Loyola Hearn

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane. He is a good friend of Newfoundland's fishers. He visited Newfoundland with the committee. He knows the problem. He also familiarized himself with our culture and our resource.

I thank my hon. friend who is a very good friend to the fishermen of Newfoundland. I also thank other members who have participated in the debate. It has given us a chance to educate not only the House but the country as to how important the issue is.

My hon. colleague from Matapédia--Matane came to Newfoundland with the committee to listen to the people directly affected by the issue. He listened to people from industry, people from the boats, fish plant workers, people who had been involved in the industry before, politicians of all stripes, union workers, union representatives, government people and others, and especially the mayors of towns that have been decimated by what has happened.

Did my hon. colleague have any idea at all of the magnitude of the problem? How does he perceive it now compared to before he came to visit our great province?

[Vimy Ridge Day Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for responding to my comments. I find it hard to understand where he is coming from. He suggested that we not withdraw from NAFO as recommended by the fisheries committee.

My hon. colleague is a member of that committee which submitted a unanimous report to the House. The main recommendation contained in the report was that we should withdraw from NAFO. Now the member is saying we should not. I find that hard to understand. I presume what my colleague is saying is also what the minister is saying. If that is the case, I am okay with the member but I disagree with his minister.

For 20 years we have gone to NAFO, cap in hand, asking it to recognize what is happening on the nose and tail of the Flemish Cap. All we have received in return is complete and utter disrespect. The violations are getting worse. We have listed more violations over the last few years than previous years, and we are only scratching the tip of the iceberg because of the small amount of surveillance that we have. We must take this issue into our own hands. We have every right to control that area, and we should do so.

[Vimy Ridge Day Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a question quite some time ago concerning a boat that landed in Newfoundland with a tremendous amount of fish which by anybody's standards were undersize.

The minister made it quite clear that the boat and the crew had not broken any regulations. To a degree I guess the minister was right. However, what happened when the boat was brought in and the ensuing actions that were taken, or lack thereof, are what concerned everybody associated with the fishery. It should have concerned the minister and his department but they basically sloughed it off. The minister basically said in the House that what I was saying was not true. We had a little discussion about that later on in the day but the information put forward was true.

The boat had several species, including redfish the size of one's thumb, cod livers in excess of the amount of cod that were involved, and other species that were so small they had to have been caught by undersize gear.

The parliamentary secretary will undoubtedly throw into the mix the fact that outside the 200 mile limit there are species not regulated by NAFO, 3-O redfish being one. It is load and go and if they can be scooped up in the capelin seine without getting caught, there is nothing wrong with it. Even when someone does get caught, nobody can do anything about it.

Some of the species were there because of bycatch which were allowed to be caught because they were unregulated species. Despite that, there was enough circumstantial evidence found in that catch to show that the manifest itself was way out of whack regardless of ensuing comments by the department and the skipper involved. Anybody knowing anything about fish knew that the boat was breaking the rules on the fishing grounds.

It is a resource giveaway. We have heard so much about it certainly in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are resource rich but financially poor because we have given away our resources time and again, be they hydro, minerals or forest products. We have given everybody else a great deal and have received little from the development of the resources.

There is oil off our coast which at some time will end. At some time all of the minerals will have been taken out of the ground. If the forests are protected they will keep on going but they are minimal compared to the rest. However, we can always have the fishery as we have had in the past, if we look after it.

From the lack of concern to the giveaways it is impossible to understand the direction the department is taking.

When the parliamentary secretary responds maybe he could clear up the rumour that is floating around that tomorrow or very soon,the minister will announce another giveaway of Newfoundland shrimp to P.E.I. or perhaps others. Again we have resources with which we should be careful. If there is an increase it should go to those participating in the fishery who are making meagre incomes. Quite often it is not worth their while to gear up to fish these species.

The department has to be much more cognizant of what is happening in the industry. The committee is creating awareness. All we need are the members of the committee to stand on the principles that we brought before the House. Certainly that was not in evidence today.

It has to happen. Canadians must stand up for Canadians and preserve our resources. It does not matter what part of the country they come from we should always look after each other because we can be sure no one will look after us.

[Vimy Ridge Day Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to take part in this important debate. My party, like all the others, will certainly be supporting the motion. We do not do enough to honour the war dead, the many people who gave their lives so that we could have the freedom that we have.

