Loyola Hearn

[Question No. 77, May 4th, 2004]

With regard to the Iltis military vehicle, if it is the government’s intention to keep this open-topped military vehicle in operation in Afghanistan: ( a ) why and in what capacity will it do so; and ( b ) if not, what plans does the government have for this vehicle?

[Fisheries Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to my friend from Matapédia—Matane.

He is right. I would like to ask him if he believes that the minister is playing games with fishermen. I say that because I believe that Bill C-33 is bad.

It is a bad bill simply because proper discussions have not taken place with the people directly involved. We have seen how much consultation there has been. Now we know why there is such a rush. We know there is a rush because this bill is brought in for appeasement.

I agree with the member that it will never see the light of day because by the time it goes through the process, the House will be closed; however, the government can always say to look at all the bills it brought in, in order to appease everyone out there.

I think it is a bad bill simply because it has been rushed in without consultation. There was a letter to the committee. The committee responded and said that it had concerns. The minister did not go out to talk to the people involved. He just brought it here and tries to ram it through.

I would like to ask the member, does he also think it is a bad law, that we should slow it down, consult properly, and then bring it back and deal with it perhaps when we have a government over there that cares?

[Fisheries Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly to my colleague, certainly I am, as he is and everyone else is, very suspicious of the fact that a bill which may never see the light of day has been introduced so that the Liberals can have bragging rights about introducing the bill just before the election.

In relation to his last question about people breaking the law, the law does not look upon us differently where we live, whatever colour we are, whatever historic rights we have. There are certain provisions made for certain groups of individuals. Outside of that, we are all equal under the law, and the law cannot treat us differently. Everyone must be treated the same way. We saw in this case direct evidence of the law backing away for whatever reason. That encourages other people to break the law rather than deal with the issue. Having said that, I have no real problems with consultation and bringing in supportive groups. If we all understand how important it is to protect the resources and so on, then we will do a better job.

Very quickly, on the member's first question, yes, I am well aware of how the Conservative Party in the early days dealt with the fishery. In many cases it did not do much better than we see happening now, but I really dread to think what would have happened if the NDP ever had charge of it.

[Fisheries Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to get questions from the minister. Maybe someday soon we will reverse the roles. We could have a lot of fun with it. One never knows what could happen.

Let me answer the last questions directly in case I am accused of avoiding them.

There are people in this country who were here before any white men came. They lived off the land and had access to the resources of the land historically. When the Europeans came and settled this country, they did not treat those people very well originally. History did strange things to a lot of people over the years. There is not one of us here in the House who is not aware of that. We could go back one or two generations in our ancestry, and some of us do not even have to go back one generation, to see how others in society were treated. However, dealing with events in history sometimes can be extremely dangerous because we are dealing with the events in the present day society and setting, but the events actually happened in an entirely different society and setting. We have to be aware of that.

Having said that, the aboriginals in our country always had and always should have proper access to the resources. Sometimes if the rules and regulations governing the resource are not properly put in place then it is open for abuse by all of us. We have to make sure that does not happen.

The Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans dictates who can and cannot fish in this country. Earlier this year I asked the minister directly who is it that really determines who fishes because third parties were telling people who could fish and who could not fish. The minister made it clear that a person who has a valid licence and is given that licence has permission from the minister and the minister only.

Consequently, the result is a concern about blanket licences and third party decisions on who can participate and who cannot. We must control our resource. There has to be central control on that resource, in proper cooperation and consultation with the groups. That is one of the concerns I have about this whole issue.

The minister talked about consultation. First, we clarified the fact that the minister himself had done very little consultation. He wrote a letter and got an answer. That is not consultation with a committee. The former minister had a couple of meetings and the staff had a couple of meetings. It would have been interesting to know, and the minister might be able to provide this information, how many discussions were held with stakeholders. How many visits were made to where the regulations, these amendments, will have an effect on the people involved in the fishery? Do the people know that we are talking about such things as imprisonment for non-compliance? The committee raised that question. Do we deprive somebody of his freedom and stick him in prison because of non-compliance with some regulation?

There are questions that have not been answered. The minister has not answered them. The committee raised them. It has stated it is not in a position to do it.

This bill is opening up a can of worms. We have to get the whole issue clarified before we put people in the position of finding out that they are a lot worse off after the passage of the bill than they were before.

