Loyola Hearn

[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.

[World Trade Organization, November 5th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, as a follow up to the previous question, I wonder if my colleague would comment on the fact that many of the world's nations that are not as well off as we are do need access to drugs. I am thinking of Africa with HIV et cetera. However, how would it be possible to deliver cheap generic drugs to any country or any individual if somebody did not invest in order to develop that drug in the first place? We cannot have our cake and eat it too.

If we take our time, make the effort and use our money to invest in drugs, surely there has to be some protection. If not, no cheap drugs will be available to give to people in need. Hopefully proper controls will make sure these drugs will be reasonably priced and well off countries will help those in need, but surely there has to be protection for the development of the process. If not, we will not have any drugs for anybody. I would like the member's comments on that.

[Fisheries, November 2nd, 2001]

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

For some time now the inshore crab fishermen in Newfoundland have been operating under permits. They have been requesting that these permits be upgraded to the status of a licence. The minister's department has committed to upgrade the status from permit to licence. In fact it should have happened this past summer.

Could the minister tell us what is happening on this issue? When can these fishermen expect to see the status of permit upgraded to that of licence?

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for South Shore. I was just about to say southern shore, that great part of Newfoundland, the hotbed of hockey where you would feel very comfortable yourself, Mr. Speaker.

However I have a couple of questions for the member. First, he talks about subsurface rights. I wonder what provision is made for the people of the area, the natives in particular, to have first right to all benefits coming from the exploration, development and processing of minerals found within the respective areas. Second, I wonder if any mention is made of the subsurface rights applying to the waters adjacent to the coast.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question that was just asked. I agree wholeheartedly with the member from the Bloc. I also agree with a number of the NDP members who raised this problem and members on this side of the House, particularly those from eastern Quebec.

The minister today said that everyone should be happy that there is an employment insurance program in place and that it is working when asked a question about those affected by softwood lumber. I have no doubt about that and we are thankful that it is there for those who qualify under the present, existing regulations. However there are many people affected now by the softwood dispute, such as contractors, people who work for contractors, and people in the fisheries and seasonal work areas who did not get enough work.

The department that the minister administers has within it the wherewithal and the people to put together solutions to help people. It is not being done. Neither the money nor the attention is being focused where the need is greatest.

Would the member talk to her minister and ask her to listen to those who can provide some direction and help so she can focus on those who need proper help in the country because it is not being done?

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is dead on in what she says. I think all of us who have gone through airports recently have run across employees in a similar situation. A while ago Air Canada tried to lay off a number of employees who had come from the Canadian Airlines system. Because of an agreement they have been asked to put it all on hold.

Because of the transition that has taken place I would suggest to the government that Air Canada not be allowed to tamper with its employees until the mess is straightened out. I hope we can deal with them by keeping them on. If not, we should still proceed in the right and proper fashion and try to get the company back on solid footing so we can continue for many years to provide the type of employment we need so badly in Canada.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, October 31st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich--Gulf Islands.

This debate is an extremely important one. Perhaps it is no more important to anybody else in this whole House than it is to the members who represent the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Should members from any other province decide they want to walk or drive home, they can do it. We cannot. We have to fly, swim or take the ferry. We are more dependent on the airlines, especially our business people, our everyday travellers, people going on vacations, many students who are at universities on the mainland, and I could go on. Practically every family is affected by the service to our province by the airline. Basically, we are talking about Air Canada.

Fortunately, over the last while we have seen Canada 3000 coming in to the province and providing a bit of competition and some extra service. This certainly is looked upon by many as being one of the factors that kept the rates down somewhat. However, to a large degree Air Canada still has a monopoly. That is one of the concerns we have when we talk about this bill.

As we look at protecting and preserving our national airline, which we favour tremendously, we also have to make sure that the service that is eventually settled upon is provided at a reasonable price. Regardless of whether it is completely operated by the private sector, whether there is government involvement, or whether involvement by foreign companies is much greater than at present, whatever the case may be, that service must be provided to Canadians from British Columbia to Newfoundland at a reasonable price.

We are getting more letters than ever before from people who have no choice but to use the airline but cannot afford to do so. The prices to fly out of many of our smaller areas are extremely high. Consequently this has a very negative effect on many ordinary people throughout the country.

It is great if someone is travelling for a wealthy company that is paying the bill or travelling on behalf of the government, realizing of course that if the government is paying the bill, it is coming out of the taxpayers' pockets anyway. However, for the average family on medium or low income who have to travel because of sickness, educational needs or work, whatever the case may be, it is extremely difficult for them to get on and off the island of Newfoundland at the present rates that are being charged by the airline. We must keep that in mind. It is not just in Newfoundland; the service provided has to be reasonable enough to be used by all the people of the country.

The private sector, God love it, keeps the economy going. However, the bottom line for everybody involved in business is to make money. In order to make money they provide a service. In providing that service, any company worth its salt will try to make as much money as it can. When we are talking about providing an essential service to the people of this country, then companies have to be regulated to some extent so that they cannot charge people whatever they wish, or just pick lucrative routes into the larger areas.

Everybody wants to fly out of Toronto. Everybody wants to fly out of Vancouver. Everybody wants to fly out of Montreal. However, not everybody wants to fly out of Stephenville, Deer Lake, Goose Bay or even St. John's and many other small towns and cities throughout this great country.

People in the lucrative areas usually earn much higher incomes than those in the rural areas. If they can fly for fairly reasonable rates, why should people who are in areas where the going is tough economically have to pay two to six times more per mile than the people in the larger centres? It is entirely unfair. The government has to do something about it.

