Loyola Hearn

[Supply, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the House leader for the governing party. I am a little mystified myself, I must say. I wonder if he could explain to me, first , how we can honestly debate three distinct topics where there might be varying views, particularly when one of them is before a committee that is travelling the country and is having a real problem trying to find a common solution with which most people will agree.

The other issue is in relation to prisoners voting. When we talk about murderers, rapists and child molesters, that is one thing, but what about the fellow who is serving some time for being a little rowdy? It may have been the first time in his life that he got into trouble or the first time he had perhaps one drink too many and was thrown into jail for a few nights. Are we lumping everyone into the same boat?

To try to debate these issues in such a forum, there has to be some other reason for it rather than just trying to find some solution here among us today.

[Question No. 169, May 7th, 2003]

Can the Department of Fisheries and Oceans confirm that a Portuguese Trawler was caught, with a significant amount of codfish onboard, inside Canada's 200-mile limit in early December of 2002, and, if this is the case, what measures did the Department take upon apprehension of this vessel by the Canadian Coast Guard?

[Fisheries, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

We have seen violence in the fishery in New Brunswick because of political interference. We have seen large protests in Newfoundland and Labrador. The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has said that the minister and the government are directly interfering in the process by trying to bribe communities by telling them that federal funding would be cut off unless they support the minister's plan.

How can the minister justify this blatant political interference?

[Points of Order, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, today as the House leader for the government responded to the request of the House leader for the opposition regarding the business for the coming week, he mentioned a number of bills that would be dealt with today, tomorrow, and on through to Wednesday. In talking about all of them he gave the indication that there would be carry-over time and that we would go back to aforementioned business. However, when he talked about Tuesday he just said we would be doing the Senate amendment on Bill C-10A specifically, without any provision for carry-over. Would the House leader for the governing party tell us if he plans to introduce time allocation on that bill?

[Family Supplement, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the member for Ahuntsic for bringing this motion to the floor of the House of Commons. I was pretty pleased, even in absentia, to second her motion.

The member for Vancouver East basically has said it all in a nutshell. This is a very good motion. It deals with one part of the major problem that we have in relation to poverty. However it is better to deal with one part at a time than to ignore the picture totally, which has happened.

We have to remember that for the last 10 years the present government has constantly been promising to address child poverty, to address poverty and the plight of low income families across the country. However we see very little results. I certainly hope the member, through this motion, can stimulate within her party and within government the desire to start working actively on the problem.

Let us stop talking about poverty. There are many kinds of poverty and there are many ways of helping people in need. As the member for Vancouver East just said, maybe the motion itself will not solve our problem in total, and we all know that, but solving part of it will be certainly a plus and a start. It might also generate the type of debate that is necessary in this very chamber to draw attention to some of the plights of people who live on low incomes and of young people who are out there trying to make it in society with very little help.

Let me just talk about associated issues that fit right in with the motion and that is the need to help families.

One of the major institutions in the country is our unemployment insurance. I was going to say we should be proud but employment insurance is not something perhaps of which we could be proud. It is sort of a necessary evil. We would like to have everybody working when we have such a rich country with so many resources.

My province has only a half a million people and some of the richest resources in the world in relation to hydro power, oil discoveries, our fisheries and so on, yet so many people do not benefit from such resources. Therein should be our main focus to avoid having to worry about the very issue we are talking about tonight.

We all know that will take a tremendous amount of will and work, and it will be well down the road before we will not have to have such a debate. However to even think about it and talk about it is laudable, and we should aim toward getting to that day when we can say to ourselves that we remember when we had poverty in the country. Unfortunately, it probably will not happen for a while.

While we have poverty, nobody can do more about it than the very people who are in these hallowed halls in which we now speak.

I talked about the EI fund. People strive to get enough employment to qualify for employment insurance; a small amount of work, quite often at low wages, which means they end up with very low employment insurance. The totality of the income is so minuscule that families cannot survive on that kind of money and any supplement that can be given in any way, shape or form, is a plus.