Some of what I had planned to say tonight has already been said by my colleague from the NDP. I was told not to trust those people because they will take everything I have and that is exactly what she did. She stole my words because the description of the battle is so vivid in that piece of writing. I am sure everyone who read it wanted to use it in their speeches.

However, the member omitted part of the total presentation. There was a lead up which, in light of her speech, if we analyze it, was earth shattering when we looked at the number of Canadians who participated and who were injured. There were 10,000 casualties and over 3,500 dead. That equates to the number killed on September 11. We know how the world was affected by that great disaster. In one morning at Vimy Ridge that number of Canadians were killed in one short battle. The lead up reads:

It was at Vimy, in 1917, that all four Divisions of the Canadian Corps attacked simultaneously for the first (and last) time, about 100,000 men taking part in the battle.

If the Minister of National Defence had been here, it would have been be very interesting to have asked him this. If there were a major battle somewhere in the world tomorrow, could he put together 100,000 Canadians in one battle? I am sure we would have some problems with the support that the government presently gives the people involved in the forces.

It goes on:

Vimy Ridge was an important part of the Germans' defences, barring the way to the mines and factories in the Douai plain which had been of great use to them in their continuation of the war.

They were basically very near their supply chain.

It goes on:

The very nature of the Ridge gave it strong, built-in defence, but these natural defences had been supplemented by strong-points, elaborate trench-systems and underground tunnels linking natural caves. All previous Allied attempts to capture the Ridge had failed, and there was a strong body of opinion among the Allied commanders that the Ridge was possibly impregnable and incapable of ever being taken by a direct attack.

Preparations for the battle were thorough and extremely detailed. Behind their lines, the Canadians built a full-scale replica of the ground over which their troops would have to attack, giving all units the chance to practice their attacking movements and so understand what they (and neighbouring units) were expected to do on the day. Regular reconnaissance patrols, assisted by information gathered from aerial photography, meant that records of changes to the German defences on the Ridge were always up-to-date. Tunnellers dug subterranean passages under the Ridge - a total of five kilometres in all on four levels - allowing the attacking troops to move close to their jumping-off positions in some safety. Once the battle had begun, these same tunnels allowed the wounded to be brought back under cover and also provided unseen and safe lines of communications.

I listened to the description of the amount of work and effort and realized we did not have any dozers or backhoes to do it. It was done by individual soldiers realizing the importance of taking this ridge for the preservation of freedom for the free world.

It goes on:

The Infantry attack was preceded by a powerful artillery bombardment which lasted almost three weeks, involving about 1,000 guns, including huge, 15-inch howitzers. For the first two weeks, some guns were not fired at all, so that the Germans would not be able to locate their positions but eventually, these guns joined in the bombardment, too.

Although the shelling was aimed at the German trenches and defensive positions on the Ridge, the Canadians also shelled enemy batteries. They had become adept at locating German gun-positions and had identified the positions of 80 per cent of them.

The hon. member picked up from there and told the rest of the story. It is a story that showed us how the Canadian forces by uniting, when nobody else could do it, claimed the ridge. Many of us who know the story of other war battles think of Beaumont Hamel. The soldiers who fought that battle were not Canadian then but their sons and daughters are Canadian now. Newfoundland soldiers went over the top at Beaumont Hamel and many of them, in fact over 80%, were slaughtered. However the battles were won.

Vimy Ridge was taken and undoubtedly that was one of the turning points in the first world war. Members have mentioned that this battle should be remembered but we should also remember the memory of those people. Unfortunately, as we travel the country, many of the shrines that were built, the legion halls, in memory of the people who died for us are becoming dilapidated because it is very hard to get any assistance to keep them alive.

There is one thing we should do when we talk about our government programs, whether it be ACOA or HRDC or whatever. We have volunteers or sons and daughters of the legionnaires who are still with us trying to preserve these edifices that stand as a testament to them. These should be the first in a line of programs that we support.

Our soldiers did a tremendous amount for us. Let us not forget.

[Infrastructure, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last fall when the then minister of finance brought down his budget it included $2 billion for special infrastructure programs.

