Loyola Hearn

[Points of Order, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we passed last night gave the government the right to reinstate legislation in the same form in which it was originally presented. I know you will be very vigilant about this, but can you assure us that the legislation that comes back to the House will be in the exact form, not tampered with, as it was presented here originally?

[Privilege, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Just about a week ago, the government tabled in the House the report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons. I will quote from that document, which was approved by the House. It states:

It is important that more ministerial statements and announcements regarding legislation be made in the House of Commons. In particular, topical developments, or foreseeable policy decisions, should be made first--or, at least, concurrently--in the chamber. Ministers, and their departments, need to be encouraged to make use of the forum provided by the House of Commons. Not only will this enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament, but it will also reiterate the legislative underpinning for governmental decisions.

At 2 p.m. today, the Prime Minister stood outside the chamber telling the media of his response to the Auditor General's report. Only three inches of oak separated the Prime Minister and the chamber, a chamber where the representatives of Canadians sit assembled. The Prime Minister has shown gross contempt by his failure to come before the House with a full statement of what must be one of the most serious financial debacles in the history of the country.

The Prime Minister talks a lot about the democratic deficit, and of course as I mentioned, tabled this just last week, but he only talks to the Liberal caucus. It would be interesting to ask what he told his caucus that he did not tell the House--and of course the media--but he refuses to talk to the representatives of the people of Canada in Parliament assembled. This is a gross contempt and the House should have an opportunity to censure it.

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech and certainly agree with everything he said.

However just before he spoke a lot of people perhaps did not notice the government House leader stand and introduce the closure motion. What that motions says is that not only is the government bringing back a pile of legislation from the former session that was left on the Order Paper before it closed, legislation from which we would think any new Prime Minister and old government would want to distance themselves, it is also saying that we will not get the chance to debate whether or not they should be brought back.

He wants to ram this through, and we know why. It is because he wants one piece of legislation, the one to speed up an election, so he can get rid of most of the people who sit around here. He is not worried about getting rid of us over on this side. He is worried about getting rid of the crowd around him. We have surprises for him.

In light of the fact that the government House leader just last week introduced the document to deal, as they say, with the democratic deficit--and we will hear a lot about that as we head into an election--to address the tremendous deficit we have and to empower members of the House, he then comes in with a closure motion within a week of the House opening. It took the former diligent House leader, who was known as the king of closure, a year and a half to invoke closure. Now we see it in five days.

How does my colleague think this jibes with the democratic deficit that the Liberals talk about?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants me to comment fully on these questions, we would be here for at least a week because there is so much information. The government's record on either of these areas is horrendous.

There is not one aspect of the military that does not need funding. The government's attention to our military has been atrocious. My colleague mentioned the helicopter issue. Ten years ago the prime minister said that he was going to cancel this expensive contract. People thought it was a lot of money when billions of dollars were mentioned. When people are hit with high figures, without proper analysis and explanation, they will agree until they have time to size up what it is all about.

The same prime minister at the same time said that we did not need free trade. The Liberals campaigned against it and won an election. The Liberals said that they would abolish the GST. The budget that the Prime Minister, formerly the finance minister, brags about today was created by income from the GST, from the benefits of free trade, as well as from a third Liberal policy of cutting and slashing social programs.

This cutting and slashing has led to a decrease in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Our stocks are being raped because of improper surveillance. There are no frontline people to act as wardens on our rivers because they have been cut each year. Our Coast Guard has been decimated, and I could go on and on.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly give the member my opinion.

First, it is pretty interesting to note that the NDP keep asking the question on a day when David Suzuki and others of his foundation are in the galleries. We understand what its agenda is, and there is an election coming up.

There are certain sensitive areas in our ocean which should be protected. Which areas should be protected is a decision that should be made by both governments. The federal government controls anything beyond the shoreline, and I question that for several reasons. Provincial governments should have major input into that. We have to benefit from our resources.

Keep in mind that there are sensitive areas like breeding grounds for fish, special coral regions, feeding grounds, areas that contain plants that provide oxygen, plants that provide food to the biomass that swims in the area and food fish which feed other larger species. There are many reasons why certain selected areas should be protected, like the breeding grounds for the northern cod which have been raped because the draggers swoop in and grab the fish that congregate there to breed. However, the areas would have to be determined.

