Loyola Hearn

[Employment Insurance, December 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Minister of Human Resources Development used her crystal ball to interpret a question from one of her colleagues as to whether or not EI recipients will get their cheques before Christmas. The minister said that they would.

However, as late as today, her officials have said that the only way a recipient will get a one week cheque is if they go in and make an individual case.

Who is calling the shots and what will the minister do rectify the situation?

[Income Tax Act, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the parliamentary secretary for his concise answer. I guess he answered my question to the best of the government's ability because if negotiations are under way with the other parties, I understand fully that all three must come to the table. I appreciate that and his frankness.

I would ask if he would clearly outline the process. My understanding is the cities or towns outline their priorities and submit their list to the province which in turn will select its priorities, the priorities of the government members. They are then submitted to the committee representing the feds and the provinces to decide how much funding is available and where it will go. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could clarify if that is the process.

[Income Tax Act, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, some time ago in the House the Prime Minister, while speaking to the downturn in the economy and the need to stimulate some employment, mentioned that perhaps the minister responsible for ACOA would advance some infrastructure funding. I asked a question a few days later whether or not any determination had been made as to when and how much. The answer I was given related to the amount that was already in the mill, $6 million in the case of Newfoundland, some of which has not been taken up to date.

The needs are severe not only in my province but I am sure across the country as well. The more infrastructure funding we can put into the mix during this present downturn in particular, the better it will be for many reasons.

There is a severe need to address critical freshwater supplies in certain areas. There is a need to address environmental concerns in relation to taking care of sewage disposal. There is also a need to stimulate the economy by getting people back to work. The construction field offers tremendous opportunities for employment. By putting more money into our infrastructure programs we can get people working and solve the problems of fresh water and environmental concerns at the same time.

In the St. John's region there are a number of major problems in relation to these issues. I will mention a couple to illustrate why it is so important to get money flowing through the infrastructure program.

One is the lack of fresh water in the part of the city called Goulds which is now part of the city of St. John's. Many residents in that area do not have access to good clean drinking water. There are also parts of that same section of the city that do not have sewer services. This causes a major health problem in that immediate area.

Despite the pressure from the people concerned, the city puts the blame on the provincial government. The provincial government puts the blame on the feds. It is everybody's fault and nobody is focusing on the problems, bringing the agencies together and addressing the overall problems. The one factor that quite often prevents addressing the problem is sufficient funding.

The other major problem in St. John's is the harbour itself. We have to stop talking about addressing the harbour cleanup and do something, whether it be St. John's, Halifax, Vancouver or any other harbour, in the same terms as we do general infrastructure funding. These programs to address harbour cleanup have to be separate and specific.

I hope that the parliamentary secretary can tell us there will be more money for infrastructure and that we will focus on priorities. Perhaps he could give us an idea of the route that is taken in order to get such funding flowing.

[Supply, December 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will not argue with the member on the point but I think Hansard will show who has done more for agriculture.

Does the member think that a properly focused budget which puts money into our primary resources such as agriculture and the fisheries not only would help those industries but would also create a tremendous number of good, solid jobs?

[National Security, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government is ramming through Bill C-36 in order to ensure that Canadians are protected against terrorists.

Airport security has been tightened. Lineups exist at our borders as every vehicle is checked. However, there is another way into our country: by water.

Anyone who has anything from a dory to an ocean liner can enter anywhere in the country. The only way we will know they are coming is if they call ahead for reservations.

This dilemma is caused simply by government cutbacks to the DFO and coast guard specifically.

The greatest threat to the country lies not across the ocean but across the House.

[National Defence, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

During the recent tropical storm, Gabrielle, the city of St. John's was devastated to such an extent that a state of emergency was declared.

The city is now paying out millions and millions of dollars as its share of the loss. It has asked the federal government for help. The minister is saying that he is expecting to get it. When will the federal government deliver?

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree. Over the years, particularly I would think with the present government more so than any others in the past, there has been severe erosion of shared jurisdiction between the federal government and the provincial government.

Certainly in relation to our own province, I am personally seeing an erosion of provincial control especially as it relates to our resources generally, whether it be our marine resources, our marine areas or the resources within our province. We seem to have less and less say in what happens. We seem to get fewer and fewer benefits from the development. Unless the province agrees with such things, not being consulted but agrees to such development, such development should not occur.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the question is one that gets to the crux of the problem most of the parties find with the legislation.

As we read the legislation we see the words “must consult”. Must sounds like a very strong word but the minister has to consult. It means that the minister can ask what people would think of the government creating a marine conservation zone in their fishing area. When everybody says no it cannot do that, the minister can say he consulted and that is all he had to do. That is all the legislation asks him to do. That is too dangerous. I have seen too many people use that before.

There should be proper consultation and a reasonable right to veto. We cannot say no for the sake of saying no. There may be many areas of the country where everybody, even with just the consultation process, would support the creation of a marine conservation zone. It is too dangerous to give the minister power to run roughshod with the word consult without having to act upon the objections put forth or address the concerns raised in that consultation process.

If the committee and the House had listened to the concerns raised by the members of the committee and here in the House, the legislation could be changed, brought back and, I would think, approved by everybody here.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fundy--Royal for sharing his time with me. I have some very grave concerns about the legislation. I sat on the heritage committee for quite some time while we debated the legislation and made known my concerns during that time. The amendments that have been made recently, the small changes to the bill, have not done much to alleviate those concerns and in fact as presently constituted I can in no way support such a piece of legislation. Hopefully by the time the final vote comes some of the concerns we raised will have been addressed.

