Judy Foote

[Petitions, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of hunters on the south coast of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. These hunters feel that the migratory bird allowable hunting dates in zone 3 should be changed from the current dates of November 25 to March 10 to January 1 to April 30. This area of the province is open to the Atlantic Ocean which makes it extremely difficult for hunters to participate. For those who are unable to hunt ducks and turrs for food because of the high winds they ask that consideration be given to the situation in which they find themselves. Therefore, they ask the House that consideration be given to this change of date that would allow hunters to fill their quotas and participate in this seasonal activity.

[Graduate Scholarship Award, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a young man from Winterland, a small community on the Burin Peninsula in the riding of Random--Burin--St. George's in Newfoundland and Labrador. Gaetan Kenway has been awarded the Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship valued at $70,000.

The criteria for the scholarship points to Gaetan's exceptional talents. The award is based on academic excellence and research potential, plus communication, interpersonal and leadership abilities.

Gaetan is an amazing young man. After graduating from Marystown Central High School in 2003, he completed a Bachelor of Science in engineering physics at Queen's University and then entered the Master of Applied Science program at the University of Toronto. A year later he was fast-tracked into the Ph.D. program at the school's Institute for Aerospace Studies. Gaetan is currently studying in the multidisciplinary optimization of aircraft systems program.

His parents, Nancy and Morley Kenway, are teachers. They are justifiably proud of their son's accomplishments.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating Gaetan Kenway and wishing him continued success.

[May 13th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has just reinforced the issue that there does not seem to be an understanding that this has nothing to do with paying the tax. Fishers know they have to pay capital gains on the buyout of their fishing licences. The issue is that they have been treated unfairly. One group paid 25%, the other group paid 100%. We are asking for the government to acknowledge that this was wrong.

Clearly, when we talk about uniform application, let us be uniform in applying the tax to all fishers and treat them the same. I know it is before the courts and fishers know it is before the courts.

We all know that when a mistake has been made, our government can in fact do the right thing. It can acknowledge that a mistake has been and that fishers have been treated unfairly. It can come to their aid and reimburse them the money that was taken from them--

[May 13th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, on March 10 in this House I asked a question to deal with the 850 fishers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec who have been taxed unfairly on the buyout of their fishing licences. They voluntarily participated in a program offered by the federal government in 1998. With the collapse of the ground fishery there was an opportunity for them to actually get out of the fishery and several hundred of them took advantage of this program.

What has transpired since is nothing short of a shame on the government because of the way these fishers have been treated. They knew they would have to pay capital gains tax on the buyout of their licences. That is not the issue. The issue is that for some of those fishers they were actually charged 25% tax on the capital gains while the other 850 were charged 100% tax on their capital gains. So the question is, why were they treated differently?

What they have been trying to do ever since is to get the government to acknowledge that there was an error made and the error was made when Revenue Canada informed the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that these fishers would indeed be taxed at 100% of their capital gains. Later it was learned that was not the case. DFO had only passed along the information that had been provided to it by Revenue Canada.

Upon learning that some of their colleagues, some of their fellow fishers, were in fact only taxed 25% on the capital gains, then of course these fishers came looking for money that was owed to them, money that had been collected by the government in this situation unfairly.

We have been trying for all of this time, going on 10 years now, to get the government to acknowledge that this is a mistake. It is a mistake it can fix quite easily if it wants to. We all know that governments can do things when they realize an egregious error has been made and in this case that is certainly what has happened. So we are trying again to make the government understand the situation.

It would appear from a response that I received to a petition that I presented on the very same issue, that somehow Revenue Canada seems to think that these fishers do not want to pay capital gains on the buyout of their licences and that is not the case.

It says in the response from TCC that the payments were taxable under the provisions of the act. They are not quarrelling with that. Of course they expect to pay tax. That is not the question. The issue is that they have been taxed unfairly. How anyone could look at the situation and not see that about 200 fishers were taxed 25% on the sale of their fishing licences and the remaining 850 were taxed at 100%. There is a problem here; an error was made.

We are asking the government to acknowledge this error, and forget the fact that it is before the courts because that is always used as an excuse of course when people do not want to deal with an issue, and in this case the government. It is a smokescreen. We are asking it to acknowledge there has been a mistake made and let us fix this once and for all and treat the fishers fairly like they are being asked of their government.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate my colleague on an incredible presentation today in this House on behalf of those we know in Newfoundland and Labrador who seal as a way of making a living. She has made some very valid points.

I am so pleased she was able to make the presentation today. We are all feeling the pain of those who are trying to make a living from the sealing industry but find themselves in a very difficult situation as a result of the ban on seal products by the European Union.

I would like to ask her about one point she made. She made the valid point that while the Prime Minister is in negotiations with the EU with respect to trade between our countries it is important that the Prime Minister make the point that this is a wrong decision by the parliamentarians in the EU.

When the Prime Minister is on record as saying he will not contaminate the negotiations with the EU by bringing up the seal industry as a prerequisite for not moving forward, how should we deal with that? How do we get the Prime Minister to acknowledge that it should be something he raises as a very important point before proceeding with the trade negotiations with the EU?

