Loyola Hearn

[Employment, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resource Development. Every year the minister releases her programs for student summer placement programs. These programs are available to not for profit and for profit agencies.

This year the not for profit groups are paying 100% and the for profit are paying 50%. She has lumped the municipalities in with the for profit groups. Why did the minister's department decide to do this?

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Yes, and this is improved service. The minister tries to tell us that this is going to improve our service.

Along with that, a certain amount of the maintenance work was done in the yards in Stephenville, an area where work has been reduced significantly over the years. Ever since the closing of the base, that area has been just hammered.

Governments should try to help wherever they can and add to the employment potential in the area such as Stephenville. They are taking away services that are badly needed, and of course other services being provided within St. John's.

We were told by people involved in the whale industry that there were services being provided to help free whales, but they depended upon the back up of the coast guard. If this service is taken away, its services certainly are not going to be enhanced.

To everybody's chagrin across the country, last week three young people fell off ice pans in the town of Pouch Cove in Newfoundland. The coast guard was involved. Along with the co-ordination of the RNC, the RCMP and the local people, the coast guard quickly found one of the bodies. However, for two or three days the coast guard was searching for the others and the local people were asked to stay out of it. Finally, the knowledge that local people know best took over and the fishermen put out their small boats, despite rough seas and stormy weather. They were the ones who found the two bodies that had not been recovered at that time.

It was great to know that the coast guard vessels were there for protection and enhancement. Had one of those vessels been reduced, it might have meant a boat which was badly needed at that time would not have been there.

We are getting to the period of the year when we go into the seal fishery. All around the coast of Newfoundland, particularly the north-northeast coast, we have fisherman prosecuting the seal fishery in small boats. Consequently, it is this time of year that the protection of the coast guard is used quite often and is badly needed.

I can go on all night with examples. However, I fail to see how a cutback in services like this enhances the protection of the people of Newfoundland.

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans concerning cutbacks to the coast guard services in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister's department has announced that it is going to be scaling back coast guard services in the province.

When I raised the question with the minister, he basically said that it was all part of consolidation and consolidation was going to give us better service, so that instead of cutting back on the service to the province, the department was really enhancing coast guard services.

In a province with a coast line such as Newfoundland has, when we reduce an already diminished service by taking away a search and rescue vessel, by taking away one helicopter, I find it very hard to understand how we are going to improve service. Some people may ask “What is one helicopter?” However, by taking away one helicopter, the fleet has been reduced by 50%. We had four. One crashed a while ago. Now they are taking away one other.

The government is also going to take away the manning of 11 lighthouses so we will have another 11 automatic lighthouses in the province. As well, it is going to back away from involvement in the freeing of whales that get caught up in cod traps in particular and in other fishing gear around the province.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member talk about the case as it affects the Atlantic provinces. It is called the maritime agreement but it is understood that it also includes Newfoundland. When we refer to the four provinces, we locally call them the Atlantic provinces, but in this case all four fall under the maritime agreement.

The member talked about perhaps renewing the maritime agreement or that we should have complete free trade. Would the member give us an example of the difference, if there is a difference, between what the maritime agreement provides now for the people in that area and what free trade across the board would do?

[Finance, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance recently rejected requests from Atlantic Canada to revisit the equalization process. One of the contributing partners to the equalization process is Alberta.

Alberta in the thirties began its economic transformation because it was allowed to hold on to a lot of its royalties while receiving equalization.

Will the minister follow that already established precedent and let Newfoundland and Nova Scotia hold on to more of their royalties while receiving equalization until they also can be contributing partners in this great confederation?

[Fisheries, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The minister will remember quite well last year's shrimp fiasco. He now has a request from Quebec for an allocation of 6,000 tonnes of northern shrimp.

In light of the fact that the stocks could be in danger, in light of the fact that many of the adjacent fleets do not have enough quota to maintain a viable operation and in light of the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador entrants are denied access to the resource, will the minister categorically deny the request? Is it not time that the minister either fished or cut bait?

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about figures being used on this side of the House as if they came out of comic books. He also talked about the great deal and the amount of savings to the government in the present tender call. I remind the member that a six pack is cheaper than a dozen any day of the week. Let us compare apples and apples when we talk about costs.

When the minister spoke this morning he talked about the different references that would be included in the tender call. He did not mention the word commonality.

A study conducted for the Department of National Defence by one of the minister's associate departments showed that by choosing the helicopter that could do both services, over $257 million in 1990 dollars could be saved.

Could the member table those figures to show that there is no other avenue the government could have explored? Would he tell us if the government considered the commonality factor when assessing the tender call to make sure Canadians got the best bang for their buck? We are not talking about saving money here, we are talking about saving lives. It is not the dollar value that counts, it is the service and equipment we get for the dollars we spend.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the answer is very simple. If we are going to send our people to the front lines, we should provide them with the best equipment that is available.

The original undertaking by the Tory government to provide helicopters to the armed forces ended with the decision to buy ones that would cost $4.3 billion. That was opposed, as hon. members know, by the government opposite. The selection was made because the Tory government thought those machines were the best at that time. All we ask now is that the current government, in purchasing equipment for our armed forces, buy what is best for them.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about conflict or wars, one of the words that we always hear is brainwashing. It seems that the members opposite have been very well brainwashed in relation to the procedures that we are dealing with here.

