Loyola Hearn

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for telling me, telling you and telling the whole House how incompetent the minister of finance really was.

I was in government and I was a minister. I ran the department and I knew what was going on in my department. I did not get in trouble nor did any of my people because we did what we were supposed to do. We looked after the money that came to us from Treasury Board and Finance but we had to account for it.

Government or ministers of finance or presidents of Treasury Board or treasury boards do not throw out money to departments and say, “Here you are, little boys and girls, do whatever you want with that money”. Everyone has to be accountable, which means that the people in charge of the purse, Treasury Board and Finance, must follow the dollar. In this case, they did not follow the millions of dollars, not to say the dollar.

Can we absolve the Prime Minister because as minister of finance he did not know? If he did not know, he should have known.

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate. The big question is does the House have confidence in the government? The answer to that is a resounding no from every opposition member in the House.

One might ask why I, coming from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, would not have confidence in the government? Unfortunately, an end has to come to this debate tonight and unfortunately there will be a vote Monday and we will leave here. I could go on until some time well into next week giving reasons why I have absolutely no confidence in the government.

Last year we saw a battle in the House like none ever fought before on behalf of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It came as a result of game playing by the government opposite.

In the last election, the government committed to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador that it would provide greater benefits from the revenues derived from offshore development. It made the promise simply because the Conservative Party had made a solid commitment to the province in writing, which the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, being the smart individual he is, held up and asked the Prime Minister to match. Under pressure, the Prime Minister did but never in writing.

What did we see after the election? We saw the government back away from the commitments. We saw it trying to twist and turn every way it could to get out of delivering to our province the promises it had made. The provisions from the development of the offshore oil resources are so abundant off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Conservative Party and its leader, along with all members, not only Atlantic members, tried to convince the Prime Minister to deliver on his promise. Not only had Newfoundland and Labrador received such a promise, so had Nova Scotia. Members from Nova Scotia and my province, including the member for St. John's East and myself, along with the leader and every member in the Conservative caucus and others helped in this effort.

It took constant pressure day after day. It took the province to get down on its knees, eventually taking down flags to draw attention to the problem, before the Prime Minister relented and was forced into delivering. People ask why we should have confidence in the government. That is one of the answers.

Let us look at the fishery. During the Prime Minister's visit to my province prior to the last election, he promised that we would take custodial management of the fisheries off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. When the campaigning started, the government said that we would take custodial management. We have not heard the words mentioned since by the government. In fact, we have seen it back away.

Before I go too far, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Durham.

It was promise after promise, and we have seen it happen again. Yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans came to my province. He talked about all the things the government was doing to preserve our cod stocks. He did it because tomorrow the standing committee will be tabling a report which will show to the House and the country what the government has done to try to protect and enhance the stocks off the coast of eastern Canada. Game playing is absolutely at its fullest.

What about search and rescue? Why did it take a search and rescue helicopter over two hours to leave the ground when a distress signal had been received from an overturned boat? It took half an hour or so to identify where the signal came from.

I realize it is a big ocean and it probably does take some time, but officials were phoning everywhere to determine whether the boat was at sea and whether it was a valid call. All the Department of National Defence had to do was call the Department of Fisheries to find out. With the black boxes that are on our boats now, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is updated every hour as to where these boats are. One call to one of the government's own departments could have told them in seconds where the boat was. It took over half an hour of phoning all over the place in an uncoordinated manner to determine whether the signal was legitimate.

When it was determined that the signal was legitimate, it took 1 hour and 55 minutes to get a chopper off the ground. Why? It was because the search and rescue crews work eight hours a day, five days a week. Unfortunately, the original eight hour shift was still on duty when the signal was received but they were let go and the standby crew had to be called in. It gets worse but I will go on more with this story later this evening because there were some other complications.

However the loss of time also meant the loss of lives unfortunately. Two people died within 25 minutes of rescue arriving. If the rescue had been more efficient those two crew members would have been saved. Should we have confidence in a government that runs an operation that way?

With respect to our seniors, we saw the charade being played here yesterday when the Liberals tried to say, in supporting one of the bills brought forth, that they support seniors. However when they were asked by the Bloc who put forth the motion if they would be willing to have the bill go to third reading, which the NDP, the Bloc and ourselves agreed to, they declined to do so.

The charade is up front. The Liberals make commitments and promises before an election but they do not deliver afterward. The people of Canada are sick and tired of it. The only people rewarded by their promises are their friends, which Justice Gomery did a good job of pointing out.

Liberal members have stood in their place time after time and said that Justice Gomery has cleared the Prime Minister. Justice Gomery said that the Prime Minister should be exonerated from the management and the direction of the program. He did not say that he did not know or that he was not involved. In fact, Justice Gomery said that ministers turned their backs on what was going on. He said that Treasury Board abdicated its responsibilities.

Who was the vice-chair of Treasury Board? Who was the minister of finance who directed funding? Who was the key minister, the spark plug from Quebec, in the government? Everybody knows it was the member for LaSalle--Émard, the Prime Minister.

Is anyone going to believe that somebody who was the minister of finance, the vice-chair of Treasury Board, the key man in Quebec, did not know what was going on during the scandal? There are two options: first, the truth is not being told; or second, the individual had to be totally incompetent. Either way, members of the House of Commons and the people of this country would have no confidence in somebody running this country who fits into either one of those categories. They would certainly have no confidence in the way ministries are run.

