Loyola Hearn

[Committees of the House, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, presented on Friday, October 10, be concurred in.

The main reason we have initiated debate on this topic is because we know we are approaching the next break time, which will be November 7. After hearing the answers given by members opposite as to what will happen after November 7, we feel we cannot leave any important business on the Order Paper. One of the issues concerns veterans' pensions.

The sixth report tabled by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs suggested through a motion that reads:

That the committee supports the decision of Veterans Affairs Canada to extend from one year to a lifetime the Veterans Independence Program (VIP) benefits provided to surviving spouses of Veterans who were in receipt of such benefits at the time of their death.

That is laudable as far as it goes. The motion continues:

However, the members of the committee unanimously agree that the Government should take all possible means to provide lifetime VIP benefits to all qualified surviving spouses, of Veterans receiving such benefits at the time of their death, not just to those now eligible for such benefits following the amendments made in June 2003 to the Veterans Health Care Regulations.

What we are doing here is setting up two classes of veterans' widows. We have one class of widows who will receive, forever and a day, benefits that their husbands were receiving prior to their death, while another class of widows are being told that they cannot receive these benefits if their husbands died prior to May 12, 2003.

Therefore if a war veteran died on May 11, 2003, his widow would only receive VIP benefits for one year. If he lived one more day, she would receive the VIP benefits for the rest of her life. This is entirely unfair.

The minister has been asked questions day after day in the House and he has avoided answering them. He has tried to camouflage what he is trying to perpetrate on the widows across the country by defusing the situation and saying that the government will provide benefits. It is providing benefits to widows whose husbands died after May 12, 2003.

I, and I am sure all members of the House, oppose any program that distinguishes between veterans' widows on the basis of time. The program should be fairly distributed to all widows on the basis of need.

I know the Minister of Veterans Affairs has said that his heart is in the right place and that if Veterans Affairs Canada had the resources it needed the benefits would be extended to all widows who were otherwise eligible.

The real question is this: Where is the finance minister's heart? Why will he not give the money? Why will he not answer the questions on this issue during question period? The government just keeps passing the buck instead of handing over the bucks that are necessary.

By most estimates, roughly 23,000 widows will be affected by this double standard. The benefits on average are worth between $1,000 and $2,000 annually. Is that a lot of money? Let me give some examples of how much that is in relation to some government decisions that have been made in recent days.

We are talking about a gap in funding between $23 million and $46 million. That is less than 5% of what the government spent on the gun registry and it cannot find the money to look after the widows of people who went to war and gave their lives or put themselves in the position, undoubtedly, to weaken themselves, and left behind widows who must try to make a living in society.

That amount is also less than 5% of what the government spent on the billion dollar boondoggle in HRDC and less than 10% of what the government paid just to cancel the EH-101 helicopter contract.

The government has already spent billions of dollars on its mistakes. Why will it not spend a fraction of that to fix one for a change?

Decisions like this are why Canadians do not trust governments. Decisions like this, cold calculations that ignore human suffering, are why so few Canadians vote. This is not taking care of those who have taken care of our national heroes.

Consequently, we ask the minister to please go to the Minister of Finance, on bended need if he has to, which, undoubtedly, is what members over there have to do, and get the money that is necessary.

Not only does this policy impose a great injustice on these war heroes, it dishonours their memory by mistreating their loved ones. More important, the vast majority of these brave women are war heroes in their own right. They were the backbone of the war effort here at home. They were the ones who helped fill our military arsenals. They were the ones who cared for husbands, many of whom were injured for life, when they came home from the war.

All this, just to save $23 million a year. All the anger and frustration just to skim a little off the government books.

I wish I could say that this was an isolated incident but it is not. I wish I could report to the House that the treatment of our war heroes is without injustice and unfairness but I cannot. The truth is that the government has repeatedly forced our most honourable citizens to fight for benefits that they earned more than 60 years ago.

I have the honour and privilege in the House to sit next to the member for Saint John, a member who, over the years, has fought and gained many of the benefits that our war veterans have to today. Without the fight of her and other hon. members on this side, very few of the benefits that our war veterans have would have been achieved.

I am reminded of the merchant navy veterans who had to come here on a hunger strike before they were heard.

I am reminded of the poor veterans, like Mr. Authorson, who had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court for the money they were cheated out of, and are still waiting for.

