Loyola Hearn

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the recent audit of DFO travel and hospitality files has uncovered a litany of abuses involving the expenditures of taxpayers' money. Despite the examples of atrocious abuse that were provided, no individuals are being disciplined or investigated.

Will the minister explain why he continues the Liberal policy of ignoring scandals even though this one happened on the present Prime Minister's watch?

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the presentation by the parliamentary secretary. As usual, he did a very good job in talking about a product that is important to the agriculture field, a field in which he is very interested. I also know the gentleman, as a former chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, is also interested in fish.

My question actually has two parts. I cannot ask too many questions on wine, being someone who has never had a drink in his life, and I do not know why. Anyway, I am no expert in wine. I totally agree with him by the way, but if we can put this kind of an effort into protecting and promoting our products, how many more Canadian products can we do much better with on the national stage, and the international stage in particular? I would refer to him a product that goes to the EU. Should we try to put the same effort into protecting and promoting Canadian shrimp? As he well knows, a 20% tariff has been placed on shrimp and it is destroying the industry in Atlantic Canada in particular, including affecting people in his own province.

He initiated an effort on that some time ago and nothing is happening. Why is it we pick certain things to really make an effort on, and other things perhaps of greater magnitude are ignored?

[The Budget, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is misleading the House because the budget bill was not brought in until late April. The government was afraid to bring it in for debate and the vote.

Because you could not manage your own house, why are you now--

[The Budget, June 23rd, 2005]

He is misleading the House--

[The Budget, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that minister is deliberately ensuring that the people of this country think that the Liberals are the heroes in this case.

[Extended Sitting Period, June 22nd, 2005]

As did the Bloc and NDP.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the question is one of trust and who should trust whom. It might be interesting for the member to read the polls and find out who Canadians trust in relation to leadership. He will find that the one at the bottom of the poll is his own leader.

Why? Certainly, the way he is manipulating the budgetary process is one reason. The way he is deceiving the people is another, as the member opposite is deceiving people when he talks about a deal with the Bloc. At no time, and the Bloc will verify this, did any of us have a deal with the other. It just happened that we were against corruption and we voted the same way on that issue.

The NDP members, by the way, were also against corruption and voted against the budget until they were bought off by the corrupt government, so that makes us wonder who can trust whom.

If we were to check Hansard over this past year, it would be very interesting to see who propped up whom throughout the process and how often on different bills, including the same sex marriage bill. In fact, the Bloc voted twice as often with the Liberals this past year than it did with our party.

If the hon. member wants to talk about deals, perhaps he should get his facts straight. If he wants to talk about trust, maybe the one thing we should ask is, how can we trust a Prime Minister who says he knows nothing about the sponsorship scandal when he was Minister of Finance for nine years, when he was vice-chair of Treasury Board, the division that allocates the funds to different groups and agencies, and was the chief minister in Quebec where all the money went? Either he is not telling the truth or he is completely and utterly incompetent. Is that the type of person we want to trust to run our country? I do not think so.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words in the debate tonight.

People watching think we are debating the budget, but that is not factual. The bill implementing the budget has already passed through the House and is in the Senate. Hopefully, it will receive royal assent shortly because it contains a lot of good things.

I would like to give the House a bit of history. When the government was elected last fall, it found itself in a minority position. It then brought in its budget, which was carefully doctored around the concerns of the opposition. All parties in the House can take credit for suggesting, pushing and ensuring sure certain items were included.

The Atlantic accord was a Conservative initiative, a Conservative commitment. It was included in the budget. We were the ones who pushed to get it in there. We had tax cuts, with which the government played around, that would stimulate the economy, create jobs, employ people, bring in more taxes and put money into social programs, all indirectly. We had included help for the homeless, an issue about which every party in the House talked. Generally it was a budget to satisfy everybody. It was not a Liberal budget. It was a parliamentary budget.

Consequently, the Liberal Party voted for the budget. The official opposition did not vote. If we had voted against it, we would have sent Canadians back to the polls. The NDP and the Bloc voted against the budget. Thanks to the official opposition, the government survived and things began to progress.

As things were progressing here, they were also progressing at the Gomery commission. We heard very heated and pointed testimony, pointing clearly to the involvement of the Liberal Party and high profile Liberals in the scandalous operations during the sponsorship time in Quebec. Unfortunately, the people of Quebec grew tired with a lot of the accusations. We have said many times that it was not a Quebec scandal; it was a Liberal scandal.

As a result of that, the government found itself in a very precarious position. People across the country were getting upset. Pressure was put on opposition parties to get rid of the government, to make changes. Liberals being Liberals, hanging on by their fingernails, tried to find ways to stay in power.

One of the members just asked if that was not what minority governments should do. He asked if we should form coalitions to try to beef up support to stay in power. My answer to that is yes. A government gains the support of other parties in the House, whether it be a four party system, as we have here, or a 25 party system as we see in other places, by being responsible, by providing good government and by being the type of government that opposition parties, especially fringe parties, can feel proud to support and keep in power. Is that what happened here? Not at all.

