Loyola Hearn

[Agriculture, September 27th, 2001]

A hurricane hit Newfoundland about a week ago and in a few hours 120 millimetres of rain was dumped on the Avalon. That in itself caused a tremendous amount of damage, which we will be talking about tomorrow or the next day. It washed out roads and flooded basements. Some basements had as much as six feet of water. Some of the main roads were washed away and shoulders were taken off a lot of our highways. The cost has been phenomenal. The mayor of the city of St. John's called a state of emergency, which is not done lightly.

I read a story in the paper that summarized what happened. A lady said that she was awakened at three o'clock in the morning when her little dog jumped up on the bed. She said that when she pushed the dog off the bed she heard a splash.

That was pretty common in a lot of St. John's. It was an extremely dry summer and the ground was extremely hard. When there is a lot of rain like that everything runs off and takes whatever is there with it. That is what happened. It was a complete reversal of what the west has had to face.

Because of the heavy moisture, the late season and the excessive rains, the farmers in our area have had the reverse. They also have been negatively affected and have been asking for assistance but have been getting the cold shoulder.

Perhaps, collectively, we should all start zeroing in on the basics and look at the people who really are the hard workers, the people who built the country and stayed with the farms, those who did not sell their lands to housing projects when they had a chance to make a fortune and leave town. Those are the people who stayed through hard times and passed on their farms to generation and generation. They still exist today and still work the farms. It is the same for the fishermen in the boats who year after year worked the nets and then passed the boat and gear over to the son who then passed it on to his son, et cetera.

They provided good livelihoods. They were tremendous people who contributed greatly to the economy of their community, province and country. They asked for very little other than the freedom to work at what they wanted to do and, if times got tough, that we do for them what we would do for others who perhaps were less deserving.

We solidly support the request from the farmers in the west. We ask the government to stop fooling around. We must forget about what this agreement or that agreement says. The agreement should say that if there is a problem the government will be there to help if there is a legitimate need.

All the time that is spent, the bureaucracy that is involved, the costs that are involved and the costs incurred in waiting would certainly pay a lot of the debts that have been built up.

Let us cut out the fooling, get down to the basics and help the farmers who need help. Let us get on with the job so that hopefully next year will be a different year for everybody.

[Agriculture, September 27th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, members may be wondering what a fisherman from St. John's, Newfoundland is doing speaking on an agricultural debate. The first reason is that I support the resolution. As a Canadian I am well aware of the situation western farmers are going through and I am extremely supportive of helping them at this time of crisis.

The second reason is that we in Newfoundland always say, when we are ignored, which is quite often, that it is because it is only Newfoundland and because it is only fish. It seems to me that the people who count in this country, the primary producers, are the ones who are overlooked the most, and that is extremely unfortunate.

If we did not have the bread makers, the fish producers and the vegetable growers, where would we be? Let us just imagine the price we would have to pay for the basic necessities of life if we had to import them. We do not know how fortunate we are to live in a country where we can produce our own vegetables, fish, wheat and other grains that create staple foods that not only ourselves but that the world eats.

To think that in time of dire need we ignore agriculture and yet within hours of a perceived airline crisis, the government runs around trying to find money to bail out airlines that perhaps are their own worst enemy.

When I mentioned coming from a province that deals with fish, if we are talking about food supply, we also have farmers in our province who have had a major problem this year. It was not because of a lack of moisture, it was because of too much.

Last winter in Newfoundland we had a record snowfall, the most snow ever. Newfoundland is a place where in the past we have had pretty hard winters. Growing up in Newfoundland we had enjoyable winters. From the end of November until the middle of April we could ski, skidoo, skate, whatever we wanted to do to enjoy the winter scene.

Over the past 10 years or so, we thought we had moved south of Florida. A year ago we did not have to shovel the driveway or a step once during the winter. This past winter, it turned around again and we had record snowfalls, which meant that a lot of the snow did not melt until well into May. With that kind of accumulation, especially in open areas on the fields, one can imagine how wet the fields were. The farmers were extremely late getting their crops into the ground, to the extent that it affected their year's production, a reverse of what occurred in the west.

I think the total rainfall in the hon. member's area was 60-odd millimetres for the year?

[Fisheries, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The inshore shrimp fishery in Newfoundland is in a state of crisis. Fishers cannot afford to fish and processors cannot afford to operate their plants. One of the main reasons is the 20% tariff charged for Canadian shrimp going into European markets.

What steps has the minister taken to make sure that this inequity is corrected?

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to say a few words regarding a bill we should perhaps not be speaking about in its entirety.

It is strange that there is unanimity on one side of the House on how to approach the bill and yet people on the other side have their heads in the sand and refuse to address it in its different aspects, something which would make a tremendous amount of common sense.

If I suggested we go for a walk on a newly constructed hiking trail on which there was a lot of mud and bog and where it would be rough going, and that on the way back we stop to participate in a formal dance, I would probably be told that I was off my head because I could not dress for both occasions.

This is exactly the position we find ourselves in. We have two complete unlikes to which we are expected to say yes or no even though many members of the House, and surely many members on the other side, cannot justifiably support the bill as it is structured.

There are parts of the bill our party can support wholeheartedly although we would like to see further discussion and perhaps more amendments. We would like the bill strengthened, especially in relation to child pornography, although we strongly support that part of it.

Many people who stand in this honourable House have families of their own. Many of us have younger children who spend a lot of time on the Internet and we realize the dangers which confront them daily. We in our party agree with strengthening the law as it pertains to child pornography on the Internet.