I am reminded of the brave soldiers who were used to test mustard gas and other chemical weapons so our scientists could prove what we already knew.

I am reminded of those veterans who now sit in veterans' long term care homes that are not up to code, and the countless others who are still on waiting lists.

This is how we treat our veterans. We should be ashamed.

I am reminded of the countless veterans who are carried or wheeled into the legion halls, the legion halls they built when they returned from war, the legion halls that are falling down around their ears, and the government ignores the veterans' pleas for help to rebuild them. Veterans' hospitals should be monuments to sacrifice, perfect in every way.

Those who were cheated out of money by the government should be given it back, in full. Those who were subjected to tests that caused them pain should be compensated.

I am proud of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, a committee that has always put politics aside when it comes to our veterans, for unanimously calling upon the government to correct the injustice.

I am proud that my colleague, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, has demanded that this double standard be fixed before Remembrance Day. I add my voice to that.

We have heard that the Prime Minister is preparing to address the problem. We have all heard that the government caucus was told it would be taken care of. If so, when? Why not now? Why make these widows suffer from further uncertainty? Why leave them guessing as they make their future plans?

For many widows, receiving or not receiving these benefits will be the deciding factor in whether they can remain in their own homes or whether they will be forced to move. The government knows this, it knows the cost, it knows it is wrong and it knows its time is running out.

For anyone listening, the committee is not a committee of opposition members. All committees are controlled by the government. The numbers on the committee always favour government, and yet we have a unanimous report, a report supported by government members, because it is the right thing to do.

How can any government deny benefits? How can any government tell one group of widows they will receive lifetime benefits provided their husbands died on or after May 12? How can they tell other widows whose husbands died the day, the week, the year before or any time in the past, that they do not deserve these benefits?

Everyone knows this is wrong, but only one person can correct it. The Prime Minister must give the order to his minister to go to the Minister of Finance to get the money needed. This could be done by just eliminating some of the waste we have seen. Five per cent of the gun registry would cover the whole bill.

We ask government to do the right thing. We also ask it to allow its members on the committee to stand and express in the House and to the country where they stand and why they gave us such an unanimous report.

We ask the people on this side of the House who sit on that committee and who have concerns, who not only have constituents who are affected by this outrageous decision, but who have family members who are affected by this outrageous decision, to stand and debate, point fingers and put pressure on the government to make the right decision.

However what we will probably see is the parliamentary secretary stand next and ask that we cut off debate. This is what government has done.

We must listen to the people. There is wisdom in the crowds. The government has not listened in the past and it is not listening now but, I assure everyone, it will learn in very short duration.

[Ethics, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the minister's well oiled, well Irving oiled, response over and over.

The minister knows that the ethics counsellor has about as much effect as he has had on the Prime Minister. Why does the minister not do what is right, either apologize to the House or resign?

[Ethics, October 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry was wrong on the airbus affair. He was wrong on the Cipro affair. He was wrong on the hepatitis C issue. He was wrong on the gun registry.

Why will he not follow the Minister of Labour and stand, and apologize to the House and admit he is wrong in this affair?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to my hon. colleague from Matapédia—Matane.

Does he not agree that April 1 is quite appropriate, since it is April Fools' Day and the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard is trying to fool the people of Canada?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right, dead on, as we would say. Young people in the country are being forgotten. I have said that several times here while speaking on different topics.

We overlook two groups in this country: the young and the elderly. We have just forgotten them. We do not take care of our elderly and we have completely ignored our youth.

We have not invested in our youth. Many of them cannot become well educated and contributing members of society. We have failed to recognize the fact that everybody is not like the member for LaSalle—Émard, who could afford to go through university and pay all the costs. They have to make do with what they have. We have made it very difficult for them to achieve a solid education.

As I mentioned, during his journeys across the country, the member for LaSalle—Émard by the way talked about all he would do for youth. He is the very individual who went out of his way to defeat a motion here in this very House brought forth by the member for Fundy—Royal to allow students who are saddled with a debt load claim some of that debt load on their income tax, 10% of the debt load each year for 10 years. All the opposition members supported it and many of the Liberals, but with a push from the then minister of finance, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the motion was defeated. What he says and what he does are two different things.

The member is dead on when he talks about the lack of regard for youth by the member for LaSalle—Émard. He talks with one voice and then he acts differently. His record speaks for itself. I think that is the best way to answer the question.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to comment on the last speaker's comments and on the question raised by the member from the Bloc. I want to add similar sentiments to those raised by the two members.