I am thinking of one particular case where a woman is working to try to make that living. She takes every opportunity to find employment. She drives 70 or 80 miles everyday to work in a cold fish plant to get the few weeks of work which the fish plant offers. Then she finds out she really needs more hours to qualify so she accepts a job which provides only a few hours a week.

However, wanting to work, she continues to work, five, 10, 20 hours a week. She works for x number of weeks before she is laid off because she would rather work than draw employment insurance. She files for employment insurance. She had well beyond the qualifying time because she continued to work, but the last x number of weeks she worked only a few hours a week. Even though it would have been better for her to stay at home, she had the opportunity to work so she kept working. Because of that, her average wage over the qualifying weeks was so small that she was getting something like $60 to $80 a week in employment insurance. Imagine what it is like trying to survive on $60 to $80 a week.

There is something wrong with our system. Whether it be in the fishery, whether it be working for some company, or whether it is in finding work wherever someone can get it, we are encouraging people who know they are not going to get full time employment to go out during peak periods, get as many qualifying hours as they can in the shortest time possible, and find some way to get out of the workforce. If the work becomes scarce, their qualifying time and amount of pay drags down their benefits. That is one way we could help people.

The other major effect low income has on the families is on the children. Families on low income face the inability to help and encourage and finance their children so they can participate in the various events in society, and in particular to attend post-secondary institutions which these days is a very costly initiative.

A real bug of mine and something I have been pushing is that many young people in this country today cannot afford to get a post-secondary education. People say there are student loans. If they borrow the maximum amount, which I am sure some people in this place know all about, then at the end of the years they spend in university, they come out with a massive debt load. It is like having a mortgage on their shoulders when they start out. What a way to begin life.

Most young people head where the wages are high, which is south of the border. They leave this country and take with them their initiative and education to the benefit of somewhere else. The more sorrowful thing is that the young people know that a student loan cannot cover the costs. If they have other costs besides tuition, for their apartments, furniture, food or travel, and unless their parents can help them they cannot cover those costs. The young pages here know exactly what I am talking about. If their parents cannot help them, the easiest thing for them to do is not to go to college or university but instead to go out and find a job.

The employment that these people find later on because of their lack of education is quite often part time employment. This means that over the next number of years they will get a minuscule wage and they will not be able to contribute to the education of their children so they will draw social benefits instead of being contributors to society.

People do not want a handout. They want a hand up. Through legislation we can start giving them the type of boost that will get them on their feet so they can not only help themselves, but they can help their children. In turn this will help this great country of ours.

[Points of Order, April 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would not have inserted myself into this discussion on the point of order except for the insertion by the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte.

I was in the chamber last night. I was here when the member for Labrador came in at the end of the speech by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Heatedly, he made a remark to the minister, having just come back from his own riding, and we all know what is happening in areas such as his. The minister turned around and made some remark to him, at which time the member for Labrador yelled quite loudly and profusely, as is recorded in Hansard , what the minister said to him. It was not a French remark about a seal. It was a comment. A follow-up occurred later, which I will not get into.

But, Mr. Speaker, the insertion by the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte is not a fact at all. What is in Hansard is what you have to deal with.

[Cod Fishery, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from St. John's East for sharing his time with me.

Let me also congratulate the member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception for asking for and getting this emergency debate at a time when it is crucial to our colleague from Burin—St. George's who also spoke so well in the debate tonight.

Let me also point out that through the debate we have heard from every party in the House. We have heard from the governing party, which started off the debate this evening. We have heard from the official opposition, an Alliance member from British Columbia. We have heard from the Bloc, a member from Quebec. We have heard from the NDP, a member from Nova Scotia. Now we are back to a couple of Newfoundlanders again. Right across the country, across all political spectrums and from government to opposition, we have heard people talking in unison about a fishing industry that has been shut down by a minister without listening to people who could direct him as to how we could deal with a declining resource without having such a negative effect on the people directly and indirectly involved.

