Loyola Hearn

[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.

[Supply, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for his question. The hon. member has raised an extremely important question, a question which perhaps is at the crux of the reason why we are here, at the crux of what we are supposed to do.

Very few people across the country would have the intimate knowledge of what is going on that the members in this House have, or should have, particularly if government were forthcoming with the pertinent information. As we, or if we, and hopefully we would not, approach a time of crisis, the government should make sure that Parliament is well informed and well briefed about what is going on so that as representatives of the people we can make a decision.

When the crunch comes, there is no way in this world we are going to be able to poll all our constituents to get a majority of support. We were sent here to represent our constituents. They sent us here because they trust our judgment. They trust we will make the right decision based upon the right information.

As for an answer to the question, it is not a black or white answer. When the information comes forward and when the decision time comes, if it is not to go there undoubtedly will not be a problem. If it is to go, with or without the United Nations, when the crisis comes, then that is when government is going to have to look long and hard and is going to have to depend upon the wisdom of Parliament to direct it. All I can say because of the type of situation in which we are immersed is that we will have to use our best judgment based upon the facts at hand. I would think our people would place their judgment in us to make that decision.

[Supply, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for the record I will read the motion because I am not sure whether anybody who has spoken recently has read it and because there are a lot of Canadians watching this debate who are extremely interested in what is being said on this issue and who may not know exactly what we are debating.

The motion that has been put forth by the Bloc Quebecois states:

That this House consider the sending of troops to Iraq by the government only after the United Nations Security Council has passed a resolution explicitly authorizing a military intervention in Iraq.

The ironic thing is that even though we are supposed to have parties that are on different sides of this entirely, if I heard rightly, and I listened carefully to those who spoke recently, if we pick what is behind what they are all saying, most of us are saying the same thing and very few of us are in total disagreement with the motion.

We are discussing this issue because the Bloc Quebecois, and on Thursday last the Canadian Alliance Party, brought forth motions. It is unfortunate that our debates are restricted to motions brought forth by opposition parties.

We should be debating an issue that is so important to this nation because the government brought forth a motion to the House. Whether it would be similar to the one we have today or similar to the one we had last week, that would be irrelevant. However it should be a motion that would open up debate and would give the government some clear cut direction.

The House might ask why, when the government is elected to govern and the government will do whatever it wants to do. Certainly that is the view of the current government. There is absolutely no doubt about that. We have seen that in relation to every issue that has been brought before the House.

Times have changed since the war of 1914, the war of 1939 and the Korean conflict. These were wars that were fought in another country of which we knew little and saw nothing. Wars today are fought before our very eyes. The negotiations, the planning, the strategies and the conniving are all laid out beforehand.

Sometimes we wonder why everything is so secret. We tell people when we will invade, how we will invade, what we will do and what the results will be. It is a different world we live in.

Because of that, people across Canada are well aware of what is happening. Not only are they aware, they also are very concerned about what it happening. They all have opinions on what is happening and they would like those opinions addressed. They would like their views heard and their questions asked.

How can that be done? It can be done right here because this is the only forum in the country where these views can be discussed openly, where the questions can be asked and where we have the individuals who can give the legitimate answers. This is the only forum which represents all the people across this great country.

As I said, it is unfortunate that it had to be the opposition parties that forced the debate.

Having said that, I have listened, as I said, to the members of the different parties as they spoke. A while ago I heard the member for Wild Rose stand and say quite clearly that nobody wants a war, which is basically what the NDP is saying, which is what the Bloc Quebecois is saying, which is what the Liberals are saying and which is what we are saying. Nobody wants a war.

Everyone also has said that if we must to go to war that there is a proper mechanism for doing that. We may not agree totally on that mechanism but I suggest that our differences are little when really pushed.

To again quote the member for Wild Rose when he said “Nobody wants a war”, that would be everybody's choice. However do we then sit back and do nothing about looking at that side of the issue?

Where are the great leaders of the past? We always talk about the leaders of wartime, the heroes who led us through the battles, who won or who lost but who, in winning or losing, caused irreparable damage to their countries and to the people of their countries. Sometimes these things could not have been provided and nobody held their heads higher in these confrontations than Canadians. However there were other times in history when wars, which seemed imminent, were prevented by the intervention of our great negotiators, our great diplomats, our great leaders who found the way to find peace instead of war.

I will go back to the days of the cold war when Russia seemed to be the enemy of the western world. Day after day we sat, listened and waited to see if Mr. Kruschev, or some of the others during that time, would push the button that would destroy the world. We were in fear. Russia was our enemy.

In 1972, when the Russian hockey team came to Canada to play the first four games of a great hockey tournament, it was almost as if we were being invaded by the enemy. We looked upon them as our enemies because they were Russians. When we found out how good they were they became an even worse enemy.

When our hockey players went into Russia, we all shuddered because they were going into a foreign country and we did not know if they would ever get out. I am sure there were times during that last game that some of them asked themselves the same question.

However exchanges like that began to open up doors, through other mechanisms besides those directly involved in the war measures. The armed forces, people connected with security and people whose jobs it is to talk war and peace, prevention and destruction, these people have a job to do and they are narrowly focused in relation to doing that job.

