Loyola Hearn

[Natural Resources, March 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing consensus of unfairness in how the federal government deals with the provinces in relation to resource development.

The Minister of Natural Resources has alluded to the fact that government will bring the Atlantic accord in line with the accord's fundamental commitment to give prime benefits to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Is this the policy of government and, if so, will the Deputy Prime Minister stand and confirm this will be done before the election call?

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member as he talked about some concerns relating to health care in his province, particularly in relation to the cutbacks of funding from the federal government. The same thing is happening in my province, particularly when we look at the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec have such large rural areas.

When we talk about health care delivery and when we talk about the fact that money is delivered to the provinces based upon population, it does not cut it that way. We have an aging population in my province. More young people are leaving, which means we have a smaller population. In fact I believe we are the only province in the country where we have a declining population, which means we get even fewer dollars each year to maintain the same plan. We cannot take out a hospital bed every time somebody leaves.

The geography over which we have to distribute that amount of money puts an extra burden on such provinces as Newfoundland and Quebec. I agree totally with what the member has said. However, does he feel that the government, in allocating funding to provinces such as ours, should take into consideration the aging population, more particular, the geography and that consideration should not be based only on population? I would like the members views on that.

[Business of the House, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader what business he plans for the rest of today, tomorrow, and for the start of the week when we come back following the break week.

While he is at it, to prepare us all he might want to tell us when the election is so that we can all get a head start.

[Fisheries, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleagues, the member for St. John's East, the member for Skeena, and the member for Scarborough Southwest, the chair of the committee on fisheries and oceans, who has done a tremendous job in that position and has been very strong on this issue.

I would also like to thank my good friend, the hon. member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis, and my friend, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

These people have shown today their knowledge and support for what we are asking, that Canada take control, for a change, of a resource that is really ours, that swims on Canada's continental shelf and that has been abused for years.

I do not intend to omit the parliamentary secretary, my friend from Kings--Hants, who perhaps in his new life looks upon the world a bit differently than he did when he was over on this side of the House. It is amazing how one's vision of international cooperation changes when one crosses the floor. The member was very strong in his support of what we were doing and now we hear the government tune, “We are going to deal with this issue”.

I like country and western music. One of my old favourites is a fellow by the name of Johnny Horton, have mercy on him. One of the songs he used to sing was “It's the same old tale that the crow told me, way down yonder by the sycamore tree”.

I have heard for years and years, “We are going to do something”. I challenge the member and I challenge anybody to look at the correspondence that has taken place, to look at the initiatives that have been taken between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the government generally and NAFO in relation to overfishing. They will see about the same amount of activity as we have seen action taken on vessels that have been issued citations.

In conclusion, I will give a couple of reasons that we need to take some action in relation to our policing and control of the nose and tail and the Flemish Cap. I refer to two boats.

The Olga was arrested and brought into Newfoundland port. They found in the hold of that boat tonnes of cod, a species under moratorium. The boat was sent back home. Somebody was supposed to deal with the boat. The standing committee, when visiting Norway and Iceland last year, found the boat tied up in Iceland. When asked what action had been taken with the boat, with the skipper and with the company, the government's response was, “We do not know. We have done a search. We do not know what action has been taken”. The Olga was also charged with polluting our waters.

The case will go to court. Millions of dollars, perhaps, will be spent and what are we going to get? Nothing, because the company has gone bankrupt, the boat is up for sale and of course our waters are polluted and our fish are gone.

The other boat is the Santa Mafalda . Four times in the last couple of years that boat has been issued citations. One was for fishing inside our 200 mile limit, not on the nose and tail but inside the 200 mile limit. What happened? The boat was sent back home and a warrant was issued for the captain's arrest. Following that incident inside our waters, the boat was stopped again and was issued a citation. They could not arrest the captain because even though the original offence had occurred months before, the documentation had not yet come before the courts. Four times, four citations and nothing was done. The boat continues to fish in our waters.

Three hundred citations have been issued in the last 10 years, 30 a year and no action. Why are we asking Canada to do something? Because nothing has been done. The government does not intend to do anything unless we force it into action. That is what it is all about.

There are the unanimous reports from the standing committee and the unanimous report from the all party committee. Everybody says to do something, except a few key people in government. Of course, they are the ones who will make the decision, but let me just remind them, that the people might make the decision for them.