What concerns us and I am sure Canadians is not that we are seeking information in relation to the replacement of the helicopters. It is the matter of the rules and restrictions that are being placed on them to prohibit the best type of helicopter that would replace what we have.

Perhaps we should be asking why some of these restrictions are in place. That might be something we will follow up at another time. The bottom line is that if we are going to have the best, then we should have the opportunity to get the best, not a bargain basement price where we usually get what we pay for.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in a debate on such a crucial issue. I congratulate my colleague from Saint John for bringing it to the House. This is an issue that has been discussed for years in parliament, and certainly in the country, for a number of reasons. It is mainly because we are proud Canadians. One of the agencies that causes us to be so proud is our armed forces.

When we ask people to defend us we expect that we will provide them with the best possible equipment to do the job. We send hockey teams onto the ice. For many years Canada, as a proud nation, has watched these teams. They have been made up of people from many nationalities who live all over the country. They have worn the Canadian red and white sweater with pride while representing us.

Those of us who are a little older will perhaps remember the 1972 series that finished up in Russia. Undoubtedly each of us can vividly recall the day when Paul Henderson scored the final goal to win the series for Canada. All of us felt very proud because these people were representing our nation. They were representing our nation in combat but it was a sports combat. For those of us who remember the series, we might say it was more than a sports combat, it was an international combat. However, what it did was open the doors for friendlier feelings between us and other nations, especially Russia. We showed that we were well prepared, well equipped and we could do the job.

On the other hand, we send our armed forces into combat where, instead of the high stick that might knock out a tooth or cause a few stitches here and there or the odd concussion that goes with hockey, we are asking them to put their lives on the line. Not only did we do it during the great wars and other international conflicts, but we do it all the time, even in our peacekeeping efforts.

As we send out our forces, our representatives, those who go to the front lines for us, we do not know from day to day what kind of conflict they will be in. It is our duty to make sure that they have the best equipment available.

When we hear stories about our armed forces today, how they are not properly equipped, how the funding provided is so little that they are living on the borders of poverty, how can we expect anyone to give their all, which is what we ask of them, if we treat them in such a manner?

A typical example is the helicopter issue that we are talking about in the motion. What makes Canadians so upset is not the fact that we are debating whether or not we are providing them with the best helicopters. Unfortunately, under the present tender calls, we will probably not get the best and that is a major concern. Canadians are perturbed by the fact that we have been waiting so long for the machines. Canadians are also perturbed by the petty politics that have been played this last seven or eight years over this issue.

One of the key planks in this government's platform, which is now cowering under pressure, is to provide helicopters. The helicopters would have been provided long ago if it had supported the original idea to purchase the Sea Kings. In the 1993 election, the then Tory government was ridiculed for the excessive amount of money it planned to spend on helicopters. It was told that it should be able to provide helicopters at a cheaper cost.

We heard, in a very sneaky manner during the last election, this government talk about the need to provide helicopters and how it could be done much cheaper than the Tory government was going to do. Unfortunately, people sometimes talk in half truths.

If someone today wanted to buy a car for $20,000 and I promised I could sell the person a car for $15,000, what I would not be telling the person is that my car is not as good as the one that he or she intends to buy. If someone wanted buy a fleet of cars for a million dollars and I told that person that I could sell him or her a fleet of cars for three-quarters of a million dollars, what I would not be telling him or her is that the number in his or her fleet is much greater than the number in the fleet that I am talking about. It is very easy to confuse people if we do not look at the minute details. The people of Canada certainly have been confused and deceived for years by this government in relation to the provision of equipment for the armed forces. This goes right back to 1978, when it talked about the need to replace the Sea King. That was 23 years ago. We are talking about replacing equipment needed by the people who serve us, who represent us on the first lines. What an insult to the intelligence of Canadians. What an insult to the people in our armed forces.

In 1992 the Mulroney government approved a replacement of the Labrador search and rescue and Sea King maritime helicopter fleet with a common helicopter EH-101. The new fleet was ordered at a cost of $4.3 billion, which is what started the big opposition: the cost of helicopters.

When we look now at what we are getting, we find we do not know what we are getting. That is the problem. If we knew what we were getting perhaps we could have some intelligent commentary on it. However, it would not be from us in here. I doubt that there are many people in this whole assembly who know very much about the workings of a helicopter. Some might pretend, and perhaps we do have some people who have spent some time in the field as pilots, mechanics or whatever, but I would suggest that very few really know.

However, whether we know anything about it or not, when we find out that the package will come in four different unrelated components, we sort of wonder what we will get when it is all put together. That is a major concern. By the time we do something like that, put it together, take the final product and divide the numbers into the total cost, it will be very interesting to see the unit price compared to the unit price of the original suggestion made by the Tory government back in 1993.

The motion reads:

That this House call upon the government to eliminate the barriers in the Letter of Interest to the aerospace industry, which impede a fair and open Maritime Helicopter Project, and that maritime procurement be conducted on a “best value to the Canadian taxpayers” basis, in accordance with the Treasury Board guidelines.

I do not think the motion is good enough because when we ask government to do something, we never know when it will do it. I suggest we strengthen the motion with another word. Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting the word “immediately” before the word “eliminate”.

The motion would then read:

That this House call upon the government to immediately eliminate the barriers in the Letter of Interest to the aerospace industry—