George Baker

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Gaspé. I am not going to support these amendments.

Coming from the same area as the hon. member, it is perfectly right and legitimate that he raise these amendments to this legislation.

The clerks at the table make a judgment on whether these amendments are legal. That is why we have a law clerk. In fact, I was once a law clerk in a provincial legislature. That is why we have an assistant clerk, a chief clerk. They make those decisions.

I can also understand why the hon. member in some of his amendments talks the way he does about the ecosystem and about the great dissatisfaction he and his fishermen have with the way the federal government has treated the ecosystem over the years.

The great Gaspé area puts out a brochure for June that says: "Fishing from the wharves". That is for saltwater fish. Just imagine, fishing from the wharves. And under that it says: "In various sections of the Gaspé for this year". There is listed which wharves are the best wharves for fishing cod.

We cannot fish cod in Newfoundland and Labrador because of the moratorium. However, the federal government allows fishing from the wharves in the Gaspé for cod, mackerel, sea trout and so on. It is a great fishing area. The best spawning area in the world for mackerel is the Gaspé coast. What has happened over the years?

I can understand the hon. member. Over the years the federal government had given licences to Norway, Sweden and Denmark to fish every year at this time as the mackerel are coming in to spawn in that great spawning area in the gulf. What these vessels did was block the spawning path of the mackerel as it came in in one big line. Believe me, that is not too long ago.

In fact we still have foreign licences inside 200-miles. I am surprised that the opposition has not introduced an amendment to end it for all time.

What happened to the squid that once frequented the Gaspé peninsula and the eastern coast of Canada?

The hon. member talks about the ecosystem, the squid that used to go into the gulf, the squid that were the food of the cod, the flatfish and every other type of groundfish. The squid are born around Florida. They come up the coastline of Canada, go into the gulf, go way up around the east coast of Canada, come back down in one year to Florida and die. They know where to go, do they not? They go down to Florida in that one year cycle, reproduce and then die. Ever since I can recall the federal government has judged squid to be underutilized. Therefore it has granted the licences for the great interception of the squid on their way up around the east coast of Canada into the Gulf of the St. Lawrence and around the Gaspé Peninsula.

I can understand what the hon. member is talking about when he talks about the federal government's mismanaging the resource historically. Historically there is certainly a case to be made for the federal government's total and utter mismanagement of the fisheries. There is no doubt about it. However, in the meantime I will not support the hon. member's amendment. I do not want him to get excited.

The unfortunate part of the management of the fishery that sometimes fisheries and oceans does not understand is the fact that fish swim. Fish actually swim.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to get to the core of what the hon. member talked about, it is about money. Perhaps that is what is behind practically every action of provincial governments and federal governments these days, that is, to cut, cut, cut. The money is not there according to the Department of Finance and Treasury Board.

We went through a very terrible period in Newfoundland in the last two months. In my riding two trade schools closed, Springdale and Lewisporte, which are vocational schools, community colleges. There was a government announcement that first year university education is no longer offered in the three locations in my riding where it was formerly offered.

Last week there were announcements that school buses would no longer be provided to bring children home for lunch unless the parents paid for it. Some may ask what is wrong with that. To me there is a lot wrong with it. It is okay for my kids. If people saw my kids going along in the school bus on a stormy day, they would know we could pay the $200. But the children of the poor will be trudging along through the snow because their parents cannot pay the fee.

Many things have taken place that should never have taken place as far as education is concerned. Health care and education are two things we should preserve. This government or any other government should not be slashing as is being done right across Canada today.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Yes, what an insult. The other statement was that we have to be careful because our money is going to Newfoundland to pay for these things. It has to be spent wisely.

In Newfoundland our students get as good or better an education than in any other province in Canada. When someone goes to the University of Ottawa or Carleton University and sees first-year university students there from Newfoundland, what do those students have? Only grade 8? Is that the standard of enrolment? Of course not. Students that come from Newfoundland are usually put ahead in the province of Ontario when they do the entrance exams.

The fact of the matter is yes, it is an expensive system in Newfoundland. One of the main reasons is that we have more degreed teachers per capita than any province in Canada. Why? Way back at the beginning of the 1960s, the Government of Newfoundland decided to give students free tuition and salaries to go to university to become teachers. It gave $600 to boot as a person entered university to increase their qualifications to become teachers so there are teachers today in Newfoundland with masters degrees, and PhDs are common. Every second teacher has two and three degrees, the highest number of degreed teachers in this nation. That is reality in the province of Newfoundland. We get a solid education.