I certainly am not against conservation or protection of our resource. Coming from the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I have seen what a lack of concern about our environment and protecting our resources led to, especially in relation to the complete collapse of our northern cod stocks, the reduction of many more of our fish stocks and of course a depletion of our resources generally. It happened without any great amount of management control or perhaps concern and that certainly has to stop.

However, my concern with the present legislation is not that it is intended to protect and preserve. I praise these elements. It is how the preserving and protecting take place that concerns me.

During the hearings on the bill in committee we had a number of groups and agencies appear. However, and I am not sure whether it was by design, by government invitation or whatever, most of the groups and agencies that appeared before our committee were very strong supporters of the environment and of protecting our environment. I suppose we could use the term environmentalists.

Very few people appearing were those who try to eke a living from that very same environment and know what government control can do to their ability to do so. One individual stands out, Ovide Mercredi, who is a political adviser now to the first nations, I believe, and a former chief. He made some very pertinent comments which showed the concern that a lot of his people have in relation to the effect legislation such as this could have on people who earn their living in marine environments. That is certainly where I am coming from.

There are two agencies that I think should be extremely concerned, one being the minister of fisheries and his department. Who controls the ocean? That is a question that has to be settled. Right now we have three ministers who have a fair amount of say. We have the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who will have, if this legislation is approved, a tremendous amount of say in relation to these zones, and we have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We wonder what role he plays in it all when really he should be the one who has complete and utter control over everything that happens once we get our feet wet in an ocean. Until we get his jurisdiction clear and the powers vested where they should be, we will have a tremendous amount of concern and duplication.

The other agencies that should be concerned are the provincial governments, because I believe that in this case, like some of my colleagues from the Bloc have already stated, the provinces are being bypassed. Their powers are being eroded. They are to be consulted, the same as other groups listed.

One of the groups missing from the list spelled out in the bill is the group “fishermen” We talk about aboriginal people and community groups and what have you. The people who will be most affected by the establishment of marine conservation zones are fishermen, or fisherpersons, perhaps, if one wants to be politically correct. They are not even listed as groups to be consulted. I know some may say they are rolled in with the others, but surely a group like that is important enough to be highlighted.

Provincial governments, community groups, first nations groups and fishermen, whether or not they are included, must be consulted, but we all know what federal consultation means. It does not mean that their concerns will be listened to. Our concerns in committee were certainly not listened to. The concerns of the Bloc were not listened to. The concerns of the NDP were not listened to. The concerns of the CA were not listened to. That was because the minister wants to ram through a piece of legislation that has been around so long it is becoming an embarrassment.

It is becoming an embarrassment because the government would not listen to people who want the legislation as bad or worse than the government does, but they want legislation that is good legislation for everyone in the country. They want legislation that will protect the people who live in these environments. I appreciate and respect the views of someone who is in the heart of Toronto and feels we should preserve our marine environment, but I more fully appreciate the fellow who is sitting in Badger's Quay knowing that he has to make a living from that very environment.

I have also seen the evolution of the development of our resources from the marine environment. We started by catching the fish that swam, then we moved to the crustaceans that crawled and then we started mining liquid minerals, oil and gas.

Some day down the road, in the not too distant future in fact, we will probably be mining hard minerals from under the ocean floor. Whether we should or should not do it might be another argument, but if we are to sustain the population of the country there is only one way to do it and that is to develop our resources. We cannot do it if our hands are tied by legislation, by an act which tells the minister that she can create new zones wherever she wants, that she has to consult but she does not have to listen, that if the property is in dispute it does not matter because the bill can make sure she gets jurisdiction over it, and that if she wants to enlarge it she can through governor in council. However if someone wants to reduce it, it cannot be done.

Consequently, it is not a good piece of legislation. We must get it back to the drawing board and get the proper jurisdictions involved so that a uncaring government, and I am not necessarily saying this government is uncaring but I am sure I would get arguments on that statement, or a minister who wants to ride roughshod over an area in the country cannot do so. The bill would give that minister or that government every power to do so. Consequently, the people who are to be consulted now should have some definite say and should have some veto rights. Certainly the provinces and affected individuals and agencies within the area should.

I know there can be objections. People say that in Newfoundland such a zone was to be put in such and the people said no and the government backed away. It took a lot of hard work and sweat before the government was made to back away. Next time around, with heavier legislation, it may not back away.

I would support legislation to the effect of preserving our environment, our marine life, our scenery, our history, our culture and everything else, but it has to be good legislation. Until this legislation is changed I will certainly not be able to support it.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member comes from a small island province much the same as I do. In fact, I guess I can say I come from a bigger island than he does. The concerns he raises about the agricultural products from his island certainly are very legitimate.

As chair of the fisheries committee, he is also very much aware of the fact that we suffer the same way with the export of our fish products, especially to the European market. Unfortunately for both of us, the exports of agriculture and fisheries amount to only about 6.6% of our total exports, which means that even collectively they do not draw a lot of attention. The primary producers in the country, fishermen and farmers are left outside the vision of many of the people who worry about exports generally.

However our exports to the European Union only totals about 5%. Therefore, when we combine the small amounts of fish or agricultural products plus the small amount we send to the EU, no wonder the government perhaps does not worry too much about duties on Newfoundland shrimp going to the European market.

One problem we face with trade is Newfoundland shrimp which goes to the European market is charged a 20% tariff, when really it is not the EU that is concerned. Most of the countries in the EU would want no tariff to get a cheaper product. Denmark and, more specifically, one or two fishing companies within that country are concerned.

Does the member not think that the minister and the department should address many of these smaller trade issues outside of the World Trade Organization and not worry about having to wait for two, three or four years to get agreements? We cannot afford to wait that long. Some of these issues could be addressed by the minister at a political level, and I am sure a lot of our problems could be solved.