[Fisheries Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I know what the minister is trying to say. He is trying to say that guy over there embarrassed him so he tried to clarify his position. He still talks about close consultation. I asked the minister specifically if he had meetings with the committee and with whom. He did not say he had, but that is the impression he left.

All I wanted to do was clarify the impression. The minister did that. I accepted his explanation earlier. I just wanted to get it on the record so the people across the country knew the kind of consultation the minister had.

I also asked the minister if the committee had given approval to the amendments. I do not want to misquote him because he can get the blues and correct me. Maybe the minister could read the exact words, but I think he said that he agreed with something.

I would like to put some comments on the record. It is a letter to the minister from the joint committee. It states:

We thank you for your recent letter in relation to the reintroduction of legislative proposals included in--

It was the old Bill C-43 and now Bill C-33 I believe. I am interested in what is meant by “We thank you for your recent letter”. I am wondering if that is the extent of the consultation. The letter goes on to say:

You have asked for the Committee's views “on whether the amendments as proposed in Bill C-43 address the Committee's issues”. We are pleased to confirm that the proposed amendments would, if adopted, remove the basis of the Joint Committee's objections to the Aboriginal Command Fishing Licences Regulations and to SOR/8993, the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 1989. We would appreciate your advice as to when you propose to reintroduced the proposed legislation.

The minister undoubtedly has reintroduced legislation and the committee members are asking about his views. The letter further states:

Our acknowledgement that the amendments included in Bill C-43 would resolve the Committee's objections--

The committee members are saying, “Yes, our objections are met”. The letter continues:

--[in relation] to the legality of the relevant regulatory provisions does not imply an endorsement of those amendments....

Therefore, the committee is not endorsing the amendments that the minister proposed to make. The letter goes on:

Particularly as regards the proposed section 10(1), which impose a legal duty to comply with the terms and conditions of a licence, we can conceive that some parliamentarians might object to subjecting such non-compliance to penal sanctions that include imprisonment. To deprive a citizen of his liberty on the ground that the citizen has failed to abide by requirement imposed by a public official in the exercise of an administrative power, such as a term or condition of licence, could be thought undesirable as a matter of legislative policy.

Given that the matter is one of policy and, as such, lies beyond the remit of the Joint Committee, we do not wish to be perceived to be taking a position on the desirability of those legislative amendments. We trust that this will be satisfactory....

It is signed by the joint chairs and the vice-chair of the committee. One of the two joint chairs of course is one of our members and the vice-chair is a Liberal.

Therefore, the committee is raising a major concern about the amendments the minister intends to put forth. Will the minister during the debate over the next couple of weeks clarify for us why he is bringing in a bill that might have an adverse effect on the people who will be affected?

The minister talks about the scrutiny of regulations committee, and let me give him credit. He is a new minister and there are things he is doing and there are issues he has taken up. The way he is presenting himself on the issues is refreshing compared to what we have seen in the past. However, maybe it is time for this new minister to realize that he has a department under his thumb which, if properly run, and for which, if he does not let himself be run by some of the bureaucrats who have been around and if he wants to set a direction that should be set on fisheries in this country, we have a chance to take a renewable resource from the west to the east to the north and in the Great Lakes, of course, and at points in between, because we have tremendous fishery resources throughout the country.

If there is some proper management and if there are some proper regulations put in, if we eliminate, as we saw when I raised some of the points earlier in question period, the manipulation of that resource for the sake of friends and colleagues as we have seen in the past, if we properly manage and let this resource grow and multiply, if we see that it is harvested properly, if we see it is processed properly, and if we get the right markets, the amount of employment and the enhancement of the economy that could be derived from the proper care of this resource would be phenomenal.

We get caught up in the Atlantic provinces, and I look at my friend from Cape Breton, and off Nova Scotia in the minister's own province, off my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, where we have tremendous oil and gas resources. A lot of people look at us--and what is that old saying we cannot say anymore because it is not politically correct?--and say, “Why are you flogging a dead horse? Give up on the fishery, boy, it's a thing of the past. Oil and gas is the order of the day”.

