Loyola Hearn

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Or the income for seniors.

[Fisheries, October 11th, 2002]

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

Every minister of fisheries associated with the north Atlantic clearly states that the main problem facing our fisheries today is a complete lack of scientific information.

In light of this, would the minister tell the House why the department is proposing to take one of three research vessels, the Wilfred Templeman , out of service?

[Marine Atlantic, October 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Transport filled four vacancies on the board of Marine Atlantic. This service exists solely for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a service to that province.

The minister appointed three people from Nova Scotia and one person from New Brunswick to the board but not one from Newfoundland and Labrador. Common sense dictates that those directly affected would have more knowledge and interest in the service.

The regional minister defends his colleague's political appointments by stating that we do not need Newfoundlanders on the board. It is time for the regional minister to properly represent his province. Wake up, Mr. Minister, Newfoundland has been “byrned” again.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has told us that she has other very interesting information. What is it?

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, October 10th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question for my hon. colleague. In light of the concerns and everyone's conversion into making sure that we have a clean environment in the future, does the hon. member think that the federal government should be encouraging wind power in certain parts of the country?

Specifically Newfoundland and Labrador has tremendous hydro resources. There has been very little encouragement or backing from the federal government in relation to development or any concern about making sure that power is kept for our Canadian use.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when the government prepares the prepared text for the backbenchers, who get up and praise government, how much detail does it give to the members in relation to the topics they talk about?

The member just talked about the investment in health care. Would he tell us if the government will be looking at the discrepancies which exist in the country? If he was around last night, he would have heard me talk about the problems being faced right now in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Doctors are on strike, mainly because there is not enough money to pay them competitively with doctors in Atlantic Canada, not to say the rest of the country.

We get the bulk of our health care funding through the CHST formula, which means on a per capita basis. Every other province has either a stable or an increasing population. Newfoundland has a rapidly declining population. This means fewer dollars compared to everybody else to maintain the same plan. Not only that, the people who are leaving are the young and healthy. Those left behind require greater expenditure. We get fewer dollars, have greater expenditures and a big, rough geographic area to service.

Will the government address discrepancies such as this as it moves ahead with its health care plans?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in light of my friend's recent remarks, does he believe that if the government or any government believed that strong regions or strong provinces would eventually create a much stronger unit, a much stronger country, we would all be much better off?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a topic which has been raised two or three times this morning in dealing with the cost of post-secondary education. The point that seems to come out in debate is the cost of tuition and how people work to pay their tuition. That is all well and good.

However, if people do not live near the university town, they need more than tuition. Tuition is only a small portion of the total cost of a post-secondary education. The real costs result from having to get an apartment and having to furnish that apartment, having to buy food, as well as the costs of travel.

Most post-secondary education courses during the year will cost an individual who comes from other than the university town around $15,000 or $16,000. A maximum student loan does not even come close to that. Unless parents can help, students cannot receive an education. It is not the costs they have on their shoulders when students come out, it is that they cannot even afford to go.

Does the member, serving part of a rural area, find that many of his young people are having problems accessing proper post-secondary education?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, over the couple of years that I have been here I have listened to the member quite often. One thing we can all say about him is that he speaks from the heart and is extremely concerned about the area which he represents. In totality it is not entirely unlike the area which I represent. He has seasonal employment. It is certainly not considered one of the richest regions in the country.

One of the peeves I have about the throne speech is that there is absolutely no mention made of investing in our young people. If we are ever going to get away from the poverty cycle, we are not going to do it by adjusting the child tax credit and giving families an extra $10 or $20 a month. That is not going to do it. We can do it by investing in our youth. I would like to ask the member if he agrees with that, with government investment in our youth so that they can obtain a proper post-secondary education, one they can afford. Right now, if they do not live near a university or in a university town or if their parents are not wealthy, chances are they may not get a post-secondary education. They cannot afford it.

If we invest in our youth, down the road we avoid the unemployment cycle. We avoid the heavy health care costs. We get great returns by investing up front. I would like to ask the member what he would think of an idea such as that.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words on this important debate tonight which was started by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, our leader, stating again that the opposition party, which is supposed to be the fifth party in the House, has been the one to drive the agricultural issue. We are all very proud to be part of it.

I have been listening to the speeches from the various members, all of them undoubtedly speaking from the heart. Many of them come from the areas affected by the drought and grasshopper problem in western Canada this year.

Before I go on I wish to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River.

Those of us who live in the areas that do not have a large farming component may find it hard to understand how difficult it is. However, there are many comparisons. On a previous occasion when I was debating an agricultural issue which was asked for and granted to our party I asked why someone who comes primarily from a fishing area would talk about agriculture. There are similarities.

