Loyola Hearn

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Who was the Minister of Finance?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Like a wood chipper.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Mismanagement.

[Fisheries, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that he could not accede to the Newfoundland government's request because the stocks were in such terrible shape that the government had to impose a moratorium.

Let me say to the minister that the stocks are in such bad shape because the government would not listen to the people who know how to manage them.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans this. While we argue about constitutional jurisdiction, will he set up a management committee with the provinces to discuss proper management of the resource so those affected can have some say in managing the resource as they know how to do?

[Foreign Affairs, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence said that Canada needed to decide on missile defence in 100 days. Whose deadline is it?

The House is about to close. In five weeks we will go on summer break and the Prime Minister is whistling past the graveyard; no proposals, no ideas, no consensus and no time.

Will he set up a House of Commons committee on missile defence before it is too late? Will he let Parliament do the work his government has ignored?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words to Bill C-17. Like my colleague who just spoke, I also have concerns about whether we should push through a bill such as this after such a prolonged period of time.

When September 11 hit everybody with the awareness of how ill-prepared we were to deal with acts of terrorism, everyone, not only across the country but around the world, reacted immediately. Within days we were told massive legislation would be brought forth to address the problem so that nothing like that would ever happen again. We needed to be much more aware of what was going on in our own country and around the world. We also needed to become aware that this would have some effect on our own personal freedoms.

At that time most people said that they would have no problem with infringements on their freedom if it benefited the security and safety of their country. However quite a lot of time has elapsed since that occurrence and perhaps it is time to assess our response to such an act.

In situations like that quite often people overreact out of concern and when they are all hyped up and think they could be next. Now that we have had time for sobre second thought, perhaps it is time to go through the bill and ask ourselves how much of it is relevant now and how much of it is really necessary now. In retrospect, I think we would find many clauses in the bill which go above and beyond what is required now to deal with the issue of security.

Let me take a different tact because to talk about each clause in the bill, its effect, the transfer of power and the loss of personal freedoms would take possibly months. I would like to talk about security from a different aspect.

We will all remember that fateful day of September 11. I am sure there are two or three events in all our lives for which we remember what happened, where we were at the time and who we were with when it happened. In my own case I remember the day President Kennedy was shot, the day Henderson scored the great goal for Canada in 1972, and of course September 11. There may be other significant days with some personal impact, but general widespread events such as these are enshrined in our memory never to be forgotten.

However, on Septemeber 11, when we watched the second plane hit one of the towers in New York, we began to realize that something was drastically wrong. We also found out that a couple of other planes were involved and heaven's knows how many more were prevented from getting into the air because of the quick action that was taken.

Unfortunately, I was not in Newfoundland on that day because, like many members, my party was having a caucus meeting in western Canada. Having to wait for taxis and being on waiting lists, it took us a few days to get home, but we finally managed to get back home. However I was told that the people In Newfoundland who had not turned on the television or the radio that morning to hear about what had happened were amazed at the number of jets flying overhead.

When we get nice clear blue skies, as we always do in Newfoundland, the white streaks are quite visible, and on that day they were very visible. People were wondering what was happening. What was happening was that many of the trans-Atlantic flights were being diverted to airports in Newfoundland. Places like Gander, St. John's, Stephenville and Goose Bay were crowded, particularly Gander, with flights arriving from all over the place. Even though many of them had been closer to larger areas, such as Toronto and Montreal, they were diverted to Newfoundland for whatever reason. I guess we can argue with the fact.

However that event showed clearly the need to have specific landing sites, specific bases as such, in such areas in the country. During the war, in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Newfoundland was still an independent country. Perhaps a lot of people are saying today that we should have stayed that way. However during that time we had large, strong, efficient naval and air force bases in places such as Gander, Goose Bay, Stephenville and St. John's. They provided a place of security for all our allies, for Canadians, Americans and the British. We still have countries from all over the world doing some minimal training at some of our sites, particularly in Goose Bay.

However, the present government, once Canada joined us in 1949, allowed the stature of these bases to diminish and in fact closed most of them. The recent confrontation in Iraq illustrated to us quite clearly that we never know when confrontations can happen around the world. We strategically should have secure areas, our own bases, well-equipped to respond to any kind of a situation, whether it be our involvement in some confrontation or whether it be fallout from the involvement or fallout from something completely disassociated with our own country, such as the events that happened in New York. We were there to help out, luckily, because we had some of the infrastructure that was necessary.

We have a government that over the last 15 to 20 years has allowed infrastructure in the country to fall completely apart. I am sure that what is true in Newfoundland is true in other parts of the country. If we are going to talk about security let us make sure we play our part in making sure the country is secure.