We talk about the people in Newfoundland being upset. It was referred to that some people even tore up or burned the Canadian flag, which is something that should never happen. It is not Canada we should be upset with. We should be upset with the present Government of Canada and in particular, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. On this very issue they are the ones, not the people of Canada, not the politicians of Canada, not even some of the politicians in the governing party, but it is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the government who made the decision against the advice of everyone connected in any way to the fishery.

Five or six months ago, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated in this very House that he would have to deal with declining stocks in Atlantic Canada. He basically raised an awareness and everyone in the area interested in or affected by the fishery took notice. Nobody blamed the minister for creating the awareness because the minister was not crying wolf. There is a serious situation in relation to groundfish in Atlantic Canada. There is a serious situation in relation to most of the fish stocks in Canada, whether they be in the Great Lakes, in western Canada or in the Atlantic region, because we have not been good stewards of our resource.

If I had more time tonight, I would love to talk about the other resources of our province, from our water power, to our minerals, to our forestry, to especially the biggest, richest fish resource that ever existed in the world which once swam off our coast. It has been pillaged and destroyed with a lot of people benefiting, the least of whom are the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians adjacent to the resource. And we wonder why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are upset.

When the minister sent up his flares a few months ago, all parties in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, something that never happened before and might never happen again, got together to say “We have a major problem confronting our province and it is about time we put petty politics aside and dealt with it”.

This group, with the help of a lot of knowledgeable people within the industry, from the people in the boats, to the people in the plant, to the people in the science divisions, experienced individuals, unbiased, objective scientists, recommended ways of dealing with it. Make the best of a bad situation was what we had to do. The committee presented the minister with 19 solid recommendations which basically said not to close the fishery, that we have to make sure we keep the people involved.

Scientific advice, properly used and properly focused, would enable the minister to keep the fishery open to some extent. There are other avenues within the fishery. Tonight I do not agree with my colleague from St. John's East and I do not say that very often, but I am the eternal optimist. I think the minister has made a major mistake.

When the minister came to Newfoundland and Labrador and he closed the fishery completely, this is what he offered. He talked about community based economic development assistance, $25 million for short term job creation. That is less than one-tenth of 1% of the surplus in the EI fund. This is what we use to deal with a problem of this magnitude.

He talks about conservation measures, including the creation of seal exclusion zones. When I asked him yesterday how he will keep seals out of an area, he said he was going to ask them to stay away. St. Francis of Assisi should move over because we have a new person coming up. I will say to the minister that I hope it works. I also say to the minister that it did not go over very well in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister also talks about a $6 million program to expand on current activities, and to evaluate and assess the impact of seals on fish stocks. The investment in science will help us learn more about the relationship between seals and fish.

The minister does not have to spend $6 million to learn about the relationship between seals and fish. Morrissey Johnson once said that they do not eat turnips. Seals live in the ocean. They eat fish. With the imbalance that is there now, when we have a million seals, we have a biomass of cod that was 100 times greater than it is now. We are down to 1% of our biomass. As the member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception so rightly said tonight, the seals have grown eight-fold. A person does not have to be a scientist to figure that one out and it does not take $6 million. Many people in Newfoundland would give the minister the answer on that one for a lot less than $6 million.

The other point I want to raise concerns the backgrounder because it circulated across Canada for people to read about why we closed the fishery. The minister talks about why the cod stocks have not recovered. He talks about changes in the environment. He talks about fish growth and survival. He talks about reproduction and he talks about Newfoundlanders not being good stewards in the past.

The minister does not talk about the effect of seals. He does not talk at all and never once mentioned foreign overfishing. Again he said that it might not affect the gulf. Perhaps it does not. It certainly affects 2J3KL.

