Loyola Hearn

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member talk about his riding and some of the concerns, similar to my own area. I appreciate all that. I listened to him talk about the concerns people have about the act. I agree with that. I also heard him mention that provincial ministers had expressed concern. I remind him that the ministers from British Columbia, Yukon, Nunavut, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have all publicly supported the act and have asked him and others to get on with the job for which they came here.

Imagine taking any piece of legislation, going around the country and consulting with everybody who wants to have a say in it. We would never get anything done. The member and I were elected to come here to deal with legislation.

We have had consultations for 139 years on this very act. Since 1992, 15 years, we have had all kinds of consultations. For the 13 years, the member's party was in power. It did not have the intestinal fortitude to introduce a solid piece of legislation. We need changes. He has agreed that there are a lot of good things. Let us get them in here and change the few minuscule things that he says need to be changed.

I agree we can make changes, but I have yet to have anybody, including the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, explain to me any part of the bill which cannot be clarified and explained to his or anybody else's satisfaction. It is just a charade, playing games and trying to hoist, which is what members opposite have done, a good initiative. Let us move it on to committee where the members can really do a job if they are serious.

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the exchange between the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and my colleague, it amazes me how the NDP member, during the first few months that we were talking about the bill, went around saying that we were going to give away the fish and privatize it. The people in the field educated him when he would not listen to us that it was not the intent at all. In fact, we said here in the House that we were more than willing to use the exact wording in the bill that the courts used.

The member talked about no consultation. I think the last time a change was made was back in the days of Bernard Valcourt, a good Conservative fisheries minister, and nothing has been done minuscularly ever since.

Consultations have been held since a new bill was attempted to be introduced in the House by then Minister Crosbie at the time. Ever since then for 15 years consultations have been held across the country on ways to improve the act demanded by the people in the field.

Consequently, saying that no consultations have been held, of course not on the act, nor on the bill. We are not allowed to go out with the bill, as the member well knows but has not learned yet.

On top of that, he talked about the fact that we cannot make amendments as we moved forward. Of course we can. We just need to look at the clean air act or the Federal Accountability Act to see all the amendments that can be made. Some amendments need to be made and we will make some because of the demand from the field.

The hoist motion would kill the bill. We cannot take the bill out around the country and the member has been here long enough to know the difference. Maybe my colleague would like to comment on that.

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his remarks about the bill. I believe he and his colleagues are starting to learn that even though there may be certain things in the bill with which they do not agree or with which they have concerns, and I appreciate that because it has always been that way and that is why we developed the legislation, he has admitted that there is a lot of good in the bill.

In every fishing province, the ministers and the governments involved have said to get on with it, get this bill to committee so we can get into the nuts and bolts and make the changes.

I want to refer quickly to a couple of things the hon. member mentioned. He talked about his concerns about the tribunal and no recourse to tribunal decisions. There is recourse. If a decision is made that will negatively affect somebody, there is the Federal Court. The main reason the tribunal was put in place was to have an arm's length, independent group that would take the politics out of who gets the licence and who does not. I am sure the hon. member would agree with me that too often in the past we saw games played along those lines.

In relation to the word “transfer”, I fully appreciate his concern. However, there is no change at all from the old act, none whatsoever. Transfer is just a term of practice. We cancel a licence and reissue it to somebody else, because the person receiving the licence has to be somebody who qualifies. He has to be a core fisherman. We just cannot transfer a licence on a whim to somebody who is not connected. That is the problem in the fishery, where people are trying to get other people out of it so that those who remain can make a living. The wording in the new bill in clause 30(1) is the same as the fishing regulations in the old act. The word “practice”, to practice itself on change, but if there is wording that can give the member more security, absolutely. It is not crucial that it has to be written like that if it is not clear.

On the other issues he talked about in relation to trust agreements and so on, we are aware of that. We have had discussions with groups. Some I have sympathy with, some I do not. As the member knows, people took advantage of that over the years for personal gain. People involved in the fishery want to benefit from it. They do not want people who are not necessarily connected raking in profits when they should be going to those on the ground. There are things that can be done, but these are done in regulations. They have nothing to do with the act, so--

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, ever since I have been in the House, at this time of year there would be a barrage of questions, complaints, protests and even motions about foreign overfishing. This year we have not heard a peep.

Since the new regulations were brought in, we have had one serious infringement. It occurred last week with a Spanish vessel, which has now been ordered back to Spain. Our inspectors were there to observe the offloading. Spain moved in immediately and took action, as the new regulations of NAFO say it should.

We have put teeth in NAFO, whereas we had nothing--

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the preparatory work has been done. In order to be able to develop any program to assist anybody, we need to gather the appropriate information.

It would be a lot more beneficial for all of us if people like him who complain would provide some information on behalf of their constituents instead of just complaining.

[Gander International Airport, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we were the ones who initiated an offer to Gander. When we heard that Gander International Airport was in trouble, we had a meeting and brought a number of departments together. We made an offer to Gander to keep it going.

The airport authority rejected the offer, but recently the towns around Gander, Grand Falls, et cetera, got together with the airport authority. They came up again, met with us all, and have now accepted the offer. Right now we are all looking at working together collectively to make sure Gander is there long into the future.

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no argument with what the member says.

There are a number of issues including the tariffs going to European markets. However, we have about a 60% increase this year in the amount that can go in at the lower tariff. We are negotiating a much larger one, which will happen. We are also looking at other things we can do in relation to fee reduction, et cetera.

These things cannot happen overnight. What can happen is that the industry can do the same thing it is doing in the other provinces and that is to treat the workers fairly.

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member made it quite clear, I believe, in his introductory sentence what it is all about. He talked about the conflict between fishers and processors.

That is exactly what it is. Fishermen in New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador are making a deal with their processors and getting a half decent price.

The fishers cannot do it in Quebec. It is up to them. In the meantime, I understand the minister from Quebec is involved, meeting with them and maybe even the premier.

Certainly, we are ready and willing to cooperate, but we cannot solve the fishers' and industry's problem. They have to solve it themselves.

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. The northeast coast of Newfoundland has experienced the worst ice we have seen in probably 30 years. It was evident by the number of sealing vessels trapped over the last few weeks.

We have had discussions with various ministers who would be involved in such a program. We are aware of it. Yesterday, I spoke to the president of the union and we had a discussion on possibilities.

We are monitoring the situation and, if help is needed, help will be provided.

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's frustration, especially when he sees the neighbouring provinces paying a much better price for shrimp. In fact, many of the people from Quebec are going to Newfoundland to sell their shrimp simply to get a better a price. His beef should be with the processors in Quebec.

However, it is a very serious problem that we will not dismiss. We certainly will look into it to see if there is any part we can play to make life a bit easier for the shrimpers.