Loyola Hearn

[Fisheries, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last year the minister issued a quota of 1,500 metric tonnes of Newfoundland northern shrimp to P.E.I.

Will the minister tell us whether he has or is about to issue the same amount, perhaps with an increase, and if that temporary measure as he said last year has now been made permanent?

[National Defence, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the original contract to sell spares was amended to sell 40 helicopters and 10 Challenger jets.

When was the minister aware that Lancaster was closing its facility in Canada and moving some $77 million worth of DND parts to the United States? What steps did the government take to ensure the security of our assets?

What will happen to these parts in the case of a bankruptcy of Lancaster and in light of the illegal dealings of the Florida partner?

[National Defence, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the original proposal to dispose of DND spare parts was a closed process. Only certain companies were invited to submit a proposal.

In fact DND's letters of thanks to those that lost out in the competition states “Thank you for your recent proposal to handle the disposal of aircraft spares”.

Would the minister explain why the original contract was amended in June—

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, May 3rd, 2001]

The $700 million was announced five different times. It was the same money over and over. One of these days I will analyze the benefits to our region for the hon. member, and that will embarrass him even further.

The Minister of Industry spent a lot of time in Ottawa and delivered nothing for Newfoundland as a premier. The only time he raised the issue of equalization was during the election campaign when he was to save Atlantic Canada. He was elected, but there were very few with him because he campaigned on a new equalization deal. He did not deliver and that is no surprise to any of us.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Premier Hamm has certainly been the one who has led the fight that has now been picked up by others. I presume the hon. member knows the answer as well as I do to her question. The Minister of Industry has done very little, either before or after his return to Ottawa.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I find the question basically insulting. The parliamentary secretary seems to be asking if it is not enough that we are getting welfare and more funding than anybody else. That is not what we are looking for.

We are talking about $1.6 billion being thrown into Newfoundland. Just from our hydro resource alone we are putting a billion dollars into Quebec, not to mention the oil, gas and mineral resources. We are getting nowhere near what we are contributing.

We should be getting our fair share of royalties. We are not looking for more handouts. That is what is wrong. It is the attitude of government members across the way that tells us to take the welfare and thank them. That is not what we want. We want the opportunity to be a contributor. We have the tools, resources and the intelligence to do it. All we are asking is that the government let us do it.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest for sharing his time with me.

I listened to him explain how we arrived at the present process of equalization and I listened to the leader of the NDP Party and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I must say that the more I listen to people speak on the equalization process, the more I realize that we all agree the present system of assisting have not provinces, and I use those words very loosely, is not working. We all agree it is not working. We all agree there are better ways of doing it. Many of us recommend better ways of doing it.

That begs the question. If most of the parliamentarians in the House understand what is happening across our country, if we understand the fiscal realities of the have and have not provinces, if we understand the sharing, the equalization systems, the goods, the bads and the uglies, why is it that we do not do something constructive about it? Members on this side can only point out, recommend and represent. It is the people on the other side who must to do something, but we have not seen very much being done.

Bill C-18, which would remove the cap on equalization payments for one year, is a positive step and one which various provinces have asked for. They have also asked that the cap be removed entirely, which is something I would also recommend, but removing the cap on equalization would not solve all the problems. Changing the whole equalization reality would equalize it.

The word equalization is deceptive. When we hear the word we think of the old Robin Hood syndrome: if we take from the rich, being Alberta and Ontario, and give to the poor, everybody becomes equal. If that were the case, what a wonderful country we would have, but that is not the case. All we are doing is taking a very minuscule sum of money and sharing it on an equal basis depending upon status.

The province of Newfoundland has been looked upon by our fellow Canadians for years as a have not province, a province that has absolutely nothing to offer. Those who are experienced and travelled politicians, or experienced in the sense of having read and educated themselves about all the provinces, realize that is not the case.

I doubt if there is a province in Canada as rich as Newfoundland in relation to the resources within its boundaries. If we look at the small population of Newfoundland, slightly over half a million people, and divide it into the value of our resources, on a per capita basis we could be richer than any province in the country.

The parliamentary secretary from Alberta asked my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest whether it would not be good for the people of his province to travel to rich Alberta where they could find employment. I say to the hon. member that many people from Newfoundland have travelled to Alberta and have contributed significantly to the growth of that great province. Alberta and Newfoundland have been extremely close over the years. I had the privilege of serving in a government in Newfoundland in the mid-eighties at the same time that Premier Lougheed was the premier of Alberta. There was an exceptionally strong bond between our two provinces and that bond has held.

