Loyola Hearn

[Points of Order, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, during question period today you ruled out of order a question from the member for Kings—Hants. I know it was very noisy in the House but I was wondering if you perhaps could look at the blues because I believe that the main part of that question was in order. I would certainly appreciate your ruling on that matter.

[East Coast Music Awards, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Newfoundland and Labrador nominees and participants in the East Coast Music Awards held this past weekend.

I congratulate specifically the winners: Crush and The Flummies, and in particular the group, Great Big Sea.

These fine young men are not only good friends of mine, not only constituents, they are also super musicians and tremendous ambassadors for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are very proud of them.

[Ethics, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government's guidelines on blind trust stipulate that the peekaboo practice can occur only in exceptional circumstances where an extraordinary corporate event is likely to materially affect the assets. That means that the transaction between Canada Steamship Lines and the Indonesian company must have been exceptional or extraordinary.

Did the then minister absent himself from all cabinet discussions on the APEC summit, on the Asian market meltdown or other issues that might have affected the exceptional circumstances--

[Referendum Act, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and say a few words on Bill C-216. I wish to congratulate my friend from the NDP for bringing this issue before the House, not because I necessarily agree with him although I could be persuaded, but because this is an issue that should be debated thoroughly in the House, to see if a better way can be found of reforming Parliament and the electoral system.

I have a concern about proportional representation. We would look at the percentage of votes that various parties get and those parties would have a number of members according to the number of votes those parties received. That sounds tremendous and it would be hard to argue against because that would truly be proportional representation. However to do that fairly is another story.

I will give members an example. The great province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the best example to use because we have only seven seats. In my province, the NDP and the Canadian Alliance seldom receive over 10% of the vote. Consequently, they receive no seats whatsoever. There are seven seats and a party needs about 15% of the vote to get one seat. If a party were to receive 15% of the vote, from which riding would the member be selected from? In all seven ridings the Liberals, the Conservatives or whomever, usually win with a large percentage of the vote. But because some other party received 15% in the total vote, that would mean it had to have a member.

I am not sure of the semantics involved because it is extremely complicated. Before we go off saying this is the way to do it we had better work out a system that does not deprive the majority of people in any one riding who voted from having the person they selected as their true representative of that riding otherwise it would be unfair to the riding involved. It might be unfair to the province and it might be unfair to the country, but it would certainly be unfair to the people who actually selected that person. We must work out a system that will get around that.

There are several good things that could come out of the suggestion made by my hon. colleague. There are some possibilities for electoral reform and they include: making the Senate an elected body; appointing an independent ethics counsellor responsible to Parliament and not the Prime Minister; making members of Parliament the central decision makers in Ottawa once again, which we certainly cannot say we are today; requiring ministers to be directly accountable to Parliament for their budgets and the conduct of their departments; and enhancing citizen participation by the way of referenda on major public issues.

All of these issues have been debated over the last couple of years with most people saying this is the way to go, but we are doing little to implement such good ideas. The bill, which has been put forth by my hon. colleague, would perhaps spur things on to improving things considerably.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, at its conference in August of last year in Edmonton, adopted a major parliamentary reform document covering many of the issues mentioned by various parties. It certainly concerns the Canadian Alliance because it was developed in conjunction with a number of people who sit in that party. If people were to openly admit the truth, they would say that we are very close on such policies.

We might ask ourselves why we are not as close on other issues. That is a good question which has to be answered one of these days.

There are a couple of sections in that policy document, one on parliamentary reform and one on citizen involvement. On parliamentary reform some of the things talked about are free votes, confidence votes, party discipline, commons committees and proper representation and control, code of ethics in Parliament to discipline parliamentarians, legislative federalism, power of the purse, relationship between Parliament and the courts, Senate reform, government by regulation, and the list goes on.

Regardless of how much we talk about it, regardless of the document we brought forth, regardless of the cooperation of the Canadian Alliance with us in relation to these policies, regardless of bills brought forward by my colleague and members of the NDP, and regardless of the position of the Bloc, unless we change government we would not get it done. The Bloc and the Canadian Alliance are perhaps the two parties that are already benefiting perhaps from proportional representation because most of their votes are in selected areas in the country and they tend to elect members according to the percentage of the vote, more so than other parties that are spread out or have a wider base of support across the country.