The other reason of sending money to Newfoundland really infuriated me. It is good that they are sending money to Newfoundland. It is good that they are supporting Cornwall too, with Domtar, and Trail, British Columbia, northern Quebec and îles de la Madeleine. It is good that they are supporting those people who claim that they are sending money to Newfoundland through their tax system. Why? Those are the people who make this country rich. Those are the producers. When it is seen on a scale, Newfoundland and Labrador contributes more to the economy of this nation per capita in exports than any other province in Canada.

A member of Parliament stands up and says: "We are sending money to them now for their education. We have to be careful how they spend it". They should be thanking everybody for having Newfoundland for doing what Newfoundland does best, that is, we produce. We produce over $1 billion worth of electricity for export. We have our paper mills, our fish plants and all of those primary producers who keep this nation going. They keep the member of Parliament who made that statement in a position where that member of Parliament can go to a plush office in a big, fancy car and live pretty well. We have heard the fallacies and the misleading statements.

I notice that my 10 minutes are up and I have not said what I really wanted to say. The Speaker is going to call me to order.

I suppose the student put it the best way the other day when he gave me a petition to present to the House. Of course when somebody gives a member of Parliament a petition, whether or not the member agrees with the petition, the member of Parliament should present it to the Chamber. The member of Parliament has a duty to do that.

The student made a wonderful speech when he gave me the petition. He quoted from a document which was written when we joined Canada and then he quoted from what we call the Ode to Newfoundland. He pointed out that the Constitution of this country should be something that is pretty solid. A constitution is supposed to be the real framework of a country. He noted that eight years ago when the Tories were in power members of Parliament on both sides of the House stood in this Chamber to amend the Constitution of Canada to include the Pentecostals in education. They were given equal rights.

The student said: "Now the Parliament of Canada eight years later is going to take away those rights". His final words were from the Ode to Newfoundland. I do not blame him for what he said. The verse in the Ode to Newfoundland is: "God guard thee, God guard thee, God guard thee Newfoundland". He included the words: "because the House of Commons certainly will not".

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I presented seven petitions a few moments ago from 8,900 people. A few of the petitions were from schools. Some of these petitions came from outside my riding. A student wrote: "We decided to send it to you, Mr. Baker, because you are the oldest member of the House of Commons". Perhaps the student meant the most senior member from Newfoundland, not the oldest member. There are some members here who are older than I am.

The reason I decided to say a few words is because there have been erroneous statements made in and outside the Chamber regarding the Newfoundland school system. I picked up the Globe and Mail this morning and what does a columnist say? People from Newfoundland who are listening to this are going to roll on floor in laughter.

"Newfoundland is the only place in North America without a public school system. The hallowed Terms of Union with Canada in 1949 requires the province to do for one of those seven denominations, build a new school for example, whatever it does for another. Even Anglicans like Clyde Wells and his kids who have no Anglican school nearby have been forced either go on a waiting list for admission to a religious school not of their faith, or to suffer a three-hour bus ride to find an Anglican school". I see a Newfoundlander in the gallery laughing right now.

The fact is that there is no such thing in Gander, Newfoundland, where I come from. There are four schools, yes, but they cover everybody. There is no Roman Catholic school, there is no Pentecostal school, no Seventh Day Adventist school, no Anglican school, no Salvation Army school. There is just one school system.

There is the elementary school, second school, high school and a collegiate. But there is one school with no denomination in Gander, Newfoundland. Over the years things have changed in Newfoundland. Where it was not economical or the numbers did not warrant, things changed. Integration took place.

The integrated school, which is similar to public schools in Ontario, would have everybody who is not Roman Catholic, Pentecostal or Seventh Day Adventist. But that cannot be said either. Children could go to a Roman Catholic school if they wanted to. If they went into St. John's, the capital, they would find, I think, two Seventh Day Adventist schools. The Seventh Day Adventist total enrolment for all of the Newfoundland and Labrador is 203 students. Members of the House talk about what an expense the Seventh Day Adventist school is. Yes, it has 203 students. There are two Seventh Day Adventist schools. There are Roman Catholic schools. They would be integrated schools. There would be a Pentecostal school. There would also be a French school.

A Seven Day Adventist bus comes from Conception Bay south. Taking that bus would be Pentecostals, Roman Catholics and those students attending what they call the French school. The entire school is French immersion. Most of our schools have just French immersion classes in them. In other words, only French is spoken all the way up to grade 12. We are pretty modern in Newfoundland. We are up to date in Newfoundland.

They talk about discrimination. I am a Liberal member. I get only 10 minutes to speak and the Bloc opposite gets 30 minutes. Twenty minutes for the opposition members. We are limited to 10. I have to watch the clock.

What really infuriated me was listening to members of Parliament making two statements. One statement was regarding the quality of education in Newfoundland. The remark was made that if you have grade 12 in Newfoundland, according to a certain standard, you really only have a grade 8 standard in Ontario.

