Loyola Hearn

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed emotions that we listen to the Liberals praising the budget. I say mixed emotions because they seem to be heaping praise upon their government and the Minister of Finance when we know that deep down they are just as concerned about what is happening in the country as the rest of us.

The member who just spoke talked about the terrible position the Liberals were in when they took power in 1993 with the huge deficit. What he failed to say was that when the Conservatives took power 10 years earlier from the Trudeau era, they were also saddled with a huge deficit. In fact, if we factored in inflation, almost the total amount was inherited from the Trudeau era. The interesting thing is that the minister of finance in the latter years of the Trudeau government was none other than the now Prime Minister.

The Mulroney government increased the deficit, which everybody will admit, but perhaps we might ask why. During those years they had a choice. Interest rates, as hon. members know, went to 23% or 24%. We can just imagine the amount of money that went to service the debt.

The government at the time was faced with two different options, perhaps the same options that always face government when it has to address the debt. There were two ways of doing it, and I will talk about what the present government is doing shortly.

The government at the time had the choice of cutting social programs, which is usually what governments do. However the Conservative government did not cut the social programs despite the fact that during those years times were extremely tough financially. It did not even attempt to balance its budget on the backs of the needy in the country. It used the other option, which was to put a plan in place to address the deficit. It came up with two major measures that increased the finances to a government and eventually balanced the budget.

One of measures that the Conservative government came up with was free trade, something which practically every party in the House, especially the governing party, but with the exception maybe of the NDP, lauds today.

The other measure it came up, which nobody was happy with then or now, was a tax called the GST. However desperate times called for desperate measures and that was exactly what the government did. It came up with a financing mechanism to address the funding needs it had during those extremely tough financial times.

However election time was coming near. What did the Liberals do? They campaigned against free trade and the GST. It was basically on the GST that the Mulroney government was defeated. What did the Liberals do then? First, they said that maybe the free trade agreement was not all that bad, and of course history will dictate the rest. Not only did we go with the free trade agreement with the United States, but we have increased it ever since, as we should. It has certainly boosted the economy of this country. We praise government for doing that. However we say shame on the Liberals for pretending to the electorate that they would not do it and then, once they were elected, they brought in free trade.

What happened to the GST, which was the real issue during the Liberal campaign? Did they get rid of it as the interim prime minister said? No, they did not. They inherited the GST. They have used it to collect all kinds of money over the years to help balance their budget.

The Liberals themselves were not without a program. They could not allow people to say that the budget was balanced thanks to two great Tory policies. The Tories set in place a plan to address the deficit without hurting the social fabric of the country.

What was the third plan that was involved? We had free trade and the GST, but the Liberals came in and said that they could speed up the balancing of the budget by cutting social programs. Even though times were getting better, the economy was improving because of free trade and the finances of the government were increasing because of the GST, they figured they needed to speed things up a little bit so they cut social programs.

The provinces, which were receiving 50% of the health and social transfer costs paid by the government, now the input into many of the provinces is around 14%. This is a complete and utter disaster.

The government did not stop there. Not only did it cut funding to the provinces in relation to the Canada health and social transfer payments but it started downloading. It downloaded on the provinces other costs, infrastructure costs and education costs. It also started privatizing or turning over to the provinces other assets, such as our airports.

When we talk about infrastructure, we are talking about the feds downloading on the provinces and the provinces then downloading on the municipalities. The municipalities are faced with the horrendous debt of trying to improve infrastructure, whereas they cannot take in enough taxes because the feds did not say they would give them a share of the taxes. The government gave them a share of the problems and a share of the costs but did not give them a share of the money.

I see my colleagues here from Quebec. I do not see the Prime Minister telling them that the government has downloaded 30% of its responsibilities to their province, so here is 30% more money. No, it has not been done. It has downloaded but it has not matched the burden to the provinces with similar funding.

In relation to our airports, we see that many of our airports have been taken over by the private sector or by boards operating at arm's length. There are different scenarios. Many of them are in trouble because our transportation system is in trouble for a number of reasons: lack of control by government, lack of putting proper infrastructure in place and lack of originality or vision by the government. It is always a reactionary government.

As the industry itself is in trouble, the airports, which are not taking in the same amount of money as they thought they would, find themselves in real trouble. Who pays the price? We have had several strikes across the country, including a couple in Newfoundland, because local budgets are being balanced on the backs of the workers, and that is unfortunate.

We can go on to the billion dollars that the government has asked departments to find. The government is passing out money on one hand and going back with the other and saying that it needs a billion dollars back. The government is taking money from departments that cannot afford to give it, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We could go on for hours and hours about the cuts there and the lack of investment.

It is great to be able to talk about how well we are doing. Maybe we should analyze why we are doing as well as we are and who is paying the price so that the government can crow about the fiscal position it is in right now.

[Privilege, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the government for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. It is an important question and it deserves our attention. In fact, I would I suggest this is an extremely important issue.

The Court of Appeal of British Columbia has taken issue with the scope of parliamentary privilege as the leader of the government has stated. The issue is the immunity of members and senators from being called to give evidence in a civil court during the period of 40 days before the summoning of the new session of Parliament and for 40 days following prorogation of a session.