[Seal Hunt, May 5th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, it is interesting to be part of this debate tonight and to listen to the various opinions being put forward.

I think about the 6,000 sealers, those in Newfoundland and Labrador, who are impacted by this decision by the EU. I can only imagine what they are going through, having their livelihood taken away like that. They are people who have been sealing for years and years, resulting in a contribution to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador of about $70 million annually. It is gone.

We have to ask why. What happened to it? Why did the EU take this decision? Why would they take such a punitive measure against Canada and Canadians?

I listened to my colleagues on the government side talking about what the Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation has done, or what the Minister of Foreign Affairs has done, what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has done and, yes, what the Prime Minister has done. I have to ask why they were not effective.

Why did this decision come down from the EU? We know only too well that no matter how much we talk about trying to change it, once a decision has been taken it is going to be much harder to turn it around.

Why does my colleague think that the government was ineffective, resulting in the EU putting a ban on the seal hunt?

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that one precludes the other. It is important for all of us to recognize the importance of the CBC to Canadians and to the country. I do not think we need to talk about doing one and not the other in terms of the environment. It is important for us to recognize that we need to take care of the environment and, at the same time, take care of something as important to all of us as the CBC.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the member is, as we would say, out to lunch, in terms of the question itself and the information that he is providing here in the House of Commons to the public via the airwaves.

We clearly know, and the CBC has admitted this, that the government did not provide the bridge funding as was requested by the CBC. All it was asking for was funding to allow it to continue its mandate.

As I said, I am very familiar with the mandate of the CBC, being a former employee of the corporation. The CBC wants to do what it was mandated to do. Unfortunately, the government is not allowing the CBC to do that, whether it is through not providing the bridge funding or not continuing with the budget it already has, which is in fact being cut. It was cut the last two years by the Conservative government. This year it is being cut by $62 million. If the hon. member does not believe that, all he has to do is look at the CBC's own financial statements.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Newton—North Delta.

I rise today to speak in support of my colleague's motion with respect to the indispensable role of Radio-Canada in providing national, regional and local programming.

As a former journalist with the CBC, I think it is fair to say that I can speak with some knowledge about the corporation and what it offers Canadians. What it offers Canadians is the opportunity to learn from each other, from coast to coast to coast.

CBC has been referred to as the home of Canadian content. It offers services in English and French in five time zones. It provides coverage in eight aboriginal languages. It provides coverage in eight international languages for new and aspiring Canadians, and nine languages via the CBC's worldwide network.

Some people might ask why we are spending taxpayers' money on offering programs in languages other than our two official languages, English and French. It is because that is who we are in this country, a mosiac of people from throughout the world, many of whom chose Canada because of our reputation as a caring people and country.

We care enough to make sure they have every opportunity to learn about their new home, including via the country's public broadcaster. In fact section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians”. The recognition in the charter of the multicultural heritage of Canadians speaks to the importance of ensuring there is a forum for all Canadians to express their views no matter what their heritage. The CBC has been helpful in fulfilling this role.

By reducing funding to the CBC, are we not compromising that opportunity? When the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism refers to the CBC as a bloated crown corporation, does he not realize how valuable the CBC is to our multicultural population?

Without the CBC, I think it is fair to say that Canadians born in this country would not have the opportunity to learn about every region of the country. Many do not have the opportunity to travel and they welcome the chance, through the CBC, to discover information about Canada and other Canadians.

One example of a great program hosted by a fellow Newfoundlander, Rex Murphy, is Cross Country Checkup, Canada's only national open-line radio program broadcast live across the country every Sunday. Anyone who has listened to Cross Country Checkup knows Rex initiates a lively discussion on issues of national importance that Canadians are only too eager to speak about, and to share their thoughts and opinions.

I mention Cross Country Checkup because when I see comments from the Prime Minister where he refers to the CBC as a government-sponsored loser, how can he not see the value in programs produced by the CBC where the emphasis is on Canada and Canadians?

In Newfoundland and Labrador, a local radio program called The Fisheries Broadcast is the radio program to tune into for information about anything to do with the fishery, a vital industry in the province, one that continues to provide a living for many despite the collapse of the ground fishery. Whenever I get a chance to listen to The Fisheries Broadcast, it is obvious just how much those involved in the industry use it and appreciate it.

Since its inception in 1951, The Fisheries Broadcast has covered stories about the fishing industry, reflecting the people and the communities that depend on the sea for their livelihood. The program provides basic survival information to fish harvesters, such as marine weather forecasts, meeting announcements and the opening and closing times of the various fisheries. For more than half a century The Fisheries Broadcast has been considered a trusted, essential communication service provided by the CBC.

Unfortunately, with the Prime Minister's view of CBC as a government-sponsored loser, programs like The Fisheries Broadcast could one day be on the chopping block. That would be a tragedy.

When one reduces spending to a crown corporation, like the CBC in this case, and leaves those in charge no choice but to make decisions taking into account the funding cuts, anything and everything is up for consideration.

