Loyola Hearn

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, those were some very serious solid questions.

I mentioned before that I had the opportunity to work with that individual in his former position as the minister of fisheries. We had a very good relationship. Some accomplishments were made because of the atmosphere he created in which we could work together. I believe that almost answers the question.

With respect to the EI surplus, let me remind the member that the EI surplus is three times what is recommended by the people who handle the funds. We do not need that much of a surplus in the event of any kind of a downturn. One-third of the surplus would be enough.

Why has it been increasing? Is it because of the great economy in this country? The answer is no. The answer is it is a lot harder to get on the EI program these days. Workers have to work longer and they obtain fewer benefits over a shorter period of time. There are all kinds of cuts to EI and to HRDC in particular, internally and externally. There are all kinds of reasons that the EI fund is growing and the people of Canada are paying the price.

Talking about the 10 province formula, about clawbacks, et cetera, let us lump them into one answer to save time. I mentioned in the introductory remarks to my answer that atmosphere has a lot to do with it. A tremendous amount of this depends on two words: leadership and trust. These are words that a lot of people think do not jibe with politics. We do not see any leadership any more in this country and we certainly do not see any trust. Nobody trusts anybody else.

The premiers and the provincial finance ministers around the negotiating table are human. There is always concern for their own area, that they have to look after their people. That is natural, but we have to remember we are part of a Confederation. Joining Confederation is like getting married; it is for better or for worse. We have to give and take.

I always remind my Albertan friends that in the 1930s when times were tough, it was fish from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland that helped keep them alive. Today they are contributing to both our provinces through the have and have not formula, or have and have less, whatever way we want to put it. Five or 10 years down the road as their oil fields dry up and ours come on stream, the reverse could happen. That is the way it should be.

In order to reach that, first of all we have to talk openly, we have to be honest and we have to put the figures on the table. However, there has to be trust. There has to be a belief that today is my day and tomorrow could be someone else's because everything turns around, as I said earlier when I talked about government. Things turn around. We have to remember that as partners in Confederation, we should be there in the good times but we should also be there in the bad times to help those who need help.

If we have that little bit of trust and some leadership to consolidate the proper formulas, we may not get what we want ideally, but we will get something that will satisfy most of us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague opposite explain the bill and talk about the need to pass it so that the provinces can continue to receive the equalization payments beyond April 1. He also referred to the special payment for health care.

Let me put a couple of things in perspective. First, the $2 billion commitment announced just recently for health care, which will be put in following the passage of the legislation, is a help to the provinces. Is it what they need? It certainly is not what they need and is not what they asked for.

The money is a commitment that was made a number of years ago. We have heard over the last three years at least that the government would put more money into health care. A couple of years ago it was determined that it would be $2 billion. Last year we were promised the money but that it would depend on next year's budget and the surplus. We waited and waited. Now, in the days preceding the election of course, the $2 billion will be delivered.

The ironic thing is that the person who gets the credit for the money is not the person who committed it. It is not the finance minister who has pledged it in his next budget. It is the former finance minister and the present Prime Minister who will get the credit for giving the provinces $2 billion.

This same Prime Minister, when he was the finance minister, was the one who, in regulating his budgets, actually cut over $16 billion, which in today's dollars would be $25 billion.

If I were given the opportunity to give out $2 billion to people, people might be quite shocked. However, if at the same time they were going to return $25 billion to me, it would not be a bad deal. This is exactly what we see with the federal government. During the term of the former finance minister the government cut $25 billion in today's dollars from the health care budget to the provinces and now it offers, on the eve of an election, a paltry $2 billion. Nobody is buying it.

Let me talk about equalization. The parliamentary secretary is a fine fellow but he understands very little about equalization. He comes from the great province of Ontario which is one of the have, question mark, provinces, the other being Alberta. All the other provinces are considered have not.