It is true that exchanges, such as our hockey games and our cultural exchanges, began to open up doors. The more we began to learn about other nations, the more we saw that a lot of people in this world were the same. As the old saying goes, “both ends of the rifle are the same”. Throughout the world many of us are the same, given a chance to really understand the other.

That is where the great diplomats, the great leaders of our time moved in and took advantage of such a situation. Canada over the years has had tremendous leaders. One of them, former Prime Minister Pearson, won the Nobel Peace Prize. It was not because he always led us in war but because he worked for peace.

The parts of the equation that I see missing in this whole charade are the advantages we have today compared to the past to understand and to know. We seem to be closing our eyes and our minds to some of the opportunities to open doors.

If there is a way to prevent a war that is what we should be concentrating on, not how we should enter the war.

How should we enter the war? Should we go if the United States says go because we are its neighbour, its ally and we have always been there? We should ask that question because a lot of people have been asking that.

Should we wait for the United Nations to make the decision on whether to go to war? If we thumb our nose at the United Nations, what will be the end result of that great organization? That again is argued by a lot of people.

Should we just say that we are pacifists, that we want nothing to do with war and not go at all? Some people would say that is the answer. However, as we know, if we want to be a player in the free world, if we want to defend democracy and the free world that we have because other people went before and put their lives on the line for us and for our country, then we have to follow them.

We should try, if at all possible, to find a way to settle the issue with Iraq peacefully. If we cannot, then we should be guided by the United Nations and be involved if it gets involved. I would agree to that and would support the motion to that degree.

However, I do not think we should close doors. When we look at the type of individual with whom we are dealing, there is always the possibility that the United Nations Security Council could vote to enter the fray and disarm Saddam Hussein, or we could see one country objecting. What do we do then? Do we say that because it is not unanimous we will participate only if the United Nations, totally accepted by the Security Council, agrees to enter the fray?

We need to open the door and make our own decision based upon the events and the facts of the time. That is where real leadership comes in. That is where we have to trust our government and the people involved within the total process. That perhaps is what leaves a lot of us lying awake at night worrying about the whole situation.

Time is running out. We have heard that said too often quite recently. We have heard it said by President Bush almost daily. We all know time is running out. Iraq has been given notice. It has been asked to co-operate, and people might say that to some degree it has. To what degree? Hopefully within the next few days that answer will be clear.

However there is no doubt that unless there is a major peace initiative over the next few days by people experienced in the field, leaders who are respected, to convince Hussein to leave Iraq and to go into exile, which was discussed earlier, or to unequivocally open up and let the inspectors do their jobs, people will want to go to war. The decision will rest heavily on our shoulders as to what we are going to do.

It has been said that Canada's stand to date has left us completely marginalized. We were once a country that was such a player in the world, not only in wartime but more specifically in peacetime, but we are no longer that great player.

Why is that? A country is just a large portion of land. What makes a country work, what makes a country powerful and what makes a country influential is the population that lives within the boundaries of that great country.

It is the people who lived here before, the leaders who ran our governments and who represented us internationally, these were the people who in the past gave Canada that great name as a player in international relations, particularly in relation to a country that sought peace first and then war.

What is it we are really trying to do? Are we just trying to disarm Iraq? Are we trying to find an excuse to go to war? Or are we looking for some peaceful situation to defuse a very explosive situation in the Middle East? We tried before, 10 or 12 years ago, and some people say that we should have finished the job, but what were we trying to do then? Were we successful? Is it entirely different now? It probably is, because it is a lot more serious now.

The interest that has built up in the destruction of the world, not just different parts of it, through terrorism, in particular over the last few years and since 9/11, has created such an awareness that people throughout the world are ready to participate in avenues of mass destruction. They just do not care, individually or collectively. They are out to get even. We might ask, get even for what? With proper discussions, those questions could be answered and maybe some of the people who are so caught up in their tunnel vision of destroying people they think are destroying them might realize that this is not the way it should be.

The unfortunate thing about all of this is that the leaders who eventually will make this decision have an awful weight on their shoulders. Hopefully it is some avenue of peace they can find, but if they go to war and our aim is to get Hussein, then the question is, how many have to pay the price in the interim?

Again I have a quote from an old song: It is not the ones who give the orders who are the first to die. That is always the case. Maybe if those who are going to make that decision look upon themselves as being the leaders in battle instead of saying “Go on, my troops, I am right behind you”, which is what most leaders do, then they might think twice about making such a decision.

I congratulate the Bloc Quebecois for bringing forth the resolution so that we can debate it and hear what others think of the part that Canada should play, our own views and the views of the people we represent. We must proceed with caution. I believe the steps must be: peace if at all possible, and if not, confrontation with others, not in some half-cocked manner. But if the time comes when a war has to be fought, then Canada cannot shirk its duties.

[Privilege, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely serious situation not only in that a report has been released before actually being tabled in the House, but because it is a continuing issue. Members may remember that less than a week ago we discussed the same thing where a report that was to be tabled in the House had been in the press the previous morning.