The legislation that we are presently debating should not even be here. We already have legislation that sets out quite clearly the process for implementing new boundaries once changes have been made.

Every 10 years we have revisions, sometimes done fairly and sometimes done with prejudice, undoubtedly. We saw that happen this time in a number of areas. I would think all of us could probably size up the changes within our own regions and say that they probably had a tinge of favouritism inflicted by the governing party. However we live through that because people cannot be manipulated, even though the government sometimes thinks it can.

Under the existing legislation, the Chief Electoral Office is given one year to implement the boundary changes so that the voters lists, the boundary maps and everything else is set out. The mechanisms are put in place in the new ridings and different parties are given the chance to establish their own political identity within those ridings.

A year in politics is not a long time. We have a very large country with a shifting population. No one knows that better than I do. In the last 10 years Newfoundland has lost about one-tenth of its population. Where has everyone gone? They have gone all over the place, many of them to western Canada, to Alberta in particular, and to British Columbia and Ontario. In those areas, and even within the urban centres of our own provinces, we have seen a major political change in population.

As I say, the boundaries in Newfoundland have changed tremendously simply because of the growth of the urban centres, particularly in St. John's. My own district of St. John's West is made up of a small part of St. John's, all of the city of Mount Pearl, plus 250 miles of a rural area encompassing many communities spread all along the coastline of the southern shore, St. Mary's and Placentia Bays. All of that geographic area is now being chopped up because of the population shift to the urban centres.

This creates two problems. First, it creates the necessity to change boundaries drastically, which is something that concerns me. Undoubtedly, some people are sitting in some office in the centre of Ottawa, the same type of people who make decisions about the fishery in northern Quebec, in British Columbia and on the Atlantic coast without ever having seen the ocean, making boundary changes from the centre of the most urban region in the country without having any idea of the reality of rural life in this country. When we draw circles around 90,000 people and say that this is equality, it does not work that way. We know all about equality.

We have to make sure that members in the House can properly represent their constituents. The argument made by those who do not know the difference is that 90,000 people are 90,000 people whether it they are in rural Saskatchewan, rural Newfoundland or in the middle of Toronto. Members who are here in Ottawa sit in their seats, stand up and talk about the concerns of their communities, and they vote on legislation that affects their people.

What difference does it make where they live? That is the mentality of many people when they look at the political framework of this country.

That is not the way it works.

A representative, regardless of party, has to represent the constituents. That means being available to them. That means meeting with groups and organizations. That means dealing with individual concerns and sometimes being the only political contact available to these people because of the geography of the country.

In the middle of Toronto or the middle of Ottawa or the middle of St. John's, if someone has a problem usually it has to do with the city involved. The person can walk the five minutes to city hall, speak to someone involved and get the problem resolved. If it is a provincial problem, then quite often the provincial house of assembly or provincial government building is there in that major city. If not, if it is another urban area, there is probably some kind of an office of each department or at least many departments, so the person can go directly to the government office and have his or her problem dealt with.

But if we live in rural areas, that is not the case. There is not a government office to be seen. People cannot go to government offices. The only government office that we had was the post office, and the way this government is moving to take away these buildings from rural Canada, we are not even going to have a post office.

The other side of it is that if a member represents an urban area, that member is dealing with one town or city council, one recreation commission and one chamber of commerce. There are no rural organizations and there probably are no fishing committees. In rural Newfoundland, and I am sure the same is true throughout rural areas of the other provinces, I probably have, counting the two cities, another 40 to 45 communities or more. Each one has a municipality. Each one has a recreation commission. I have four major rural development groups. I have two major zoning boards. I have at least 20 local fishermen's committees. All of them have individual concerns because they are so separated in the rural area of the country.

That means the member has to deal with all these individual institutions. And for each individual living in these areas, having no contact with government, the only person he or she knows about is the member who represents them. In these areas they do not concern themselves about whether the problem is of a municipal, provincial or federal nature; they will call whoever happens to be available.

Therefore, the workload for somebody representing a rural area is many times that of somebody in an urban area when it comes to dealing with so many groups. Representing them here is not a problem. I have no more work in this very building than anyone else, but the work that flows through my offices and the work put upon me to try to represent my constituents is entirely different.

