Loyola Hearn

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to limit my remarks to mainly one section of the budget bill. I will refer to at least one other section to which I will refer briefly as part 19.

We are talking about, in case people are wondering, 24 different and separate pieces of legislation, all of which have been lumped together in what we refer to as the budget implementation act, 2005.

Part 19 is very relevant, particularly today. Everyone in Canada is aware of the department of public works and some of the contracts the department would have let in the past. However, part 19 of this bill gives the department of public works even more leeway, complete control of all procurements, the issuing of contracts, more or less carte blanche. It is an invitation to more of the same. We are very concerned to have that section there.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's.

Having said that about part 19, I want to return to part 12. This is the section that deals with the revenues that should be flowing right now as we speak to the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

I will give a little bit of history. During this time last year actually, we were gearing up for a campaign. Leading up to the election, two parties in this House, the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party, committed to the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia that if elected, they would give these provinces 100% of their share of the royalties flowing from the offshore developments.

The Liberal Party made no such commitment. In fact, it was during the campaign, after written commitments had been made by the other parties, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador first, because of the intense pressures put on the Prime Minister by his own members down there and members of the Liberal Party and various associations, put the squeeze on. On one of his visits, perhaps they told him he would not be allowed out of the province, after an all night session under tremendous pressure, he called the premier of our province at seven o'clock in the morning to say, “I will accept your proposal”.

The Prime Minister did not put it in writing and, unfortunately, he was not asked for it. When a Prime Minister makes an open commitment that is carried by the press, one would think that we can keep a Prime Minister to his word.

The universe unfolded, the Liberals won the election, and then the question came from Nova Scotia, which by the way had also received that promise the day before the election in a last minute attempt to secure some seats. The provinces waited and waited. Our party kept asking the question, “When will the Liberals deliver their promise?”

We had a number of things happen. I know on this side of the House we raised the issue 35 times in question period alone, mostly as lead questions. This never happened before in history that a province had so much attention paid to it because of the importance of the issue to the province involved. We also had statements. We had a major debate in this House on that very issue. All of this was putting pressure on the government which was not moving at all on the issue.

Premier Williams, at an equalization meeting in Winnipeg, walked out to protest the lack of attention by the government on the issue.

I am glad to see we are joined by the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Finance because he has been supportive of us on this issue. I am glad he is here to listen to my speech and verify what I am going to say.

We eventually went through the fall and there was still no movement. Just before Christmas, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador ordered that Canadian flags be removed from all provincial buildings. That drew a tremendous amount of attention across the country, but not all positive. However, people began to ask what was going on? When they realized what was going on and the shafting the provinces had been getting, then they also started to put pressure on the Prime Minister.

Finally, on Valentine's Day, a day for love, we received the agreement. The agreement was signed giving Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia control of their own share of the revenues from the offshore developments.

We would think, if we watched what went on that day, that this was it. It was all over because people were kissing the hem of the Prime Minister's garment and even on Valentine's Day almost kissing each other. If the players had not been the specific players they were, they might have kissed each other. It was a rough thing to think about kissing the Minister of Natural Resources, I am sure.

In any event, the agreement was signed and both provinces said they had it. As time went by more questions were asked about the legislation. We were told that it was complicated and we agreed with that. Then suddenly we found out that the provinces had reached an agreement with the federal government on the legislation. They were okay. There was nothing wrong with the specific piece of legislation. Bring it in, get it passed.

We knew that the government would support it. Even though people like the parliamentary secretary did not want to, it is government legislation so he would have to support it. We also know that the Bloc members would probably not support it, even though they should because it is giving provinces some control over their own resources which they always ask for. We knew our party, the NDP, and most of the people in the governing party would support it and the legislation would be passed quickly and money would flow to the provinces.

As this time goes by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is losing around $3 million a week. If we factor in all the spin-offs that this could create, it is getting closer to $1 million a day. That is a tremendous amount of money.

What did the government do? Did it bring in clean-cut legislation that could be passed quickly? No. It lumped that legislation in with 23 other pieces of legislation. Some of them are very complicated and controversial. Some are attractive pieces of legislation that can go through very quickly.