In Newfoundland and Labrador invaluable programs such as Radio Noon will be cut to one hour, and a program called Living Newfoundland and Labrador has been cancelled. Living Newfoundland and Labrador has been an interesting program, not only for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but it has also aired in other Atlantic provinces, just as similar programs from other Atlantic provinces have been carried in Newfoundland and Labrador by the CBC.

Canadians learning about Canadians instead of watching American produced programming is not a bad thing and should be encouraged.

I recall watching an episode of the Rick Mercer Report in which he interviewed people in the United States. He asked them questions about Canada. Their lack of knowledge about Canada and Canadians was appalling. Rick Mercer was doing his part to educate Americans about Canada, even if he was taking a shot at them while doing so. By the way, Rick Mercer is a fellow Newfoundlander as well.

The government's latest funding cuts could result in as many as 20 jobs eliminated in Newfoundland and Labrador. While we talk about the loss of programming and the seriousness of these cuts at the CBC, the personal side is something that tends to get lost.

I know of a cameraman who has lost his job, a father of three whose wife is a stay-at-home mom. In this economy, finding a job for either the husband or the wife will not be easy, even if possible. It is possible that this man will end up on EI, trying to provide for a family of five. He will go from one government funded job where he was a productive member of society to trying to make ends meet on EI, a fund administered by the government.

A poll conducted by the Truro Daily News in Nova Scotia asked readers if the government should have provided the funding to ensure that the CBC did not have to axe hundreds of full-time jobs across the country. It was clear in the responses that CBC is considered to provide a valuable service. I am sure the response would have been the same throughout the country. Why then, at a time when hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast are losing their jobs, did the Conservatives decide to play a major role in seeing the loss of hundreds of more jobs? The Minister of Industry is on record asking, “Do we need the CBC, in its current format, when there are so many private broadcasting channels available?” Unfortunately, such a comment shows the absence of any understanding of the mandate of the CBC and the important role it plays in the country.

It should not be seen as one or the other. Both have a role to play and both do it well. The difference is that in many small rural communities throughout the country, the only presence is the CBC. It serves as the voice of Canadians who live in those communities. In my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's, there are over 200 communities. In fact, it takes nine hours to drive from one end of my riding to another. There are eight isolated communities in my riding. Indeed, the CBC is the voice of Canadians. Residents and constituents of my riding listen to the CBC.

The president and chief executive officer of the CBC, Hubert T. Lacroix, said that the corporation brings Canadians programming when, where and how they want it on 29 services and multiple platforms: television, radio, the Internet, satellite radio, digital audio and a recording label. According to Mr. Lacroix, only the CBC provides 21 hours of Canadian programming in regular prime time. In the last four years, CBC increased by 38% its investment in Canadian dramas and comedies. CBC created a made-in-Canada reality segment. CBC commissions more developmental, commercial free, child focused programming than anyone else in Canada. CBC has increased its focus on original current affairs programming, highlighting Canadian issues and international events from a Canadian perspective.

While Mr. Lacroix likes to boast about what the CBC has been doing, and rightfully so, my take on it is that the CBC has been fulfilling its mandate and, if given the opportunity to do so, would continue down that path.

What I thought really interesting in Mr. Lacroix's remarks is that Canadians, through their tax dollars, contribute $34 a year to the CBC, which is less than a dime a day. In Britain, each person contributes $124 a year toward that country's public broadcaster, the BBC. In France, each person contributes $65 a year and that will rise to $77 a year under the French government's plan to disallow advertising on its public broadcaster.

How is it that the Conservative government does not have the same appreciation for Canada's public broadcaster? Could it have anything to do with the Prime Minister's remarks on March 12 of this year, just a little over two weeks ago, when he said:

Never forget--you would forget this sometimes listening to the CBC--that it was Conservatives that created our federation, one of the most lasting political democratic arrangements in history.

Could the decision to let our national broadcaster die a death of a thousand cuts stem from the Prime Minister's dissatisfaction over some remarks made by some announcer, journalist or program producer? Certainly that cannot be the case. Canadians support the CBC and so should the Conservative government.

[Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation, March 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the hon. House of an award received by a remarkable woman in my riding. Joyce Samms of Port aux Basques has been presented with the Minister of Veterans Affairs Commendation award.

Mrs. Samms served in the women's Royal naval service in England during the second world war. She moved with her family to Newfoundland in 1952 and a few years later became a member of the Royal Canadian Legion. She was the only female member at Branch 11 at the time.

Mrs. Samms served in a variety of roles for many years, including president, secretary, chair of the poppy campaign, and honours and awards chair. She is currently membership chair. Mrs. Samms was the first woman to be elected as district commander and 10 years later became the first woman in Canada to be elected provincial president.

Mrs. Samms has received the Meritorious Service Medal and the Palm Leaf, the legion's highest honour. She is a life member of the legion and a recipient of the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to tell you about such an outstanding woman from the riding of Random—Burin—St. George's.