When circles are being drawn on maps, we should take into consideration the difficulty of trying to represent people properly in different parts of our country. Having said that, because we cannot do much about it now that the boundaries have been changed, and in some cases changed conveniently, as I say, one of the major concerns we have is that there are always many difficulties with the enumeration. When the election comes, we will find out. In this case, I think we are going to have even more problems than before because of the rush that the electoral officer and office are being put through.

We have to try to make sure that everyone who is eligible to vote is enumerated, that everyone can be contacted and encouraged to participate in this democratic exercise. When we hear that only 25% of the people under 30 voted in the last election, that is scary. What is our country going to be like if we turn off the young people?

Why did they not vote? Maybe part of it is that they watch us and ask why they should. However, I do not think that is the reason. One of the reasons is that they really do not know what is going on in the process. Many of them, because our young people have to move so far from home to find employment in this country, do not know when or where to vote or anything about the members because nobody tells them. They are not even on the list. If one is not on the list chances are one does not know where to go or how to go about getting one's name on there.

These things could be settled if we had some time. Why is it that suddenly we have taken a process that has existed for years and years and changed it? The member from the NDP and the member from the Bloc, as well as others today, have spelled it out quite clearly: because we have a situation now where we have a prime minister in waiting. He has been in waiting for 10 years. I wonder why, if he has waited so long, he cannot wait a little longer.

When he takes over he is going to inherit quite a mess, Mr. Speaker, and you know that as well as I do. How is he going to get out of the dilemma of having to deal with two factions, two parties within the party? If he had two parties outside the party, there is a process, and I would be glad to talk to him about that process. It is a bit different, though, when one has two parties within the party and is trying to bring them together.

The only way he will be able to carry out his work, sleep at night and not have to be constantly looking over his shoulder is to get rid of the faction that does not support him. How does he do that? He cannot take them all out of cabinet and put them on the backbench because that would upset them even more. If he leaves them where they are and does not put his own people in the frontbench, those people are going to be very upset. There is only one way to do it and that is to call an election, and hopefully then we will take care of his problem and he will not have to worry about it himself.

If under the present legislation he cannot call an election until after August 25 next year, he has a real dilemma. However, the laws are quite clear. It has worked that way. He has a choice. He can wait until after August 25 or he can call an election now under the old boundaries. People in Alberta will not be happy, nor should they be. The people in Ontario will not be happy and the people in British Columbia will not be happy.

The incoming prime minister has a major dilemma, so what does he do? He does something that no leader ever should talk about. We in the House have been talking about parliamentary reform, in the last two or three years in particular. It is unanimous here that we have to make changes. We have seen the government whittle away the power of the individual member in the House. We have seen the government whittle away the power of Parliament. It has to change.

Even the House leader of the governing party heads up a committee that is talking about modernizing Parliament. He has put a lot of time and effort into it. He has brought forth, through his modernization committee, some wonderful ideas. While this is happening, around him another scenario has developed, which shoves the power of Parliament back into the dark ages, where the leader, for his own selfish reasons, manipulates the rules that have governed this place for years.

Maybe we should sit back and have a second look at this. When the time comes to add seats we do not have to worry, in fact, as the extra seats are there. Nobody is stopping that. It is a fait accompli. It is done.

This process, this piece of legislation, has nothing to do with opposing extra seats for Alberta, British Columbia or Ontario. It has nothing at all to do with that. These are in place. They are going to get that. However, there is a legislative timeframe in which an election can be called before these changes can be implemented. As I say, the incoming prime minister and the government have two options. They can call an election any time they want. The Prime Minister of today, if he wishes, can call an election tonight. I wish he would.

But the government can also wait until the changes are timely and are properly implemented so that the people who have work to do can make sure that every Canadian gets the best possible chance of being on the voters list and the political organizations have a chance to encourage and promote the necessity to vote. Then we will see fairness and equality.

That is what this exercise is all about, not slowing down the process. That is done. That is over with. It is a matter of ensuring fairness and trying to stop a powerful government, a government that has whittled away at the powers of Parliament and lately has been beating its breast in an act of contrition saying it is going to change things and modernize Parliament, just to see the farce it has made of the whole issue. Perhaps we will ask the incoming prime minister to have a second look.