In trying to find ways to hang on to power, the Prime Minister knew he could not get support from the chief opposition party. He knew he could not get support from the Bloc after what the Liberals had done to the province of Quebec. His only choice was to try to buy out the NDP. Therefore, there was a hurried meeting in a hotel room.

Let me tell the House how hurried it was. The topics that were mentioned were the environment, public transit, energy efficient refits of low income housing, training programs, access to post-secondary education, including aboriginals, affordable housing, including aboriginals, and foreign aid.

It seems that there must have been a rapidly called meeting and the leader of the NDP must have rushed there not knowing what it was about. When the Prime Minister said that he wanted to make a deal with him, he must have had a copy of the budget. Trying to come up with a quick answer to satisfy the Prime Minister, he rattled off these topics because these very items are well spelled out in Bill C-43, the budget.

It talks about the implementation of a tax exemption for employer provided transit benefits, investment in communities, sharing gas tax revenues for sustainable infrastructure, and the amount of $5 billion over five years for public transit et cetera. In large urban areas investments would target one or two of the following priorities including public transit.

Then we go to renewable energy and we talk about capital cost allowances for investment in efficient and renewable energy generation.

When we look at the post-secondary scholarships for aboriginal Canadians, there is a $12 million endowment, $10 million more for a post-secondary education program administered by the National Aboriginal Achievement Foundation. Then we talk about affordable housing with $340 million over the next five years for first nations housing on reserves.

On foreign policy, there is $500 million over five years, and I could go on, but these are items that are in the budget, Bill C-43.

If these items were there with a plan to spend x number of dollars over x number of years, why would the leader of the NDP say that we needed to put money into these five or six areas? They are already there. He says and the NDP will say that it is to up the ante; it is to sweeten the pot.

If we look at Bill C-48, we will find that this extra upping the ante only kicks in if there is a $2 billion surplus which the government will not know until August 2006.

Justice Gomery is supposed to report in November with a final report in December. The Prime Minister said that he would call an election within 30 days of Gomery reporting. Therefore, somewhere between now and August 2006 we are undoubtedly going to have an election which means that the promises to the NDP mean absolutely nothing. Am I the only one saying that? No, not at all. Let me read what the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre said:

It is my personal belief that the Liberal Party of Canada is institutionally psychopathic. Its members do not know the difference between right and wrong and I condemn them from the highest rooftops. But before the last Liberal is led away in handcuffs, we want to extract some benefit from this Parliament and that means getting some of the money delivered to our ridings before this government collapses.

That is what he thinks about the party opposite. Perhaps I should read what the member for Vancouver East said. She said, when asked if she believed the Liberals were going to deliver, “Who does one trust? How do we trust someone? We are adults. There is no perfection in those guarantees for sure”. The NDP members do not even think they are going to get the money. They just said that they made a point. They did make a good point and I congratulate them for it.

However, the whole thing is a sham and we are here debating a bill which is nothing but a sham. This bill will deliver nothing to anyone in the country. The main components are already in Bill C-43 which has passed.

How can the members stand and ask the people of the country to support this ill-conceived bill, completely outside the budgetary process, listing items that are already in the main budget, and with no intention of delivering the promise? It is just a matter of sucking in the NDP, like the Liberals tried to do with the people of Canada.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that we have no time for questions because I am sure many of us would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a number of questions.

I want to thank my colleague from South Shore--St. Margaret's for bringing Bill S-14 to the House. The legislation has been on the go for quite some time and has been driven by two senators, the hon. Pat Carney from the west coast and the hon. Mike Forrestall from the east coast. Senator Carney has been a champion for protecting our lighthouses over the years, trying to keep them active and ensuring they are not forgotten by the people who have been served by them for so long. Senator Forrestall has done a similarly good job.

Maybe we should bring a bill in the House outlawing parliamentary secretaries because these are dangerous positions. Until members become parliamentary secretaries, they are ordinary people and they do what they are supposed to do on behalf of their constituents. Once they become one, they have to do what government tells them to do, and one of those things is to read a prepared government speech.

I just listened to the parliamentary secretary. He has been a champion for people involved in the fishery and marine life over the years. I was sure if there were anyone we could count on from the governing party to support Bill S-14, it would have been the hon. member. I think in his heart he does support the legislation, but I also think he is being pressured by government to come up with some excuses for not supporting the bill.

I believe the Speaker's ruling earlier today clarified the fact that Bill S-14 would not hamstring the government in relation to expenditure. It depends on what happens afterwards, and of course expenditure could be spread around.

Lighthouses have played a significant part in the lives of people in our country, particularly on the east and west coasts. On the east coast, where we have extremely heavy ocean traffic and abundant fog and storms, lighthouses have saved the lives of numerous people on many occasions.

