Loyola Hearn

[The Budget, January 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the points made so eloquently by my colleague. As he was sitting down he referred to agriculture. The beginning of his remarks centred on the unemployment rate.

We have abundant natural resources in this country, two of which are agriculture and fisheries. I could add many more but I will pick just those two. These two industries alone could eliminate unemployment but nothing is being done to develop these great resources. We are paying no attention to the efforts being made by those involved to try to create the type of employment that could be created from such resources.

I would like the member's spin on that. Does he not think a properly developed agricultural industry and the proper use of the lucrative fishing resources would help to reduce the horrendous unemployment rate we presently have and help bring benefits to our country?

[Fisheries, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the groundfish stocks, especially various varieties of flounder, show signs of rebuilding on the Newfoundland Grand Banks. However, constant overfishing by foreigners on the nose and tail is playing havoc with those stocks.

Allowing foreigners to fish shrimp on the Flemish Cap gives them the opportunity to flood the European markets with cooked and peeled shrimp while our producers face a 20% tariff on product going into the same market.

The nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap are extensions of Canada's continental shelf. It is time for Canada to extend management control over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap to protect our resources, our jobs and our people's interests. Let us show some leadership for a change.

Mr. Speaker, may I wish you and my colleagues a very happy Christmas and a happy and productive New Year.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member as he talked about the different potentials for the development of the power that we need in the country. I agree with him that saving a unit of energy is extremely important. He talked about nuclear energy, wind power and energy provided through the burning of oil and other fuels. I do not disagree with a lot of what he said, but he did not talk about another great source of energy that we certainly have in abundance in Newfoundland and Labrador and that is water power.

Perhaps governments should concentrate on developing the Lower Churchill, which would be a benefit not only to us but to our friends in Quebec who have benefited very greatly from the development of the Upper Churchill, taking in close to $1 billion a year while we get about $10 million from it. Even in a fair sharing development project, it would be economically beneficial to both of us and to the whole country because the markets are great and it is a clean, renewable source of power. I wonder what the member thinks of that.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned by the member's lack of concern about the security of the country. Having said that, I wonder what he thinks about the fact that if we fly into any airport in this country we have to go through severe scrutiny; if we drive, as he referred to, we have to line up at the border; but if we have anything from a dory to an ocean liner we can land practically anywhere in the country and nobody knows we are coming unless we call ahead for reservations.

The radar sites in many parts of our country are no longer serviced. The cutbacks to the coast guard have been so severe that they cannot service the sites unless the sites go down. As many radar sites are in remote areas, in the event of bad weather, high winds or whatever, it is sometimes days or weeks before the sites are serviced. How secure do these things make the member feel in relation to the remarks he has made?

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in referring to the couple of little issues dealt with by HRDC, followed by saying that we were a generous nation.

I wonder where her generosity was in dealing with the many people who did not get enough work this fall to qualify for employment insurance. People are waiting to get their Christmas cheques because the minister indicated they would get them. She then sent out a directive saying that they would have to beg and they would get one week.

Where is the generosity? Where is the $40 billion surplus that will not go to help people in need across the country? Businesses and people have contributed but the government goes around bragging about what it is doing. What it is doing is balancing the budget on the backs of those poor people.

[Transportation Services, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Wetaskiwin for introducing a motion that is extremely relevant to my province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am shocked to sit here and listen to the response from the government to such a motion. However it is not unexpected. The treatment we have received from the government opposite on this and practically any other issue has followed the same trend: It is only Newfoundland and Labrador so no one worries too much about it.

In trying to explain why the government would not support the motion the member said that final offer selection creates winners and losers. While the present situation may not create winners it certainly creates losers. The losers are the people who live on the island of Newfoundland.

When Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949 or, as we like to say, when Canada joined us, Newfoundland was supposed to become part of the great dominion. Every other province and territory in the country is joined by road. Newfoundland was given a ferry service that was looked on as an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway. That is some highway.

To get to Newfoundland and Labrador we have two options. First, we can take Air Canada and pay through the nose. If we want to make a return trip flying economy from Ottawa we pay over $1,800 return. Second, we can go by ferry.