If people in the other eight provinces are watching at this time of the morning they are probably wondering what the definition is of a have and have not province. My definition of have not provinces is that those are the provinces that have been shafted by Ottawa over the last x number of years, certainly in relation to the development of resources and the clawback which has left a number of our provinces in a position where they are classified as have not. Others might be farming provinces, that again have been totally and utterly ignored by the government to the point where their economy is regressing rather than moving forward.

Have and have not should not be terms that we use in this country. We should all be have provinces. We should not have to be lining up with our hands out to uncle Ottawa looking to get back some of our money.

I want to give a couple of figures. Over the last four years $14 billion has come out of the offshore development of Newfoundland. People might wonder why Newfoundland is not a have province. It is simply because of the mismanagement of the central government. The share that Newfoundland gets has amounted to about $300 million over four years; less than $100 million a year from a $14 billion industry. Anyone with any kind of a brain will know that there is something drastically wrong here.

Some people say that we cannot have our cake and eat it too. It is like the way we treat people who are receiving social assistance. Government sends them a cheque because, through no fault of their own, they cannot get into the workplace for whatever reason: sickness, lack of opportunities, lack of education, whatever. Then we encourage them to become productive members of society. We provide them with a job opportunity so they take the job even though it is only a part time job paying about $100. What happens at the end of the week? The government takes back an equal amount from what they are paid, and at the of the period they are no better off than they were before. They then ask themselves why they even bothered.

Government has to realize that in order to move the economy ahead we have to invest. We cannot cycle our money through the central government. That is not investing. That is investing in scandals. That is investing in giveaways. That is investing in putting money into the pockets of one's friends. We have to invest in the infrastructure of the provinces so that they can keep building the economy and develop the resources that they hold.

The member opposite mentioned that the formula is a fair one, that they take the five middle provinces. The only entity that says it is fair is the central government. Everyone else, all the premiers and all the provinces, say that it is not fair and that it should be based on a 10 province formula. When we argue that, the now Minister of Finance, the former minister of natural resources, who was one who retarded the development of our natural resources, says that the gap is narrowing. The only reason the gap is narrowing is that the economy of the two have provinces, Alberta and Ontario, dictates the amount of equalization the other provinces get. If one or the other of these provinces has a downturn, it affects the amount of equalization everyone gets and it narrows the gap.

Thanks to the Liberal government, the present government in Ontario, Ontario is seeing a dip in the economy which greatly affects the equalization formula. Alberta is doing well because of the development of its natural resources. When it first began to develop its oil industry in particular, it was allowed to hold on to its revenues for about a 10 year period. That gave Alberta the opportunity to invest in its infrastructure, to grow and to develop into a have province.

The same thing could happen in Nova Scotia, in Newfoundland and in Quebec. These provinces have rich natural resources but they must be allowed to develop them in co-operation with the federal government and on a sliding scale, undoubtedly. We do not want to be taking out and giving nothing but we must be fair. We have to give people the chance to get on their feet, and it can be done. A 10 year formula would certainly make a major difference to our provinces.

Let us look at fairness in the CHST funding. Instead of cutting $25 billion, let us make sure we pay the equal amount. When we constantly download on the provinces then the provinces, in many cases, have to pass it along to the municipalities.

Throughout the country, infrastructure is completely and utterly falling apart simply because of exactly what we are talking about this morning, the inappropriateness of the funding that is delivered to the provinces by the federal government, the people's own money.

Some people might say we have a surplus. Years ago when we had a Conservative government, we did not. Let us analyze it. During the early 1990s before the Liberals came into power, they talked about the deficit that they were handed. Forget the debt; they were talking about the deficit. The deficit was built up for two reasons, the need to continue social programs when times were tough and extremely high interest rates. If we had the same interest rates today, imagine the amount of debt payments we would have to make. How much of a surplus would we have?

The debt was passed on from a previous Liberal government which admittedly was added to somewhat, but a plan was put in place to address it. This is where the Liberal government is wrong. Where is the plan? It is 20 days today since the House resumed sitting and we have yet to see one piece of new legislation, as anybody who listens to the assessment of what is happening in this country would know.