Regardless of how much we talk about electoral reform, unless we change government we would not get it done because instead of trying to reform Parliament to be more open, the present government is just entrenching. We never had a better example than what is happening today.

In a few minutes time the government House leader will stand to invoke closure on a bill that we will be talking about for a few hours today. That goes against everything anybody in the House should stand for. We already agreed a little earlier to take from the budget large sums to go toward the gun registry. It is such an embarrassment. Now from the back door the government opens up the doors again. We cannot go on with that charade.

It is about time that we drew to the attention of the people of the country the financial cruelty that has been perpetrated upon them by the government opposite. In light of that, to create part of that awareness, I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[Publishing Industry, February 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Canadian Heritage's book publishing industry development program provides financial assistance to publishers for Canadian authored books. Publishers have to recognize the assistance of the federal government by placing the specified text at the front of the books.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us why the Government of Canada subsidized the publishing of the best selling Harry Potter series, a series that has sold over 192 million copies worldwide and was written by a British author?

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, now we have taken away the toque, the hockey stick and the tape and we are just down to the cost of the sweater, I guess, in relation to the MasterCard.

Let me say to the member that I do not think there is anybody in the House who would not rather have some kind of secure system that would protect our privacy and identity, if it were possible. However, when the member talks about what the card can do, in order for me or anybody else to be able to access this card for these complexities just imagine the type of complicated back-up technology that would be required to put such a card in play.

Whenever we get into something like this, the first thing we have to do, if we are responsible keepers of the taxpayers' money here, is a cost benefit analysis. It is too bad we did not do it with gun control. If we do it with this and the government can come back with something worthwhile, we might have a different type of debate in the House.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. It is like the old question that is asked quite often, “Would you buy a used car from this person?” Would you buy any kind of a registration card from this government? That is part of it and that is part of the turn-off. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

However, compulsory registration of everybody? No. There is no way anyone should support that. It would be up to individuals themselves as to whether or not they feel they need the card.

We talk about this card as if this is going to be the one thing that will ensure privacy and secrecy. The social insurance cards were supposed to do the same thing and we have what, 1.5 million cards unaccounted for, maybe again because of the incompetency of government but also because of the expertise of the criminal element that can end up duplicating everything. How often have people been told that their credit cards are safe or that their bank cards are safe or whatever? Nothing is safe.

Perhaps if government developed and showed us the costs of a card that would provide us with the type of security everybody talks about and we knew what we were getting into, then those who want to avail themselves of such services could.

Other than that, until that happens, until we see the products, until we see the wounds, nobody is going to buy in. A lot of it, again I say to the member, is not because of the idea of being secure and safe and people having their privacy protected, but because of the incompetency of the way in which this has been handled, particularly by the present government.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for sharing his time with me.

The member for Mississauga South is such a salesman that it is too bad he cannot participate again in the debate. We have all seen the great Mastercard commercial on television. This is what he reminds us of, everything else costs so much, but this one is priceless. According to the member we will not need a health care card, or a driver's licence, or a dental card, or any regular credit cards, or Woolco card. All we will need is this one card that will get us anywhere in the world and we will have no more problems.

The member then goes on to say that they want to ensure they know where we go. It is the old 1970s big brother show. This is information that the government would have would undoubtedly be shared with CSIS, the FBI, the CIA and the KGB. This is a great card, a tremendous card to protect our privacy.

The funny thing about this, and believe me it is funny, is the whole thing is becoming a charade. The debate today is like a comedy show. It is not because this is not a serious issue. Protecting our identity and our privacy is extremely important and having proper and secure access is important.

Why is it so funny? There are a number of things. First, let me mention a couple of comments that have been made and arguments used by members opposite. They have said that getting into the United States is not as easy as it once was.

Recently I have been in the United States quite often, as have other members, and I have not even had to show my passport. If entry does tighten up a bit, undoubtedly Canadians will be required to show a passport which everyone has or can easily get, if they are going to travel. If I will not be travelling, then why do I need a passport?

If 90% or 50% of Canadians are not travelling, then why do they need secure documentation at a cost to the Canadian public?

We talked about credit card fraud. Maybe more onus should be put on the credit card companies to ensure that their cards are more foolproof. If they are subject to losses because they have to pay, rather than the person who holds the card, they will quickly find a way of coming up with a card that protects their money.