[Privilege, March 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by citing Marleau and Montpetit, page 697:

The direct control of national finance has been referred to as the “great task of modern parliamentary government”.

At page 728 it states:

The Main Estimates provide a breakdown, by department and agency, of planned government spending for the coming fiscal year.

On February 24, the Journals of the House of Commons record that the President of the Treasury Board delivered to you, Mr. Speaker, a message from the Governor General, which you read to the House as follows:

Her Excellency the Governor General transmits to the House of Commons the Main Estimates of sums required for the public service of Canada in the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2005, and in accordance with section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, recommends these Estimates to the House of Commons.

...(President of the Treasury Board) laid upon the Table,—Document entitled “Main Estimates for the year 2004-2005”. —Sessional Paper No. 8520-373-02.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, were deemed referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:

And I need not read the list.

The transmission of the main estimates to the House of Commons is at the heart of our constitutional system. These are stated to be the government's spending plans for the coming year and they form the core of the government's request for spending authority.

The government stands behind these spending proposals, otherwise it would have not taken them to the Governor General and asked Her Excellency to recommend them to the House in accordance with the Constitution Act. At least, that is what the House of Commons is entitled to believe.

Now we find out that the entire exercise is a sham; that the government does not stand behind these estimates; that the government is misleading the House of Commons; that the government has once again failed in its duty to be transparent with the House.

I quote from a media release dated February 24:

The...President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, tabled today, in the House of Commons, the 2004-2005 Main Estimates.

One of the top priorities of the government is value for money,” said [the President of the Treasury Board]. “More than ever, the Government of Canada is committed to increasing accountability and providing Parliament with the information it needs to oversee the spending of tax dollars.

The main estimates support the government's annual request to Parliament for authority to spend public funds. They also provide information to Parliament about adjustments to projected statutory spending that has been previously authorized by Parliament. In this context, the 2004-2005 main estimates seek a total of $186.1 billion, including $2.8 billion in non-budgetary expenditures related to such things as loans and investments, and $183.3 billion in budgetary spending.

Today's tabling of parts I and II of the main estimates represents the expenditure plan set out in the November 2003 “Economic and Fiscal Update”. In addition, these main estimates reflect estimates for new and restructured organizations resulting from the machinery of government changes announced in December 2003. Over the coming month, Parliament will consider an appropriation bill to authorize interim spending for the 2004-2005 fiscal year based on these main estimates.

In the same news release, dated February 24, 2004, the government wrote:

Due to the extent of the machinery of government changes announced in December 2003, it is the intention of the Government to table a revised set of Main Estimates later during the 2004-2005 fiscal year. This will allow new and restructured organizations sufficient time to finalize resource discussions as well as to develop their plans and priorities in time for Parliament to consider appropriation bills to authorize final spending. At the same time, it will allow the Government to seek additional spending authority for expenditures that were not sufficiently known in time for the Main Estimates and which are normally sought from Parliament through Supplementary Estimates later during the fiscal year.

Essentially what the President of Treasury Board was saying was that what he had originally tendered to the House of Commons was invalid. The government never informed the House that the estimate book was invalid, that it was a dead parrot.

Instead, the government immediately referred the estimates to the committees of the House and wished the committees good luck on what only the government knew would be a mystery tour.

The committees will not be able to examine the estimates and get answers on public expenditures because there is not a minister of the crown or a single public official who can honestly stand behind these false estimates.

These are the Chrétien estimates; the estimates of a dead government, and that is not saying that this one is a very lively one either, by the way. All that the committees have before them is the dead hand of Jean Chrétien. Yet the House of Commons has been told by the Governor General that these are the spending plans of the Government of Canada and, under the doctrine of responsible government, the current administration has staked its life on the passage of these estimates.

What appears to be happening is that the government will use these fictitious estimates as the base amount on which it will seek interim supply and, having secured interim supply, it will then be able to use internal orders to reallocate funds for other purposes; and dare I suggest the gun registry?

Mr. Speaker, the business of supply is at the very core of responsible government. You, yourself, in 1997, devoted months of study to the role of the business of supply in the House of Commons. The House is entitled to take the estimate book at face value.

Let me refer the Chair to pages 1 to 8, the introduction to Part II. It states:

The purpose of these Estimates is to present to Parliament information in support of budgetary and non-budgetary spending authorities that will be sought through Appropriation bill.

