Loyola Hearn

[Privilege, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few brief words to the question of privilege with which I agree. The government tabled supplementary estimates at the time when it knew there would be no time to examine them in committee, perhaps one 90 minute meeting.

This delay and the promised statement further impedes the House and the committees by holding back information during the time meant for the procedure of committee scrutiny. This is another example of keeping the House in the dark, just what the Auditor General said was the cardinal sin of the government.

Yesterday I complained about alterations to the budget being made outside the House. A budget was presented but the Prime Minister went out and said, no, that was not what it was, that it was something else. This is more of the same conduct.

This proves that the words of the Minister of Finance about accountability to Parliament are just words and not actions. We are left with the words of the former minister of finance who said that there was a democratic deficit in Parliament.

[Points of Order, February 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, during question period on Friday past, the government House leader accused the hon. member for South Shore and the Progressive Conservative caucus of breaching the provisions of an embargo on the statement made later on Friday by the Minister of Justice concerning the firearms registry.

First, I would point out that my caucus has been leading the fight for more statements to be made in the House by ministers. It would hardly serve our interests or the interests of Parliament to violate the embargo by which we are given advance access to the minister's words in order for us to provide a coherent and informed response to what the minister is to say in the House.

Second, I have determined that the member for South Shore had no access to the embargoed statement before the Minister of Justice rose in the House. There was a violation of the embargoed information, but it was not from anyone associated with this caucus.

Let me quote from three short news stories that were carried in the media before question period began on Friday. Hansard shows that the Speaker called for oral questions at 11:15. Broadcast News carried a report at 10:45 as follows:

Responsibility for the federal gun control program is about to be shifted. Sources say the Justice Minister Martin Cauchon will announce today that it will be administered by the Solicitor General, who's responsible for the RCMP.

At 10:57, another account from Broadcast News reports statements made by “a bureaucrat”. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, “bureaucrat” is not a description that anyone would give the member for South Shore. The statement reads:

Responsibility for the federal gun control program is about to be shifted. Sources say Justice Minister Martin Cauchon will announce today it will be administered by the Solicitor General who's responsible for the RCMP. The program is expected to cost one billion dollars--500 times its original cost estimate.

The gun control registry has been denied further money by Parliament, but critics note it continues to function. A bureaucrat, asking not to be identified, says the Solicitor General's Department is a natural fit for gun control because of its day-to-day contact with law enforcement. Responsibility will be transferred from the Justice Department on April 1st.

At 11:07, again before question period, there is another story and it is similar to the original one so I will not repeat it, but it is here. Let me repeat an important sentence, “A bureaucrat, asking not to be identified, says the Solicitor General's Department is a natural fit...” Those words are important.

In his news conference following the ministerial statement in the House the Solicitor General, reading from a prepared text, said, “...it only makes sense to move it to the Solicitor General portfolio; it is a natural fit...”, and a few sentences later he said, “it is a good fit with the police services”.

In this case, the glove fits. And since the glove fits the government there can be no acquittal. A reasonable person would conclude that the words of the anonymous bureaucrat and the Solicitor General match because the same person was familiar with both texts.

It is clear the embargo had been breached by the spinners from the Government of Canada, not by the member for South Shore. The government used an embargo to silence members of Parliament and then breach the agreement itself. The government House leader's response was to attack the integrity of members of the House without providing evidence of his charge against the member for South Shore.

The member for South Shore had asked a question on this exact topic on Thursday. The minister's answer was less than informative. It was perfectly natural that when he saw the report of a change of policy the member for South Shore would again ask a question based on news media reports. He was shown the media reports and asked his question.

I was the member of our caucus who was in possession of the advance copy. I received it by fax at 10:08. I believe there are other members of the House who can say they received calls from the media at 10 o'clock asking for comment and with sufficient detail that it is reasonable to conclude that the embargo had not been respected by the government.

I should add that no one saw the copy that our party received except me.

On Friday, the leader of the government accused the member for South Shore of breaching a solemn undertaking. He said:

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in only a few weeks that we have had an instance on the floor of the House where members have been given a document under embargo and before the embargo has expired it is being raised in question period.

This is despicable. The hon. member should know that this is wrong. It goes against all our rules which we are all called upon to respect.

On Friday, after question period, the member for South Shore indicated that he drew his question from media reports that were available before the beginning of question period. He had not seen nor was he aware of the embargo statement. He was following up on his previous day's question on public information, information that came from government in violation of its own embargo.

I agree with the government House leader, this is despicable, but it is not the conduct of the member for South Shore that is despicable. The heated the words of the government House leader should be withdrawn and an apology offered.

What is more, we expect the government to give an undertaking that it will stop the practice of trying to silence members of the House by the use of embargoed documents while its own officials violate the embargo themselves.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the passion exemplified by the member. He is talking about something that is happening in his area which is directly connected to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Yukon is known for its mining, its wildlife and its fishery. We have the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at present that does not know or understand why or how these people live and operate. What is worse, it does not care. It goes in with its bureaucratic regulations, undoubtedly concocted down the street here, where several hundred congregate, rather than going out and getting the experience necessary to make the right rules and regulations.