In recent months, Premier Hamm of Nova Scotia has led the fight for drawing attention to the plight of equalization clawback arrangements. It is interesting to see him being supported by other premiers who have not been directly affected and by the new leader of the opposition, Mr. Williams in the province of Newfoundland.

When Premier Hamm and opposition leader Mr. Williams took their plight nationally, the people of Alberta began to realize what they were being asked for. It was not just more money from Alberta and putting nothing back in return. When they saw the reality of what was happening, the people of Alberta, Premier Klein, former Premier Lougheed, the University of Alberta, the Calgary Herald —and I could go on—in their comments, their speeches and their editorials, all expressed support by saying that what these people wanted was right and proper and that it was not something that Albertans did not get in the past.

I talked about Newfoundland and its riches. Besides our forestry and farming potential and our small business and IT sector, which are growing rapidly, we have one of the greatest tourism potentials anywhere in the world. We are one of the last frontiers in Canada, as many people are starting to see. We are limited only by access because of unfair treatment by the central government in the type of ferry system we have, a monopoly airline, et cetera. Other than that, we have the last frontier as it relates to all the other areas except the far north.

We also have major resources. People must remember that we brought the fishery into Canada. We brought the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and all the surrounding fisheries around the coast of our province within the 200 mile limit. For years Canada bartered Newfoundland fish for deals, such as the sale of wheat and other sales to Russia, China and Europe. Everybody got a piece of our action, such as the Spanish, Portuguese and Russians. Our fishing grounds were ravaged by countries given quotas in lieu of deals made to ship off other Canadian resources.

In the end Newfoundland paid the price. Our water power in Upper Churchill was developed by an agreement with Quebec. Newfoundland receives about $10 million a year while Quebec receives closer to $1 billion in royalties out of our water power. I do not blame Quebec. It was a federally sanctioned deal, with absolutely no federal assistance, that provided a power corridor through to the United States markets, which is what was done for Alberta oil and gas across the rest of the country.

Newfoundland is extremely wealthy with minerals, especially the major find in Voisey's Bay. It is not being developed for several reasons, but the main one is that people want to move it somewhere else in order to create jobs.

Our oil and gas, which is now being developed and, as Alberta grew and prospered on its onshore oil, Newfoundland will eventually grow and prosper. As Alberta slides economically, maybe Newfoundland will be able to pick up the slack and reciprocate on the assistance it has received.

Confederation is supposed to be about sharing. Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and other provinces are not putting their hands out and saying “give us”. They are asking for a chance. They are saying that they have the resources to become a have province but that they need the chance to develop those resources and hold on to the royalties until they can create the infrastructure to make themselves a have province.

If the government wants to create equalization across the country, it should start doing it properly. It should try to be fair so that some day each province in this country will be equal.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I agree with members of the Canadian Alliance who suggested earlier that the bill as it exists should be dropped. It should be sent back to the drawing board for proper consultation.

We have to be very conscious about marine conservation and our heritage. I have no problem with that. We also have to remember that the money generated in the country that pays for everything else that we need to do and the money that pays our social costs comes from the development of our resources.

We must do that in harmony with the environment. We cannot do it despite it. Half the bill talks about enforcement, offences and punishment rather than the real issues. Let us get back to the drawing board and let us do it right.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 2nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I also want to express concerns about the bill, perhaps not the same concerns expressed by my colleague on the right, who is probably not on my right but on my left.

However we have a number of concerns. In order to get them on the record clearly, it will be necessary to read and comment directly on pertinent parts of the bill. Before I do I want to mention a couple of things that my hon. colleague referred to.

He talked about dredging and dragging. I agree to the extent that there are areas which can be damaged by boat practices. However I would hope that if we are going to establish a marine conservation area we are certainly not going to do it in areas where fishers try to make a living through procedures that would include dragging. That would drive a nail into the coffin right off the bat.

In relation to dredging, when one lives in the marine environment, one realizes that there is a constant flow of material due to waves and sometimes river mouth action. Many of the harbours in which fishermen live and constantly fish occasionally start to fill up with silt, sand and the beach moving back and forward because of tide action or river action. The only way that these people can get into their own home ports and the wharves where they tie up their boats is to occasionally have that area dredged so that they do not go aground on the material that consistently moves.

