped and the boats are now fishing somewhere else. They will be back again in the spring. People know that is true.

He also said that the Prime Minister has been running around the world dealing with the issue. That is foolishness. The Prime Minister has mentioned two or three times that we have a problem with overfishing. He can talk about it all he wants, but we want to see some substantive government action. When the Prime Minister convenes a conference of these people, when the Minister of Fisheries convenes an international conference then--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I asked the Prime Minister why he had gone back on his commitment to deal with the overfishing issue off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

During the election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to deal with the overfishing “even if it meant taking custodial management”. When I asked why he and the government had done nothing since, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans replied, “Our process that we are using is working. We have had 130 boardings this year. There are fewer boats out there and we are finding fewer discrepancies”.

The average person might buy that, and even statistics to a point at this time of the year might prove that statement true, but overall it is not the case.

If we go back just a couple of months before the election, the same minister was up telling us that we had increased our activity out there, that we had put out more patrols, that we had done more boarding and found more blatant abuses and that we had to do something about it.

The Liberals cannot have it both ways. They have already admitted that they found more abuses. If there are fewer abuses it has only been recently, since the election, and I will tell the House why. First, they are looking for an excuse to back off on the commitment. Second, this time of the year the allocated quotas have been caught. Most of the boats have returned to their own nations or have gone fishing somewhere else. In the case of the Spanish and Portuguese, they are off the coasts of Australia, Africa, or wherever because they travel the world using vacuum cleaners to scoop up everything that swims in the ocean.

The minister is not being factual when he states that this problem is correcting itself. It is not. It is the time of year when we would expect less activity in this area and, consequently, fewer abuses. The problem is that the government has done absolutely nothing to deal with this serious situation.

The parliamentary secretary, undoubtedly, will be answering for the minister who should be answering for himself, who in turn answers for the Prime Minister who should be answering because he was the one who committed to deal with the issue. The parliamentary secretary will tell us that they have had so many boardings with fewer abuses. As I say, statistics can be used any way one wants to use them, and, in this case, all he is doing is taking the time of year when there is less activity and consequently fewer abuses to rules and regulations.

However the issue has not been corrected. The only way to deal with this is for the government to take a strong stand in making sure that the rules and regulations are adhered to, that the quotas allocated by NAFO are fished but not overfished and that species under moratoria are protected. This can be done in two ways: by the government doing it itself, or by showing some leadership within the international organizations to get others to work with us for that benefit.

I look forward with interest to the parliamentary secretary's answer.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago in the House I asked the Prime Minister a question which, at that time, was answered by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I asked why the Prime Minister had turned his back--

[Hibernia Project, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Hibernia offshore project began pumping oil, a large portion of the revenues flowing from the project have been clawed back by the federal government.

During the recent election campaign, the leader of the Conservative Party committed in writing to give the province of Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of the revenues from non-renewable resources with no clawback.

Under severe pressure and after a sleepless night, the Prime Minister made a similar commitment in an early morning phone call to Premier Williams. At a recent health summit, the Prime Minister committed to having the deal done by October 25, a week from now, and before the meetings on equalization.

This deal must be outside the equalization process. This deal must confirm that 100% of the revenues go to Newfoundland and Labrador. This deal must not be subject to clawback. This is what was promised and this is what must be delivered.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just mentioned that Bill C-3 is a government neutral bill. I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc thinks the parliamentary secretary has read the report recently tabled by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which deals with the Coast Guard.

Over the last number of years since the Coast Guard was taken from Transport Canada and moved to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it has seen a tremendous number of cutbacks, to the point where it can no longer operate. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled a report stressing that the Coast Guard has to be beefed up. As for some of the frills which we see in Bill C-3 about moving to Transport Canada, I think it is just a deflective move by the government thereby allowing it to say, “Oh, we are making changes to the Coast Guard”.

I ask my colleague, are these the types of changes we should be making to the Coast Guard? Or should we deal with the substantive issue that the Coast Guard has to be beefed up to do the job that the Canadian Coast Guard is supposed to do?

[Fisheries, October 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the Prime Minister promised to stop overfishing, even if it meant taking custodial management. Canada did not raise the issue at the recent NAFO meetings and the only mention in the throne speech is that government will enhance the enforcement of rules concerning straddling stocks. This means issuing more citations.

Why has the Prime Minister gone back on his commitment to Atlantic Canadians?