Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate this time today to speak in reply to the Speech from the Throne. This is on a day that follows a very important day in Ottawa, at the House of Commons and more particularly for Parliament. At the parliamentary restaurant yesterday, for the first time we served seal meat. I would like to applaud you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing the restaurant to serve seal. It was a dandy meal and it could be served with just about anything.
If members have never had a good meal of seal, they have missed an entire lifetime of good nutrition and good taste. Even this morning's Ottawa Citizen, a paper not familiar perhaps with the seal hunt, had picture of the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, partaking in seal meat.
I would like to congratulate all who took part in yesterday's festivities. We brought seal meat to the menus at the House of Commons. It is a big step forward for the sealing industry.
I will now talk about the Speech from the Throne. There are so many aspects to cover, but I will focus on a few issues that are not only of national significance, but also of great significance to my own riding. Several aspects of my riding are affected by certain national policies that are addressed in the Speech from the Throne. Some of them bear great importance on the whole country, not just the one area I proudly represent, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, from Buchans to Bonavista.
I was a little disappointed in the lack of a clear statement or direction when it came to pensions. In the past six months a lot of publications around the world, the OECD, many other major organizations from the United Nations and others have talked a lot about pensions and, more important, pension security. This is not just from the public aspect of pensions, such as the CPP, OAS as well as the guaranteed income supplement, which are vital tools to keep many people above poverty or certainly to help them enjoy their senior years from age 60 and onwards. There is also a great amount of insecurity when it comes to the future security of pensions in many respects because of the worldwide situation.
My colleagues talked about the worldwide recession, and I agree with them. It is a recession that we have not seen in quite some time. For most people involved in the financial markets, they have not seen it either. We found ourselves in a situation that many were surprised, shocked and government policy followed suit, in many cases short-term measures. However, the problem is now, as we go out of the short-term measures, we have to focus on what is long-term sustainability for our social fabric. The problem with the social fabric that we have created in this situation is it seems as if all the emphasis lately has been on the short-term policy measures. For some of them, that is fantastic. It is a necessary move for governments to use for the sake of allowing people to get from this point to point B, which is a month or two from now or whatever, but certainly for the next two or three years.
However, if we look at all these studies, something is coming this way that may provide a substantial amount of policy talk, thought and deliberation. The House and this nation are not immune to that conversation. We, too, will find ourselves in a conversation about the security of our own pensions, which will take a lot of deliberation, a lot of sacrifices and for all parties in the House and any future parties that may come along, it will be a discussion that everyone has to act with the utmost responsibility.
I will give an example in my riding of Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. We had the Grand Falls division of AbitibiBowater shut down, 700 jobs directly, well over 1,100 jobs indirectly. It had a devastating effect.
The economy within the Exploits Valley in which Grand Falls--Windsor exists has weathered the storm for now. I would like to say that we are doing well with this in the Exploits Valley. We have handled it well, but we are not out of the woods yet, pardon the expression. In this particular situation, it is a 100-year-old establishment that created not just one, but upwards of 40 communities existing on logging and paper making. All of the suppliers and workers in that particular mill were the lifeblood for an entire community, the valley and the entire region of central Newfoundland and Labrador. It was really compelling, but after 100 years, the doors have been shut.
No one person is to blame for this. No one individual, no one organization is to blame. It is world markets and the struggling economy. In many respects, it is cutthroat competition from others as the markets decline. We have lost a great number of individuals who have gone elsewhere. We have lost a lot of skills and high-paying jobs. The average salary for someone in a mill such as that is extremely high. It is the type of salary that helps support families.
My hometown was really the genesis of the union movement, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour. It was in Grand Falls-Windsor because of that mill. A community was created, not just from that mill, but from the unions and community groups involved. Therefore, we find ourselves at a crossroads. This is not easy. Right now we have done fairly well, but we are not out of the woods.
This is going to be a struggle that we go through over the next two or three years. I bring that up for several reasons. Pensions are a part of economic development. I hope that does not serve as a shocker to a lot of people, but they do. They are a vanguard for economic development in somewhat of a small community.