In the summer in particular, when traffic is heavy, tourists come because Newfoundland and Labrador is rapidly becoming the best attraction in the country in relation to tourism. People are starting to appreciate the real last frontier. They are starting to appreciate our tremendous hiking trails, our wildlife and our historic sites. Newfoundland is the oldest settled part of North America. The district I represent and the town in which I live was one of the first settled in the whole new world.

Most of all, tourists are starting to appreciate the tremendous friendship and hospitality of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This was exemplified on September 11 when we had many people come to Newfoundland unexpectedly. We had planes landing in St. John's, Gander and other places in the province.

Each spring we get whispers of impending labour troubles with Marine Atlantic. Let us suppose a family is planning to come to Newfoundland and Labrador to visit and tour during the summer, or someone is looking at setting up a business which relies on goods flowing back and forth uninterrupted. What if such a person hears rumours about possible strikes? It happens almost every year. What happens? People change their minds. No one would book a vacation on an island where they must go by ferry if they think the ferry would not be operating when they want to go or come back or maybe both.

The ferry service between Newfoundland and North Sydney must be an essential service. There is no way Newfoundlanders should be held to ransom by anybody. There are provisions within our labour laws to make sure employees who work in the system are treated fairly and squarely and that they are not hung out to dry by any decision of the government to make the service an essential service. That would have to be part of the agreement.

The motion today offers an opportunity to do just that. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that there are several mechanisms to deal with labour disputes including final offer selection. Why go through a process of weeks and months with a ferry service disrupted when these processes can be in place up front to protect workers and not hold to ransom the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

Sometimes we must set priorities. The priorities of the majority here are greater than the priorities of the minority, particularly when we do not need to infringe on the rights of the minority.

A while ago the Canada Industrial Relations Board held three days of hearings in Halifax. For what purpose? It held hearings to determine if the ferry system between Newfoundland and Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, should become an essential service. Is it not a bit funny that hearings to determine whether the ferry system to Newfoundland and Labrador would become an essential service were held in Halifax, in another province?

Some of my colleagues from the Bloc are here. Let us suppose there were a set of hearings to determine the status of an essential service in Quebec but the hearings were held in British Columbia, Ontario or Nova Scotia. How would they react? It would not happen. It happened because it is only Newfoundland and Labrador.

Although it runs between North Sydney and Newfoundland the ferry service is there only for the benefit of the island of Newfoundland. If Newfoundland had not joined Confederation and had drifted off into the Atlantic somewhere, which is what the government probably wishes it had done except for the Newfoundland resources it continues to rape and the revenues it puts into its coffers, there would be no need for the service. It is there essentially to serve Newfoundland and Labrador.

From the reaction of the parliamentary secretary who spouts the words of his minister and his government we can see that no one cares. It does not matter if it is an essential service. It may be disrupted for days, weeks or months. Goods and services may be unable to flow back and forth. People who go to hospitals on the mainland may be affected because their only way of getting there is by ferry. Our health services may be downgraded. Tourists may not come to boost the economy. Who cares? It is only Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me tell the parliamentary secretary, the minister, the government and anyone else who wants to listen that I care and we in my party care. Newfoundlanders have made a contribution to the country and will continue to make a contribution to the country, but we want to be treated as equals. This is another example of total disregard for the needs of the island of Newfoundland.

The chief executive officer of the Canada Industrial Relations Board was asked why he contacted other agencies to make representations on behalf of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador when the hearings were held. He was asked why he did not go to Newfoundland and Labrador. His response was that the only people he needed to listen to in determining whether it becomes an essential service were members of the board of Marine Atlantic and the union.

The board of Marine Atlantic is another story. Only 3 of the 10 or 12 members on the board are from Newfoundland. Thank God one of them is the chairperson, Mr. Sid Hynes, who has done a phenomenal job representing the province, as he should.

This is the first time ever that someone in his position has stood up for the rights of Newfoundland. Why should 9 out of 12 people or 7 out of 10 people worry about Newfoundland? They are not from there. Do hon. members think the union will want to see an essential service? I hope some of its members might be from Newfoundland and put the province first as long as they have security in their own jobs.