Let us go back to the gun registration. I think that is perhaps why this debate is so ludicrous and why it has become a comedy hour. Everyone across the country, not only here in the House, is looking at the fact that the Liberals are proposing to introduce a card. Now everybody has to be registered, not only those who have guns, and will have a specific card.

That card will do everything. It will register Canadians for their health plan, for driving, for shopping, for banking, for travel and for their security according to the Liberals. When the gun registration was brought in, how many criminals, the ones the government set out to get, really registered their guns? Were all criminals registering their guns? Of course, the answer is no. The gun registry did not do what it was supposed to do.

Also look at our passports. Why are we having trouble with passports? Mainly because of the incompetency of the governing department. It is mismanagement. We have people walking out with arm loads of blank passports. The department cannot account for them. This is why an ID card is so ludicrous, particularly in relation to gun control.

Perhaps somewhere in the ratio 1 in 15 people own a gun and probably have registered it. There is no problem at all. A few Canadians who own guns will register them at a cost to the taxpayer of $2 million.

The whole thing is in a mess and it has cost over $1 billion to date. We will see a bill rammed through this House on Monday to give government another $15 million which, the experts say, will develop new software to correct the mistakes. The Liberals think the complexities are so great that they cannot do it, but they will waste $15 million just to see. Then of course that just straightens out the computerized part of it, we think.

Then they will have to go on from there at perhaps $100 million or $120 million, again these are estimates, a year for X number of years. That is to register guns. If we have to multiply that by 15, build in the complexities of what this card is supposed to cover and leave it in the hands of the same incompetents, imagine what this will cost the Canadian taxpayer?

We have a lot of people across the country registering long guns because they feel they have to obey the law and for no other reason. It is not because they agree with gun control. Hand guns and other guns that would be used in crime should be registered and controlled. I have no problem with that. Why register long guns which most people have always used for hunting and whatever? It is an idiotic idea.

Instead of dealing with the types of guns criminals use so the rest of us will be protected, the Liberals have done the reverse. They have made criminals out of law-abiding citizens if they do not register their guns, but have been unable to deal with the criminal element whatsoever. If that happens with this small, one in 15 example of registration and control, imagine if everybody in the country had to be registered. It is just idiotic.

I have a couple of points. Experts say that a massive central database of information will be needed to run such a scheme and the task of keeping this accurate and up to date will be enormous. If it is that complicated compared to a simple gun registry, what will we be talking about in the House this time next year?

That is why here in the House and across the country the opinion is that this is so idiotic. The United States has said “No way, José would we look at such a card because of the complexities”. However it can be done in Canada because we already have done it with the gun registry. Look where that got us. Now we will register everybody.

People from coast to coast are laughing and not because they think the idea of having some security is not serious. It is because the government has the nerve, after what happened in relation to the gun registry, to bring in another bill to register everybody in Canada in a much more complex environment than the gun registration.

Perhaps that is enough to put on the record. Undoubtedly a decision will be made on this quickly, as it should be.

[Supply, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the quick answer to that is yes. Certainly any motion passed in the House which dictates to the government what to do compromises the powers of government. Whether we like it or not, government is elected to govern.

However, governments should govern based upon what their people want. If the dictates of the people, through their representatives in Parliament, are pointed in a certain direction, then undoubtedly it is something that government should look at and respect. However, if because of its almighty wisdom, which in this case I question very much, the government feels otherwise, then all I can say is that the government will have to pay for any decision it makes.

[Supply, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, again one of the things I have noticed about the debate today, unlike many debates we have had, is that it is serious and to the point. We do not get the flippant remarks and questions and the sarcasm usually thrown forth during these times.

The question raised by the hon. member is an extremely interesting and important one. When he talks about the future of the United Nations, there are two concerns as I see it. First, if the United Nations does not get involved and we do have a crisis because of Iraq, then of course the United Nations is going to be useless in the eyes of most of the world. On the other hand, if the United Nations is right in the decision it makes and the U.S. or others go off without being under the auspices of the United Nations, then we will question the power of the United Nations.

It is a very trying time for the organization, the United Nations itself. I believe it is a time when the decision makers within that august body are going to have to make sure that the decision they make is the right one. If not, they are going to be looked upon either as letting dictators like Saddam Hussein move in to take over the free world, as others have tried in the past, or as being so weak in making a decision that countries such as the United States and others, to prevent that, have to go on their own without the UN being part of it.