How big is Grand Falls-Windsor? It has just over 13,000 people. That is not a lot of people. However, the entire region helps support 30,000 to 40,000 people. There are 170 communities in my riding. The largest community has 13,000 people. Let us face it. I am as rural as rural can get, maybe with the exception of Nunavut. Nonetheless, one gets the idea.
When I talk about pensions, there were people working in the mill who as of last year saw a decrease in their pension value by up to 30%. If a 79-year-old supports a large two-storey home that costs $900 to $1,000 to heat and his pension is decreased by 25% to 30%, that is a lot. I use all those little factors because the gentleman I am describing is my father. He never thought he would be in a situation where he had to look at the value of his defined benefit pension being 30% less.
We come to a House like this. I do not say this because I am his son; I am also his member of Parliament. There are other fathers with sons who look to me as well and I offer them a couple of measures. I applaud the party to my left, the NDP, for the bills that those members have put forward. We have put forward some as well, when we talk about the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act as well as looking at the unsecured creditors situation.
I do not think we need to approach this through large, expensive measures. I think that some of those could have been covered off a little more than what the government has recently done. I am not here to contradict the government and say that everything it did was wrong. I am here to say that we should raise the bar on this issue, because if we do not, we will get caught.
Unfortunately, with the number of seniors in this country, we suffer from what is called the crowding out effect. Many political scientists use that term when it comes to child care, daycare, health care, aboriginals, fisheries, forestry and agriculture. The size of this issue, when it comes to pensions, may crowd out others. Let us face it. What was then was a surplus; what is now is a deficit. Many numbers have been thrown around, but the figure certainly is over $50 billion. We have to deal with that as well.
I would ask my colleagues to raise the bar when it comes to pensions. Let us not look at condemning wholeheartedly everybody's opinion when it comes to pensions. Let us take a little bit of this and a little bit of that to reach a critical mass by which our seniors can live.
In my response to the Speech from the Throne, I throw out a challenge and I sincerely ask the House to help us with this issue of pensions and pension security. 2010 showed no increase in OAS or GIS support for seniors in poverty and no increase in CPP or any measures to deal with defined benefit pensions. There are defined benefits, but now most places are turning to defined contributions. Essentially that has to do with pension security. Remember that 79-year-old man I spoke of? If he was under defined contributions, the security, the risk to his pension resides with him and him alone.
That is why measures introduced by the Liberal Party, which I fully endorse, look at ways of supplementing the CPP. It is one of the best managed programs in this country and for good reason. Therefore, maybe we should use that as a mechanism by which we can help people get out of poverty.
I want to move on to other issues that pertain to the region. I mentioned pensions as a vanguard for economic development. There are other areas of economic development as well. One of the more successful ones has been an organization known as ACOA. We call it ACOA; here in Ottawa it would be known as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. What we need from ACOA now is a vision.
The problem with the recent budget was that it was a year over year expense of only $19 million into two vital programs, innovation as well as a communities fund. We could argue about dollar amounts all day, but the problem is that a year over year approach will give us $19 million this year, and as for next year, stay tuned.
The problem with that is it does not compel our bureaucrats in ACOA and other places to have a vision that is compelling enough to look at a five year plan. That is the problem. In the early part of this decade, in 2000-01 we came out with a program that allowed ACOA to do that, to create programs that were visionary five years out. Now we are year over year, and it is not helping matters for this particular organization.
I also want to address other issues in the Speech from the Throne briefly, but issues certainly deserving of comment. Being that I represent northeastern Newfoundland, I represent the town of Bonavista. It was the first place discovered in North America well over 500 years ago and the reason they stayed was the fish and the sea.
The town of Catalina in my riding has as its motto “the sea is our stay”. Well, the sea is our stay and it certainly was our beginning. Whether we talk about fish and seafood or we talk about oil and gas, for many people the sea is our stay. How do we make a living from that sea?