I go back to part 19 giving public works, of all departments, free rein in procurement, the issuing of contracts, and doing favours for its friends or whatever it wants to do. We also have legislation talking about child care funding and moneys for cities. There are no plans. Of course there are the infamous Kyoto clauses. I understand these will come out.

If they can be taken out of the bill, maybe in committee, the government will see that it is much more beneficial to it or particularly to the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia if it would also take out the part dealing with revenues and there could be a vote.

I know my 10 minutes are up, but I am sure my colleague will continue in the same vein.

[Canada Labour Code, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today, although I should not call it a debate. A two hour debate on a private member's bill of such importance does not do it justice.

The member who just spoke, as strongly as he feels about this, I think would agree with me that this issue is not something we can deal with in a two hour debate. It needs a lot more discussion and involvement by both sides.

Nobody in the House would dispute many of the points which my colleague raised, but there is always another side to a story. No one maybe in the country feels more for the working person than I do. I am sure I can say that for all members in the House. That is the reason why we are here.

We have to remember that in order for the ordinary common worker to work every day somebody has to initiate employment. Somebody has to create the opportunities. Somebody has to put his or her money on the line to create employment. It is unfair to say that this is all one-sided.

Nobody would or should condone the abuse of workers by employers. Nobody should condone the slamming of doors if one does not agree with what workers are looking for and bringing in somebody else. To a large degree the laws of the land dictate that cannot or should not happen.

Within recent years, we have thoroughly, debated, discussed and researched decisions that seem to be reasonable. If the interpretation of the legislation is not being upheld or is being changed, then members opposite who sit in government should ensure that the laws are being followed. If there are weaknesses in our laws, then by all means let us change them, but let us change them with reason. Let us change them within the proper forum and with the proper involvement, expertise, input and discussion.

We have to be careful in what we do with legislation because sometimes instead of helping individuals, we can do a lot more to hurt them. I see people who are concerned about their employment this year. I see friends of mine who have been locked out, or are on picket lines and replacement workers have become involved. If we ensure that one side is fully protected but enough damage is done to the other side, nobody wins because there will be no work for anybody. Nobody understands that more than the worker.

The previous speaker said quite clearly that workers go to work every day with the intention of giving a good days effort for a day's pay. They ask for fairness. They want to ensure they protect their employer because without them they will have no work. I know that is true because I talk to them. Workers are sometimes coerced and enticed to do things which perhaps they would not ordinarily do.

Games are being played on both sides just as games are played in the House. That is the nature of humanity and the forum in which we operate, whether it be in the employer-employee relationship or the government-opposition relationship. When we have to make firm, hard, fast and fair decisions, then we have to ensure that they are acceptable to both.

Back in 1999, HRDC undertook an extensive review that resulted in an amendment to part I of the Canadian Labour Code relating to the issue of replacement workers. A task force, chaired by Andrew Sims, prepared a report entitled “Seeking a Balance”. Are we not talking about seeking a balance and not creating an unfair advantage one way or another? Accusations are being made that there is an unfair balance. That may be the case. Maybe somebody will want to argue the other side.

This issue was addressed not by a private member's bill in a two hour debate. It was addressed by a task force which had input from all the stakeholders involved. After thorough discussion and debate, a report was tabled and the majority recommended the provision that would give employers flexibility to meet their operating responsibilities, but would prevent them from using replacement workers to undermine a union's legitimate bargaining objectives. A minority report recommended the prohibition of replacement workers, which is similar to the provisions of this bill.

The rights of the worker are supposed to be protected. I say supposed to be because who are any of us to determine that? The courts interpret the legislation, but the rights of the workers are supposed to be protected in this legislation that was put together as a result of a thorough task force. If the legislation is not working, then perhaps the legislation should be reviewed in the proper forum with the proper input in the proper way from the proper stakeholders.

The overall intent is not something that anybody opposes. The concern is the mechanisms in which we make such changes. None of us can walk in here with an idea to support a friend, a group, a province or whatever without the proper knowledge of the people who are making these decisions. We cannot say it sounds good and go with it because we do not know the effect on the other side. Nor do we know the consequences that may result to the very person looking for this change. In order to have a labour code that protects workers, maybe it is time we did a thorough review.