As I said, I could go on well into next week with other reasons but I have agreed to split my time and I will certainly do that with the member for Durham.

[First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in answering a question, the hon. member mentioned that we should get people involved, the bureaucrats who do good work. All our bureaucrats do. It is the direction they are more concerned about. He mentioned we should get them at the table to really get the job done. I totally agree with him.

We talk about all these big conferences, and we heard the Prime Minister talk about how important this conference is. I remember when we had another crisis, when we talked about foreign overfishing, the Prime Minister convened a big conference. He goes around the world and wherever there is an issue, the Prime Minister invites people to come to Canada for a big conference. The conference occurs, he gets coverage and nothing ever happens.

I am with the hon. member. It is not the Prime Minister I want to see at the table, it is the people who can get the job done. I am just wondering if he feels the same way.

[Supply, November 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member two questions. My first question relates to the comments made this morning by the government House leader. I am not sure whether the member heard them or not.

Basically, the government House leader was telling us about all the opportunities we have had to bring down the government if the opposition had wanted to. I wondered, while thinking back, how many times this government, especially through the government House leader, has stymied the democratic right of this House. I would appreciate the member's views on that.

My second question is, if the hon. member were a member of the governing party, would he not want to prevent an election? If there is an election, there is always the opportunity that he might lose and somebody else might win, and somebody else might see the books. I would appreciate the member's perspective on that as well.

[Question No. 208, November 15th, 2005]

With regard to the use of chemical agents by the Canadian military, were chemical agents tested by the Canadian military and, if so: ( a ) in what year(s); ( b ) which chemical agents were tested; ( c ) where were chemical agents tested; ( d ) were there different locations where chemical agents were stored and not tested; ( e ) were there chemical agents tested or stored at CFB Shilo and posted to CFB Petawawa and, if so, what type of tests were performed and how often; ( f ) what quantity of agents were stored at CFB Shilo and CFB Petawawa respectively and for how long; ( g ) were there ongoing shipments of chemical agents from base to base; ( h ) were military personnel made aware when they were involved in the transport or storage of chemical agents; ( i ) was there a safety policy relative to chemical agents at the time of storage or testing; ( j ) how many times has the safety regulations protocol pertaining to chemical agents been amended since the 1960s; and ( k ) does the current policy differ greatly from military policies of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s and, if so, in which way?

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 14th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-443, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would require the holding of a byelection within 90 days of a vacancy occurring in the membership of the House of Commons through a resignation or the death of a member.

Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in the election of members of the House of Commons. That right, however, can be held in abeyance by the Prime Minister's ability to delay calling a byelection for as long as a year. Many thousands of Canadians are thus left with no representation in Parliament. This bill would put the democratic right of Canadians ahead of prime ministerial game playing.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Fisheries and Oceans Canada, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in September the fishing vessel the Melina and Keith II sank off the Newfoundland coast with a loss of four lives, one dying only 15 minutes before rescue arrived. It took a half an hour to verify the original distress signal and determine the location. This is understandable.

Can the minister tell the House why it took another two hours to get a chopper in the air, particularly when the distress signal was received while the search and rescue crew was still on shift?

[Question No. 180, November 3rd, 2005]

SWith regard to the U.S. booster rocket that was launched over Newfoundland and Labrador in May of 2005: ( a ) when was the government notified that the rocket was to be launched; ( b ) what was the government’s initial reaction to the notification of the launching of this rocket; ( c ) was there a request made by the government that the rocket not be launched and, if so, was the request an official request and was it oral or written; ( d ) was a Canadian environmental assessment performed before the launch of this rocket; ( e ) has a Canadian environmental assessment been performed since the launch of the rocket; ( f ) are there plans to do an environmental assessment; ( g ) what chemicals, if any, were deposited into the ocean as a result of the launching of this rocket; ( h ) was a clean-up of any chemicals performed as a result of the launching of this rocket and, if so, by whom and at what cost; ( i ) does the government have any scientific reports of the effects of the booster rocket chemicals on marine life; ( j ) is the government aware if the U.S. intends to launch future rockets over similar areas of our coastline and, if so, when will these rockets be launched; ( k ) has the booster been retrieved from the ocean floor; and ( l ) are there plans to retrieve the booster from the ocean floor and, if so, when and at what cost?

[Petitions, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of New Brunswick and other parts of the country urging the government to assert its sovereign rights and declare no right of passage for liquid natural gas tankers through Head Harbour Passage. Many of these signatures are those of fishermen who are very concerned about the future of the resource in their area.

[Year of the Veteran, October 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, 2005 is the Year of the Veteran. Next year is also significant as it marks a special anniversary. On July 1, 1916, at 9:15 in the morning, 801 men of the Newfoundland Regiment attacked at Beaumont-Hamel. Thirty minutes later it was all over. Of the 801 men, 710 were killed, wounded or missing. Scarcely a household in Newfoundland was left untouched.

Of the men it was written, “It was a magnificent display of trained and disciplined valour, and its assault failed of success because dead men can advance no further”.

In 1916 we were not part of Canada. We are now. On the 90th anniversary, recognition of this event should be given at our National War Memorial. We celebrate Canada because of such sacrifices.

Let us not forget.