Bev Desjarlais

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would acknowledge that because in my comments as well I indicated that it was not a matter of Canada wanting everything. It is a matter of wanting to ensure that the resource is maintained and that there is a sustainability to it.

Canada can do a good job managing it. The point is we have to take the initial position. We have to take that step, stand firm and tell those countries that they will do this and that we will ensure they do it because it is best for all of us. We have to either get them onside or, as the recommendations say, tell them to take a ride.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly acknowledge the comments made by my hon. colleague from Burnaby.

The fisheries committee travelled to an inland fishery in Manitoba some years back and made recommendations that would have improved the inland fisheries of Canada. It met with people from the northern end of my riding to the southern end. It made good, strong recommendations because it recognized the problems. Its members, a very knowledge based group of individuals, made great recommendations that were totally ignored.

The fisheries committee has done a great job. It is now in the government's hands to do something about it and follow through on the committee's recommendations.

[Committees of the House, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this time to acknowledge the work of the fisheries committee. At this point and in the past it has done an excellent job of doing what committees of the House need to do when dealing with issues and reviewing problems: go to Canadians, listen to them at the source and see the problems they are dealing with.

The fisheries committee has done this on a regular basis. I thank its members for that. I am grateful, especially as someone who has been sitting on a transport committee that has not so much as moved its butt outside Ottawa to listen to Canadians for a number of years. Sitting on that committee has been a rather bad experience.

The fisheries committee has shown what committees ought to be doing. The recommendations before us have come from all members of the committee representing all parties. They went out and listened to Canadians, saw what they were dealing with and recognized the anguish they were going through.

I was in Newfoundland in 1992 when the moratorium came into place. It was my first time in Newfoundland. The friends I was visiting wanted me to partake of that famous Newfoundland tradition: being screeched in. I do not think they are too happy about it now. The toughest job that day was to find a cod so I could be officially screeched in. We had to find alternative routing because no cod were available. The alternative was a puffin's behind. That was the rough spot of the day.

I am not making light of the issue. Since then there has been recognition of the anguish felt by the fishermen and concern about their livelihood. There was willingness among the fishermen to recognize that to sustain a long term fisheries industry they would need to make sacrifices. They did that and have continued to do it for a number of years. Yet the stocks have not improved.

The province's fishermen see foreign fishermen come in pretty much every day and sit outside the fence of where the fish are, so to speak. So members from the prairies can understand, it is like someone sitting outside a fence waiting for animals to cross over, or in this case fish, so they can be caught. The fish stocks are not given the opportunity to fully come back. It has been disheartening for these people, yet the fisheries committee has made recommendations that were totally disregarded by the government.

It is crucial that with respect to the five recommendations regarding this fragile area of Newfoundland and Labrador's economy the government not just do a lot of talking. Committee members need to do more than talk their faces off for the sake of talking. The government needs to respond to their recommendations. For once it should stand up for Canadian fishermen and all the industry people involved in the issue. It should stand up against the foreign countries taking the stocks. It should do so not because Canada wants the stocks for itself. We want them to improve. That is what it is about. It is about fishermen caring for their industry and for the resource. It is about conservation.

I encourage the government not to let it all be for show. Let it not be a bunch of talk. Let us not totally ignore the recommendations again. We are running out of time. The government at some point will need to stand up strongly for Canadians. It must not go to the table for Canadians merely to negotiate on its knees or not at all.

My hon. colleague Nelson Riis who was here previously got on his knees one day in the House and said it was Canada's way of negotiating with the U.S. It was somewhat of a joke then. However as time has gone by I have seen many issues come into the House. Quite frankly, that is the way the government negotiates with the U.S. and numerous foreign countries on issues that relate to the well-being of the Canadian public.

It is time the government remembered it is the government of the people of Canada and should be standing up for them.

[Airline Security, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government is taking $2 billion from the pockets of Canadians for the government's security tax at airports, double what is being spent, yet there is no security at Vancouver airport's south terminal. Bomb detecting equipment sits unused in Edmonton because no one is trained.

The government proposes a public safety act that jeopardizes the civil liberties of innocent people but will do nothing to convict terrorists. The government does not have a security strategy for Canada.

When someone can cross the border with a Glock pistol and kill five people, the government has failed Canadians. What is it going to do to make sure this does not happen again?

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I ask for the unanimous consent of the House.

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to my colleague that we have seen in the past the government pass legislation extremely quickly when it wanted to. It can do that, with even some opposition from this side of the House. Is there a will of the House to ensure that this type of discrimination and this action against disabled people in Canada stops taking place? I would be hard pressed to see why unanimous consent would not be found to get rid of this legislation right here and now and ensure it is done before it comes to a vote. Will we see any justice for that?

[The Deaf and Hearing Impaired, June 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I too am extremely pleased to join in this debate today. I want to acknowledge my colleague from the Bloc who over the last number of years on a regular basis has tried to remind us of some of the difficulties some people face in Canada.