The relevant portion of the current labour code, section 94(2.1), is a result of the majority report and provides that no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use replacement workers for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives. Is that not exactly what the leader of the NDP was asking for? I think it is.

If this legislation is not providing this, and this is what it is supposed to do, then therein lies the problem. Consequently, the review of this should be in a much better forum than we see here today.

It is an attempt to deal fairly with the issue of replacement workers in the federal jurisdiction by accommodating the competing values and interests of employees, employers and the unions. It attempts to strike a balance by prohibiting the use of replacement workers if the intent is to undermine a union's representational capacity, as determined by the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

Nobody argues that workers should not be treated fairly. Nobody agrees that workers can be pushed aside and somebody else brought in to do the work when they are operating under contract or where they are legitimate employees of a company. The concern is that if we are going to change laws and regulations, then we had better do it properly because it is not only the employers and employees who would suffer, but as a country we could greatly suffer also.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the representative of the governing party, I must say that I am surprised that the Liberals are going to further study the issue. What else is new? The government cannot make a decision on it so it will study it and somewhere down the road it will make a decision.

That is not good enough. Despite what the member says, despite the minuscule changes that have been made to assist students, many students in the country are coming out of post-secondary education institutions with a millstone around their necks, with extremely high debt loads which they just cannot handle.

The answer certainly is not bankruptcy. In very few cases students have to resort to declaring bankruptcy; I understand it is somewhere in the range of 2%. To hear people talk one would think that if we allowed students to declare bankruptcy, there would be a lineup, that they would get a student loan, get an education and declare bankruptcy.

Students get an education. They understand the implications of declaring bankruptcy. They understand the onus on them to repay their loans. Consequently, the only time we see bankruptcy happen is when there is severe strain on the student.

I understand the member is willing to move to two years to five years. If that is the case we certainly have no problems agreeing with that piece of legislation and will support it. The student could then assess his chances in the future. Some people who have a post-secondary education do have a hard time finding worthwhile employment. Sometimes it depends on the geography.

This great country of ours is rich in resources and has tremendous potential. The government should realize that in order to develop this potential and turn the economy of the country around, we need people to do it. We need people with an education.

Education is not cheap. I hear too many people say that tuition is not that bad. It varies from province to province. Tuition in my province probably is one of the cheapest, fortunately.

Those of us whose children are in post-secondary education, or have been recently, know that education in this country is not cheap. It is not just the tuition.

Some students live near the university or the post-secondary institution and can walk to school, come home for dinner and stay under their parents' roof where mom and dad pay the bills. Those students have the family car to go to after hours activities. In those cases the cost to a degree is borne by the parents. In those cases the students would not have a heavy debt load, but the costs of books and tuition are heavy enough.

Students from the rural areas have to come in to the university or post-secondary centres. They need to get an apartment, which has to be furnished. They need to buy food, to arrange travel not only back and forth to the institution, but also back and forth to home. Throw in all the other costs besides and it more than doubles the cost of their education.

I challenge anybody to add up the costs of educating an individual who comes from an outside area. If that person can be sent to university for less than $15,000 a year, that student is eating a lot of Kraft dinner.

Education is not free; it is not even cheap. What are we doing? The government has done absolutely nothing to improve the accessibility to education. It turns people away from getting an education.

Coming out of post-secondary education with a debt load is one thing as long as the student gets a good job, and most people who come out of post-secondary institutions usually do get good jobs. They will eventually surface, but students come out with a millstone around their neck. Their hands are tied for years. That house, that car, all the things that young people need and would love to have, need to be put aside because of their debt load.

The sorrowful thing, the worst part of it all, is the young person who looks at the cost of education, whose family perhaps cannot assist their children because of the cost of education and because of the economy in many of our rural areas. This also applies to many urban families. He or she knows that even if they borrow the maximum student loan, it does not cut it. There is a gap. If that gap cannot be filled there is one option and that option is for them not to go to school at all.

Many of our young people, realizing the burden they will put on their families, realizing the debt load they will face themselves when they get out, or realizing that in most cases halfway through they will have to call it quits, realizing all of this, they do not go.

Let us look at the investment we as a country have to make in people who cannot find long term employment. Let us look at the social costs, the unemployment insurance costs, the social welfare costs and the social housing costs. Let us look at the other related problems. Sometimes when people get frustrated their mental and physical health deteriorate so there are health care costs as well. I could go on.