The motion before the House can take care of that. First, it can look after the needs of the workers. Second, it can make sure an essential service can be created as it should for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Points of Order, December 7th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The House leader may have selective hearing. I was under the impression you said when you stood that the nays have it. Then you pointed quite clearly to the nay side and said that the nays have it.

This could be a dangerous precedent. Maybe everybody agreed with the bill. I have no problems with that. However, if government is showing that “If we don't get the vote our way by a little bit of a push we can get the Speaker to change his or her mind”, that is extremely dangerous.

You made a ruling, Madam Speaker, and unless you stick to that ruling, I think we are setting here today a very dangerous precedent which puts all of us, certainly on this side, in jeopardy in relation to votes on any bills in the future.

[An Act to Amend Certain Acts and Instruments and to Repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, December 7th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, all the hon. gentleman wants to do is distract me from issues which are very pertinent to the bill but somewhat embarrassing for the member and his party.

I was saying that the minister really responsible for ACOA is the Minister of Industry. Now, knowing that, in case some people did not, do members think that a person in such a position might manipulate ACOA or the funds that flow through it? I leave it up to hon. members to answer that question.

However, clause 4 of the bill states that the board of ACOA can meet only once a year. To suggest that the board of such an important agency meet only once a year downgrades the agency and its potential and shows that the real decision making power is in the hands of government. The ironic thing about this is that on same page the bill creates an act establishing Telefilm Canada. The clauses describe the constitution of Telefilm Canada, a new agency that the government is putting together consisting of six members to be appointed by the governor in council. It goes on to say the board shall meet at least once every three months, so Telefilm Canada, now being created by the government as part of the bill, is important enough to meet every three months while the board of ACOA is now downgraded to meeting once a year.

I wonder if my hon. colleague from Prince Edward Island, whose area has benefited greatly from ACOA, now sees how importantly his government looks upon this agency which has been so helpful to our region. Maybe he, like I, will protest this downgrading of the board's authority.

The other interesting clause in the bill is about wiping out the old Fisheries Prices Support Board. If members were to speak to anybody in the fishing industry they would say that they have no objection to that, simply because the board has outlived its usefulness. With free trade now and competition factors affecting the industry, not only in relation to Canada dealing with the United States but Canada dealing with the world and vice versa, the Fisheries Prices Support Board and others are certainly no longer relevant. The deletion of that board would not have a negative effect on the fishing industry.

However, again, here we are a couple of days before the House closes for Christmas and we are spending time talking about deleting a board that is no longer relevant. I wonder why the people from the department of fisheries and the minister in particular are not here in front of the House. As I say this, I am presuming that my friend from Prince Edward Island, the chair of the fisheries standing committee, will stand up and agree with what I will say, because he more than any of us realizes the lack of impact on fisheries policy the minister has.

We have a Department of Fisheries and Oceans for which the funding has practically been totally eliminated. The only saving grace that the minister has had at all in recent years is the extra amount of money put into his department to buy out licences from people who are trying to get out of the fishery.

It is an amazing kind of mathematics that has been carried out. Hundreds and hundreds of licences have been bought out and millions and millions of dollars have been expended to do this. Yet when we total up the numbers there are more people fishing today than there were when the process was started. I am not sure what is happening here. I am certain, however, that the minister is not sure what is happening either.

If the minister is to bring something before the House, where is his request for funding to deal with wharves, harbours, dredging and sheltered basins for fishermen? Where is the request for funding to deal with the coast guard problems? If we fly into Canada today we go through all kinds of scrutiny. If we come in by road we are lined up at the borders. However, if we have anything from a dory to an ocean liner we can land anywhere in the country and nobody would know we were coming unless we called ahead.

These are the issues along with the aquaculture problem we are facing. While our aquacultural industry is on the verge of collapse because of competition from Chile, our Minister for International Trade sits by and does nothing. Shrimp fishermen in Atlantic Canada are trying to get their product into the European market. They are hit with a tariff while the Minister for International Trade sits by and does nothing.