I have only had a brief opportunity to read the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal but it does raise serious questions for Parliament, and it does raise some serious questions for the government and for the member for LaSalle—Émard.

As members of the House we must protect the undoubted rights, protections and immunities that constitutionally guarantee our ability to attend in this place to debate and vote freely on the business of the Crown or that the Crown places before Parliament and to which we have been elected to serve.

Her Excellency the Governor General at the commencement of this Parliament on January 30, 2001 reinforced these protections and immunities. I want to quote those words again. They are more than pageantry; they are the heart and core of our Parliamentary constitution. Mr. Speaker said:

May it please Your Excellency,

The House of Commons has elected me their Speaker, though I am but little able to fulfill the important duties thus assigned to me. If, in the performance of those duties, I should at any time fall into error, I pray that the fault may be imputed to me, and not to the Commons, whose servant I am, and who, through me, the better to enable them to discharge their duty to their Queen and Country, humbly claim all their undoubted rights and privileges, especially that they may have freedom of speech in their debates, access to Your Excellency's person at all seasonable times, and that their proceedings may receive from Your Excellency the most favourable construction.

The hon. Speaker of the Senate answered as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I am commanded by Her Excellency the Governor General to declare to you that she freely confides in the duty and attachment of the House of Commons to Her Majesty's Person and Government, and not doubting that their proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temper and prudence, she grants, and upon all occasions will recognize and allow, their constitutional privileges. I am commanded also to assure you that the Commons shall have ready access to Her Excellency upon all seasonable occasions and that their proceedings, as well as your words and actions, will constantly receive from her the most favourable construction.

There now appears to be a dispute within Her Majesty's courts as to the extent of our immunity from being called to give evidence in a civil case. Does it extend for 40 days before and after a session of Parliament? Clearly that is the question that should be resolved if it is in doubt. Three learned justices from the British Columbia Court of Appeal have cast doubt, so the issue should be resolved definitively.

There is another side to this matter. It is the issue of simple justice for those who seek redress from the courts. As the Court of Appeal states in paragraph 51, it is open to a member of the House to voluntarily appear and give evidence. The court is quoting from the 1983 edition of Maingot's

Parliamentary Privilege in Canada.

On page 134 the author discusses the parliamentary privilege of not being required to attend as a witness. The following appears:

Since Parliament has the paramount right to the attendance and service of its members, any call for the member to attend elsewhere while the House is in session is not in law a call that need be answered. Thus the member is not compelled to attend as a witness before any court or tribunal in Canada while the House is in session, whether in a criminal, civil or military matter.

Further, on the same page it states:

In Canada, a member of the House of Commons who has received a subpoena to appear in civil or criminal court while the House is in session may wish to attend where he feels his absence might affect the course of justice, particularly after having been apprised in advance by the party in question. However, members have the legal right to claim this privilege and while the service of a subpoena would not normally be raised in the House, the counsel who authorized the service would probably be advised by the member or by the Law Clerk of the lawful claim to this privilege.

It is clear that if the member for LaSalle--Émard wants to appear, he is completely free to do so. He is not prevented by the House from appearing. In this case the member for LaSalle--Émard is involved because he was the minister of finance, and we understand that, and on behalf of himself or the people under him, he was asked to appear.

One of the issues that should be examined is the degree to which ministers of the crown use parliamentary immunity to avoid appearing in court to answer for their actions. Even though our rights and privileges have to be protected, we must also ensure that people have the right to bring others before the courts.

Let me summarize by saying that abuses took place in the 18th century. There are quotations that show us that people questioned the rights of parliamentarians. These abuses can just as easily occur in the 21st century if members of the House hide behind the claim of immunity when they could easily appear to give evidence in the interest of justice.

We have rights and privileges but we should not abuse them. Immunities exist to protect the ability of members to attend and speak freely in the House and we must make sure that these are clarified. They should not be used by ministers to frustrate those who seek justice in the courts. I cannot believe that the member for LaSalle--Émard is so busy that he cannot find time to give evidence.

[Hockey, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservatives congratulate Canada's hockey team on winning the World Hockey Championships.

From veterans like Ryan Smyth, who wears his country on his sleeve, Kris Draper and Cory Cross to youngsters like Jay Bouwmeester, Dany Heatley and Daniel Brière, they represented us well, as did the star, Anson Carter, holding the Canadian flag and singing O Canada from the heart. I mention in particular Sean Burke who asked to play so that he could wear the maple leaf one more time.

Why is it that 23 hockey players can do what 301 politicians cannot?

For six days last week we talked about Canada failing us as a country. Yesterday we stood together with pride.

Maybe it is not the country that is failing us; maybe it is the team leading the country. Maybe it is time to switch to a new team. Maybe it is time to switch to the team with the blue jersey.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

It is cutting departments that need it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Who was the Minister of Finance?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Like a wood chipper.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Mismanagement.

[Fisheries, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that he could not accede to the Newfoundland government's request because the stocks were in such terrible shape that the government had to impose a moratorium.

