Loyola Hearn

[Health Care, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that more money has been put into health care. The bad news is, it is not enough. The territories and several of the provinces have said it is not enough to do the job that has to be done.

The side story is that health care funding will be delivered outside the Canada health and social transfer formula. However, we have to make sure that money is dedicated to education. We will now see how much money actually goes into education and we will find that it is very little.

By investing in our youth we avoid heavy health and social costs down the road. We must educate our young people to accept the responsibilities they will face in this country. The future of the country lies on the shoulders of our youth. We have to make sure we invest in education so that they will be able to carry that responsibility and make sure we continue to--

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There have been consultations among parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and the member for Cumberland—Colchester to divide their 20-minute speaking time into two parts as they may determine.

[Canadian Coast Guard, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the minister on this initiative today. Certainly it is something that all of us in the House have looked forward to and appreciate his doing.

Let me also congratulate him on making his statement here in the House. I think it is extremely important, which was said earlier in relation to a statement made by the minister responsible for the Treasury Board who also came to the House with a statement rather than, as most ministers do, running to the press.

Here we have a chance to respond and discuss so that people across the country get the news firsthand and also can get the views of the other parties in relation to the statement.

Having said that, let me say that the statement we have before us is an extremely positive one. However, there are some concerns. The result that we will see because of the minister's decision came about because of a couple of major accidents in this area, accidents that perhaps would not have occurred if we had had clear cut lines of responsibility and jurisdiction. I think that is probably going to be the minister's greatest challenge. He acknowledges in his statement that there are complexities in relation to the rules and regulations.

The minister himself is not responsible for other departments involved, but government is. When we have rules and regulations that govern different departments, and when one department might be held up in making a decision because of the effect on some other department's legislation or regulation, it can be extremely serious. Also, it is so easy then to pass on the blame. The initiative is on government to make sure that there are clear-cut jurisdictions, particularly when it comes to life and death situations.

Also in relation to that, it is imperative that decisions in such a case be made on site. We cannot afford in a life saving situation to wait for somebody to contact Ottawa, not to say an office next door. If firemen go to fight a fire or policemen go to a dangerous situation, the decisions are made by somebody in charge on site. They do not try to call St. John's or Ottawa or Halifax to get permission to make a move to save somebody's life. These decisions have to be made immediately.

One of the problems that this young, inexperienced minister faces, and I know that he is willing to learn, is that he has a major bureaucracy in Ottawa. Too many decisions are made down the street here by people who have no idea of what is going on in the regions.

I suggest to the minister that more power should be given to the regions, with more decision making authority within the regions for responsible people who know what is going on in the regions. Then situations such as those we have experienced, which caused him to make the decision today, will never happen again.

Having said that, I congratulate the minister on the initiative. He can only work with what he has and hopefully we will see other changes which will benefit the people who work in the Coast Guard and particularly the residents of Canada themselves.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government could inform the House when the Prime Minister will be reporting to the House on his meetings yesterday with the premiers and territorial leaders concerning health funding. Since he has not risen in his place today, should we expect a statement tomorrow?

The Prime Minister owes an explanation to the House and the people we represent--

[Point of Order, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I also agree with what the government House leader said. Statements given to us for a response must be held in secret until they are tabled in the House.

However, let me say to the government House leader that this works both ways. It also works in relation to committees.

Yesterday morning in the House a report in relation to the coast guard was tabled. Yesterday morning, before the report was tabled, I read interviews in the newspaper that were done on the report by government members saying that the Liberals were pressing the government. The Liberals had very little to do with it. It has to work both ways.

[Privilege, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments on this issue. I agree wholeheartedly with the House leader of the NDP. I was also at the briefing and no reference was made whatsoever to another document.

However it is not strange for us to find out that the minister perhaps has put out a document that might put a slightly different colour on this issue. From day one he has been trying to defuse the whole issue, including calling it the gun control documents.

We are not talking about gun control. We are talking about registration that is out of hand.

Let me quote from the “Guide for Ministers and Secretaries of State”. It states:

In the context of their accountability to the House of Commons, Ministers are required to answer parliamentary questions within their areas of statutory authority as clearly and fully as possible. It is of paramountimportance for Ministers to give accurate and truthful information to Parliament...

That is what is in question, Mr. Speaker, and the decision will be in your hands whether the minister was truthful and forthcoming in the House.

[Criminal Code, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on this occasion to speak to a matter that unfortunately has captured the attention of the public for a number of years and to go on the record with respect to Bill C-20, a bill that concerns a number of us.

Bill C-20, the Liberal answer to the John Robin Sharpe case, has been too long in the making and, I am fearful, does not go far enough in alleviating the inexcusable production of child pornography. I will preface the bulk of my comments by saying that there are some favourable aspects of the legislation and, under close scrutiny by the justice committee, they will no doubt prove beneficial.

