Loyola Hearn

[Privilege, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make two very brief points. First, our party also received the notice after hours for a meeting before hours. Unless we are provided with extra resources, there is no way we can monitor those times.

Second, I would like to point out that the government House leader did not indicate either time or place for a briefing. He indicated there would be one. I want to ensure that is clear on the record.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member's comments on the whole procedure. When there is so much of importance going on in the country we are into a two day debate on a modernization issue that nobody understands because what is entailed has not been clarified. It was introduced by a government that for the past nine years has taken away every parliamentary right of the opposition, committees and of individual members.

A week ago the government fought a motion put on the floor by the Canadian Alliance dealing with the election of chairs. The established government, the cabinet and the Prime Minister fought against it. Right out of the blue we had a former finance minister, who was probably the worst perpetrator in taking away individual and committee rights, preaching the gospel.

Now the government comes in with a two day debate on modernization because it wants to modernize the whole show. It is completely and utterly mystifying and I would like the hon. member's comments on that.

[Petitions, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from approximately 100 people from the St. John's area who are asking Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Appendix to, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its courtesy.

There have been consultations among parties in the House and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move, seconded by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons:

That the speeches delivered at the unveiling of the official portrait of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney be printed as an Appendix to Hansard.

[Petitions, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I stood when you called motions, but other people also stood. I wonder if we could revert to motions after petitions.

[Employment Insurance, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been warned for years that billions of dollars in GST rebates are vulnerable to fraud, but has done nothing to close the loopholes. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency says that it is impossible to estimate the losses from GST fraud.

It is ironic that while Revenue Canada does not have the resources to deal with this major issue, it is spending time and effort arresting ordinary fisherpersons in the Newfoundland community where over 40 fisherpersons have had EI payments suspended because of an anonymous letter it mysteriously received.

Before any investigation took place, HRDC, along with Revenue Canada, withheld these people's only source of income, which is critical especially during the Christmas season. Earlier this morning I wrote to both of the appropriate ministers expressing my disgust over the matter and I asked that they immediately reinstate payments to these people until such time as an investigation is complete.

How can the government justify ignoring the loss of billions of dollars while they have all the pertinent information--

[Disability Tax Credit, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard a great debate on a motion dealing with the disability tax credit. Although this issue has been raised before, it is only now that it is starting to hit home with the many individuals affected by this issue. The attempt by the government to eliminate the disability tax credit from those in need of every break they can get is inconceivable.

The issue becomes even more repugnant when one realizes that the line department is HRDC, the very department that boasts a $38 billion surplus. This surplus was built on the backs of the working class, including those living but yet working with their disabilities. The government and particularly the department of HRDC should be ashamed and should immediately restore the tax credit to those so deserving.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member. I also want to tell her that our party will support her solidly on this motion. It is a stand that we should all take collectively, as the member opposite just said, for people who cannot be here to stand up for themselves. Unfortunately many people cannot even stand. We hear of a number of people being told that if they can walk 150 feet they will not get a disability tax credit. One of my friends told me that if someone would put on his shoes he probably could walk 150 miles with his crutches.

It is extremely hard to believe that we would try to take back from deserving people a minuscule amount that is so helpful to them but so little in relation to a budget, especially a budget that is administered by a department that brags about having an almost $40 billion surplus. It is unbelievable. That surplus is being built up on the backs of such people who have worked so hard to make a living so they can pay taxes at extreme expense to themselves, above and beyond what the rest of us face. With the little break that they get we are trying to withdraw it.

It is terrible that the government would even think about such a thing. I congratulate the member again. I hope that the whole House will stand behind her in an effort to get the department to wake up and treat people the way they should be treated.

[Petitions, November 19th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents of the St. John's West area calling upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians, rather than concentrating on embryonic stem cell research.

[Question No. 21, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words on Bill C-17. Many of my colleagues from all the parties here on this side have expressed concern that Bill C-17 is very much like the old Bill C-55, whereby the changes that we hoped to see in the new bill really are not there. There have been some cosmetic changes made, with some changes in time differentials and whatever, but generally speaking in regard to the effect Bill C-17 will have on the privacy of Canadians, there are still a lot of the same concerns that were raised before.

The bill is about one thing and one thing only. It has nothing to do with the threats of attacks against our country. No, the bill is about power. More specifically, the bill is another attempt by the Liberal government to increase the powers of the executive and individual cabinet ministers.