We are changing. The dynamics are changing. People with smaller boats are getting bigger boats. The tools and mechanisms by which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans implements these programs sometimes can go awry. They may be paved with good intentions, but unfortunately potholes are developed along the way.
As parliamentarians we have the responsibility to help fill potholes. I mean this in a figurative sense, too, not necessarily literally, but maybe literally as well because potholes are always a big issue.
One of the issues addressed in the Speech from the Throne hinted about the possibility of a new mechanism for fisheries. In the Speech from the Throne, the government said it would introduce new legislation to reform Canada's outdated system of fisheries management.
We dealt with the Fisheries Act twice in the past, one of which was former Bill C-45. The problem was it was what some people would call omnibus legislation, a very large piece of legislation that changed a very old act, I believe it is 134 or 135 years old now. The act is old and it needs to be changed. I do not think anybody in this House disagrees with that, but when an act of its size is changed, an act with so much power because there is so much discretionary power rested within the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, it is a pretty big step.
Co-management was a key factor in the new Fisheries Act, but it has to be done right. A lot of people just were not sure about this act and, there it was, right here in the House of Commons. People were asking questions. We talked to fishermen about this, but we need more than just fishermen; we need lawyers to look at this, too. Former managers said there are some things that caused them concern, but there just was not time. The government said there was a consultation process. We decided that the consultation process was not thorough enough and that is why we worked against it at the time.
I would suggest to the government that if a new Fisheries Act is coming and it wants to do this, I would humbly suggest that it take measures to have consultations, but only about a new Fisheries Act from coast to coast to coast before it puts this legislation on the table.
Alternatively, further to that, it could introduce the bill in the House and send it to committee before it goes to second reading where the bill could be changed and it is wider in scope. Otherwise, if the bill is voted on at second reading and it passes, all of a sudden it goes to committee and changes cannot be made to it because the Speaker would overrule them.
It is not because you are a nasty person, Mr. Speaker, it is only because it is your job. Do not think we have a low opinion of you. We think highly of you. People get the idea; that is where we need to go with a new Fisheries Act.
There are three or four major parts to the Fisheries Act. The problem with that is we may not like one thing, but we would have to discard the whole bill because we would be voting on the whole thing. We have one vote for the whole bill. What the government should do is break it up into a management section in one bill to deal with infractions, a tribunal, and then have a second bill. People get the idea. That is certainly the way we should be progressing. I am not against co-management, but I am certainly in favour of everyone buying into this and truly understanding what a new fisheries regime must bring to the table.
I was disappointed for many reasons when NAFO was ratified by the House. It seems to me that the Conservatives promised that all these new international agreements would be brought to the House to be vetted. We voted on it, but we had a forced vote. It sat there and then was ratified. Even after we voted on it and the majority of members of the House said they did not like it, the next day it was accepted. I will let that rest where it is because I think it speaks for itself.
There was a promise to vet international agreements in the House of Commons. What was the point? We turned back a decision by the House and actually said we did not like it, but yet we accepted it. There we go. I hope this issue of NAFO will not proverbially come back to bite us where we do not want to be bitten, if I could put it that mildly.
I would suggest to everybody in the House that when it comes to the Fisheries Act, it is time to bring it to the country in a manner that is focused on a new fisheries regime, a new style of fisheries management that allows people time to come to terms with what is being asked for and to cast their opinions in a responsible way. It is also responsible for us to move on this so that we can finally make changes and bring forth a new Fisheries Act after just over 130 years. That is quite some time.
To touch on the major themes, the final theme I wish to discuss is search and rescue. I understand the issue of constraint. I still do not have it clear whether there are going to be major cuts in defence or not. Are we toning down spending or cutting it? One says toning, one says cutting. I am not quite sure.
I will say this as a last bit of information, and I am looking directly at the other side. Fixed wing search and rescue has been on the books for well over eight years now, if not ten. We need new fixed wing search and rescue.
I represent 103 Search and Rescue at 9 Wing Gander. It is the greatest search and rescue outfit in the world. My apologies to those who represent other bases, but I am a little biased. We need the resources to help these soldiers, the bravest soldiers I know.