When we listen to people discussing the Sharpe case quite often we hear them say that the justice system is at fault and that judges do not give harsh enough punishments.

The justice system can only implement the legislation that is made right here. We can argue interpretation and, like all of us, various judges interpret whatever they read in different ways perhaps. However, clear cut, pointed, specific legislation narrows their ability to interpret. When dealing with something like child pornography, the legislation should be specific so no judge anywhere in the land would have the ability to interpret it to ease or perhaps completely eliminate dealing with perpetrators of this offence.

With regard to sentencing and how much time somebody should get for their involvement in cases such as child pornography, anybody in Canada who realizes what this is all about will agree that the punishment has to be pointed and severe so it will be a deterrent if other things do not work.

People might say that a 10 year sentence is a long time for people who have child pornography in their possession but they should think about how long the victims suffered. It is not a 10 year sentence for some child who was involved or used. It is a lifetime sentence in most cases.

We in the House are only representatives of the people who put us here. Legislation is really developed by the people of Canada, and we in this place operate under legislation. They send us here as their representatives to do what they wish, not what we ourselves want to do in the House. Unfortunately, that happens more often than not, especially when the people sent here think they know more than the people who sent them and make laws and rules to suit themselves rather than the majority of the people in the country. Fortunately, they usually do not come back here, Unfortunately, they can do a lot of damage while they are here.

However, while we are here, we have an opportunity with this legislation, through committee and through amendments, to create the type of legislation that will deal with this horrendous problem.

As the universe changes and as the technological world expands, we understand the opportunities available to individuals to take advantage of the young and innocent in our society. We also become more conscious ourselves through such opportunities to see how often it is really happening.

When a few years ago we would hear of somebody involved with child pornography, we would think it was an isolated case and it was terrible, but when we look at the numbers of people who are charged or suspected, and when the police, whose hands are tied because they themselves do not have the ability or the numbers to do the research and the enforcement necessary in cases like these, tell us they are just scraping the surface, it is scary.

What can we do? We can argue that government has to put more resources into our police forces across the country, which is certainly true. We have to put more funding into research and we have to put more funding into justice in general. But what we can do very easily here is use our common sense to collectively develop the type of legislation that first, will deal with the problem, and second, will prevent a second Sharpe case from occurring because the legislation will be direct, so that no justice anywhere in the country can interpret it in a way that will be to the benefit of the person who is the abuser rather than the person who is abused.

We can do our part. When we have a piece of legislation as important as this, we would be remiss if we did not do so.

[Gun Control, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen here today a minister who tabled two reports that tell us exactly what we already knew, at a cost, I understand, in excess of $150,000. Two reports costing $150,000 tell us what we already knew: that the integrity and completeness of the financial data were there. We did not question that.

The past expenditure is accurate. Nobody questioned the accuracy of the expenditure. What we questioned was the benefit of the expenditure. What did we get for a billion dollars? We know what we got. We got an empty shell.

The second report talks about 16 recommendations for the management and operations of the firearms program. Somebody at this stage in the game, after spending a billion dollars, had to come in and make 16 recommendations as to how to do it. How many heads have rolled because of this?

What the minister is saying is either his bureaucrats were completely incompetent or the ministers involved in this whole procedure, including the former Minister of Finance, were incompetent. Knowing the good bureaucrats that we have in this country, I believe the latter is true.

Consequently, the biggest joke is that the government would improve the efficiency of the firearms program and further reduce costs. If the government reduces costs by throwing away a billion dollars no wonder this country is in the financial mess that it is in.

[Space Shuttle, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday morning Canadians, like others all around the world, were watching the re-entry of the Columbia space shuttle. Minutes from home the space shuttle disintegrated before our unbelieving eyes.

The world not only lost seven great space pioneers; it also lost crucial scientific information, particularly in the health and science field.

To prepare for tomorrow, we must test our outer limits today. We will have a better world because of the work of these astronauts and of the people in our space programs. The people on the Columbia may be gone, but their good deeds will remain. We will not forget.

The members of the Progressive Conservative Party offer their condolences to the families and to the nations of these great astronauts.

[Fisheries, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, let me see if I can have more success with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans says that he has no jurisdiction over overfishing, that it is a problem for NAFO. The minister does have jurisdiction over the rapidly growing seal herds. What is his plan to deal with this serious source of predation?

[Equalization Payments, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, for quite some time we have been talking about the equalization clawback arrangements with the provinces. The former minister of finance has said, and is still saying, that it is very difficult to tamper with the equalization formula. The best way to help provinces is by dealing with project by project.

Does the government agree with this, and if so, will it help the province of Newfoundland develop the clean energy project at Lower Churchill?