We talk about elections. When is the election going to be? People say it has to be in the spring. Why? Because the government has no legislation. The Liberals have no plans. They have nothing to offer the people of the country, except to go on their knees to Canadians asking to please be voted back for another few years so they can continue to do nothing and crucify everyone at the provincial level. Where is the plan?

Remember free trade? Remember the GST? We did not like it and members over there fought against it. The Liberals won an election because of these two issues, but did they cancel free trade? Did they eliminate the GST as the Prime Minister when he was minister of finance promised to do? No, because these were necessities at the time in order to address the deficit while maintaining social programs.

The present government, because it is the same old government, came in, continued the GST and built an economy based on free trade which greatly enhanced the economy of this country, but the Liberals also made their own contribution to the surplus which we now have. They cut social programs. They cut $25 billion in equalization payments in CHST transfers to the provinces, $25 billion.

The Liberals overcharged on employment insurance, money taken directly out of the pockets of every working person in this country, to the tune of $40 billion. Imagine what $40 billion could do if the workers themselves had that kind of money to put into the economy. People who work make money and spend money. They spend money on goods and services, which creates more wealth, generates more taxes and builds the economy. What we see here is regression. They cut, take away and download on the provinces and municipalities. Everybody suffers all the way down.

With regard to natural resources, they ignored our fishery. There is a former fisheries minister here looking at me in admiration. He was one of the great fellows who had the will to do something, but those above him said, “Sorry, you cannot do it. We do not want to disrupt our friendship with other countries. If they want to be our friends, we will give them our fish”. If that is the way we are going to treat our resources, how are we going to grow the economy? How are we going to grow the country? The answer is, it ain't going to happen. That is what we see right now.

What is the best thing to do? Perhaps the government could start by coming up with a proper equalization program.

How popular is the bill? How popular is this offer to the provinces? Every single solitary province rejected it. They asked why after five years they had to extend the agreement for another year in order to finalize it. Surely, we knew five years go that it was going to run out. We knew four years ago that we had better start working on it. Three years ago, we should have been into it. At least a year ago, we should have been into the final stages working on new formulas, assessing the present economy, et cetera.

What happened? The Prime Minister was running around the country trying to become Prime Minister. The former prime minister was running around the world taking advantage of his last year in office. The ministers in the government, the ones responsible, were running around to see if they could get some money for their friends.

The business of the country was not getting done. That is why today we see the provinces still waiting for an equalization program. What are we doing? We are supporting the bill. Why are we supporting it? Simply because if the bill is defeated, the provinces' funding will be cut off completely. They will get nothing.

I always think of poor Oliver Twist. Please sir, could we have some more? It is becoming that way for the provinces. They come to Ottawa with their little bowls in their hands begging, please sir, could we have more?

Perhaps it is not the provinces that should worry. Perhaps it is not the municipalities. Perhaps it is not the people across the country, the workers, who have been ripped off. Perhaps they should not be sitting back asking, “What can we do? It is Ottawa's fault”. No, it is our fault collectively because we were the ones who put them there.

There is one thing that we can always remember. We put them there, but in light of everything that is happening, we have time to assess what we have done. As the old saying goes, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. The people give power to the government and very soon the people will take it away.

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the member for Terrebonne--Blainville for being a little upset, because the usual response we get to an issue raised in the House is how it could be handled in another way and the government is going to do something about it. Had the government done something about it, we would not have the problem.

I congratulate the member for bringing in this bill and drawing attention to an extremely serious issue. In commenting on the bill, the former solicitor general basically said that everyone appreciates this concern but there are better ways of handling it. That might be the case. If this is so, perhaps we could incorporate the present bill by the member for Terrebonne--Blainville into what is happening, if collectively we agree there is a better way. However, the question we would ask is why something has not been done.

The member mentioned a meeting that was held in Montreal. He talked about a guest speaker who spoke about the link between physical and psychological violence, that if we have one, we have the other. To a degree that might be fair to say.