The area in which I live and represented before the boundary change and to some degree part of which I still represent was known as the graveyard of the Atlantic. Hundreds of shipwrecks occurred in that very region because it was the turning point for ocean going traffic. It has a very rough and rugged coastline. For many years that area did not have the type of aids available today to those who ply the Atlantic or the Pacific or the Arctic.

The people who operated these lighthouses were on constant guard. It was only because of the fact that these facilities were located in strategic positions that many mariners were warned of the impending danger of the rocks and cliffs and consequently had the opportunity to veer clear. On many occasions, the people who lived in the lighthouses or associated dwellings saw from their vantage point ships in danger, took early action and saved numerous lives.

There are about 500 extremely important lighthouses throughout the country. The parliamentary secretary has made it clear that only 13 of those 500 are national historic sites. Many others deserve recognition. All of them deserve protection because of the role they have played. All of them deserve protection not because of history alone but because of their future potential.

In many marine areas the big draw is the lighthouse. Peggy's Cove was mentioned by our colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. One of the draws at Peggy's Cove is not just a painted up building and cute little fishing area. It is the lighthouse.

I represent the most easterly point in North America and that is Cape Spear. The lighthouse there has been designated as a national historic site. It is a tremendous draw all year but particularly during the tourist season which would be from perhaps May to November.

These are unique facilities. They bring money into the area because of their draw and history. I do not think we have dug into this at all. Having known many of the people who have manned these lighthouses over the years, at least rough notes have been kept and people remember the stories. There are many anecdotes about what went on during the existence of the lighthouses and the part they and the people around them played in the culture and history of our provinces. I am sure what is true for Newfoundland and Labrador is true for British Columbia, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and the rest. I believe only two provinces do not have lighthouses and those are in the prairie section of the country.

Properly researched and documented, stories of these experiences would add tremendously to our history, our culture and our folklore. They become a draw and tie in with the little museums we now see in many of the lighthouses.

I mentioned Cape Spear which is an extremely important one. It is in the most easterly point off North America. However, there is another one in the area that is well known. There are several lighthouses throughout my riding, but one in particular is the lighthouse at Cape Race. For years Cape Race has been on the turning point of ocean going traffic. It is around that area where the so-called graveyard of the Atlantic is located, with over 600 documented wrecks in that immediate area alone over the years.

When the Titanic hit the iceberg, the only message received in North America was at the radio room associated with the lighthouse at Cape Race. It then was relayed to ships that headed off to try to do what they could to rescue the people who were thrown from the great ship. That is just one example of how important it was to have the facility there at that time. What would have happened if the message had not been picked up at Cape Race? It was a disaster, as we know. How bad would it have been had the message not been relayed as quickly as it was?

That particular lighthouse and the radio room associated with it has been refurbished to some degree. The room has been rebuilt. It has become a tremendous attraction. Right next door to it, on the way out to the lighthouse, which is about 12 miles off the main road, there is a cliff where one can walk out and look at fossils which are spread out as if we spread pennies on a carpet. The fossils are 620 million years old. Not only the lighthouses themselves but everything surrounding them add so much and they should not be forgotten.

One of the reasons people are concerned with money is that the government has done such a poor job over the years to keep these in half decent shape. At times now it takes a lot to bring them up to par, but it has to be done. It is worth doing it. Therefore, we support the bill.

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the last question, let me pick up on what the member was saying. He is a member of our standing committee and knows full well some of the serious issues we have taken up.

In fact, over the last four years that I have been on the committee, we has undertaken some major studies. I would suggest that there are issues being dealt with today which would never have surfaced if our standing committee had not done a great job. We have been able to do it because we have been strictly non-partisan. At our committee meetings it is very difficult to tell who represents which party. That is the way it should be; perhaps that is the way it should be here in the House.

One of the issues we dealt with certainly was the major report on the Fraser River. We have done it with infrastructure. We did a great report on overfishing. This coming fall we will be starting to ask the question of what happened to the northern cod and why it has not come back after 12 years. I hope we never get to the day when we are asking where the Fraser sockeye have gone and why they have not come back after x number of years. The committee does a good job.

In relation to Mr. Williams' report, I really cannot answer, because I do not know Mr. Williams. I have never met him. I do know that a lot of concern was expressed, not because of Mr. Williams but because of the way the department operates. Quite often it tries to sneak in some kind of activity to try to cover up for its inadequacies, and it appeared the government was picking someone who would probably tell it what it wanted to hear. It might have tried that with Justice Gomery and it was wrong there also.

I will be the first to admit that Justice Williams picked a very good representative group of people to be on his committee. Originally there was talk about bringing in everybody involved, over 30 people, to the committee, but no one thought that would work properly. He put together a concise committee of people heavily involved in the fishery, all of whom were stakeholders, many of whom also had concerns about how well the committee would operate, and they did a very good report.

I would say to the member that it was no better than our own, maybe not as pointed but a very good report, because we were dealing with the same topic and talking to the same people. One of the reasons our committee tabled its report before Justice Williams' report was so the minister could easily see that this was all legitimate.

The bottom line is that two good reports were done. It is the response that concerns us.