Loyola Hearn

[Supply, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from New Brunswick Southwest for sharing his time. He has already stated our position on the motion. I will confine my remarks directly to that motion, which I am sure will both surprise and please the House.

The motion itself is a two part motion. One part deals with the unfortunate comments made not only by backbenchers but by front line ministers in the government. That must be a concern not only to the party but to the House and to the country because these remarks have been carried more so than the common sense, solid, responsible debate that has gone on in the House and in the country.

I do not blame some of the backbenchers because I am sure it is out of frustration. They see a Prime Minister, who most of them do not support anyway, who has waffled back and forth on the issue of involvement, and they see the person who they think will be their next leader disappear completely from the scene. Where is the next messiah of the Liberal Party in all of this? It is a question everyone is asking. He is doing what he has always done on major issues, he has ducked.

The other unfortunate thing about the first part of the resolution, which requests an apology, is from whom the request comes. It is like the old story of the pot and the kettle because the leader of the Alliance, who is asking for the apology, called the Minister of National Defence an idiot some time ago and I do not believe has apologized. It is pretty hard to expect others to apologize when he himself makes similar insulting remarks and refuses to apologize. Having said that, let us say that apologies should be made. Those remarks should not have been made in the first place. Let us get on with supporting our friends and allies, which is really the crux of the resolution.

It is difficult to know where the government stands. From the beginning the Prime Minister gave varying answers. Every time we picked up a newspaper, listened to him in the House or in scrums, we got a similar type of confusing response that did not clearly indicate where the government or the country was in all of this. The government was totally supporting a Bloc resolution that stated:

That this House call upon the government not to participate in the military intervention initiated by the United States in Iraq.

The Prime Minister and the government totally supported the resolution. The following day the Minister of National Defence was asked whether we would participate if biological weapons were found or if germ warfare was used? He responded that just because the government voted for a resolution did not mean it could not change its mind. It is complete and utter inconsistency.

Day after day we are told we are not participating and yet we have troops actively involved. We have ships that are in position and undoubtedly are playing a part in the war that is going on. I am not saying that is wrong. They should be there. I agree with them being there and we should solidly support them. We should not deny that they exist. We are telling 30 individuals and their families that we deny the fact that they are involved. Let us respect the people who are involved in this confrontation. Let us support our own people, our allies, and our friends.

I listened to the minister speak this morning because I thought I would hear something of significance. He said that our friends are at war. They certainly are and we should be there to help them, not to stay home, watch them on television and cheer.

Once people across Canada understood what was happening their support started to shift. This happened in Australia where the Prime Minister came under tremendous pressure when he indicated that his country would be participating in this confrontation. The people of Australia strongly supported that move because it was the right thing to do. They knew Australia had to go in with its friends.

Our Prime Minister has said clearly that if the United Nations had sanctioned the war, it would have been okay. However, he said that his government did not agree with regime change. The minister said this morning that when the war is over and Saddam is gone, we will move in and help with restructuring, et cetera. He wants Saddam gone. He is saying we need regime change to protect the people of Iraq and the rest of us in the free world. This will be a great subject for a thesis for someone down the line when an analysis is done of the various conflicting statements that have come from the government in relation to the war.

The minister stated it was unfortunate that people booed the United States national anthem at some hockey games and other events. I agree with that statement. We have the right to disagree and we do disagree in the House. Many disagree vehemently with what is happening in the world today and Canada is part of that. I respect the right of individuals to disagree with my stand on an issue, but I hope they respect my right to disagree with them. That is true not only here, but across Canada and around the world.

While we can disagree with each other, if we are friends and part of an overall team then we should respect each other. Respect is the word lacking here and across the country. It is lacking mainly because of the signals being sent to Canadians from this very House. It is hard to expect someone who only picks up bits and pieces of information in the news media to respect our friends and neighbours.

When the going gets tough, that is the time friends should support each other. The going is tough now in the world. Even if we have no reserve players to boost the team, nobody to call up to help, we could at least tell our closest friends and neighbours that we support them morally. We did not do that in the beginning. It was clear that we did not support the effort. It is on the record here.

We should tell those countries that we can offer them our support. We can move our troops from Afghanistan. We can use our ships wherever needed to move in food and supplies and backup those countries where necessary. We will recognize the fact that our troops are involved, and we will support and strengthen them wherever we can.

The government has not handled this situation well, and unfortunately, Canada will pay a price for this. However, it is not too late to correct what we have done. We can do this by first recognizing the fact that we have insulted our friends. Not only did we ignore them but we insulted them. We can correct that with an apology. We can support our own military personnel and others who are involved to the hilt so we will have a better country. This way we will be surrounded by friends who will help us if they are needed. Collectively we can create a better world.

[Terrorism, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canada must send a message to the world that we are not a safe haven for terrorist organizations and there will be ramifications for those who operate outside the law.

Today's listing brings the total to 26 organizations designated as terrorist entities under the Anti-terrorism Act. Canada's United Nations suppression of terrorism regulations have listed and frozen the assets of more than 370 entities. Despite the government's official stand on the war in Iraq, an action which in part will assist with the war on terrorism, today's announcement signals the willingness of Canada to continue the fight against these heinous organizations on the home front. We must do all that we can to ensure terrorism does not get a foothold in North America.

Perhaps today more so than ever before we must be concerned about terrorist organizations and terrorist activity. We hear daily the pledges from Saddam Hussein that he would carry on terrorist acts throughout the world.