Oil only lasts for a while. Gas only lasts for a while. Eventually the oil will be gone and the gas will be gone. And we have seen some great mines come and go. We have seen places like Bell Island, and we can go across the country, pick a province, and pick an area or the mines. Certainly, again looking at my friend from Cape Breton, he knows all about it. People lived for years and raised their families based upon working the mine. Everybody was proud to be a miner. We had whole communities such as Buchans and Bell Island in particular, I think, wiped out when the mines closed. There is only so much ore in the ground and it does not grow. It may develop over hundreds and thousands and millions of years but it does not grow back.

Fish, on the other hand, can grow and multiply rapidly, but not if we pursue the direction we are seeing happen and not if we let every enemy of the cod, the salmon, the herring, the squid and the whole works, every enemy of the species, go out and just pursue that fish.

With the science we have today, with the big dragger stuff we have, with the technology we have, we can find every last fish in the ocean. Unless somebody manages that resource, and with some teeth, we will see that last fish being caught. That is a travesty and the minister has a heavy responsibility on his shoulders.

So when we talk about scrutiny, I believe that instead of worrying about rushing in bills that may cause all kinds of problems, we should be looking at the resource we have and trying to bring in some bills we can enact into law so that we can address what is happening to our renewable resources, so that we can address the predators, whether they be human or animal, so that we can make sure there is a balance in nature once again, and so that we can make sure that those from other countries who share that resource do so under the rules and regulations that are set out.

We have not seen any leadership in fisheries. Over the last number of years, way back, we have seen governments that have thought more about being friendly and appeasing their friends across the ocean than they have about the people who live within the borders and the boundaries of our country. That has to change.

Let me say this to the minister. There are so many games being played today within the fishery, many of them completely outside his control. There seems to be this big package of greed that has developed and everybody wants a piece of what is left. Nobody cares about the other person. Whether the plant workers get any more work does not matter as long as we can catch the fish, whether I can catch more than the next guy whether I can sell it or not, and if I can keep the other guy from getting any. All of this stuff is developing. That is terrible stuff. The only way this can be cured is with a firm hand at the helm. I believe that is the challenge to the minister.

I suggest to the minister that instead of worrying about little things, which may cause major problems, as the committee points out to him, he should start looking at the big things that could solve a lot of our problems.

In the two minutes that remain to me, let me pick up on another phrase that the minister talked about, “democratic reform”, and letting committees have more say. If the minister had not used that phrase, I would not have asked him the questions I asked. We hear so much from this continuation government, the Liberal government continued, phase two. We hear so much from these Liberals about democratic reform and the democratic deficit. We certainly have a democratic deficit. We all realize that. We have a democratic deficit that is widening daily. We had a new Prime Minister come in with the old government and he talked about addressing the democratic deficit. In reality, that is the biggest joke we have heard for years, because all we have seen is a widening of the democratic deficit.

Ministers have been told to go out there and pretend the government is doing something. When the minister talks about the great work of committees and having to use committees more, and about how the government has to consult with them and it is consulting with them, and committees are advising, we find out that is really not the case. The minister writes a letter to the committee. The committee basically responds and says to him, “Mr. Minister, phase one, yes. The legislative part needs to be tightened up, but the amendment you want to make, we cannot say because it is not our job. We do not have the jurisdiction to say, but we would suggest to you that you are way off line and we think these amendments can cause irreparable harm”.

So there are two things. Number one, there is no consultation. Number two, when committees talk to the government members, they ignore them. That is not correcting the democratic deficit. That is just digging a hole for themselves. It is like being down three to two and playing a bad game. We have to get our act together and try to turn it around. It can be done. We must have faith. It can be done, but it takes leadership.

My time is up, but I will say to the minister that he has a tremendous challenge ahead of him. He should forget the facade. He should forget about trying to appease government and just coming out with the little frills. Let us attack the big issues and, instead of making critical remarks from this side, we will work with him and applaud the efforts that he will put forward, I am sure, on behalf of the government and on behalf of our country.

[Fisheries Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is turning out to be a very interesting bill. When it was reintroduced, the impression was left that it was housekeeping and that there was nothing to it. We were to nod heads and off it would go. We have found out that a lot of people have concerns with the bill, and the minister will find that out over the next couple of weeks of debate on the bill.

Having said that, it might be interesting for us to sit back and assess what is going on in the House today.

