Loyola Hearn

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are presently witnessing the confusion created throughout the country by the government in relation to the way it is handling the Kyoto issue.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is also creating concern and confusion in the way it operates.

Last week the minister leaked to his leaky caucus his intention to close the Atlantic cod fishery. Where is the plan to address the crisis?

This week we hear that the same department is removing 15 fog horns along the Vancouver coast against the advice of all those involved and affected. Where is the plan?

The government is proceeding in the same way it is proceeding on Kyoto. No plan. As Yogi Berra once said, “It's déjà vu all over again”.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first make a couple of points. Certainly Quebec benefits greatly from good, clean power from Newfoundland and Labrador, which is to Quebec's advantage and hopefully to our advantage. I also agree with him fully when he says that ratification and implementation are two entirely different things.

However, if the government opposite is completely ignoring the provinces in relation to the ratification, despite their wishes and the wishes of many of us on this side, does he have any degree of satisfaction that the government will recognize the provinces and their concerns when it comes to the implementation?

[Human Resources Development, November 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources Development has outreach offices scattered around the country providing a great service.

Right now in the Avalon Peninsula of Newfoundland, the minister's staff is cutting back services in three of the offices to save a measly $30,000.

How can the minister justify this when her department is spending $16 million to replace computers that are perfectly good?

[Petitions, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from approximately 170 people from the St. John's, Mount Pearl and Conception Bay South areas calling upon Parliament to focus its legislative support for adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illness and disease of suffering Canadians.

[Points of Order, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute to the debate. Perhaps I can best do so by answering the question of the parliamentary secretary. We have before the House a motion. It reads:

That this House call upon the government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

A short while ago this motion was dealt with and finalized in the House. I stress these words because of what Erskine May states, that before the Kyoto protocol is ratified by the House, which is what the government motion today asks us to do, there should be an implementation plan that Canadians understand, that sets out the benefits how the targets are to be reached and with what costs.

The motion is clear and succinct, and was passed by this very House. The motion was dealt with. Here we have part of the same motion, regardless of whether Parliament has to deal with Kyoto or not, that does not make any difference. What makes the difference is there is a resolution on the floor that is similar to one that has already been dealt with by the House.

The Speaker recently argued that the motion that was put forth by the Alliance was in order because a similar one put forth by the government had not been dealt with by the House. Time ran out before the vote.

Erskine May states that a motion or an amendment may not be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has been decided in the affirmative or negative during the current session. We have dealt with a motion that is similar in substance. Consequently, the motion cannot be brought forward today.

[Hazardous Products Act, November 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-260, a private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act. I thank the hon. member for Scarborough East for bringing this important matter to the House of Commons.

Let me state from the outset the bill deals with property damaged caused by careless smoking, but most important, it deals with saving lives. That is why I congratulate the member. This initiative could save lives if it creates an awareness within people who are careless with cigarettes.

I will use a statistic on careless smoking that is actually 10 years old so today it would be much more relevant and careless smoking would be much more costly. In 1992, careless smoking in Canada accounted for 68 fatalities, 385 injuries, $37 million in damages and 3,199 fires.

How often have we heard that a fire was caused because somebody dropped a cigarette? How often have we heard that somebody went out, had a few drinks, came home, sat back to watch television, lit a cigarette and let it drop on the carpet or on the sofa and there was a fire? In fact, the biggest cause of fatalities in the home is careless smoking.

On average, Canadians consume approximately 56 billion cigarettes annually and the damage caused by them is substantial. There are 56 billion cigarettes in the hands of individuals and they are sometimes used carelessly.The bill certainly is not trying to say “do not smoke”. The bill is simply trying to create a greater awareness about the dangers of using what is potentially a death causing agent.

Essentially the bill would compel the Minister of Health to report to Parliament and explain why the Hazardous Products Act should or should not be amended to include cigarettes under the category of flammability standards. Clearly this is an issue that affects the entire country, regardless of age or region.

Further, Mr. Speaker, you would no doubt agree that saving lives of smokers and non-smokers alike is of significant public interest and of interest to all of us here in this chamber this morning. Saving lives is one thing. Saving property is something else.

One of the major concerns we have in certain parts of the country today, particularly in our home province of Newfoundland, and particularly again in the city of St. John's, is that insurance companies are telling people that they will no longer insure their homes. The cost of replacement is so high that, first, many of them now will not take on new clients, and second, they are even telling certain people that they will no longer carry their coverage. Other companies are saying they will do a deal, that if people give them all their other insurance, for their cars or whatever, they probably will take a look at their homes. One of the reasons for that is the amount of high value claims, and of course one of the reasons we have such claims is the careless use of cigarettes.

This is an extremely important subject to be talking about. It is unfortunate that we have so little time to talk about it, because at the end of the hour we have to move on; however, move on to what? I guess that is the question we should ask. Anybody looking at the Order Paper for the next few days or weeks would realize that government has practically nothing to bring forth. That is why today it is rushing in the Kyoto resolution. In fact, I think the Minister of the Environment will introduce a resolution that the House call upon the government to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

Meanwhile, as we speak, I believe, the premiers from across the country are talking by teleconference to try to find common solutions to their dilemma. If they can be found, the House might be able to agree unanimously to ratify the Kyoto protocol, but we have no idea of what is happening.

Consequently, that is why I do not think the resolution should be introduced this morning. That is why I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has indicated that he will probably close the cod fishery in most of Atlantic Canada. Will he assure the House that instead of just forbidding Newfoundland fishermen to fish, he will also deal with the other issues, including the ballooning seal herds, bycatch and foreign overfishing which also affect the growth of the stocks?

[Newfoundland and Labrador, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is no news to the House that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is going through a very difficult time. Just during this past week, we have become aware that government intends to close down the cod fishery. We are not saying whether that is right or wrong. That will be debated.

However, at the same time other departments of government are also tightening the screws on the people of Newfoundland. For example, the Department of Human Resources Development is closing down or cutting back on services in rural areas to save a minuscule $30,000. It says that some of the work done in the rural areas does not fit the regulations precisely. This is a complete and utter embarrassment because the offices, particularly at this time, are so essential.

I ask the minister responsible to please look at the decisions that have been made by officials and act responsibly.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is too bad there is only a minute because there are a lot of members over here with questions.

I have never heard such tripe in all my life. To pretend that we are wasting time here when the House leader, the one who dictates the agenda, is the very one who commandeered us into discussing this motion. I agree that it is useless. It is up to the government to implement parliamentary reform.

I just wonder--

[Business of the House, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader.

Some time ago in answer to other questions about when Kyoto was coming before the House, he made it quite clear that he first wanted to discuss it with the first ministers. I wonder if that is going to take place. Is there a meeting planned for the weekend that we do not know about or is the government going ahead without such consultations?