Several hundred people in Yukon could be put out of employment and their livings could be taken away because of the nonsensical bureaucratic regulations being made by the department. Once again it comes back to what we talked about, a lack of scientific knowledge of what is going on around the country, whether it be offshore in Newfoundland, the Great Lakes or placer mining in Yukon.

Could the member tell us how the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could settle this issue for the benefit, not to the detriment, of his constituents?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, when the member was speaking he mentioned the hake fishery. I want to compare that to what is happening in Newfoundland.

Let me also thank the member, who was a great contributor to our committee, for coming to Newfoundland last year and listening to the presenters and, from that, gained a great knowledge of our fishery, our problems and our challenges, and has been very supportive.

In British Columbia the hake fishery has changed. Right now more of it is being landed and processed locally, creating jobs on shore. In Newfoundland with our shrimp resource, which is abundant, very little work is created on shore. Even with our crab now, which is harvested and brought to shore, it is mainly exported in sections, and certainly the meat is not extruded as it was before, or cooked, and employment has gone down considerably.

Does the hon. member think, where at all possible, that regulations should be put in place to make sure we maximize every possible job, any that we can extrude from a resource, for the people who are adjacent to that resource?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the quite capable and competent chair of our standing committee a couple of questions in relation to the invasive species.

He mentioned the group that spoke about green crabs in committee. In Newfoundland and Labrador we do not have green crabs. We may see a few perhaps the day after St. Patrick's Day, but other than that, we do not have any. It is becoming a concern in New Brunswick. Could the member elaborate on the effect of such a species on the feeding grounds for lobsters which was the main concern?

There is a common theme in what many members are talking about tonight, which is a complete lack of science. We do not know what is going on in the Great Lakes. We do not know enough about invasive species and it will be to our loss. Does the member think that if we were to beef up our scientific knowledge, not only by an infusion of money, but by some way bringing together that great advice and scientific information that is out there, that we would all be a lot better off?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one or perhaps two questions of my colleague.

Does he think the government should allow fishers to continue to fish, or perhaps provide them with some federal programs? Does he think the government invests enough money on the scientific level to know what it is doing with the fishery?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member talked about those who fish for need and those who fish for greed.

When I was growing up, a fisherman was somebody who went out in the boat, caught fish, sold the fish and gained maximum profit, such as it was in those days, 2¢ a pound perhaps. The fisherman got the maximum benefit from catching the resource.

Today every fisherman has to be licensed. Every person with a licence is certainly not a fisherman. Therein lies the major problem. The process has been so manipulated that large corporations, people with money, are buying up licences. They have other people front for them in the boat who obtain the minuscule part of the share. They are really destroying the whole process.

The beneficiaries of catching a resource should be the primary people who are involved, the fishermen themselves. The profits should not be spent in Florida.

Is that situation the same in his area? What does the member think about it? What can we do to change it?

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, that is a serious question. Again that is right. If government had only listened to, and I will not say the committee because what the committee was bringing to government was the same as what our own committee brought to government, the views of the people as presented to them in the various hearings. Nobody knows how to solve the problems better than those faced with the problems every day.

Unfortunately with some of the committees in the past, reports were put together, submitted even unanimously and then people voted against them in the House. That has not been the case with our present committee. It does not matter to which party members belong, we have stood by and supported the recommendations strongly and hoped the government would listen.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Mr. Chairman, the member is so right. What Newfoundland and Canada have asked for is just to manage the quotas that are allocated by NAFO so that the other nations that have had rights out there almost as long as we have can continue to fish as long as they obey the rules. In fact, we could benefit from more off-loading and whatever, as long as they obeyed the rules.

The member is right. They were always the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. When we came into Confederation we brought them with us, but Canada changed it and referred to them as the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. It says “o-f-f”, with that extra “f”, but it is not. It is the Grand Banks of Newfoundland without the extra “f”. They are our banks, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I wish I had a couple of hours for this one. The member well knows how near and dear the custodial management and the extension of our boundaries are to me and to the other members of the committee.

If NAFO does not have the teeth to enforce regulations outside the 200 mile limit on the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap, somebody has to do it. Canada is the adjacent state.

A good question to throw out is, why has Russia been able to apply to the United Nations to extend its limit to take in almost half the Atlantic Ocean? There are at least 30 other countries that have bought the specific software for putting in such a request and they are just waiting to see if Russia is successful in getting its boundaries extended. Our government has not taken any kind of action.

Also outside the 200 mile limit on the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap, Canada controls the land base itself. We control the sea bed, what is in it and what moves adjacent to it, the sedentary species. If we have such control, why do we let foreigners drag their heavy doors through our property? Nobody has ever addressed that or taken it to court, and we are told we might have a case.

We have not had any leadership from our country in relation to protecting our resource. It is only fish. I said earlier, a properly managed fishery could turn around the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and contribute significantly to turning around the future of Canada.