It is nice to bring in a bill half an inch thick and talk about taking away personal freedoms and the hypothetical ideas of what might happen down the road, but in reality let us start putting some concrete plans in place to strengthen our country and to make sure we are strategically positioned to handle ourselves, whether it be in peacekeeping times or in times of confrontation.

We have the infrastructure throughout the country. Newfoundland and Labrador is strategically located, with the basic infrastructure already there, but we need to revive and strengthen the infrastructure, not only for the good of the province involved but for the good of the country.

The bill, undoubtedly, after being on the table for practically a year and a half now, needs to be revised. In light of that perhaps we could do something worthwhile for the country.

[Criminal Code, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps with your good graces, seeing that neither the Leafs or the Canadiens are playing tonight and you are not in a rush and I am not in rush, we could extend this debate. However, perhaps you would not agree with that.

The decision make by the minister does not help the fishers of Newfoundland and Labrador. It does not help anyone.

Nobody is helped by the decision that the minister made. It is a quick fix for the department. If the minister had said, “We are going to close or cut back”, that would have helped. What was asked for was that a partial fishery be kept open. Because while the minister says, “You cannot fish, Mr. Fisherman or Madam Fisherman or Fisherperson”, all he is going to do with the seal herds that are ballooning is to study them for two more years. The government is not going to address foreign overfishing at all; he did not mention it. It is not going to talk about bycatch or directed fisheries or gear types. It is just going to say, “You don't fish”.

If the fishery had been kept open to the point where people could be involved, they could be monitoring what is going on, they could be involved in research, they could be involved in dealing with the seal program, and they could be involved in experimental fishing, and everybody would be happy. The minister would be a hero. It can still be done. The question is, will the minister revisit the decision?

[Criminal Code, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week I raised a question with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I did not agree with his answer and of course we have the right to put such complaints on the late show and get our chance to discuss them in more detail.

Unfortunately what happens quite often is that the minister to whom we want to speak and from whom we want to try to elicit answers does not show up to defend himself. He or she sends in some parliamentary secretary with a prepared response, sometimes with no connection to the question.

However, this evening I notice that we do have a parliamentary secretary, the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, who is familiar with the situation and that makes a bit of a difference. I accept the member being here to respond on behalf of the minister as I know the minister is busy and because the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac is on our Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, has been there for quite some time and is knowledgeable about what we are talking about here.

However, I suggest to him that when I finish my couple of minutes, instead of reading for me the response the minister's department gave him, I want him to throw it out and give us some feeling of what he thinks about the situation.

The question I raised with the minister concerned the shutdown of the Atlantic cod fishery, particularly in the northern and southern gulf and the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. I basically asked the minister why he did not listen to the people.

Every politician in Newfoundland, including the government led by the premier, the opposition led by the opposition leader, the NDP, its leader and other member, the senators from Newfoundland, all the MPs from Newfoundland and just about every agency that I am aware of, came together and submitted one report to the minister on what he should do in relation to the fishery. That was before he made his decision.

The chair of that committee when it first started was the minister responsible for ACOA. The report was unanimous, something that never happened before in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, I suppose, and might never happen again. The group suggested to the minister better ways of addressing the declining stocks rather than just closing the fishery and throwing out a handful of goodies.

Did the minister listen? Did the minister come up with a concrete plan? Did the minister try to involve all those affected? The answer is no. He closed the fishery and tried to give them a handful of goodies.

This is not acceptable. It is not a matter of us saying that we should not address declining stocks. Absolutely, we should have addressed them long ago, and if we had had a joint management board where we had some management at the local level we probably would have and could have.

However, it did not happen and we are in a serious situation. The issue has to be addressed, but our main concern is that we should be involving those directly affected in a positive, proactive way, not in a negative way. We should not be telling them to get out of the fishery and saying, “Here are Canada Works programs”. Let us involve them in science research. Let us address the seal situation. Let us address the foreign overfishing. Let us address the bycatch. Let us deal with all the issues and not just tell some fishermen, “You can't fish. Here is a handful of goodies, now be satisfied”. It does not work that way.

There has to be a better approach. Collectively we can find it, but not if the minister is going to make a decision and say that is it.

[Fisheries, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in light of this, will the government consider discussing such an arrangement not only with Newfoundland and Labrador but with other coastal provinces so that the resource can be managed properly?

[Fisheries, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is seeking a constitutional amendment to seek shared jurisdiction and equal management over the fisheries. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs today flippantly said a constitutional amendment will not bring back the fish.

If we had had such an amendment we would not have lost the fish in the first place. In light of this, will the government consider--