Loyola Hearn

[Auberge Grand-Mère, May 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Industry told the House that the relevant facts in the Auberge Grand-Mère case have long since been disclosed and discussed. One relevant fact is that the page which disappeared from the bank files was the page on which the name of the Prime Minister's private company may have been recorded. This has been neither disclosed nor discussed in the House.

Is the minister then saying that this mysterious disappearance of key records had been discussed among ministers? Would he tell us whether that discussion included the role in the disappearance in the papers of Mr. Jean Carle?

[Fisheries, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me be a little more specific for the minister. Is the minister considering licence buyouts and the reopening of the southern gulf fishery?

[Fisheries, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is well aware by now of the upset in Newfoundland and Labrador about his recent decision. He is also well aware of the ultimatum given to him by his Liberal colleagues from the province. In light of that, will the minister tell the House how he plans to sweeten the offer to the province and is he reconsidering opening at least part of the fishery he recently closed down?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Chair, the only unfortunate thing is that these decision making procedures take a long time and some people suffering from diseases do not have a long time. I do not know in the interim if there is some provision for special cases. It might be something that should be looked at.

I will put two more questions and I will let the minister answer, but before I do, I want to say I appreciate that the minister was here tonight and stayed until the end, despite the fact that she had to be embarrassed by some of her own people. Let me say to her there is no need for it, because the minister can take the hard questions and she has done a very good job tonight. She should have been left alone by those people.

My first question is in relation to home care. I have always maintained that the best value government gets for the money it spends is in home care. As people become a little bit older, perhaps they cannot look after themselves any more and they need somebody to come in to look after them. As long as they are healthy enough, they should be able to stay in their own home as long as they want to stay there. If home care cannot be provided, then they go to an institution or maybe a hospital where the costs are astronomical, where they are away from their friends, family and surroundings and no one is happy. Quite often they cannot afford to have people come in to look after them.

Government will pay the $70,000 a year to put them in a nursing home, but will not pay $20,000 a year to keep them in their own homes where they are healthy, wealthy and wise, as they say, because they feel much more comfortable in their own surroundings. The whole home care provision in our country has to be looked at. It would be cheaper for the government all around.

On the final question I would like the minister's comment because this is a pet peeve of mine. I am not sure whether or not the minister's department has ever checked into the ratio of money spent on those who are poorly educated compared to those who are better educated and have a better lifestyle. I bring this up because it ties in with education. I have been trying to say, and I have heard others, including a couple of leadership candidates, say recently that we have to invest more in education.

We have a choice. We can spend a lot of money helping those who are sick, out of shape, in institutions, in penal institutions, living a lifestyle where they have a meagre income and cannot eat properly or we can educate them so that they contribute to society rather than depend on society to help them, not through their own fault of course. We should invest up front to make education affordable.

Many young people in this country, if they do not live near a university and they do not have parents who can subsidize their--

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Chair, I agree with her that the equalization formula has to be revisited but I would rather see it sooner rather than later. It is not just in relation to health care and CHST funding that we want to deal with equalization. It is in relation to the clawback arrangements too that certainly punish a resource rich province like Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have a couple of other questions for the minister. One of the major concerns we have is looking after our senior citizens and those on fixed income. Quite often the drugs that some of these people have to use are not covered by our regular health care plans.

I will give one example. During a visit to one part of my riding, where we have a lot of senior complexes, I spoke to a couple who were probably in their late sixties or early seventies. They had not long retired. They were living in the city but belonged to a small outport where they had a summer cabin. Their joy in life was getting into their little car and going out to the summer cabin to be close to home, to see their friends and whatever.

The gentleman developed Alzheimer's. He was in the early stages and had been prescribed a drug called Aricept which was extremely expensive and not covered by the system.

The couple used up whatever savings they had. The drug was retarding the advancement of the disease to the point where he could still go out, visit the cabin, feel quite at home and he was kept in pretty good spirits. The cost of the drug however ate into their income and eventually the only option they had was to sell the car. By selling the car of course, they had no access to go to the cabin. It was one of the saddest stories I ever had to sit and listen to.

I am dealing with another friend very close to me who is suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease and also is using a prescribed drug that is in the experimental stages, maybe even pre-experimental stages and probably even being experimented on animals at this stage. It is extremely expensive but seemingly it works.

Consequently the family is only too glad to have this drug which seems to be at least retarding the advancement of the disease. It costs the family over $1,300 a month. If we picture an ordinary family going from day to day making a very ordinary living, how long can they keep going? The answer is not very long.

What are the answers to these situations?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Chair, that is not a point of order as the Chair well knows. I have 20 minutes to use, as the members opposite did. We are in the situation we are because of lackeys like that. This is not the way to run the parliamentary process. I want to ensure that is on the record.

I have some questions for the minister. When we talk about delivering health care funding, will the minister tell us how she plans to deal with the provinces, particularly when there is inequity to begin with?

The province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a declining population, unlike any other province in the country. It also has an aging population. Because of that, fewer people require greater services, which means we get fewer dollars based on per capita. I know there are adjustments made and I want to have that clarified.

To add to the complication, the population is spread over a rough rural geography in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Consequently, a dollar that goes to Newfoundland and Labrador cannot get the same value as a dollar spent in many other parts of the country. How does the minister plan to deal with that inequity?