In Newfoundland we have a Liberal government also. During the campaign that has recently taken place, its slogan was “Take a closer look”. Its posters were in small print so one had to really look closely at them. Fortunately it backfired, because the people of Newfoundland took a closer look at what that government has been doing. Tonight will be a very interesting night. In fact, in about an hour and a half from now, the polls will close in Newfoundland. If members watch national CBC, and I do not want to do a plug here for the media, on Newsworld tonight I believe we are going to get a couple of hours of coverage. It is going to be an extremely interesting night. There is a sort of blue haze hanging over Newfoundland, growing and growing, and by 8:30 tonight it will be solidly in place.

That is simply because, again, a government forgot that people make a difference. It is too late for that government to take a closer look, but it is not too late for the incoming prime minister to take a closer look at what is happening here. If he is going to set a new direction, which he talks about, people listen because they think of the new kid on the block. Suddenly the old memory kicks in and they say, “Oh, no. He has been here for 10 years, has he not?” Everything that has happened in this country in the last 10 years basically has been done with his blessing. People are taking a closer look at that too.

He has the opportunity to really set an example. He should not go fooling around with legislation. It is there for a purpose. It is there because it is right, proper and fair. Let us make sure that this process continues. He will get his election when the time comes and maybe he will be sorry he called it.

Having said that, let us make sure the right thing is done and the government has a chance to do it. Perhaps it should withdraw this legislation completely.

[Food and Drugs Act, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in support of the bill put forth by my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni. This bill deals with a concern that a lot of people across the country are expressing. More and more people are becoming conscious about their health and more and more people are looking to natural health remedies.

In fact, this is not a new phenomenon. The people who originally settled this country used such products very successfully, and especially the aboriginal groups used them, not only then, but even yet they continue to use such products very successfully. In fact, the basis for many of the drugs and whatever vitamins and supplements we use today is from sources identified and practices used by these groups. This is certainly not new.

What is happening, of course, that is governments, as governments do, try to get overly protective and try to make sure that everything is regimented, everything is labelled, and everything is listed on the label, which costs manufacturers fortunes but which also eliminates many products that would assist the average person if perhaps they were looked upon as food rather than being thrown into the drug category.

If my colleague from Bonavista—Trinity—Conception were to speak on this bill, he would undoubtedly talk about a product put forth in Newfoundland and Labrador: the seal oil capsule. It is becoming extremely popular not only in our province but throughout the country and internationally. One of the concerns people have about it is that the labelling will prevent it from being exported to countries which are really very interested in obtaining this product. They think that the government will probably consider it more a drug than an actual food product. If it were a food product, there would be absolutely no problem whatsoever in exporting it to countries such as Taiwan, where there is a great interest and a demand for the product mainly because of the benefits of taking such a supplement. Seal oil capsules are apparently even more potent than the old cod-liver oil capsule, which many people took for years because of its vitamin D supplement that was included.

Sometimes a little bit of common sense and rationality go a long way. Bureaucrats, perhaps more so than governments, get caught up in the fact that everything has to be labelled and identified with the pros and the cons. For 90% of what we eat and use throughout the world we have no idea of what is involved, but in certain areas where we have some control and jurisdiction everyone wants to have a say and all we are doing is complicating the whole situation. Perhaps we should be a little more lenient and less black and white on issues.

The act as presently constituted protects against the use of products which would be poisonous or harmful to us. The act prevents anyone exaggerating any benefits from the product being considered, used or developed. There is already a protection for people who would have such concerns. What is needed, as I have said, is some common sense and the opportunity for people to use products which they know themselves are good and are not harmful, but are beneficial to them for whatever reason. We are tightening the screws on these regulations; we are closing doors. That is not what we should be doing. We should be opening the doors, as long as we are protecting Canadians from products that would be harmful.

We support the initiative. I congratulate my colleague for bringing it forth. There may be some refinements needed, such as some of the suggestions just mentioned by the member opposite. There may be better ways of doing it, but that is why we bring ideas forth to the House; as the issues are debated in the House and as they go through committee, we can make the proper refinements and placements.

But instead of trying to come up with legislation that is going to tie the hands of our people and create more red tape and bureaucracy, let us try to cut out the red tape and bureaucracy and come up with some common sense solutions which would help the people of the country rather than put a millstone around their necks.

[Income Tax Act, October 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I have just a few words on this motion, the principle of which I certainly support. For many years I have been a strong supporter of artists of whatever type, whether it be visual artists or painters or musicians across this country. In fact, on numerous occasions I have had the opportunity to work directly and indirectly with a number of individuals and groups in promoting the great history and culture of our country, which can be done more explicitly through the art form than perhaps any other way.