[Petitions, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have eight petitions here, but since they all have the same prayer I will present them as one.

The prayer of the petitions signed by these 8,900 people is that the Pentecostal Assemblies were recognized in 1987 by this House and the proposed amendment to Term 17 threatens their continued existence as viable Pentecostal schools. The people have not been afforded the opportunity to make full representation to the Parliament of Canada, so they ask that the whole thing be put aside and that we not pass the proposed amendment in its present form.

[Petitions, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it pleases me to present 52 petitions to the House from Newfoundland. One is from over 400 employees of Revenue Canada. They all deal with the same subject.

The petitioners are demanding the reinstatement of about 50 employees of Revenue Canada who are being laid off today. Because these people process the child benefit cheques and the GST tax credit cheques, the layoffs will lead to delays throughout Atlantic Canada for millions of people.

We look forward to a response from the Government of Canada to this petition. The layoffs do not make any sense and I agree with every single person who signed these 52 petitions.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of words concerning this amendment and the assumption that the Reform Party of Canada is the party that will protect provincial rights, that it will promote the non-intrusion of the federal government into provincial rights.

It is very strange to hear the Reform Party of Canada chastising the Liberals and chastising the Bloc on this question. In its policy it interferes with provincial jurisdiction. Reformers are the ones who claim in their bible, in their budget of last year, that not only would the air and airports be privatized, not only would the ocean, the seaways be privatized, but also roads and bridges. If that is not provincial jurisdiction I would like to know what is. That is not only an intrusion into provincial affairs but an intrusion into Canadians' affairs.

Imagine, as they suggest in black and white, having large businesses build highways; they would have to be large to build roads. Then we would have to pay to drive on those highways. That is their policy.

The party that says it does not want the Government of Canada intruding into provincial jurisdiction is the same party that suggests in its policy booklet to cut equalization by 35 per cent. Imagine, coming from Atlantic Canada, what kind of intrusion that would be to the provincial governments; that 35 per cent cut in the bible of the Reform Party of Canada, in its so-called taxpayers budget.

Imagine the cut of 34 per cent the Reform Party advocates to the Canada assistance plan. Is that not an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction? That is the plan the provinces use to pay for their own programs, 50:50. The Reform Party of Canada says slash that by 34 per cent and slash equalization by 35 per cent.

That is not all. Look at the intrusion into provincial jurisdiction when Reform Party members attack our medicare system. We know what words they use on medicare. The words used in reference to Reform Party policy are "intolerably expensive and unnecessary". Those are the words used in its policy booklet, in its

so-called taxpayers budget, its bible, not the authorized version but the unauthorized version because nobody apart from the Reform Party would authorize it.

Is it not an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction to be telling the provinces that medicare, the very thing we depend on, is intolerably expensive and unnecessary? Is that not an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, then to say misrepresentation? That is in its policy booklet, the taxpayers budget. I look at it almost every day. I have it right here.

Reformers say they would have private enterprise build the roads and the highways and charge the public for it, build the bridges and charge the public for it. Is that not an intrusion? They would cut equalization by 35 per cent and CAP by 34 per cent. They say our medicare system should be thrown out the window because it is intolerably expensive.

Then they turn around and do what? What do they approve of? What they approve of are all the big tax breaks they can give to the biggest corporations operating in the country.

They jumped up and down with joy when the Senate sent a bill here recently which talked about a 50 per cent tax cut for the largest foreign controlled multinationals in the country. They jumped for joy when there was a 30 per cent tax cut on interest that flows out of the country across the border. They said: "Come on, Senate, give us some more because we love this. We loved to do away with the royalties on all the taxes that go out of the country".

Here they are cutting things from the provinces, cutting things in provincial jurisdictions. Then they stand up in the House of Commons and say this bill is really an intrusion into provincial government jurisdiction. They should go back to their own handbook, to their own policies. They should have a little charity when they think about Canadians.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's question. It is very interesting.

The hon. member will notice that in the last couple of days I have had a rather bad back. It is difficult sometimes to stand and to be seated. Hopefully my back will improve as the days go on.

However, I can tell the hon. member what I intend to do tomorrow. The only flight I can get to Newfoundland is early tomorrow morning and so I may have to miss the vote.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member puts forward an interesting proposition. I think my friend behind me and to my left answered quite appropriately one day when he said: "If you vote against the government on a finance bill, it is a vote of no confidence in the government".

The assumption is made under our rules, that if one has no confidence in the government then that person must have confidence in one of the opposition parties. Unfortunately with the positions taken by the opposition parties, I have less confidence in them than I have in the present Government of Canada.

[Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. No thanks.