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Chair, I want to register my concern with what I see happening here tonight. It is bad enough to have to watch commercials during a good hockey game, but when we have to listen to commercials during the parliamentary process, that is a horse of a different colour.

The minister comes to the House once a year, if she happens to be the lucky or unlucky one to be chosen, to defend estimates. We will only be dealing with two departments. This gives members from all sides a chance to ask pointed questions on the minister's performance and the performance of her department. We listened to prepared speeches time after time from Liberal backbenchers praising up the minister--

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Chair, I thank you for the clarification. Before I ask my questions to the minister, let me also register--

[Supply, May 13th, 2003]

Madam Chair, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Yellowhead.

[Criminal Code, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand to support Bill C-269 as put forward by the member for Nepean—Carleton. The purpose of the bill is to give greater protection to firefighters by creating two new offences of aggravated assault and first degree murder when the victim is a firefighter acting in the course of his or her duties.

Those on the front lines need the support of government and positive changes to the Criminal Code can send a strong message to those who willingly or unwillingly endanger the lives of these brave men and women.

The member for Nepean—Carleton is to be commended for his work on this file. Bill C-269 would amend the Criminal Code to give greater protection to firefighters acting in the line of duty. Essentially these amendments would recognize the importance of their services and could potentially act as a deterrent for those considering nefarious activities which could potentially injure a firefighter. This is extremely important.

As well as the practical application of the law to indicate the seriousness of these types of offences, there is a symbolic recognition when we investigate on grounds of inclusion. Presently, we have Criminal Code applications which recognize police officers injured in the line of duty and the bill puts firefighters on an equal footing.

The argument could also be made to include paramedics and ambulance drivers, et cetera, in a bill of this sort. These front line first responders often find themselves in dangerous, life threatening situations. I ask members, if they hear of an accident or come upon an accident and they stay around, who is always the first on the scene? We quite often find that it is the firefighter who is the first person on the scene.

Should the bill pass, those considering an act of arson would need to think twice and those who rewire their homes to facilitate marijuana growing operations would need to carefully consider whether or not the risk is worth it. Clause 3(1.1) of the bill states:

Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of a firefighter acting in the course of his or her duties.

If adopted, anyone convicted of the crime would be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. Some may believe this to be extreme. However, it would send a clear message to those who would consider this type of criminal activity. It would tell those in that category that this type of behaviour would not be tolerated.

Canadian firefighters put their lives at risk to save ours and it becomes important that we recognize the sacrifices they are willing to make on our behalf. The role of firefighters in rural communities takes on a new meaning when we consider these men and women are volunteers. They live and work in their community. They are our friends and neighbours. On evenings and weekends they take part in training that will hopefully aid in the protection of their lives. It also ensures that they have the ability to aid in the protection of our lives and our properties.

It is fitting for all of us not only to ensure we support our firefighters but also volunteer firefighters. These people work without any recompense whatsoever. They train on their own time and if there is any kind of a problem, a fire or any incident where they are required, it is amazing how many turn up on the scene despite trying to make a living in other avenues of society.

Clause 4 of the bill would add section 433.1 to the Criminal Code. It reads:

Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns the property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life where the fire or explosion causes death or bodily harm to a firefighter who is acting in response to the fire or explosion.

Under section 433.2, the court would be directed to interpret life imprisonment as noted in 433.1 as a minimum punishment. This would send a clear message to those who would perpetrate such a crime. This type of criminal behaviour would not and should not be tolerated.

As with all legislation, nothing is perfect and closer examination of the bill will be needed at the committee stage, and in context with the latest legislation offered by the government in the form of Bill C-32.

However we can all agree that legislation of this type is long overdue. The International Association of Fire Fighters has pushed for legislation of this sort and I am encouraged to see the government finally has recognized the contribution that members of the IAFF play in the daily lives of Canadians.

I would like to take the opportunity to address some of the issues as they pertain to Bill C-32. It is important that we recognize the dangers Canada's firefighters face.

Bill C-32 would amend the code by adding provisions to the existing section of the Criminal Code that deal with setting a trap. The legislation adds provisions for setting a trap used in a place kept for criminal purpose, which is likely to cause bodily harm, with a 10 year maximum prison sentence. It is important to recognize that the legislation, and in particular this portion of the government's bill, seems to stem from the introduction of the member for Nepean—Carleton private member's bill.

If a trap used in a criminal enterprise, such as a drug operation, causes bodily harm, the legislation calls for a 14 year maximum sentence and life imprisonment if a trap causes death. Frontline firefighters have to be protected from this growing danger. The nature of these criminal activities create a risk of fire with volatile chemicals used in drug labs and electric power stolen through unsafe meter bypasses. If firefighters and police officers are put at risk, injured or killed by traps set to defend these criminal enterprises from law enforcement or rival gangs, those who set the traps must fee the full weight of the law.

While this specifically deals with the setting of traps, I believe its inclusion and subsequent maximum imprisonment for 14 years, and life imprisonment if death occurs, sends a strong message.

Amendments to the criminal code of this sort are long overdue and I would encourage the government to take a closer look at initiatives brought forth by the International Association of Fire Fighters. It is time that government truly recognized the sacrifice made by those on the frontlines, in a substantial way.

One other thing we should remember also is that when these people are killed, and there are times when they are, the benefits to their families are meagre. We have to ensure that we put in place an insurance policy that looks after family members of firefighters killed in action.

This private member's bill is definitely one we in the Progressive Conservative Party can truly support.