As with its predecessor, the bill concentrates too much power with too few people. Many of us are very concerned when we look at the people in whose hands this power is going to be placed. We have seen demonstrations of how inadequate a number of the ministers have been over the last few years and, more specifically, certainly over the last few months.

When we look at the infighting that is going on within their own party and when we think that these very few people are going to be able to control in their own hands, individually, what goes on in relation to the security of the country, it makes one very nervous.

In so doing, it undermines the authority of this place and the electorate that put us here to represent its views and protect its fundamental rights and freedoms. The power play in relation to security and major decisions affecting our country should lie right here within these hallowed halls, in decisions made generally by the people elected to make such decisions and not concentrated in the hands of a few ministers. It also undermines the legitimate authority and constitutionally enshrined jurisdiction of other levels of government. As my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough stated originally when he spoke to the bill, this bill undermines the very foundation of the country, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the division of powers defined by Canada's Constitution Act.

The one thing that the governing Liberals have failed to do is explain why the bill is actually needed. They failed to do so in the spring and they have still failed to demonstrate to Canadians this time around why such a bill, which threatens the freedoms and civil liberties of Canadians, is required when this country already has adequate legislation on the books in the form of the Emergencies Act.

It is easy for the government to hide behind the threat of terror and international attacks on our peace and security so that it can hoodwink Canadians into believing that such legislation is required. However, if the government were serious about protecting Canadians from such threats, it would invest more in our military instead of watching it dwindle to under 60,000 troops at a time when we need them the most, troops who do not have adequate equipment. Nor are they compensated properly for the fine work they do for their country. If the government were truly serious about security, it would reinvest in our military and make it the proud institution that it used to be.

While the government played politics and cancelled the contract to replace the Sea Kings, our personnel were losing their lives. The first of the Progressive Conservative helicopters would have been delivered already if it were not for the petty politics of the Liberal government. However, millions of dollars and nearly 10 years later, our personnel still risk their lives each time they set foot in one of those beaters. Meanwhile, the government is still looking for a good deal. This is nothing short of irresponsible.

The fact that the current Prime Minister will likely leave office without resolving the Sea King problem shows where the government puts our security on its priority list: at the bottom. What kind of legacy is that? Helicopters that will not fly, military pants that will not stay up, and submarines that will not float. That is the Liberal vision of our military and our security, and what are the Liberals going to do instead of addressing the real concerns of the country and putting money where money is really needed?

They are going to put decision making powers into the hands of ministers. Every day we are getting some hint, mainly through the press, of the security threat to the country. The government cannot answer a question in the House because it does not discuss these things publicly. It does not want anybody to know what is going on. The problem of course, that we fully understand, is that the ministers involved do not know what is going on and that is why they cannot answer the questions. If that is the way they handle such a serious situation we can imagine these same people having, within their hands, the ability to make major decisions as they relate to the security of the country and the privacy of citizens to live there.

The bill is really about something that is high on the Liberal agenda. It is not security but more power. The government has failed to put the proper resources into the military and other agencies of Canadian security. Instead it has come up with this bill that increases the power of cabinet ministers and trounces the authority of Parliament.

When we talk about putting money where money is needed, a few nights ago we had a debate on the Coast Guard or perhaps we should say the lack thereof. Resources to the Coast Guard have diminished over the years and the tremendous work that our Coast Guard has done around the coasts of this country has been diminished.

The security that exists at airports and at the borders of the country may be termed adequate. If one gets on a plane we know what type of security measures one goes through. If people drive across the border into Canada we know the people and their cars are thoroughly searched. However if people have any kind of mechanism that floats, from a raft, to a yacht, to an ocean liner, they can land in about 70% of this country and nobody even knows they are coming.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is responsible for the Coast Guard delighted the other night in telling us that the government has strengthened up measures because when boats are coming into our waters they now have to give us 96 hours advance notice rather than the 24 hours which was required originally.

How often have we heard of drug pushers or terrorists calling ahead to get reservations in this country? We know they do not call ahead. If we know of all the places in the country that are not covered by radar, certainly we must realize that they also know.

Given that Canada already has the Emergencies Act, why is the bill necessary? The government should not be trying to suspend our freedom and constitutional rights. It should be protecting them. The Government of Canada, which already has too much power, should not be seeking more tools to infringe on the rights of Canadians when legislation already exists.