I do not agree with the wholesale opening up of all the areas. Nor do I agree with protecting every part of the ocean as some would like to do. We have to reap the resources for the benefit of the people. However, we have to use common sense and provide our people with the means to use the resources for their benefit while ensuring we protect the resources and provide an environment in which they can continue to prosper and grow. Can they go hand in hand? Yes, they can if we do it properly.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the document presented this week, the throne speech, which will be a Liberal re-election pamphlet. However, if one had listened to what was said without analyzing the document thoroughly, one might say that there was a lot of stuff contained in the speech. When we do analyze it we find a lot of fluff and very little substance.

I have many items I would like to talk about but I am limited to 10 minutes so I will refer to some very general topics, one being health care.

Recently we saw the premiers all gathered together and being given a gift of $2 billion for health care by the Prime Minister. This seems to be a new initiative but it is not. It was promised back in the 2003 budget and talked about for years before that. Everybody has said that it will give a boost to health care when, at the same time they are suffering at the provincial levels because of cuts of $25 billion, over 12 times the amount they were given, cuts by the same minister.

What is in the throne speech to help our seniors, the people who have served us so well and are left with so little? What is in the throne speech to benefit one senior in the country?

I mentioned the other day to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that the fisheries had not even been mentioned. He said that the speech talked about the ocean and the Oceans Act and that they were going to do such wonderful work with the Oceans Act.

Let me say how interested the government is in the Oceans Act. In British Columbia we have an organization called the aquatic management board. Following the principles of the Ocean Act, this group is the only organization authorized under the Oceans Act. The government trumpets that the board as an organization is progressive thinking and engages the Oceans Act to the fullest.

How much does it appreciate the organization? The government announced a three year funding pilot project for the aquatic management board. The first year the board received a lump sum of $240,000. This year, year two, it received the first two quarterly payments of $60,000 each. However it has not received one single cent since August.

The board is now operating on a skeleton budget. Many of the board members are so committed that they are volunteering their time because they realize how important it is. Unfortunately, the minister does not.

DFO is saying, by the way, that the money has been approved but that it has been held up in the department by administrative errors. I did not believe that until in recent days we saw how really incompetent some of our accountants apparently are when they get mixed up between figures of $137,000 and $161 million. If they make mistakes like that I can easily understand why there may be some clerical delays within departments.

In the few moments I have left I want to concentrate on one part of the speech, the part that deals with post-secondary students. We have this great commitment from the government to address the concerns of the post-secondary students.

For a couple of years now some of us have been saying to anyone who would listen, “we must make post-secondary education affordable”. It is not affordable today unless students have a lot of money or access to money through their parents. Some people might also say that students can borrow or get student loans. We realize that a student loan today does not cut it, for two reasons. First, if students are forced to borrow the maximum they are left with a horrendous debt and, in most cases, the student loan program does not provide enough to cover the costs of education.

If students live near the university where they can walk to school, go home for lunch or dinner, live at home and avoid the extra cost of apartments, travel, food, furniture, then, yes, a student loan will cover the cost of their tuition and books. I know some of the pages here realize full well what I am saying.

If students do not live near the university and incur these extra expenses, they will find that the extra costs above and beyond tuition really double, in fact in may cases more than double, the total cost of their education.

Where are they going to get the money to fill that gap? They can work in the summer if they can find employment. In the rural areas it is extremely hard to find work, and six or eight weeks work just will not cut it.

If their parents have the money, well and good. They will cough up anywhere I would suggest from $3,000 to $10,000 a year, and I can show receipts to prove it, to cover the cost of their child's education. If they do not have the money and the student does not have access to it, the student has two options: go for a few months, live on Kraft dinner and then drop out when the money runs out; or not go at all, which is the most sorrowful thing. Unfortunately too many of our young people have to choose the second option.

The government has said that it will address it. It stated that loan limits would be increased. The government will let them borrow more money and instead of coming out owing $50,000, students can now borrow $70,000 and get their education. Of course when our students come out with big debt loads, they head south of the border where the big money is.

Family income thresholds will be raised to improve access for middle income families. What does that mean? It means that students again will be able to borrow more money.

The third thing the government will do is measures will be taken to improve loan terms for part time students. If one is a part time student, one can get a bigger loan.