The government kicked into its second phase early in the new year when it reopened the House under a new captain but with the same old crew. We saw absolutely nothing on the government's agenda. The new Prime Minister, with the old team and the old government, wanted a change of face. Who could blame him. Except for you, Mr. Speaker, if someone had to look at that some bunch every day, one would think it would be time to put a new look on government.

The Prime Minister wanted to do that. I always say to the Liberals, the only positive thing they have sitting on that side of the House is that they can look over here and see a real opposition. I even give credit to some of my colleagues to my left who have been very supportive on some of the issue we have raised in the House.

When the Liberals came back, the Prime Minister's intention was to put a new face on government, have a quick election and clean House. He was more interested in cleaning his own house than in cleaning the Houses of Parliament. However, it did not work, and for all kinds of reasons the election has dragged and dragged.

What happened was it was the continuation of the old government with absolutely no plan whatsoever. It had no agenda when it came to new legislation. There was absolutely nothing. For a number of weeks, it brought back and regurgitated old legislation, the same legislation that was under the previous leader.

Eventually it ran out of time because there was very little substance to anything it had and it flowed fairly quickly, seeing that we are so cooperative on this side of the House. The government was caught, first, by not being able to call an election because of what the people of the country thought about the Liberals. People began to find out about the scandal-ridden government being led by the Prime Minister, the person who led the Department of Finance and was supposed to be the boss in all of this.

What has happened? It is now scrambling to try to bring in old legislation again. However, some of the legislation is important and very pertinent to society today, such as the previous bill we discussed today on impaired driving under. That bill has been referred to committee. Why was it not brought in earlier? Why have people been asking for years to deal with such legislation? Because it was not a priority for the government. Only when it got stuck, did it start scrambling for legislation.

It is also looking at the possibility of an upcoming election. Therefore, the legislation it is bringing forth are pieces of legislation that it hopes will endear the Liberals to certain segments of society.

I hope people out there are more sensible than to be bought off by a bill that is introduced and may never see the light of day if we get a quick call. The government wants to be able to say that it has introduced legislation to deal with the problems and issues which people have been begging it to do for years, including the issue of driving while drunk.

We had another one earlier today that dealt with aboriginal issues. The government is starting to look at special interest groups, people concerned with driving while drunk and the aboriginals concerned about the way they have been treated over the years. To try to attract some attention and get some votes, the Liberals have rushed in a few of these bills and dusted off some of the old ones that have been ignored and put in the trunk.

Now this bill has come in and the government has said that we should not worry about it, that there is nothing to it and that it is a minor change of regulations. Because the scrutiny of regulations committee has told the government that the authority for implementing the regulations may not be vested in the minster, it has made some changes.

I asked the minister how much consultation he had. If we check Hansard and listen to the minister's remarks, we will easily see that he talked about the consultation with the scrutiny of regulations committee. He admitted afterward that he probably did not have any because he did not seem to know very much about it. Now he is only a minster for--

[Fisheries Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have it clear and on the record that the minister himself did not talk to the people involved at the committee. If hon. members listened to him in the beginning when he introduced the bill, it sounded as if he had all these serious discussions and that he completely understood what went on here, and that the committee was in full support.

The scrutiny of regulations committee recommended the changes for the legality of the move that we see occurring here in the bill, which is an old bill, by the way. This is not something that was just introduced. This is an old bill that has been dusted off and brought back. I would like to ask the minister, did the scrutiny of regulations committee endorse the recommendations and the changes that the minister intends to make?

[Fisheries Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the minister, when he introduced the bill, spoke about the committee on scrutiny of regulations. He spoke about the great job it had done and about all the consultation on the bill.

I wonder if the minister could tell us, how much consultation did he have on this specific bill with the committee, how often did he meet with them, and who specifically did he talk to in relation to this particular bill that we are now debating?

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last year the FRCC recommended a small fishery in both areas. The former minister refused to open the north gulf but he opened the southern gulf, even opening 4Vn to dragging. So much for conservation.

Will the minister guarantee he will make his decision based on the advice of the FRCC and other scientific sources to help fishermen, and not political opportunism to help his friends as we have seen done before, especially as we approach an election?

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council has made recommendations to the minister about the state of the groundfish stocks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence for 2004-05. Based on this advice, does the minister intend to approve a fishery in both the northern gulf and the southern gulf for the coming fishing season?