Why do we have the type of system that we have? Committees work diligently to prepare solid reports dealing with important issues for the nation. If this process is trivialized by people running off to get a bit of press by releasing the information, then it will destroy the whole system.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest you look at this issue very seriously. If somebody is at fault here, then the proper action should be taken.

[Goods and Services Tax, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, recent news reports reveal the deeply troubling link between GST fraud and terrorist groups. The founder and chair of the board of the Khalsa Credit Union, where fraudulent GST credit cheques were cashed, is now in prison, a suspect in the 1985 Air India bombing.

Could the minister tell the House how many other cases are being investigated by her department which suggest that terrorist groups may be using GST fraud to fund their networks?

[Goods and Services Tax, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue has denied the claim that fraudulent use of the GST export tax credit has cost Canadians $1 billion, as the economists state. If she disagrees with that amount could she tell the House how much, in her view, GST fraud has cost Canadians above and beyond the cases that have come to court?

[Acadian People, February 6th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, while the Progressive Conservative Party is supportive of the principle of the motion, we are also respectful of the right of the Acadian community to generate its own request for an apology based on the desires of its people. This is something that I think a lot of people have said.

I had a prepared address, but having listened to the debate tonight I would like to take a slightly different tack.

It is amazing to hear four groups of Canadians speak on this issue. We heard extremely varied views. I believe the member representing the governing party shocked all of us with her address.

Perhaps the member is wondering why a number of Quebeckers what to leave Canada.

She said this resolution was introduced by a party that simply wanted to leave Canada. I ask why, and I wonder has anybody ever really asked why?

Any group, regardless of race, religion or colour, that feels part of the total unit, part of the family, and that is treated as part of the family, seldom wants to leave.

In my own province of Newfoundland right now there is a royal commission studying our place in Confederation. As the hearings went around the province many people who came before that commission expressed concerns about how Newfoundland is being treated. When I look at some of the letters and e-mails I get from our own people, they are asking the same question, “Why should we be part of Canada if we are going to be treated the way we are presently being treated?” That is a very serious question.

As somebody who believes in Canada as a unit, perhaps not the Canada we have but the Canada we could have, if people were treated the same way, if people were recognized for what they are with their strengths, their weaknesses and their diversities, if they were properly recognized, as the former government tried to do back in the early 1990s, which our party strongly supported, we could have healed a tremendous amount of rifts in the country.

The member from the Alliance talked about the history of the Acadians, the French coming to Canada, and going back to the days of Champlain or even before to Jacques Cartier, who by the way wintered his boats in a little community called Renews in Newfoundland. We were probably the first people visited by the French. Champlain followed and set up the community in Port Royal. Then we had the expulsion.

One might say that is the way they did things in those days. Whether they did or not, there are two things we should consider. First, was it right? Second, the history that we read today is somebody's interpretation of what happened, whether it is right or whether it is wrong.

I have often read two history books about the same situation, the same event in history, that present entirely different views. I think of the old song Johnny Horton brought out, Battle of New Orleans . The first time he brought it out he sang about the British scaring away the Americans. Somebody said that was not the way to do it, so he redid the song and the good guys were the Americans. It depends strictly on the interpretation.

When we read about the history of the French in Canada, the expulsion, the return and the contribution they have made to this great country of ours, we can look back and say that, yes, perhaps atrocities were committed and, yes, it did happen. However, it is over; it is done with; those things happened.

My own background is Irish on both sides. Our people received similar treatment in Ireland. They did not leave Ireland to come to Newfoundland for the climate. They lived on potatoes in Ireland mainly because that was all the land could produce. When the potato crop failed large groups of them in the mid-1800s came to Canada, many of them to Newfoundland, where they have a job growing potatoes still.

They have managed to survive and flourish not because of the climate or because the land is better to grow potatoes or any other agricultural products. It was because they had freedom and they were accepted for what they were. They were treated the same as everybody else, perhaps not originally, but certainly as they fit into society.

When we look at the diversity that makes up this great country of ours, we are all alike in one respect, but we are so different in other respects. If we treated each other for what we really are and if we were treated by our governments in a fair manner, we would not have half the problems in the country that we do.

In 1949 Canada joined Newfoundland, as I like to say. Newfoundland brought into this country tremendous resources. These resources have been developed but not for our province. They have been developed for the overall good of the country and for other countries. Our fish have been raped over the years. Our minerals have been carried off and have provided jobs in other parts of the country. Our hydro power has provided a lot of money to friends of ours. We have not benefited from the development of our resources. That was our reward for joining the country.

Newfoundland is a have not province of a half a million people with more resources than anybody in the country. Why should we be happy?

I look at the motion before us. Whether or not it was the thing to do in those days, in wars the strong won and the weak were pushed out, whether it was good or bad, what is wrong with recognizing the fact that it should not have been done? That is the principle involved here. What is wrong with saying that we made mistakes? We must not just recognize the mistakes of the past. We must make sure that we are much more conscious of what is happening today and that we do not do it again.

If we continue to operate the way the government operates, we might be expelling a lot of other French from the country and in an entirely different way. If we do what we should do and treat everybody the same and recognize them for what they are, we can have a strong unified country with all of us co-operating.