Let me say to the minister that the stocks are in such bad shape because the government would not listen to the people who know how to manage them.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans this. While we argue about constitutional jurisdiction, will he set up a management committee with the provinces to discuss proper management of the resource so those affected can have some say in managing the resource as they know how to do?

[Foreign Affairs, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence said that Canada needed to decide on missile defence in 100 days. Whose deadline is it?

The House is about to close. In five weeks we will go on summer break and the Prime Minister is whistling past the graveyard; no proposals, no ideas, no consensus and no time.

Will he set up a House of Commons committee on missile defence before it is too late? Will he let Parliament do the work his government has ignored?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words to Bill C-17. Like my colleague who just spoke, I also have concerns about whether we should push through a bill such as this after such a prolonged period of time.

When September 11 hit everybody with the awareness of how ill-prepared we were to deal with acts of terrorism, everyone, not only across the country but around the world, reacted immediately. Within days we were told massive legislation would be brought forth to address the problem so that nothing like that would ever happen again. We needed to be much more aware of what was going on in our own country and around the world. We also needed to become aware that this would have some effect on our own personal freedoms.

At that time most people said that they would have no problem with infringements on their freedom if it benefited the security and safety of their country. However quite a lot of time has elapsed since that occurrence and perhaps it is time to assess our response to such an act.

In situations like that quite often people overreact out of concern and when they are all hyped up and think they could be next. Now that we have had time for sobre second thought, perhaps it is time to go through the bill and ask ourselves how much of it is relevant now and how much of it is really necessary now. In retrospect, I think we would find many clauses in the bill which go above and beyond what is required now to deal with the issue of security.

Let me take a different tact because to talk about each clause in the bill, its effect, the transfer of power and the loss of personal freedoms would take possibly months. I would like to talk about security from a different aspect.

We will all remember that fateful day of September 11. I am sure there are two or three events in all our lives for which we remember what happened, where we were at the time and who we were with when it happened. In my own case I remember the day President Kennedy was shot, the day Henderson scored the great goal for Canada in 1972, and of course September 11. There may be other significant days with some personal impact, but general widespread events such as these are enshrined in our memory never to be forgotten.

However, on Septemeber 11, when we watched the second plane hit one of the towers in New York, we began to realize that something was drastically wrong. We also found out that a couple of other planes were involved and heaven's knows how many more were prevented from getting into the air because of the quick action that was taken.

Unfortunately, I was not in Newfoundland on that day because, like many members, my party was having a caucus meeting in western Canada. Having to wait for taxis and being on waiting lists, it took us a few days to get home, but we finally managed to get back home. However I was told that the people In Newfoundland who had not turned on the television or the radio that morning to hear about what had happened were amazed at the number of jets flying overhead.

When we get nice clear blue skies, as we always do in Newfoundland, the white streaks are quite visible, and on that day they were very visible. People were wondering what was happening. What was happening was that many of the trans-Atlantic flights were being diverted to airports in Newfoundland. Places like Gander, St. John's, Stephenville and Goose Bay were crowded, particularly Gander, with flights arriving from all over the place. Even though many of them had been closer to larger areas, such as Toronto and Montreal, they were diverted to Newfoundland for whatever reason. I guess we can argue with the fact.

However that event showed clearly the need to have specific landing sites, specific bases as such, in such areas in the country. During the war, in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Newfoundland was still an independent country. Perhaps a lot of people are saying today that we should have stayed that way. However during that time we had large, strong, efficient naval and air force bases in places such as Gander, Goose Bay, Stephenville and St. John's. They provided a place of security for all our allies, for Canadians, Americans and the British. We still have countries from all over the world doing some minimal training at some of our sites, particularly in Goose Bay.

However, the present government, once Canada joined us in 1949, allowed the stature of these bases to diminish and in fact closed most of them. The recent confrontation in Iraq illustrated to us quite clearly that we never know when confrontations can happen around the world. We strategically should have secure areas, our own bases, well-equipped to respond to any kind of a situation, whether it be our involvement in some confrontation or whether it be fallout from the involvement or fallout from something completely disassociated with our own country, such as the events that happened in New York. We were there to help out, luckily, because we had some of the infrastructure that was necessary.

We have a government that over the last 15 to 20 years has allowed infrastructure in the country to fall completely apart. I am sure that what is true in Newfoundland is true in other parts of the country. If we are going to talk about security let us make sure we play our part in making sure the country is secure.

It is nice to bring in a bill half an inch thick and talk about taking away personal freedoms and the hypothetical ideas of what might happen down the road, but in reality let us start putting some concrete plans in place to strengthen our country and to make sure we are strategically positioned to handle ourselves, whether it be in peacekeeping times or in times of confrontation.

We have the infrastructure throughout the country. Newfoundland and Labrador is strategically located, with the basic infrastructure already there, but we need to revive and strengthen the infrastructure, not only for the good of the province involved but for the good of the country.

The bill, undoubtedly, after being on the table for practically a year and a half now, needs to be revised. In light of that perhaps we could do something worthwhile for the country.