The problems first started a couple of years ago with the closure of Canadian Airlines. That was when the government should have stepped in and made the right decision. It certainly did not. The private sector had the opportunity to move in and solve the problems that we face today and by refusing to do what the government is now asking with the share restriction, we could have solved that problem two years ago.

Instead, the government basically forced the then lucrative Air Canada to take on the complete debt of Canadian Airlines. Canadian Airlines, with all kinds of employees, was going down the tubes. The government said to Air Canada, a company that was doing very well, that it could merge with Canadian Airlines and take it over but it would have to take all the debt and carry all the baggage, pardon the pun, with it.

It just cannot work that way. Rearranging the company so it would be a viable option was not allowed. Instead Air Canada was saddled by government regulations with a company that has now put it under.

Now that we are revisiting this whole situation, hopefully common sense will prevail. Whatever the resolution is, by the time we pass the present legislation and deal with the Air Canada situation in total, hopefully we will have a decision that will enable Air Canada, whoever the owners may be, to operate viably and to provide a reasonably priced service to everyone in the country.

Air Canada was viable before government asserted its authority and tried to tell it how to run the company. When we look at the experiences of this government in particular, when it asserts itself to try to do anything, we know the result is not successful. The records are there to prove it.

In all of this process the group of people we all must be concerned with is the employees of Air Canada itself. From coast to coast we have a tremendous number of hardworking dedicated Air Canada employees, some of whom have been with Air Canada for quite some time. Some of their jobs were jeopardized when Canadian Airlines was taken over by Air Canada. The type of deal the government set up was entirely unfair to the employees who had been with that company for quite some time.

Regardless of that, an employee is an employee. We certainly do not want to make choices as to who should be laid off and who should not. Hopefully a properly structured regulated airline can be busy enough and the profits lucrative enough for it to ensure that all the employees, regardless of whether they were with Air Canada for 30 years or whether they came with the Canadian Airlines merger, can find good, solid jobs within the airline.

In view of September 11, we must instill some confidence in people to get back in the airplanes and fly. As many of us know, in many cases it is much safer to fly than it is to drive or walk. Hopefully, we can get back to creating a good economy around our airlines.

However, profits are made around numbers. I mentioned this before. I know I am repeating myself to some degree, but I cannot overemphasize the fact that we are pricing ourselves out of business. It is great to say that we made a profit because we can charge $2,000 for a trip from point A to point B. If we charge $1,000, three times as many people may take the trip and then the profits would be even greater.

We have to make sure that an airline, especially where it is serving areas of the country which depend entirely upon that mode of travel, charges prices that are within reason. We are getting away from that. From Newfoundland to Ottawa the round trip costs anywhere from $1,800 to $2,000. Not many people can afford that. To fly from Newfoundland to Halifax quite often costs in the range of $700 to $800 and sometimes even more. Just a few years ago it cost in the range of $200 to $300. How many average people can afford to fly when they are paying three times more than they paid just a few years ago? Why should they have to pay that?

It is interesting to compare fares, as I mentioned earlier, in areas of British Columbia. I should not say British Columbia because it has the same problem in certain parts of the province that we have. However, quite often the fares from Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal are quite reasonable.

The member for Saint John who has been flying for some time will tell us that the prices paid to get from New Brunswick to here are much greater today than they were even two or three years ago. It does not make a difference for us; I have to come to work and the government pays my way. However, the taxpayers are paying for it. It is affecting our bottom line. If the person next door to me has a job in Ottawa and wants to go home, or his family wants to come to visit, they usually cannot afford to do so because the costs are so exorbitant.

There are a few things we have to keep in mind. If government is asserting itself by bringing forward and approving legislation, let us make sure it is good legislation. If we are to interfere with the operation of a company, let us make sure that we have some say. If government money is going into a company, the government has to have some say in its operation, not telling it how to run the company, let us stay out of that, but making sure that the consumer is protected.

We have to make sure that a private company can operate viably. Quite often the best way to do that is to get out of its way, cut the red tape and bureaucracy and let it do the job.

If we had let Air Canada do that two years ago or the private sector we would not be here today worrying about how to straighten out our national airline. If we had not stuck our nose in and interfered with Air Canada as it took over Canadian Airlines we would not be here today. It would undoubtedly still be a profitable operation.

We all know that Air Canada, Canada 3000, West Jet and all the other airlines were affected by the events of September 11. It is right and proper, because of actions taken by governments around the world, that the government compensate them for the direct losses they incurred during that process. We have no problem with that. However we cannot let inefficient companies or companies that are operating under such government restraints that they become inefficient piggyback on September 11. However, if it is the government's fault, as I would suggest it is with the present situation as it relates to Air Canada, then the onus is on the government to correct the mistakes of the past.

We should have learned from what happened a couple of years ago. Let us not make the same mistake again. Let us not make our cuts and changes on the backs of employees of the company. Nor should we make our decisions and cuts on the backs of people who live in certain areas. We should not sock it to them, as the saying goes, and say that if they want to travel they must pay the price.

Confederation is about looking after all the people and provinces that fall within this great dominion. We are supposed to be brothers and sisters who share and share alike. Some of us have advantages because we live in larger regions. Many have advantages because we live in small ones, whether it be greater resources, the types of freedoms we have or whatever.

When it comes to movement throughout this country, we should not be penalized because we live in remote areas. We should not be disadvantaged when it comes to educational or employment opportunities because we live in small communities or because our accent or skin colour is different. That is not what Confederation is about. That is not what Canada is about.

We have a chance here to do something right. Let us use a bit of common sense, as I said before, and make sure we do it right this time.