In light of this, will the minister responsible for infrastructure tell us what progress has been made in negotiations with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the city of St. John's and surrounding municipalities in relation to the cleanup of St. John's harbour?

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member who spoke and I congratulate you, because the two of you were instrumental in bringing the legislation to the House.

We now have legislation which will receive quick passage because it is a good piece of legislation. Does the hon. member hope, as we do, that it will not simply lie there? Government members could say okay, we have brought in legislation, now we are a great government. Opposition members could say we supported it so we are a great opposition. We cannot let that happen. Once the legislation is in place those of us interested in sport and youth must put pressure on the government to make sure its provisions are enacted so the youth of the country can start benefiting from investment and leadership in sport.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, both are good hockey towns, with Halifax having one of the best attendance records for junior hockey in the country. With our own Maple Leafs, St. John's has always been a very good hockey town.

However, my question for my colleague relates to comments he made as he was closing his remarks. It has always been my firm belief that we have two choices in relation to social investment in the country. We can invest in our youth in sports and education, which will give us a fit, educated, contributing society, or we can neglect to do so, which we have done for several years, and have to pay on the far end with horrendous health and social costs. I would like the member to comment on that to see if he agrees with my statement.

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, those are two pointed issues which have been discussed quite often in the fishery. First, the hon. member addressed the issue of adjacency. Over the years the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, the provinces adjacent to the resource, have not been the only ones to fish it. In relation to almost every resource worldwide the principle of adjacency applies. Those adjacent to the resource are the first and main beneficiaries.

Second, the hon. member spoke about historical attachment. This is where the Spanish, Portuguese and everyone else comes in because they have been fishing these grounds for years. We are not saying in any way that they should not be allowed to do so. All we are asking is that people abide by the rules. Someone has to be the policeman. We are satisfied to do it. It does not cost that much and everyone benefits.

I hope members from Newfoundland and other members will participate in this. The story must be told. It should not be cut off.

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is an exceptionally good question.

Many people including the minister do not understand what custodial management means. All it means is that the adjacent state, in this case Canada, would be the clear custodial manager with the right and duty to environmentally manage the stocks off its coast including those outside the 200 mile limit. We would declare ourselves the manager of the resource. This could be done in consultation with other members of NAFO because they all have quotas in the area that they want to see preserved and protected.

Even those who blatantly abuse the quotas admit that if we destroyed them there would be nothing left. Many countries are conscious of what is happening and of the need for someone to manage the resource. The logical manager is the adjacent state, in this case Canada. If officials in our department of foreign affairs did something besides drink cognac and eat caviar we might get agreement to manage the stocks for the benefit of not only us but all the other countries with quotas provided they operated within the guidelines. As I have said, I think many of them would. It is not a difficult process. It is one that takes a lot of guts, and I am not sure they are there.

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I again congratulate the chairperson. Usually when an opposition member speaks we get negative comments, but the hon. member strongly supports the recommendations more than anyone on the committee.

The committee has heard a lot of comments from Newfoundlanders. I will mention two or three to add to the ones the hon. member mentioned. The Liberal fisheries minister of Newfoundland, with whom I spoke this morning, said before the committee in March:

In summary, NAFO has failed us since its inception in 1978--

This is extremely important. It is why I am glad we are having the debate this morning. As we head into the NAFO meetings this fall, the House generally and governments specifically should be aware of what the report says and what members are saying. If we go to the NAFO meetings with the same frame of mind we have had at past meetings there will be no fish left next year to worry about.

The minister went on to say Canada had failed us as well. The political will, with the exception of a few brief moments in our history, has not existed in Ottawa to deal with foreign overfishing. Trevor Taylor, a member of the house of assembly, said:

I suspect if a tree falls in the forest, nobody hears, and when a fish is caught on the tail or the nose of the Grand Banks, nobody hears. The people of this country are not engaged in what's happening down here.

Luckily, some people are becoming engaged through their members. The final comment I will use is from Allister Hann, the mayor of Burgeo. His town has probably suffered more than any. This is factual. He said:

Rural Newfoundland is dying, particularly my town.

This is pretty hard stuff to listen to but it shows what we can do. What can we do? We can notify NAFO that we are getting out of it. We can notify it that with or without its help we will take custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. If we have the guts to do this we will provide a resource for our people and employment for many years to come.