I challenge anybody to compare two young people, one who gets an education, even with some debt load, and one who does not get an education. The individual with the education contributes for the rest of his or her life by paying taxes, buying furniture, buying houses and buying cars, which in turn creates more employment and pours more money into the government as a result of their taxes. That individual is contributing to society, while society, in most cases, has to look after the person who does not get an education. It is a no-brainer. We invest a little up front to help a student get an education or we pay a heavy price down the road.

It is time for the government to wake up. Instead of making excuses on an issue like this, on helping a student get out from under this cloud of bankruptcy, the government should be putting its money where its mouth is. If a modification were made to the bill to move it to five years as a test for now to see how that would work, that would be quite reasonable and it is something we could support.

[The Budget, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what a pile of unadulterated bull and the Prime Minister knows it.

The Prime Minister also knows that it would take 15 minutes on a word processor to prepare a new bill that would cause revenues to flow to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia immediately.

He is using the longest possible route to approval. Last year's budget implementation bill is still with the Liberal controlled Senate. If the Prime Minister can split Bill C-43 for Kyoto, why can you not do it for Atlantic Canadians?

[Fisheries, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans recently confirmed what we have been saying for years. Foreign fishing companies continue to break fishing regulations in the NAFO regulated zone. Skippers and crews are even rewarded for breaking the law by using illegal gear and catching species under moratoria.

Canada pays half the cost of operating NAFO and yet the government sits by and says absolutely nothing while abuses go on and on. He who pays the piper should call the tune.

When will the minister put his mouth where his money is?

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that the Bloc is not supporting the motion because it is a province that is always looking for special treatment. So, it is difficult to understand why it will not support a province looking for fair treatment in order to benefit from its own resources. If that is the case, if the member does not support or does not think a province should benefit from its own non-renewable resources, then surely he would not support a province benefiting from another province's resources.

In light of that, I wonder if he would commit to talk to his premier and ask him if he would sit with the Premier of Newfoundland-Labrador and renegotiate the Upper Churchill contract.

[Labrador Riding, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, they used to picture the minister milking the cows and now they picture him milking the farmers.

Labrador has been without an MP for some time. The concerns of the region are numerous: natural resources, fisheries, transportation and aboriginal affairs issues, and a long term plan for 5 Wing Goose Bay. These issues are too important and too pressing for Labrador not to have a member of Parliament.

Would the Prime Minister inform the House when he plans to call the byelection?

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board has operated for the past three years. It is authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the Oceans Act. It is recognized as an innovative governance model for ocean management.

This is what it has become: an innovative group. This board has been able to bring all the stakeholders to the table and the members have been able to work cooperatively to meet the great challenges facing the area. We now see cooperation instead of confrontation.

The mandate of this board ends March 31, 2005. We urge the minister to extend the mandate so that the good work can continue and a model for other areas can be established.

[Canada Shipping Act, March 11th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has a great interest in facilities generally, particularly as it relates to his fishermen.

Occasionally we see in various budgets commitments to invest in infrastructure. However, the infrastructure is in such bad repair across the country and the needs are so great that as good as the commitments seem to be, they have a very minimal effect.

Two years ago people from Small Craft Harbours told us it would take $400 million just to bring their solely owned facilities up to date. Under pressure from the standing committee, it put in $100 million above and beyond. It did not make a dent, and we are still falling behind.

Does the member find that in his region, as in mine, funding provided by government is not meeting our needs?

[The Budget, March 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware that in the 1990s when the airports were privatized, government until then had been providing a subsidy each year. It was a cost to government to keep the airports going. Since that time it has not cost the government anything and the airports themselves have invested roughly $9 billion in infrastructure.

Our own small airport in St. John's has benefited greatly from the privatization aspect. We have seen some real investment which we had not seen when it was controlled by the government. Now it has been informed that this coming year it will have to pay $600,000 to the Department of Transport. How can small and medium size airports be expected to progress? Of course the worst part is that this is downloaded on to the customer. How can we make it possible for people to move throughout this great country of ours and encourage people to come especially to the smaller rural areas, if we are going to hit them with such tax levels at the top where it goes down into the--