Again, I hope this will be taken into consideration before any marine conservation area is designated. I do not think I can give the government that much credit to think that it would be that far-reaching in its looking ahead process. Consequently, I would be concerned about these two processes.

However, the purpose of the bill as outlined, says that the proposed legislation requires that national marine conservation areas be established for two reasons: first, for the protection and conservation of representative marine areas, and second, for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada and the world.

It is pretty hard to argue against either one of those because they are both laudable ideals. However, if we follow through on the process, the question we have to ask is in order to achieve what the bill wants to do, who is going to be rewarded and who is going to suffer because of the way that the suggested conservation areas will be implemented?

We have been provided with basically a map of Canada. On this list are national marine conservation areas, the natural regions. There are 29 natural regions. Collectively they take in practically every inch of coastland around Canada. We have the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Arctic Ocean, the Great Lakes and also the Bay of Fundy as part of the Atlantic Ocean. If all these areas are considered, it means there are intentions to perhaps set up sample national marine conservation areas in every nook and cranny of the Canadian marine environment. Again, that may not be an impractical or impossible thing to do provided it is done properly and with full consultation and involvement of all agencies, particularly the people who live in these areas.

I will throw out a word that we have used fairly often when talking about the fishery and the word adjacency. The prime concern of the government should be the people in the adjacent areas. The government should consult with those people to make sure that they fully understand what is proposed and that they are in full agreement with it before any such marine conservation area is established.

I have major concerns with perhaps not what is in the legislation but how it could be interpreted and the omissions. An area that bothers me is where it says that “subject to section 7 for the purpose of establishing or enlarging” a reserve, et cetera, that within Canada, the Government of Canada may by order in council amend the schedule. That is if we wanted to increase the size of the reserve. Then it goes on to say in another subsection:

Except as provided by subsection (2), no amendment may be made by the Governor in Council to Schedule 2 for the purpose of removing any portion of a reserve.

What that says to me, and maybe I will be educated otherwise, is that the government can at its own whim change, enlarge or add to the reserve at any time by order in council but it cannot take away. If for some reason the people in the affected area, whether it be for fishing rights, exploratory rights or whatever, had good reason to reduce the size of the reserve, it could not be done by order in council.

Another clause that bothers me states:

The Minister is responsible for the administration, management and control of marine conservation areas in relation to matters not assigned by law to any other Minister of the Crown.

The minister referred to is the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

I would think that in selective marine environments the prime minister would be the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. By prime minister, I mean the minister in charge and not the Prime Minister. However, if we are to expect either the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the Minister of Canadian Heritage to be responsible for the management and enforcement of these zones, I have major concerns with that.

Let me just mention a few areas where these people are already involved. Let me talk about the management of the fisheries and the protection of the people who procure the fishery.

We have talked about the coast guard. Just a while ago in this honourable House, I expressed concerns about cutbacks in the coast guard. Instead of being there to solidly look after the concerns and the needs of the people who ply the oceans around the coasts of our country, particularly Atlantic Canada, instead of enhancing the infrastructure that is needed to ensure safety and also to ensure proper environment and harvesting standards, the coast guard, under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is being cut back.

The department is taking boats out of the fleet, cutting the helicopter fleet in half and automating 11 lighthouses. More lighthouses were automated in the past. Now 11 more are being automated, taking the manned operation away and using strict automation in lighthouses that are located in unique and barren areas of the province of Newfoundland.

In this case of the remote areas, boats plying the area and fishermen fishing from the surrounding communities rely strictly on the lighthouse, the lighthouse keeper and his or her family to provide the type of information, assurance and safety precautions that they want as they venture to sea. They rely on the lighthouse operation more so than they do on the weatherman, or the coast guard or anybody else.

I can list dozens of examples where the lighthouse and the lighthouse keeper and family members prevented wrecks from occurring, prevented other types of marine disasters, effected rescues, helped people who had been wrecked by keeping them at the lighthouse location until they could be picked up, et cetera. I can go on and on. There are numerous daily occasions when they relate to marine travellers, particularly fishermen, the weather conditions, ice conditions and ice flows, which have stranded many people fishing in rural areas, and other concerns that these people would have.

Lighthouses are also a major part of our culture and heritage. Many of them have been designated national historical sites. What are we doing? We are downplaying them to save money. We do not seem to concern ourselves with saving lives. We are more concerned with saving money.