Finally, the government will provide a new grant for low income students to cover a portion of the tuition for the first year of post-secondary education. What does that really mean, a portion of the tuition for the first year? If we look at the cost of a four, five or six year program and lump in travel, apartments or residence, clothing furniture and of course the cost of the student's books on top of the tuition, we can appreciate the cost and the burden for young people. We are going to look at part of the tuition, just the tuition, which is a minuscule amount of the overall cost in the first year.

Therefore, we will suck them in and we will say that post-secondary is available. They can go in and do their first year and part of their tuition will be covered. Then they will get in there and find the only way they can stay is borrow to the hilt.

This is turning more people away. I am not advocating free education, although we would all like to see it. I had a major conference this summer with a lot of Newfoundland students. They like other students yesterday were out protesting the treatment by the government and the horrendous costs of education.

Let us make education available. Let us make sure that every young person in the country with the ability to get an education has that opportunity, whether it be in college or in university. Let us adjust our funding so it becomes affordable and students have a reasonable loan to pay back, and no matter what part of the country or what the socio-economic status they can receive an education. For the rest of their lives they will contribute to the country rather than take away.

Let us hope the government wakes up. Let us hope that we will invest in our greatest resources, the young people of the country.

[Business of the House, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we want to ask the government House leader what he has planned for the rest of today, tomorrow and early next week.

I would also like to ask him if he has reconsidered my request of January 23 to dispense with our break during the month of March so we could continue the business of the House. That request, as you know, Mr. Speaker, was supported by the House leaders of the other parties.

Furthermore, I would ask him if he plans to have a further debate on BSE, because last night I believe the debate was exceptionally good, but so many members who wanted to speak of course could not get on the record because of the timeframe. I wonder if he plans to continue with perhaps a special debate, maybe during regular sitting hours when the issue can get the prominence it deserves.

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, we just came from a meeting with the restaurant caucus. We talked about all of those who are affected. Sometimes we do not know how far the loss in this industry extends. When we talk to these people and stop to think about it, where does the beef usually end up? Besides what we buy personally, a lot of it ends up on the tables in the hotels and restaurants around the country. These people are hurting also and they are encouraging government to do exactly what the member is asking: let us get the industry going again.

I just wonder, from the member's own experience particularly in the west, are the restaurants, the hotels and the eating establishments having the same problem that all the ones we spoke to tonight seem to be having?

[Fisheries, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, again, it all happened in 1949, as I said. When we came into Canada, we brought the Grand Banks. Then it was just the Province of Newfoundland, not the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the fishing banks off the coast were referred to as the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, meaning ours, the Grand Banks O-F, of, Newfoundland.

The Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Canada has always looked upon them as just the Grand Banks O-F-F, off, Newfoundland. There is a difference. They say O-F-F, with the extra F, so that they are off Newfoundland. We say O-F, with the F off. They are our banks, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.

Canada has to take responsibility--now that we are part of this great country--within NAFO. As for the other countries, as I mentioned, that make up NAFO, many of them are very responsible countries. Consequently, if we were to make the proper approach and show some leadership--and in fact the inquiries have shown there has been very little connection between the minister and NAFO--I think the cooperation would be there to let us manage, on their behalf, the stocks of our coast.

[Fisheries, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let me recognize the job that the hon. member who just spoke did as chair of the committee. As he said, he was chair of the committee for probably a year and a half when this issue was first introduced. He, along with the other members of the committee, solidly supported the motion that Canada take custodial management over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.

He wants to know what I think of the argument. It is too bad I cannot ask a question back to him. I would ask him what he really thinks of NAFO. Because I know, and I have heard him say it on a number of occasions. It is very similar to what is said by the unions, the fishermen, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the special all party committee, by everybody except the Minister of Fisheries and some of the key members of government. For whatever reason, they are protecting the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, probably, which told us quite plainly, “Please do not rock the boat”.

If the government does not show some leadership in relation to protecting our resource, how do we expect Norway or Finland or Iceland or Denmark or anybody else to do it? Many of these countries have concerns about their own resources.

I believe the time is right, even within NAFO, to get people together to agree upon a protective mechanism. But somebody has to be charge. It is adjacent to our shores. The agency that should be in charge here is the Government of Canada. If it is properly presented, I think we would get international support.

They do not have the guts to do it.