Loyola Hearn

[Fisheries, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the recent closing of the Atlantic fishery has left a lot of people out of work. The instability makes sure that many plant workers will not even qualify for employment insurance this winter. We need a long term focused plan to address this overall problem, but in the interim we need a short term fix.

Will the minister responsible for ACOA assure us that he will deal with the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure that these people are looked after this fall while we are putting a long term plan in place?

[Injured Military Members Compensation Act, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as others before me have said, this is a bill that I think everyone supports and which they are very proud to support. The bill addresses an inequality that has been in the system for quite some time.

When we see provisions made to compensate leaders in the field, generals and colonels, et cetera, and yet the rank and file are not put in the same class in time of war there is something definitely wrong. As members know, to quote the words of an old song, “The ones who give the orders are not the first to die”. It is the rank and file who are usually the first out on the firing lines. We have had several people over the years who have lost limbs or who have had a loss of speech or hearing. It is about time we addressed that.

We are extremely proud of the people in our forces. I am sure that the member for Saint John, if she were here today, would be saying as I am that we are in full support of the bill. There are a few little glitches in it that will undoubtedly be corrected through amendments as we have a chance to put the bill into practice.

The main thing the bill does is compensate those who should have been compensated quite some time ago. We can argue and point fingers, but that does not serve any purpose. The thing is that the bill is here. Hopefully it will pass quickly today and then we can get on with helping those who have done so much to help us.

The Conservative Party is very proud to support the bill. We ask for quick passage of the bill so that those who have done so much for us, for the country, will be properly compensated.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when I see resolutions like this or I hear such suggestions about dedicated taxes, it concerns me. The end result is usually that the user somewhere down the line is the one who will have to pay and pay heavily.

People who have been in government know that dedicating taxes is a very dangerous process because, with the great needs throughout the country, if we were to start earmarking money for health, transportation and education, where would be the flexibility the government needs?

Let me ask my colleague two questions. First, does he think we should be dedicating taxes to issues like health care, infrastructure, education and so on?

Second, some speaker a little earlier said that the member for LaSalle—Émard was in favour of the resolution. Is my colleague aware of anything that the member for LaSalle—Émard is not in favour of these days? If he is so in favour of such things, why, in the nine years that he ran the country and dictated where finances will go, did he not do something about it?

[Question No. 228, June 11th, 2003]

Can the Department of Fisheries and Oceans confirm if a Portuguese vessel was caught outside the 200-mile limit with a significant amount of codfish on board in December of 2002?

[Privacy Commissioner, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that former privacy commissioner, John Grace, has raised concerns surrounding the independence of the current privacy commissioner. Mr. Grace said:

I think there' s an issue there. The more arms-length the commissioner can be from receiving gifts, arrangements and favour, the better.

After arranging the deal to generously line the pockets of the privacy commissioner, how can the Prime Minister continue to claim that the so-called independent position is arm's length from government?

[Privacy Commissioner, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in light of a backroom deal that the Privacy Commissioner signed with the Privy Council Office, it has become obvious that this independent officer of the House may not be so independent. Instead of releasing the details of his expenses on the standard expense form to be scrutinized by Parliament, many extra claims were submitted directly to the Privy Council Office because of a secret deal designed to exclude Parliament.

How can the government maintain that the Privacy Commissioner is independent when he goes begging for money from the Prime Minister's own bureaucracy?

[Privacy Commissioner, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Privacy Commissioner appeared before the government operations and estimates committee, questions were asked about his expenses.

When the Privacy Commissioner was appointed, he was given one year to relocate to Ottawa and during that time he was supposed to receive a $1,200 a month housing allowance, plus a travel allowance. For some reason, the Privy Council Office granted him two extensions on the housing allowance, as well as thousands of dollars in other expenses.

Why was the Privacy Commissioner granted these extra allowances and not treated like ordinary Canadians looking for a job with the government, where they either have to move it or lose it?

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a different kind of question. We have five parties in the House so logically we would have 1,505 associations throughout the country. I was going to say that the minister knows as well as I do, but maybe he does not because it depends perhaps on the area one represents how well organized one is, how much money flows into one's coffers. We hear stories of not only thousands but tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars in some of the associations. Whereas in a lot of other areas, especially rural areas, it is extremely hard to raise money so raising money is not the main objective of an association. They are there to help out volunteers who come in without any great responsibility or onus put on them.

However now they are going to have added responsibilities. My concern is that in many areas the volunteers who came forward to help out will no longer be there because of the pressures being put on them. How does the minister see that as it unfolds throughout the country?

[The Economy, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been flitting around the world bragging about our great economy. The minister of culture and the two ministers of finance have been chasing each other around the country basically expressing the same views. We can talk about cops and robbers.

If we are so well off, why is it that the beef industry in the west must be begging for assistance? Why is it that the government of Ontario and the city of Toronto have to beg for help? Why is it that the east coast fishermen have been offered a paltry $325 a week?

Does the government want Canadians to be like Oliver Twist and ask “Please sir, could we have some more?” Remember that very soon the government will be going begging to them.

[First Nations Governance Act, June 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for standing up and answering my question pointedly rather than coming in and reading a prepared script written by someone else, which is what we see most of the time. I thank the hon. gentleman for addressing the problem as I presented it today.

First let me say that $325 a week, which is a lot less than they received under the original moratorium, will not go very far during the time of year when these people would be making their peak earnings.

Second, I understand that it only applies to people who were making at least 25% of their income from the fishery before it closed. If that is the case, that will not be a problem for people who were making $50,000, $60,000 or $80,000 on crab or some other species. However many of the smaller boats, which are probably making say $20,000 or less on crab or shrimp, and made--