The department must get its act together. The recommendations made by the all party committee, and made publicly and privately by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to him and by others across the country who are aware of this whole situation, show the minister clearly how the fishery can be kept open, and how people can be kept involved. There are other resources that can be reallocated. There are species that we have not had a chance to develop because we did not have the money.

If the government is willing to pay people to move rocks, why not pay them to do some scientific research and do some work on underutilized species or new species. Who will do the scientific research on seals? Who will ensure that we have seal exclusion zones? The fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador can do it.

Let me say to the minister who will probably speak soon that perhaps a lesson has been learned. Perhaps it can be seen from the reaction of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador against Canada. I say to my friends at home that it is not the Canadians who are doing this. It is a government. It is a minister of fisheries. Let us focus our attention on him.

If everybody else is wrong then there is something wrong with the system. My Johnny is the only one in step, but in this case the minister is out of step so perhaps he will listen, use the advice given him, and perhaps we can find the way to ensure we start rebuilding our resource. Yes, we have to be responsible, but surely we can do it collectively by keeping people involved instead of taking them out and letting everybody else destroy a resource.

[International Transfer of Offenders Act, April 29th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to say a few words on the bill but unfortunately for all of us in the House we only got the bill recently. It has been 24 hours between first reading and second reading. It is a bill that has a tremendous amount of potential to interfere with the lives of a lot of people, whether they be Canadians abroad or foreigners here. I think we need a little more time to discuss this and look at the implications in detail. I would suggest that we should slow down on how fast we move certain pieces of legislation through the House.

It should be the goal of Parliament and those who sit in the House to fully inform the public of these debates. It is incumbent upon the government of the day to recognize that in this instance it will not occur because of the fast timeframe.

For example, clause 24 outlines the eligibility for parole for an offender who has been convicted of committing a murder. This seemingly simple definition carries with it a whole host of implications. The clause states that if the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence that, if ithad been committed in Canada, would haveconstituted murder within the meaning of theCriminal Code, their full parole ineligibilityperiod is 10 years.

This would be regardless of the penalty prescribed by the jurisdiction in which the offence was committed. This would mean that if murder carried a life sentence in the foreign state, and if the definition of life imprisonment was actually life, it would have no bearing on the sentence the person ended up serving when returned to Canada.

The Canadian prisoner returned to this country would only be required to serve 10 years before becoming eligible for parole. There are those liberal minded people in society who feel this would be acceptable but whether it is or not is not the crux of the debate. The point I am trying to make is that different states carry different durations of punishment based essentially on societal acceptance of the rules.

The stated norm of an area of Afghanistan may not be the accepted norm in Canada. Cultural differences lead to acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and we need to be cognizant of that fact. We need only to look at the media for examples. One case which comes to mind is a woman who literally was stoned within an inch of her life for committing adultery.

Clause 24 goes on to note that if, in the minister’sopinion, the documents supplied by the foreignentity show that the circumstances inwhich the offence was committed were suchthat, if it had been committed in Canada afterJuly 26, 1976, it would have been first degreemurder within the meaning of section 231, the full parole ineligibility period is15 years.

As the courts have decided in previous cases, it would seem the rights and freedoms afforded all Canadian citizens in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are transferable when it comes to the right of life.

On February 15, 2001 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a nine to nothing decision that Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Rafay could be extradited to the United States of America but only after Canada had been assured the men would not face execution.

In reality Canadians do not carry their charter of rights with them when they commit an offence in another country. When Canadians commit crimes in the United States of America, they are subject to the penalties of that state. State authorities will not be receptive to hearing the dictates of Canada regarding a murder that occurred on United States soil.

By setting up different types of reciprocal agreements with states, territories or entities, we could possibly be setting ourselves up to become a safe haven for criminals fleeing from justice. That was the problem then and it remains a problem now.

What do we do when the person commits murder in the foreign state where conviction results in death and he or she then decides to flee to Canada where if the person is caught, he or she will only have to serve a minimum of 10 years before seeking parole?

