Loyola Hearn

[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--

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

Madam Speaker, some time ago I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in light of the fact that he had closed the groundfishery in parts of Atlantic Canada, specifically Newfoundland and Labrador, what he planned to do for those affected.

The minister defended the fact that he had to close the fishery and, in relation to part of that, we do not argue with him, but there certainly was no need to close all of it.

However, in relation to helping the people involved, I would like to quote the minister. He said:

As far as the assistance to those communities, the government takes it very seriously. We announced in April a short term package.

When the minister made that announcement in April, he announced a short term package to help the people involved. This is June and only today did we hear about the meagre assistance being provided. This is unforgiveable.

Let me add a little bit. The minister also said:

We announced consultations for long term measures. We continue to look at any way we can to work with all partners concerned to assist those communities in very difficult circumstances.

If all these partners are Liberal members who have huddled together to come up with some way to help these people, then that is a very poor solution to a major problem. Where are all the provincial members, the premier, the opposition members, the leaders of their parties who individually were involved, the FRCC, and other individuals in the province who recommended to the minister how to address this colossal failure of a resource?

When the parliamentary secretary responds on behalf of his minister, a gentleman who knows all about the Newfoundland fishery because he has been on the fisheries committee and has participated solidly and has supported our concerns, I hope he will tell us that there is more to the response of money from the Department of Fisheries being funneled through HRDC, than extending employment insurance for a few months and then putting together make work programs.

When the fishery was closed, a major moratorium in the early 1990s, the government responded immediately, and even though the response was not adequate in any way, shape or form, the people could get on with their lives.

We have been waiting since April for a solution and have been told that the government will extend, retroactively I hope, employment insurance to give it time to put together some make work programs. This is not the way to solve this major problem. Everybody involved with any clue recommended that now was the time for the government to be visionary.

We must keep people involved in the fishery, and we can do that. There are areas where resources can be reallocated. There are areas where we could do scientific research, go after new species, which we could not afford to do on our own, areas where we can control the seal herds, and we can go on and on.

However we will draw employment insurance and wait for make work programs. I ask the government to please tell me that there is more to it than this, that we will be proactive for a change, that we will be visionary and that we will try to rebuild the fishery, not destroy the people who have made a living on it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. It is also a pleasure to follow my good friend and colleague from Matapédia—Matane. He and I sit on the fisheries committee together and I know the input he brings to committees.

There is something else. We are talking about a bill through which we should be showing respect for the first nations. It is extremely hard to show respect if we are not respected ourselves. The gentleman who just spoke is a highly respected gentleman within these circles. However, can we say the same thing for the government? I do not think we can certainly when it comes to dealing with the first nations.

I was amazed and shocked to hear a member from the government side talk about the work the committee has done. The committee passed recommendations. The committee discussed and deliberated. We all know that thanks to the government members the committee was a real sham, a farce. The government sent in the goon squad to ram through whatever the government wanted done. It did not matter what anybody else brought to the floor of the committee. The government was not going to pay any attention.

The government talked about our having the right to bring in amendments. It said it would extend the deadlines for amendments, anything at all to get itself out of a bind so that it could get the legislation to the House and ram it through. If it were good legislation and if the timeframe for Parliament was running out, everyone here would cooperate. But why is anyone not cooperating?

I could understand if it was a member or even if it was a party that was disgruntled and upset and was being obstructive, but everybody on this side of the House, every party in opposition, every opposition member on the committee has been saying, begging, pleading. With the proper amendments, we could make of this poor piece of legislation a piece of legislation which would be accepted by all, particularly by the first nations. What does government do in light of all of that?

If it was just the opposition parties and the members on the committee that were saying this and on the other hand the first nations had come to committee and said to us on this side that we were wrong, that our interpretation of the legislation was incorrect and that they did not want us interfering and suggesting and pleading and begging, but they did not say that. They are saying the same thing we are saying, which is that this is an extremely poor piece of legislation.

In fact the big question is, if the bill is enacted, will it stand? The answer is, if it is contested and it will be, we will find that the legislation is wanting.

I am hoping that if we ever get to vote in this House on the bill, that members on that side of the House will not sit there numb and dumb. Some of them represent areas populated by first nations and some of them have first nations heavily involved in their constituencies. They have been approached by the first nations and have been educated by them as to their concerns and their needs. Surely those members will stand up and represent the people from their constituencies.

It does not matter whether or not there are first nations in our constituencies. That is not the point. We are talking about developing legislation which will create fairness for the first nations, which will give them the rights they so rightly deserve and which have been taken away from them for so long.

As the member for Matapédia—Matane has just said, they are the people who set the game rules in the beginning. I sit on the fisheries committee with the member for Matapédia—Matane. I come from a fishing community in Newfoundland where we say that we grew up on a boat so the fishery is not new to us. Years ago when fish were plentiful, everyone went out and caught whatever they wanted to catch. They could not care less; the attitude was that it was only fish. Over the last few years we see that we have destroyed a tremendous resource.