I still recall the very first time that she took the time to sign in the House. Quite frankly, I was totally amazed that she had any type of disability whatsoever. It was not until that very day that I realized she did. She obviously has worked really hard to overcome her difficulties and she has been instrumental in having a good number of us recognize disabled people in Canada. I have a hard time even recognizing my colleague under the terminology disabled, because she certainly does not seem to have any greater problem in getting her message out than any of the rest of us, her message being to make us aware that there still are issues out there.

As technology has developed over the years there are those of us who have a tendency to think there are no problems for disabled people any more. There are organizations that represent the blind. There are organizations that represent other disabled people, whether they have ambulatory disabilities or otherwise. There are organizations that represent the deaf.

We tend to think that everything is looked after. There is tremendous technology in this day and age. We can send people to the moon. We can transmit from one community to another what a human body looks like so that a doctor can see it and decide what type of treatment should be proceeded with. Medical operations can be performed with robotics and tiny little instruments. Tremendous things are happening in the world of technology, so it is hard for some of us, unless we are affected, to realize that everybody does not have the same opportunities. It is hard for us to understand that not every program has closed captioning. If we do not need closed captioning, we just do not realize the need for it.

I have to admit that until the motion came up I did not realize all the specific things that are available to assist people, but I also did not recognize that they were not available to everyone. I did not realize that it was not something that was already happening, whereby every program would have closed captioning.

This is a very good time for the member's motion to come forward. My colleague from Dartmouth has been our representative on the disabilities committee and also on the heritage committee of the House. She has tried on an ongoing basis to keep us abreast of different things that are happening. She has made it very clear that the heritage committee has been dealing with a lot of issues on the Broadcasting Act. She feels that this is an extremely timely moment for the motion to be coming forward, because the committee is making recommendations for changes within the Broadcasting Act.

It was great to hear today from my colleagues on the government side that the government is open to addressing these concerns. I hope they are not just voicing their concerns and recognition but are going to make an honest to goodness effort to address the issue and ensure that recommendations and some legislation are put in place requiring broadcasters to bring forth closed captioning in all programming.

My colleague from Dartmouth also indicated that one of the thoughts out there for broadcasting companies is that they may not be open to legislation ensuring closed captioning. Right now they sell the service of closed captioning to advertisers so they are able to make some money from it. That is not to say that it is not wonderful to make money. We recognize that things need to be sold and that people want to buy them. There are business opportunities and there are entrepreneurs, but there are entrepreneurs and then there are those who want to make a profit from others' hardship and at their expense.

Quite frankly, it is important that we not only do research, promote technology and make legislation for profit but that we make it because it will be beneficial for society and for individuals.

It is crucial that the government, with the support of all parliamentarians and in recognizing that we represent Canadians who would support this as well, is given the dollars needed to promote technology and research in the area of providing more broad scoped closed captioning and other specific improvements that would benefit those less fortunate. It should not just be done on the basis that someone will not be able to make a dollar.

I have been serving on the industry committee and I have a bit of a hard time because I, quite frankly, think there are some things that people should not make a profit from. It is a matter of doing something because it is the right thing to do.

I wonder where we would have been in our society if Banting and Best had only been doing research to make a profit. Would they have really gone forward? I think they did their research with the intention of improving the lives of people in Canada.

I do not recall his name, but about a month or so ago I read about the fellow who first brought about canola production and the changes to the plant that we now know as canola. He did so without making a single penny. That was an issue of principle on his part. He was improving this crop to benefit people, not to make a buck. He has much higher regard in my books than a company that would go out and make a crop from which we could not grow from its seed. They could restrict who bought it and who could produce it so they could make a profit. I do not see this as beneficial to society. I do not see that as where the government should be going.

I want to reflect again on the issue of investing in research and technology. It is important that the government look at investing in those areas but not solely on the issue that if we invest in those area we will make a profit. The profit we make will not just be in dollars. It will be in the fact that we will be providing people who are less fortunate with the opportunity to broader knowledge education and to become equal partners in all aspects of society.

I want to congratulate my colleague from the Bloc for bringing forward this very good motion. I certainly hope she gets the support of not only the majority of the House but all the House.

[Petitions, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of almost 1,000 people, mostly truck drivers in Canada, in relation to the Minister of Transport's suggested changes to the hours of service for truck drivers.

There is great concern nationwide, and certainly from truck drivers, about allowing 14 hour days and up to 84 hours of driving per week. This is unacceptable to them as well as to the safety of people on the roads.

I will add this petition to the number of numerous signatures on petitions that have already come in on this issue.

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times it can be brought forward.

Current laws allow drug companies to claim patent on DNA sequences. These are not sequences they developed. These are sequences found in human beings that drug companies now lay claim to.

Now one company is maintaining it is the only company that can test for a DNA sequence that appears in women predisposed to cancer. The test, which cost $800 in B.C., now costs $4,000 through a U.S. drug company.

When is the government going to legislate to protect the health of Canadian women rather than allow profit at their expense? When is it going to quit treating women like Harvard mice?

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of an already long 20 year patent protection, brand name drug companies are able to file for automatic injunctions against generic companies.

The industry minister, when he was health minister, indicated a willingness to change the regulations to end this unacceptable practice. Will the minister do that? Will he end this unfair practice against generic companies?