Loyola Hearn

[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.

[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.