The devastation that we see facing the west because of the farming crisis is similar to the one that we have been trying to educate the House about as it relates to Atlantic Canada, particularly to Newfoundland and Labrador, in relation to the fishery. We also have a large farming component in our province. In my own district we have several large dairy farms. We have vegetable farmers and consequently they are affected by the elements of nature, but more affected by government policy.

I want to touch on a couple of issues that have not been raised directly tonight, but affect the people in the west who are facing this crisis the same way it affects our people in the east.

The first is in relation to land mass. One of the major problems facing our dairy farmers is the accessibility to land. Some time ago I wrote the minister with some suggestions and I must say his response, even though it was not directly to the questions raised, showed that he had some interest in the topic.

In Atlantic Canada and undoubtedly in the west, as has been mentioned by a number of the speakers, there are a number of people who want to get out of the farming business. In some cases it is because of frustration about the costs, the time and effort they have to put into it, the returns, and the lack of government assistance. Those of us who have been around for a while realize how important it is to have the food that is produced in areas of our country protected. If we do not protect our fish and agricultural areas, how will we feed the population of the country?

We know full well what it costs to buy products from outside the country, particularly if we find that they have problems in their own areas. Imagine if we had to buy the staples that we use everyday that are produced in our country what it would cost us to live. We should protect every single inch of agricultural land we have in this country. We should encourage the people who farm to continue to farm. When it reaches the stage that they no longer want to farm, then we should ensure that the land that is rich, developed and capable of yielding the new product be available to those who want to continue farming.

The example I was using was related to a number of young aggressive dairy farmers. One of the problems we find is that we do not have a lot of good, rich, agricultural land. Some farmers are travelling in excess of 100 miles from their home base to farm on small tracts of land that they acquired from people in different parts of the province. Yet right next to them, in many cases, we have farms not being used any more because the people who own them want to get out of the business. They are older, they are retiring, or for some other reason they do not want to continue farming.

Because the land is termed agricultural land it has a low value even though it is considered rich, prime real estate in an area or areas where the land could be used for development. The owners of the land could become wealthy people. However, because it is under a land freeze, as it should be, I have no argument with that, their hands are tied. We assist farmers to develop crown land, rocks, brush and whatever. It takes years to make that land profitable. Right next to them is this rich, fertile land ready for farming. Farmers cannot afford to buy the land at the price it should be worth. The government will not assist them. The land is not sold because it is the owner's only means of retirement, it is his or her lifetime investment. Thus we have a stalemate.

If we combine what the new, young aggressive farmer can offer with what the federal and provincial governments offer in different forms of subsidy and zero in on providing land that is readily available everybody would win. However, we are told that regulations do not permit us to do this; regulations do not permit us to do that.

I say regulations should be developed that put together a policy that makes sense and is practical so that people who want to get out of farming can do so, and yet have something to show for their lifelong investment in the land.

A fisherman who buys a fishing licence and eventually decides to give up fishing can now sell it for a high price. A groundfish licence can command anywhere from $100,000 up to $300,000 in some areas, with the government buying up many of them to get native people and so on into the fishery. The government justifies it by saying that individuals have to have something for their efforts as they retire.

I have no argument with that, but what about the farmers who invest their lifelong sweat equity into a piece of land that is theirs and when they want to sell they are told that this is only agricultural property. They are told it is of low value. They must sell it to the government at what it will offer them, which is very little, a pittance, or the government will charge them taxes if they do not rent it to somebody else.

The policies and programs are there. If properly moulded together to be able to buy that property at a reasonable price from the person who wants to get out, and deliver it to the person who is ready and willing to use it, he or she can move forward without any difficulty whatsoever.

The one other thing is an environmental problem that we face. Many of our farms are being surrounded by new developments. As cities expand they encroach upon the farming areas. The farms are there first but the city or the housing developments move in. In the old days we realized a farm was a farm and we put up with the smell, or a fish plant was a fish plant and we put up with the smell because it provided employment in our area. Times have changed.

Once they move too close to a farm people complain about the environmental conditions, whether it be the smell or the affluent that runs off the farmland because of the manure and the nutrients which affect the water supplies. This is becoming an extremely dangerous situation for the farmers because now the environmentalists, and people generally, are encroaching upon them saying that the farm is polluting the water system. They are told to stop using manure in their fields or they must stop using a certain type of nutrient. Basically what they are told is that they must stop farming.

There are challenges for the government above and beyond just providing financial subsidies. Unless government takes our resource sectors, our farming and our fisheries, seriously and develops sensible and sound policies, we are in for a rough ride. It is no wonder people are moving away from these industries. As I said, if they do, it is to our loss.

I will now turn the floor over to my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River.