Mr. Speaker, their time will come, let me assure you. The minister's media release says that is not true. At the time of the tabling of the estimates there were comments floating around the House that it was unusual for government to have tabled the estimates without prior notice. The reason is now clear. The government has no estimates.

The government has placed before the House of Commons a fraudulent document knowing that it is false. It did this to start the business of supply so that when the clock stops in June it will have full access to the people's money without telling Parliament or the public how it will spend it. The elected representatives of the people of Canada would be voting $183 billion without knowing what it was for and without being able to question or challenge those spending plans.

This is a gross contempt for the people of Canada, an arrogant attempt to undermine democracy and a complete denial of responsible government.

Once again we are seeing the Prime Minister trying to fudge financial questions. He has come before Parliament unprepared to govern. He has no agenda and he refuses--

[Privilege, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the former speaker about the government. I know the Liberals are very busy these days and that they have a lot of things on their minds but surely they should be aware of the laws and rules of this place.

I would remind the Speaker that on November 21, 2001, the Speaker delivered a ruling in regard to a complaint by the member for Surrey Central when he cited 16 examples where the government failed to comply with legislative requirements concerning the tabling of certain information in Parliament. In all of the 16 cases raised on November 21, a reporting deadline was absent in the legislation. As a result the Speaker could not find a prima facie question of privilege.

However, he said in his ruling on page 1515 of Hansard :

Were there to be a deadline for tabling included in the legislation, I would not hesitate to find that a prima facie case of contempt does exist--

I would invite the hon. member to move the usual motion. The standing order establishes a deadline in this case and it has clearly been breached. Therefore the right hon. member for Calgary Centre has a very valid point and we certainly support him in his submission.

[Contraventions Act, March 8th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the last few speakers on this topic. The party of the member for Winnipeg Centre talks so much about the need to put more funding into health care. Not only his party talks about it, but we all talk about it, because it is the most important issue in this country. Any poll that anyone takes will tell us that the concerns about health care and the cost of health care are extremely important in everyone's view.

However, if we are going to bring in legislation that further opens the door to substance abuse, which will eventually lead to more health care costs, how can we justify that in light of the concerns of our already overburdened economy in relation to paying for the country's health care needs?

There is another question I would like to ask him. I am not sure what his experience is, but in speaking to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the local constabulary, I have yet to find one single police officer who agrees with the present legislation for the decriminalizing of marijuana.

I have real concerns about what we are doing here. I would like to ask the member where he sees this in relation to increasing the need for health care funding. Second, what is his experience in dealing with law enforcement agencies in relation to this legislation?

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we now know the government knew eight years ago that there was a problem and it covered it up.

We heard the Prime Minister say he knew there was a problem two years ago, before he even knew about the program. Now we have cabinet ministers wanting to spend millions based on nothing more than a federal agreement.

We hear the words money laundering. Where does that come from? Why is the government playing Canadians for fools? Has this culture of corruption gone so deep that it has permeated every level of the Liberal government?

[Sponsorship Program, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, government members have made it quite clear that there was a cover up involving the 1996 audit. They talk about fraud and mismanagement.

Besides taking the word of Alfonso Gagliano that there was nothing wrong, what did the government do to clean up that mess?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the first question, I have no argument with the member. Regarding the EI fund, usually most government revenues that are taken in go into the general account for the needs of all the people across the country.

However, the minute we identify specific accounts, such as the EI account, the money that goes into that should be used for that purpose, whether it be for benefits during layoffs, retraining or getting more people back into the workplace. We are doing an abysmal job. If we find we are collecting more from the worker than we need to do these things, that money should go back into the pockets of the worker.

I would remind him that back in the late eighties and early nineties, the economy was in rough shape. The deficit was huge and interest rates were astronomical, so consequently, governments were looking for every way to balance budgets. Desperate times called for desperate measures.

In relation to the leader of the Conservative Party, we do not know who the leader is going to be at this stage. We have absolutely no idea. It is a three way fight; three excellent people.

However, in the party to which I will belong, the interest in Atlantic Canada will not change. In fact, one of the things we are seeing, certainly within our leadership--I do not think it is true opposite--is a concern about learning more about the country. This is a big country. We have different economies throughout the country and different needs.

We must understand the country and the people of the country if we are going to be able to offer the proper services these people need. It is a matter of leadership. I think we will have it, and I am sure he would be glad to come with us.