During these years in our committee several groups and agencies have come to us. Aggressive harvesters have said that they need more, that the minister is wrong and they need bigger quotas so they can catch more, that they need better equipment, that they need bigger boats so they can catch that last fish. Processors have said that they cannot operate unless they get more product, that unless they are allowed to catch more and more, they will go out of business. They are starting to learn.

However, first nations people have talked about conservation and the environment. They have talked about using what needs to be used while making sure enough is left to sustain the stock and to provide a future for their children and their children's children. For years these wise people and this sound advice was neglected. People said that they were not taking enough and not to worry about them.

It is amazing how we have ignored the advice and experience of people who really know what this earth is all about and how nature operates. We are starting to learn. It is amazing now to hear our own people say what people from first nations and those who are really experienced with making a living from the land have said to us over the years.

What do we do in return when we realize that they are the people who should have the rights that a good bill would bestow? There is Motion No. 26 which gives the minister, acting alone, the right to interfere in band affairs and to require remedial action. What evidence does the minister need? Must reams of evidence be brought to him to say that he should interfere because there is something wrong? No. The minister can interfere if he has a reason to believe that something is wrong. Why can he do it? He uses the old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune. “We are giving the first nations money, so we must follow it up to make sure they spend it properly and if they step out of line or if someone says they are stepping out of line or even if I as minister think they are stepping out of line, I can go in and exercise my authority as minister”. That is what he is saying.

If that is the case, then let me say this. The ministers, through the government, also provide all kinds of money to the provinces and the cities through infrastructure agreements, for instance. Why would the government treat the first nations any differently than it treats the cities and provinces in relation to following the dollar? Is the government now saying that for every dollar it gives, it is going to interfere and if the minister responsible has reason to believe the money is not being spent, is he going to follow through?

In light of what members who sit on the government side see unfolding, in light of the charade that happened in committee, in light of the opposition, and in light of the pleadings of first nations, when they have a chance to vote on the bill, they should think of the people they are supposed to be helping and vote accordingly.

[Committees of the House, June 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague for interrupting while he is in full flight but he will have lots of time. I will not take very long.

I wish to inform the Chair that there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be modified as follows:

Gerald Keddy for Rick Borotsik

And that Rick Borotsik and Gary Schellenberger be added to the list of associate members;

And that Gerald Keddy be removed from the list of associate members.

(Motion agreed to)

[Pension Act, June 3rd, 2003]

The red serge, that is right.

The other is the person hauling us in on the side of the road because we are 20 kilometres over the speed limit. In between, it is not just a matter of the statesperson, the emblem of the country, the very proud emblem I might add, but the person we see at all major functions dressed in the red serge, holding the flag and saluting with respect. We have tremendous respect for these people.

On the other hand, we are looking at being the victim of the overzealous policeman sometimes. When we edge a couple of kilometres over the speed limit and we are hauled in and given a ticket, which we deserve by the way, in between we fail to see that there is more to it than just being there for the pomp and ceremony and, on the other hand, enforcing the laws of the land.

We do not realize until we start working with and becoming involved with such agencies the amount of extra work that they do. It is not only the prosecution that they are concerned with. It is prevention. It is the work they do in our schools. It is the work they do with our young people. It is the encouragement they give, rather than the fear and the threats.

When we were growing up we were told that if we were not good the Mounties would be called. We had this fear of police. However that is not the case. They are not to be feared. They are there for our benefit.

If we were to talk to them many of them would tell us that they would much rather spend their time working with young people, with society generally, along the lines of prevention, rather than going out and trying to force a cure by coming down with the heavy hand. We are not making life any easier for them.

Let me talk about the rules, the regulations and the bills that we bring in and the laws that we make in this honoured establishment and in our provincial assemblies. One might ask what provincial assemblies have to do with the national police force. As we know all, the provinces have the RCMP which has jurisdiction over many of the laws and rules that govern this country and there are all kinds of provincial implications. Every time a new law or rule is brought in the Mounties are expected to enforce it. We give them more and more work on the one hand but we give them fewer and fewer tools on the other to do the job.

Quite often, in relation to the personal recompense for the work and responsibilities that we shower upon them and the demands we make upon them, we seldom think of asking them how we can make it up to them for the service they provide. As I said before, it is an agency that we perhaps take for granted.

As we deal with legislation like this and when we, as representatives of the people across the country, stand in this hallowed Chamber, the hallowed halls of Parliament, it is only right and fair that we recognize groups such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the firemen, the local police establishments scattered throughout our nation, and the volunteers from other sectors, all of whom make society a bit better and a bit safer for us.

We are the ones who are in a position to thank them on behalf of the people we represent. We are the ones who can ensure that as we try to make life generally better for people throughout the country, we also try to make life better for those who assist us in making life a little better for people throughout the country.

Therefore it is with great pleasure that we support the bill. We should be very conscious as we introduce legislation in the House that we support legislation that will help all the agencies throughout the country that help all of us so much.