Loyola Hearn

[Natural Resources, February 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country blessed with great natural resources. The proper development of these resources could create an economy which could care for all of our needs.

If we maximized every bit of potential from our non-renewable resources and if we carefully managed our renewable resources, all our provinces would have stable economies. The problem is that we are not getting maximum benefits from resource development. We are not protecting or enhancing our agriculture, our fisheries, our forestry and our environment generally.

The lead here is in government hands. The example should be set by the federal government. Regrettably, in this regard, the Liberal government has been an abysmal failure.

[Privilege, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is a continuation of complete and utter buffoonery. The member was asked to clarify remarks that he made about the member for Calgary Southeast. First was that he got a grant. He did not get a grant. Then that there was an association in his riding that got a grant. It is not in his riding. The member says it is in his riding. It is semantics. It is not in his riding.

Consequently, all he is doing is perpetrating false information that he gave before.

[Equalization Payments, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the finance ministers from the provinces met with the federal Minister of Finance. The purpose was to discuss a new equalization deal for the provinces.

The minister offered a deal; the provinces rejected it and rightly so. The $1.3 billion over five years works out to be $265 million a year, to be divided among eight provinces.

The minister says the gap is closing between the have and have not provinces. This only happens when the economy of Ontario takes a dip. The minister is playing politics. He knows he can get more political credit from putting money into other areas rather than equalization. He might reject the provinces and their people for now, but it will be their turn when the election is called.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 20th, 2004]

And accountable, and if proper assessments have been done on the individuals involved.

We have seen some horror cases in this country in recent years where people who were let out on parole have quickly offended. The sorrowful thing is that in almost every case, somebody in the system said that they knew, they warned people, and they had concerns that these people would offend again.

We have concerns as well. The former speaker said we must clarify who the victims are in this case. That is certainly true. We must know the victim and we must ensure that the victim is looked after. I believe the real victims in this overall scenario are the people of Canada because they have been victimized left, right and centre by the government opposite.

If we were here today as a parole board and we were asked if we would let the Prime Minister and his cabinet out on day parole, or parole at all, to mingle among the people of Canada and to make major decisions affecting the lives of Canadians, that would be interesting. Maybe, Madam Speaker, if we want to kill a few more minutes, you could have a straw vote here just to see how many would really turn the Prime Minister loose on parole to deal with the issues facing Canada. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is an old saying from Newfoundland and certainly right across the country. We have seen the proof of the pudding.

The government has been in place for four years. The Prime Minister has been around all that time. He was in the most important position to bring into effect changes in this country. He was the finance minister. What is the result? What are we seeing being done to address the real problems in this country? What are we seeing besides platitudes and procrastination? We are seeing absolutely nothing.

It is time we change, and not only this bill. Hopefully, we will get the chance to make the proper changes here but more so, let us hope that Canadians will get the chance to make the changes they want made.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 20th, 2004]

The member across says hear, hear. In other words, they agreed to just slough it off.

The premiers, again perhaps for different reasons, want an agreement now. There is no reason that one cannot be forged. It is just the will and the competency of the government opposite.

As we see another major Canadian issue dealing with a source of financing for the provinces being sloughed off, we compare that to the referring to the Supreme Court of same sex marriage. We see the studies that are being set up to look at the scandals that are underway. Everything has to be pushed off for further study. The government and the Prime Minister have not yet dealt with one substantive issue since they came to power, not one.

Again, one might ask what that has to do with the bill. Well, this has been on the go for years and years. This side of the House has been pressing government to make changes to this act, and now we see the Liberals coming in at the last minute, days before they want to call an election, which I certainly hope they do, and they are dragging the bill. We just saw one member after the other getting up and parroting the same speech to kill time.

Where is the legislation from the government to deal with the real concerns in the country? What have we seen? Why did we not switch at 12 o'clock, when we started going over and over the same old stuff, to a special debate on the BSE crisis, or on equalization, or on the fishing crisis, or on the concerns of youth?

The government has absolutely, positively nothing on its agenda. That is the only reason why we see a lot of government members speaking, and this is amazing, because when do we see members opposite stay around to speak on anything? This is the point. We are just killing time because there is nothing else to talk about.

With the piece of legislation concerned and when we look at the timeframe involved, the chances of it ever becoming law under this government are slim to none. If it is not done before the election, this government will certainly not be around to do it after the election.

What about the legislation itself? After four or five years of hammering the government with concerns about the old legislation, it made some changes which, if implemented properly, would certainly be important, especially to those affected. However, we cannot just create a more open door policy unless we have the mechanisms to ensure that protective measures are there in place.

One of the things we talk about is more power to the correctional institution to make decisions. I have no problems with that if the people involved are capable and competent of making these decisions.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, February 20th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, here we are in the days of a government trying to address a democratic deficit. We hear so much about democratic reform and how this honoured institution will be changed in a way that will better the lives of people across the country.

We have a government at a time when we have a number of major concerns across the country. I am thinking of the BSE problem, not only in the west but in all of Canada. I am thinking about the fishery crisis on the east coast. I am thinking about health care concerns right across the country.

By the way, let me congratulate you, Madam Speaker. It is the first time that I have been able to speak while you are in the chair. Certainly it is a tremendous move to have someone of your calibre from this side of the House in the chair, and it is certainly an improvement, let me say.

However let me go on. As we speak, we have the ministers of finance from across the country meeting here today in Ottawa, talking about equalization. Members might ask about relevance, so let me tie it in to make sure I am relevant, in case there are concerns.

The equalization problem, which we are dealing with today, is one that has been on the go for years and years. At the end of March the present agreement runs out. They have known for the past three or four years that the deadline was approaching and, while it may be for different reasons, all of them have been asking for changes to that equalization program.

The government has done absolutely nothing. What it did was bring in legislation asking us to extend the present agreement for another year.

[Sponsorship Program, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the sponsorship scandal. In Newfoundland and Labrador, $250 million could have paid the salary of 556 new police officers for eight years. It could have bought 8,333 police cruisers. It could have paid an additional 213 full time nurses for 25 years. It could have paid for 175 MRI machines and two months of the total Newfoundland and Labrador health budget.

Will the Liberal government start focusing on the priorities of Canadians rather than the priorities of its friends?

[Employment Insurance, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we know the surplus in the EI fund could pay tuition for a five year program for three million students in the country. One can imagine what that could do for the workforce.

The Auditor General remarks that the current surplus in the EI account is now three times the maximum reserve that the chief actuary of human resources development considers sufficient.

Accordingly, in my opinion, the government did not observe the intent of the Employment Insurance Act.

Why is the Prime Minister breaking the laws of the country?

[Business of the House, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, I would like to ask the government House leader what the business is for today, tomorrow and of course into next week.

We also would like to make sure that the leader lets the House know in detail what legislation will be brought forward and if it is going to be in the same form as it was when it was first presented.

[Employment Insurance, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there is much concern in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador surrounding the recent decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal regarding maternity, parental and sick benefits through the EI program.

The ruling claimed that these were matters of provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government had no right to ensure that all Canadians receive equal access to these benefits.

There are also concerns that the government is considering carving up the EI moneys to cover the cost of these benefits which would ensure the poorer provinces, like Newfoundland and Labrador, will be hit hardest as a result.

Canadians everywhere understand the federal government has a crucial role to play in maintaining national standards and the national program in order to prevent balkanization of the EI program.

If the Quebec ruling stands, it will set a dangerous precedent and will eliminate the current standards that exist with respect to special benefits.

I therefore urge the government to do the right thing and immediately appeal the ruling of the Quebec Court of Appeal.