The Canadian government must ensure that Canadians are protected from such acts. We support the government in identifying terrorist groups in order to limit the chance of any terrorism activity taking place in our country.

However, we take issue with a couple of items in the statement. The minister said that any person or group that is listed may have its assets seized and forfeited. Why may? If the government has the proof, which perhaps has not been circulated but I am sure it has to have taken such action, of these groups supporting terrorist activity, then the government should seize the assets.

The minister's message to all Canadians continues to be that we cannot consider ourselves immune and we cannot afford to drop our guard. It is so true. We must work with our friends and neighbours to ensure that does not happen. Perhaps therein lies our weakness. We should always ask the question, how did these groups get into our country in the first place and why did we let people come here to continue on the fight that they started somewhere else?

We must be vigilant as to how we deal with terrorists. The government must start taking a stronger leadership role than we have seen today.

[Privilege, April 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly and maybe to assist you in your decision which I am not sure even falls under your gambit here, but whether we have to listen to somebody speak for 13 hours on one hand, or whether these people feel that they have to be compelled to speak in order to get a fair ruling, perhaps this says something about what goes on in our committees.

At the present time, the modernization committee is trying to improve work in parliament generally, including trying to find ways to make committees more practical and more reasonable for members. Maybe there is an avenue where we can clarify some of the problems we are presently experiencing.

[National 4-H Citizenship Seminar, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this week in Ottawa, 4-H members from all across the country are attending the National 4-H Citizenship Seminar.

Those of us who have had the opportunity to be leaders in the 4-H movement, fully realize the value of being a member of this great national organization which instills such values in our youth. Pledging heart, head, hands and health for the betterment of the country is a laudable initiative.

We congratulate the leaders, the organizers and the sponsors of this event. We welcome all of them to the seminar, especially those from the great district of St. John's West and, on behalf of my colleague, of South Shore.

[Question No. 128, March 28th, 2003]

How does the seniority of personnel figure in the processes the Department of Fisheries and Oceans use to engage or release employees of the Canadian Coast Guard?

[Fisheries, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the bureaucratic mess of downsizing the fishery many people who have fished for a lifetime are being told that they are not core fishermen.

Will the minister agree to revisit this issue provided that proper documentation can be brought along to back up their claims?

[Fisheries, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council made a recommendation to the minister in relation to the state of the northern cod stocks, noting clearly that in the past recommendations made were not adhered to. It also said that no single action, such as closing the recreational fishery, can solve the problem, but a full comprehensive set of strategies must be followed.

Will the minister now tell us clearly that he will accept a clear set of strategies?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member and certainly have absolutely no problem asking the government to do that. It is only a matter of adjusting when it takes out the necessary funds or the percentage of CPP or EI benefits. There is always a three or four month break. Why not give it to people when it is really needed, especially to people on low or fixed incomes?

Let me go a bit further. I am sure that by looking at government programs such as those and by readjusting them, we could find many ways to help people across the country, especially people on low and fixed incomes.

One of the other reasons people suffer with the high costs for fuel is because of government taxes. There should be a ceiling. The government should not be able to rake in windfalls because the price of home heating fuel and gas goes up. There should be a limit which would give the government the same amount of money, but would also give a break to the people who need it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's very good question is one that has to be answered by the government.

The two words that are being used are “accountability” and “transparency”. We are elected by every individual in this country who is of voting age to come here and make the proper rules and regulations and the laws that govern this country. We are also here to administer the funds that we collect from them and which are spent for their benefit.

One of the ways this could be done and should be done, is as it used to be done. When a government brings forward a budget, that budget should be built upon the needs of the people of the country as collectively input by the people who sit in this place. The estimates should be fully scrutinized and debated right here in this chamber or thoroughly at the committee level. What happens now is the government brings in a budget, rushes through the estimates, and forces its members with the threat of expulsion to vote for funds such as for the gun registry. Nobody has any input.

The place to thoroughly debate these issues is right here so the people of Canada can make the government accountable as well as the members who represent them.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, March 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me first talk about the positive aspects of the question. He talked about the funding for St. John's Harbour. It has been long fought for, long needed, and is now promised. Hopefully it will be delivered upon.

I would suggest to the member though that the funding came through a special program because former ministers had been telling us in the House that it must come through the regular infrastructure. One cannot take $100 million out of regular infrastructure funding for any project and expect to be able to do everything else that has to be done.

If the member would check Hansard there is one member who recommended to the Minister of Finance, months before he brought in the new program, that we needed a new special infrastructure program to deal with major projects. He would see that I made that recommendation here and so I do take some credit for it.

The member talked about transparency and accountability. These are great words. The government would be transparent and accountable. We saw what it did a couple of days ago in getting $59 million more to put into the administrative side of the gun registry, not counting the other associated costs.

It was quite transparent that the Prime Minister cracked the whip and forced people on their knees to come here under threat of expulsion from caucus, or that he would call an election where a lot of them would know that they would not be back here, and forced them against their will and against the wishes of the country to vote for that kind of funding. It was very transparent but certainly not accountable.

He also talked about balancing the budget and giving money to health care. The government is only giving back a portion of what it took away and that is why it balanced the budget in the first place, along with raking in money from free trade and the GST. At present, HRDC is reducing services in rural Canada and playing games with the local bureaucrats because it has been told to cut programs. It is transparent but it is certainly not accountable to Canadians. No wonder it balanced the budget, but it did so on the people in the country who really need to be helped.