Physical violence undoubtedly has a psychological effect and psychological harassment certainly has a physical effect to some degree. One can easily identify physical harassment. It is seen. It is witnessed. It is physically evidenced. However, psychological harassment on its own may be held within the person and never known by anybody else, and therein lies the problem. It is something that many people do not even want to talk about.

In our system of large corporations and large agencies, government being the largest, there are a tremendous number of people who, for want of a better word, manage others. We refer to them as managers. Unfortunately, too many people with that title think it is their job to drive others, to deal with people in condescending ways, in order to get production. They think, “If you are under me, I have to make sure you are subservient to me”. That is very unfortunate.

The highest productivity seen in any workplace is where those at the top create an environment in which others can work in peace and harmony and cooperation. Good leaders can always create that type of environment. We do not always have good leaders and therein lies the problem.

The former solicitor general mentioned that this can be handled and it is being looked at, but how many things have we heard about that the government is looking at? It is constantly navel gazing. Show me a few things that the government has done.

Here we have something which affects more people than we know about, because psychological harassment is not something people want to talk about. It is done by people who want to harass others, who want to take advantage of or belittle others, or to try to show their superiority over others. It is a great way to get that message across when nobody else can witness it and there is no physical evidence. That is where I disagree with the statement about the link. There is not always a link.

Psychological harassment has a tremendous effect on the individual. That victim, for all kinds of reasons, may not have any chance either internally or externally to deal with the burden that has been put upon him or her by the perpetrator.

I fully support the bill put forward by the member. I am not sure if anything will ever be done about it, but perhaps by her coming here and creating awareness for the need to have something done will get government to speed up its action and deal with it in a way where it will have some clout.

Words on paper mean actually nothing. If we cannot enforce the intent then it is useless. Perhaps the remarks made today by members will entice the government to do the right thing. Whether it be this bill or whether we incorporate it into the Canada Labour Code, it does not matter as long as it is done properly and can be properly enforced for the benefit of those who are suffering because nobody pays attention to some of the psychological harassment that goes on in the workplace.

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the overall problem, especially with BSE, a lot of people think it is just a western problem, an Alberta problem. It is not. It is a Canadian problem. The member who just spoke represents an Ontario riding.

A lot of people perhaps do not know that not only do we have an agriculture problem, certainly a BSE problem, in Ontario, we have that problem in parts of Atlantic Canada as well. Anybody in the business, whether it be the dairy business or whether it be the beef business, is affected by this.

How does the member see this affecting her province, so more and more people understand this is not just a western problem? This is a major problem and the economic downturn is having a drastic effect on all our provinces, and on the country generally.

[Business of the House, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in asking the government House leader what business we will be conducting for the rest of the week and into next week, perhaps I should also ask when we will see some new legislation from the government, because everything we have seen to date is recycled information.

Let me also ask him a supplementary. The leader of the government in the other place outlined a new policy that he promised to use for the appointment of the Senate ethics officer. Members of the Senate have been promised wide consultation prior to any appointment, and this also includes independent senators. However the agreement of all parties will also be necessary before the governor in council will make the appointment.

Is the government House leader going to bring in a statement that will outline the procedure that we will follow here in the House? Will it be the same as introduced in the Senate?

[Supply, February 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to ask a question of our interim leader, our answer to Robin Hood and William Tell in the House. However, besides being able to use a bow and arrow, he can certainly also use his knowledge and experience to educate us as to how we should deal with some of the problems in our country.

One thing we always try to do is to ensure that the people of the country benefit from government. We always talk about lowering taxes and so on, to put more money into the hands of people. Another way we can put more money into the hands of people is to ensure that the price of the goods, in particular the food they consume, is reasonable.

When the fishery failed on the east coast, many of our young people left the industry. They not only left the industry, they left the province. What will happen with agriculture, through a time of crisis, if government does not step in and help stabilize these people so they can remain on the farms? They will not to stay around. If we cannot produce the food people need, undoubtedly we will pay a heavy price down the road.

Would my colleague comment on the long term effect on Canada if we neglect the basic industries that are the breadbasket of this great country of ours?