Some of the best ambassadors we have had for our country, and we can say individually from our provinces, have been our artists and our musicians. In my own case, I can think of a group of very good friends of mine, a band called Great Big Sea, which is known from coast to coast to coast. These young men, long-time friends of mine, have done a tremendous job of representing not only Canada but specifically Newfoundland. If one watches any show in which they perform, some time during the show, in fact quite often many times, they will mention, promote and sing about the great province from which they all come.

I look at my friends from the Bloc next to me here. Some of the strongest artists and performers we have in this country of course come from Quebec and over the years they have done a great job not only of representing the province but in preserving that unique history and culture of the great province of Quebec.

Yet is there some way we can help them? Because all of them are not successful. I mentioned Great Big Sea. People are saying that those guys are making a lot of money these days, so why would they want breaks? Of course they are not asking for them, but there certainly was a time; they did not just appear on the national scene. They performed as students, actually, trying to work their way through university by making a few dollars entertaining, and it was a few dollars. Like it is for any group, it takes a while to gain the attention that gives a group the bookings or the buy-ins or whatever in order for it to start making money.

For many of our young artists, in particular our writers and painters, it takes a long time to prove themselves, to have their work accepted. For many of them, because their names are not recognized, unfortunately, it does not matter how good the work is. Unless somebody is really keen on interpreting the works of these writers or artists, their work quite often goes unnoticed. For many of those who are successful, their breaks come through luck or the support of some very conscientious people who are constantly looking for a good product, and consequently the performer or artist makes it on the scene.

Unfortunately many do not, but yet in their own ways they contribute. If we did not have our artists, if we did not have our actors, if we did not have our musicians, again I hesitate to try to understand how our heritage and culture could be promoted and preserved. One of the ways that we learn about history is from verse. I am sure it is from the old ballads that were passed along long before history was written by several cultures; the stories, the ballads, the poems, that is how we learned about our past. The same is true today.

Again, in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador there is a very rich culture and history. Much of it is preserved through art forms, certainly not by the dedicated efforts of any government trying to write a proper history. Those who do that work for us and get little in return certainly should be helped in any way. Is an exemption in the Income Tax Act the way to do it? It is quite possible it is, and I would have no problems with that.

However, the danger is of course that we would get people from other groups that make low wages in their professions asking why a young evolving artist who hopefully will eventually do exceptionally well should get a break, when those in the trades at the lower end or working on a farm as a labourer or whatever the case may be would not. They would say, “I am not going to get that break and I will be here until I die”. They would ask why they should not get a break when they are not making any more money than the people we are talking about exempting and when they have less of an opportunity to advance.

We cannot overlook any groups in our country who are making minimal wages. If only we had proper exemptions; our party has recommended that at the least we should have a $12,000 ceiling on income tax so that families and individuals who are making low wages would not have to pay income tax before they reached that bracket. That would give many low wage earners a break and we would not have to ask for exemptions for specific groups because they would automatically have it. Nor would we be getting complaints from individuals whose earnings are similar to those for whom we are requesting breaks.

We would avoid all of that by having a realistic taxation system in our country, with a base whereby low income people would not be harmed, and also through other exemptions like capital gains and so on, because many of the artists and writers eventually get into promoting and selling their products and really become entrepreneurs.

Generally, yes, we support the motion. If it is one way to help, we certainly support it, but perhaps collectively we should look for a way to help not only these people who do so much for us but also to help others who cannot do so much for themselves.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not have a clue what happened because he has no authority and he does not want any authority. However let me ask him another question.

He does have authority to protect our inland waters, the salmon streams and rivers. Year after year the guardians on the rivers are being cut.

How can the minister justify cutting protection on rivers that he is responsible for seeing are stocked and maintained properly?

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, over a year ago a Russian flag boat with an Icelandic crew, the Olga , was caught in the NAFO zone with an excessive amount of cod. The boat was sent back because the Canadian government could not do anything with it.

Recently a reporter in St. John's, under freedom of information, asked what happened to the Olga . The minister's department replied that it did not know.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans found the Olga in Iceland. The owner is a friend of the minister and is landing fish in the minister's district--the Icelandic minister.

If the committee could find it, why could the minister's department not find it?