It is frustrating when there are so many problems in the department to see that the only contribution of the minister in this session to our fishing industry was to wipe out the Fisheries Prices Support Board. Perhaps it is best to say nothing. What is the good of it when people we talk to do not understand the process anyway?

[An Act to Amend Certain Acts and Instruments and to Repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, December 7th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, to listen to the government House leader speak about the bill it is as if there is nothing to it and we should just say yea and leave here. I guess it does not matter whether we say yea or nay, we will have to say whatever the government side wants us to say anyway, it appears.

There are a couple of very interesting points in the bill. Under clause 4, subsection 19(1) of the act is about the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is what a lot of people refer to as the government engine in Atlantic Canada. It is an agency that over the years has done a tremendous amount of good, but it is also an agency that has been manipulated by the government to carry out its wishes rather than fulfil the needs of the people who live in the Atlantic region.

When we hear members in general and the public talk about government abuse of money and about all the money dumped into Atlantic Canada, quite often those of us from Atlantic Canada can stand up and defend what the government is doing, but there are times when we cannot because of the manipulative processes the government uses in funding through agencies such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. However, it is an agency that has tremendous potential to help Atlantic Canada.

A couple of years ago, my colleagues from the Canadian Alliance, the pre-Canadian Alliance Reform Party, talked about the sinkhole in Atlantic Canada. They were referring to Hibernia, into which went a lot of federal government money. Today, since we have educated them on the potential of Hibernia, they realize that the project now returns and will return manyfold the amount of money that the government has put in or will put into it over the years.

There are times when areas such as Atlantic Canada, parts of Quebec and the western regions in the country, maybe not in marine sectors but certainly in agricultural sectors and in oil development, need a boost from government agencies simply because the magnitude of the investment is too great for the private sector, or the start-up risk is too great. Government incentives are needed. That is when government can play an extremely important part.

In the case of Hibernia, it did play an extremely important part. At the time, the private sector could not finance a project of that magnitude. It was not money being thrown into a sinkhole. It was money being put into a region to develop a project that has now shown how beneficial it is, not only to the region but to the country. In fact, I would say it is more beneficial to central Canada than it is to the region in which the project was developed and is operating, because the greatest amount of money coming out of that project comes to the coffers in Ottawa and certainly does not go to the coffers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

For Atlantic Canada, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is an engine which, properly operated, could provide tremendous assistance to the region.

What is happening in the bill? In clause 4, subsection 19(1) of the act is replaced by the following:

The Board shall meet at such times, but at least once in each year, and at such places as the President may select.

What that says is that the board now has to meet only once a year.

The board of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, like the board of Marine Atlantic or any other government agency or crown corporation, should be the group of individuals that directs policy, selects projects for funding and that independently keeps an eye on what money is being spent, where it is being spent, and the benefits that would accrue from such investment.

If the board is a relatively important or influential board, then undoubtedly it will cause some problems for manipulative governments and manipulative ministers. I certainly do not want to say that the minister responsible for ACOA is a manipulative minister, because we understand that the junior minister, the Minister of State for ACOA, is a very good fellow. In fact, he is so good we understand he might be made minister of fisheries shortly.

I hope that prediction comes true, because the individual, coming from Atlantic Canada, would probably know something about the fishery, completely unlike the person who sits in that chair today who would not know a codfish from a bakeapple. That is part of the problem and of course--

[Criminal Code, December 7th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to what my hon. colleague from the Canadian Alliance had to say. Quick passage of this legislation is essential because we are at the time of year when drinking and driving, unfortunately, is a very serious factor of everyday life. If I had it my way, it would not be .05% either. It would be if people drink, they do not drive. I have seen too many people injured or killed because of drunk drivers behind the wheel. However drinking and drinking, specifically, is a great social cost to our country.

To educate our people as to the seriousness of this issue, we should be doing more at the school level. Unfortunately, more and more young people are drinking before they are legally allowed to and many of them end up behind the wheel.

First, would the member agree that this legislation should be passed quickly and hopefully implemented for this coming holiday season? Second, does he think we should educate our young as to the dangers of drinking and driving?