On the surface, setting legislation that would allow for a quick transfer of Canadian criminals abroad to serve their time in our institutions does not seem to be without its merit. However, the way in which the legislation was introduced and then thrown to the floor for debate without adequate preparation time makes me wonder what the government is trying to hide. Some would say it is paranoia, while others might argue perception.

Continuing in the vein of not having had adequate time to fully examine the legislation, I draw the attention of the House to clause 33, which defines what a foreign entity is. The clause reads:

In sections 31 and 32, “foreign entity” means a foreign state, a province, state or political subdivision of a foreign state, a colony, dependency, possession, protectorate, condominium, trust territory or any territory falling under the jurisdiction of a foreign state or a territory or other entity, including an international criminal tribunal.

What this section does is attempt to define any and all entities with which Canadian officials may or may not be interacting in terms of seeking the transfer. I am perplexed at the inclusion of some of the terminology used in this definition, namely, condominium; however, that is the least of my worries.

This section defines the definition of acceptable authorities with which the Minister of Foreign Affairs can deal in terms of seeking a transfer. However, it is clauses 31 and 32 that compel the minister to act. Clauses 31 and 32 essentially provide the minister with the ability to supersede the recognized authority of a sovereign state should he or she find a willing accomplice at a local or what we may term a municipal level should that country not have an official agreement with ours.

At cursory examination, it seems this legislation would give the minister an unprecedented, unbalanced amount of power.

I cannot stress enough the importance that the nature of the offence carries in terms of what is acceptable or unacceptable. In order to fully comprehend what needs to be done, we would need to accept the societal norms or, at the very least, a sense of shared values in terms of sentencing duration. Justice in one country does not equal the same measure of justice in another country. This I do not believe to be transferable. But while differences of opinions will ultimately vary, there are those who will be pleased that Canadians serving sentences abroad will now have the opportunity to serve their sentences within the confines of our own system and have all of the rights afforded Canadians.

With this bill the government is attempting to introduce legislation that would allow Canadians convicted in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong to return to Canada to serve their foreign sentences. In fact, the media release states, “Foreign nationals from such jurisdictions convicted in Canada would be able to serve their sentences in their home countries”.

While we can support this legislation in principle, we need to be cognizant of the fact that, regardless of what the government passes, this type of legislation only works if we have reciprocal agreements.

Having said that, again, I really feel this legislation needs much closer scrutiny than we have been able to give it in the short timeframe provided to us. Perhaps as it moves through the system and through committee, we may be able to make sure that the legislation is of benefit to Canadians in particular but to others who would be treated fairly in countries where perhaps at the present time they would not receive fair treatment for any crimes committed.

[Fisheries, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans closed the cod fishery in the gulf and in 2J3KL, putting hundreds out of work. The Minister of ACOA chipped in with a handful of job creation programs. This approach is the direct opposite of that recommended by all directly and indirectly involved with the industry, including the minister's own committees.

Will the minister now admit his mistake, change his mind and discuss a more satisfactory approach to this issue?

[Canada Airports Act, April 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of what the hon. member said. He made some excellent points. I would however like to ask his opinion on the privatization of airports. We have seen a lot of that over the last few years and I would say with a great amount of success. However as times get a bit tougher and we see some problems within the industry generally cuts usually have to be made. One of the flexibilities at airports, and perhaps airlines because Air Canada also has the same problem, is dealing with their employees.

Newfoundland and Labrador have small problems right now at two of its airports. Outside workers have been on prolonged strikes that are causing a lot of trouble and perhaps a loss of business. Of course it is a vicious cycle. If they lose business, they have fewer dollars.

I agree with the member that one has to look at this as the glass being half full rather than being half empty. I would like the member's take on privatization, especially in light of what is happening in the industry, and his suggestions on how we can come through this present crisis without the workers, in particular, paying the price for it.