Loyola Hearn

[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.

[Points of Order, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. House leader has made my point. It was the way it was used that should be considered by you. Seeing as it is a word that is in Beauchesne's list, I would ask the hon. minister to do the right and proper thing, and stand and withdraw the word that she used.

[Points of Order, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention the word used today by the Minister of Health in response to a question asked by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

The minister used the word “fabrication”. In fact she said that what the member said was a fabrication. I would refer you to Beauchesne's at page 149, Citation No. 492 which states:

The following expressions are a partial listing of expressions which have caused intervention on the part of the Chair, as listed in the Index....

One of the words listed, Mr. Speaker, is the word “fabrication”, and I await your direction.

[Fisheries, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the sorrowful thing is that the minister probably believes what he said. The minister and his cohorts responsible for ACOA took away the livelihoods from Atlantic Canadians and Quebeckers and substituted it with a fistful of dollars, actually one-tenth of one per cent of the EI surplus fund.

Will the minister get away from this handout mentality and give these people a hand up by involving them directly and actively in rebuilding the resource?

[Fisheries, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans closed the cod fishery to fishermen in parts of Atlantic Canada while refusing to deal substantively with other mitigating factors, such as foreign overfishing which he did not even mention, the rapidly growing seal herds, bycatch and gear types.

Why do Canadian fishermen and plant workers have to be the only ones to pay for government incompetence and will the minister tell us how he proposes to set up seal exclusion zones?

[Social Condition, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the member for Sherbrooke for bringing forward this motion, which we solidly support. There cannot be any excuse for discrimination in Canada. All too often those less fortunate or those of a different ethnic origin are left to fend for themselves. We as a people must do all we can to ensure that discrimination is eliminated in Canada.

While the motion is not a comprehensive plan to eliminate discrimination in all its facets, it is an excellent first start, which would have a deep impact upon the federal civil service and organizations that fall under federal legislation.

The Canadian Human Rights Act governs employment and the provision of goods and services by the federal government and federally regulated businesses. These organizations employ about 11% of the workforce. The vast majority of small businesses, schools and religious or cultural organizations fall under provincial or territorial laws which would not be affected by the addition of social condition to the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Section 3(1) of the act lays out the definition of discrimination, which includes discrimination based upon race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted. The motion would see social condition added to the definition.

There are a number of important issues to consider when dealing with what would essentially be an amendment to the act, the first of which deals with the definition of social condition.

In 1999, the Minister of Justice established an independent panel to review the Canadian Human Rights Act. This was the first review of the act since its inception in 1977. That is a period of 22 years.

The panel's mandate was to determine if the law had kept pace with the evolution of human rights and equality principles, both at home and abroad. In June, 2000, the panel released its report, “Promoting Equality: A New Vision”, in which it made 165 recommendations. Among those recommendations was the addition of social condition to section 3 of the act. That is why it is so surprising that, having had such a thorough review over such a long period of time to try to bring the act into modern day language, we find government basically saying no, it cannot do it.

Currently the only other Canadian human rights act to include social condition in regard to human rights legislation is in the Province of Quebec. However, several other provincial and territorial governments do include narrower grounds that fall within the area of social condition such as, for example, source of income, receipt of public assistance and social origin. Some attempts have been made provincially to address this extremely serious issue.

During its consultations, the panel heard more about poverty than any other single issue. That brings forth very clearly how important this issue is in the country. It concluded that protecting the most destitute in Canadian society against discrimination was essential. According to the panel, like other grounds for discrimination, poverty is often unavoidable for those affected and is often beyond their control. Moreover, characteristics such as poverty and low level of education have historically been associated with patterns of disadvantage.

In its review, the panel put together areas of federal jurisdiction which discriminate based upon social condition. These areas include the banking industry, the telecommunications industry and housing on Indian reserves. According to the panel, discrimination in these areas could be eliminated if social condition were added to the act.

The Liberal government made child poverty a priority when it took office in the early 1990s. Like so many other Liberal promises, a solution to the problem went unfulfilled. Despite years of economic growth, Canada's child poverty rate is largely unchanged and those who are poor are in fact getting poorer.

A study by the Canadian Council on Social Development outlined the increasing gap between Canada's rich and poor. Wealth is defined as a family's assets minus its debts, with assets including such items as houses, cars, stocks and bonds. The wealth of the poorest 20% of couples with children under 18 went down by 51.4% between 1984 and 1999, whereas that of the wealthiest 20% of couples increased by 42.7%. With such a staggering gap between lower and higher income levels it becomes incumbent upon government to recognize the problem in the context of discrimination.

Race, religion, sexual orientation, marital status or social condition should not be the grounds upon which discrimination is based. This is definitely a motion the Progressive Conservative Party can support.

[Iraq, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest needs in Iraq today is hospitals and hospital services.

Is it not time that the government inserted itself into the picture and provided a field hospital and the associated services that the people so badly need?