Are those the types of protective services that we would see in relation to marine conservation areas? Would we be creating all of them as if the coastline of Canada were something that we could put in a front room and monitor from our chesterfield? It is not that easy. Canada is a big and wild country. To dream is tremendous but to dream the impossible dream is something else. This is perhaps what the minister is doing. He does not know what he is getting into.

I will give a couple of other examples. What about fisheries management generally? Fisheries would now get involved in managing marine conservation areas. It cannot even manage its present job. If there ever were a completely and more poorly managed industry it is the fishery in every respect. We are asking for trouble if we add anything to the duties of the minister.

Let me zero in on the Minister of Canadian Heritage and talk about wildlife protection. The first people the committee should talk to are the wildlife enforcement officers, as they used to be called. They do not know what to be called now because they have a mixture of wildlife and forestry officials who have been given the same duties. They now look after our forests and wildlife. They do not have a clue what they are doing or what they are being ordered to do.

The problem is the extremely poor management of our parks and wildlife areas. With the legislation today, we would create a whole new environment by bringing in people to manage in a marine environment. Perhaps we should talk to the park wardens who have expressed concern about how well the department understands their duties and responsibilities and how well they are supported by the department.

The track record of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not one that we would like to use as an example of how to properly manage marine conservation areas. They do not seem to give the necessary assurance to people in the conservation areas, particularly the people in rural parts of Canada and Atlantic Canada where the fishery is so important. They are telling them not to worry about the marine conservation areas as they will not affect them. The legislation says otherwise.

There are a number of other issues. I talked about the minister's administrative capabilities. Subclause 9(1) of the bill says:

The Minister shall, within five years after a marine conservation area is established, in consultation with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies and affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations and bodies established under land claims agreements, and with any other persons and bodies that the Minister considers appropriate, prepare a management plan for the marine conservation area including provision for ecosystem protection, human use and zoning, which shall be tabled in each House of Parliament.

It would be done in consultation with everyone who should be consulted, but the operable words are “five years after the establishment”.

I do not know whether that makes sense to anybody else but it certainly does not make any sense to me. My hon. colleague says it is a postdated cheque, which is exactly what it is. Subclause 9(2) states:

The Minister shall review the management plan of a marine conservation area at least every five years—

What it is saying is that if a mistake is made we should not worry because every five years the minister would review it.

—and any amendments to the plan shall be tabled with the plan in each House of Parliament.

Who decides what changes and amendments would be made? Subclause 9(4) states:

Provisions of a management plan respecting fishing, aquaculture, fisheries management, marine navigation and marine safety are subject to agreement between the Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The people who would decide how the affected people in the rural communities would live through all this are the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

With the examples that I gave earlier, I do not think too many fisherpersons in Port de Grave, St. Barbe or St. Mary's are wondering tonight when those ministers will go there and establish a marine conservation area.

As we know, attempts were made to establish a marine conservation area in Newfoundland a few years ago but the people and the agencies involved were not convinced that it would be a good thing for them.

We have absolutely no problem with the word conservation. If we had been conscious of conservation years ago we would have been better off today, and Newfoundland certainly would have been a lot better off.

We have no problems with management. In fact, we wish the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would manage the fishery much better than he does. Let me give an example. People watching CPAC tonight may be thinking that the government probably would not interfere. When the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans walks into the House, snaps his fingers and gives quotas for shrimp, crab or anything else—and I am thinking particularly of last year's shrimp—to anybody without any consultation with the players involved, what does it say about the government?

If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, along with the Minister of Canadian Heritage who is responsible for the management of our parks and wildlife, are the two people who would secure our heritage, our culture, our fisheries and our marine environment, then I am extremely concerned.

The bill goes on to state a number of other things of concern to individuals, especially in marine environments. Clause 13 states:

No person shall explore for or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic matter within a marine conservation area.

I have no problem with the marine conservation areas being established beforehand with an agreement, but in many of our coastal environments we are only now beginning to understand the potential that we have.

It is too bad that my time is up because there are still a number of issues that I would like to talk about, but perhaps on another day.

[Supply, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about civil rights. Coincidentally I was just reading a copy of a letter sent to the Prime Minister expressing concern about why the disturbances occurred.

We saw what happened in British Columbia some time ago with the pepper spray incident. We saw what happened in Quebec City. Forgetting about trade and what the police did, because they did what they needed to do, the question is: Why did it happen? Why must our leaders fence themselves away from the people? What is wrong? Where is the leadership that the Prime Minister has not shown?