However concerns must be clarified in relation to the liability of service providers that could be inadvertently drawn into problems which might arise when people use their services for illegal means.

The bill as it is structured would give us much more strength than was previously there to combat this growing problem. As members know, it has been made quite clear by our intelligence people that child pornography on the Internet is increasing with the use of the Internet. Undoubtedly that makes sense.

Now is the time to start addressing this serious concern. This should be done by people who are prepared and trained to do so. We must be able to identify the problems and identify those using the Internet for illicit means.

The section on child pornography is quite good but it is lumped in with a section on cruelty to animals. There are parts of that section which everyone supports. No one would support cruelty to animals as the term is ordinarily used.

However animals are used for many purposes. One that comes to mind is research. This issue is of major concern to our universities. There are people who would like to see such research discontinued.

How many people in the world, young and old, are alive today because of advancements in medicine that have occurred only because of scientific experimentation on animals? Many of the cures we avail ourselves of today were discovered by experiments on animals.

Many of the cures that we hope to see in the future are presently being worked on because of the experimentation in various labs in our scientific institutions, especially in universities across the country and around the world. Many of the people involved have severe concerns about whether or not they would be implicated under the new legislation. That is a section of the bill that has to be debated and refined much further than at present.

We have people who make their livelihoods in the agriculture industry by raising animals for food and other uses. Undoubtedly all of them have concerns about whether or not the legislation could jeopardize their livelihood. This legislation has not been refined to the point where the people involved are satisfied. Indeed the legislators on this side of the House are not satisfied.

When it comes to gun control most of us on this side advocate the elimination of long guns from the regulations. We are acting as if everyone who owns a gun in Canada is a criminal. Many people in rural regions make a living for their families and subsidize their incomes through hunting. This could be jeopardized if the legislation is not clarified.

The government is asking us to nod our heads to a piece of legislation with which we cannot agree. The section on child pornography should be taken out of the present bill and dealt with separately. Many of the other parts of the bill can be passed immediately. There are sections which have to be further debated, refined and dealt with separately. Child pornography cannot be dealt with in the same pot as other sections of the bill.

Hopefully the people on the other side will feel the same way we do. We all come from the same parts of the country. It is not like the people on the government side come from a part of the country that is not affected by gun control or by using animals one way or another for research or for livelihood purposes. We all come from the same regions. Surely the people who come to us with concerns are going to them as well.

All of us in the House have to be concerned with child pornography. Undoubtedly we should deal with that as quickly as possible. Every day is another day when some child is being victimized. However other sections of the bill have to be changed or eliminated.

If the House leader will not do it on his own, I am hopeful the people affected in the same way as we are will put enough pressure on the government to split the bill. We could then deal with the aspects that need to be dealt with and they can be dispensed with very quickly. We could deal with the rest of them as we go through committee and debate. It is my hope it can be brought back in a form that we can all support.

[Crtc, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the CRTC, the federal broadcast regulator, is expected to tell CTV Newsnet that it can no longer broadcast live news coverage of routine events or regularly scheduled news shows, such as the very popular one now hosted by the veteran political reporter, Mike Duffy.

Will the culture and heritage minister just sit by while a handful of faceless regulators limit news competition among television networks, or will she allow the marketplace to make that decision, as it should?

Does it not bother her that CRTC is funded by her department, as is the complainant, the CBC? If so, what will she do about it? What will she do to ensure objectivity and to make sure that private sector jobs are not jeopardized for nonsensical action, or will we see just another cop out?

[Division No. 133, June 11th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the question for debate this evening concerns Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation funding being made available for housing projects throughout the country.

I raised the question was in relation to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation being involved with multimillion dollar projects such as the one at 1 Post Road. Even though we know the extent of the involvement is only in relation to the mortgage insurance, it still sends a message to Canada that the government and the agencies that come under it are more concerned with housing for the rich and the well-to-do than they are for the people who really need housing.

When we see Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation signs being flashed around in front of large multimillion dollar developments, it sends a message to the people who need such funding that government is not paying attention to them whether it be factual or not.

A couple of days ago we talked about the housing needs in this country. We talked about the need for housing for the homeless and the poor people. We talked about affordable housing. There are so many avenues to provide housing for those who need it if government would only sit down and come up with a plan to address the major problem.

I certainly think wrong messages are being sent. There is talk about a plan to address the housing issue but the conception on paper and bringing it into reality are two different things. We do not seem to really understand what we are doing and we do not seem to have the heart to do the job that needs to be done.

We could help the poor and those in need of affordable housing a lot more if we would spend some time concentrating on the major problem that we have in front of us and, instead of wasting time on foolishness, put some of our energies and efforts into addressing the real problems that face the country.

[Government Of Canada, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. Apparently all the premiers who were asked about this problem agreed with Premier Hamm, with the exception of the premier of Newfoundland who basically said that it was okay to hire strictly from the local region.

What does this do to foster a great nation like Canada? If that is the case, could a Newfoundlander apply for the Prime Minister's job in Ottawa?

[Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will say a few brief words on Bill S-3, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.

This is the third transport bill to go through the House in very short order. The word on the street is that the minister might soon be taking off on a diplomatic career. We get the impression he is trying to clear the decks before his successor takes over.

Bill S-3 outlines the federal government's role in extra-provincial bus and truck transport. An updating of the same is in order from time to time. We have no problem with that.

Bill S-3 would allow provinces and territories whose safety compliance regimes are compatible with the national safety code to give an extra-provincial carrier a safety rating and to issue a safety fitness certificate. Such a certificate would be recognized by other Canadian jurisdictions.

Bill S-3 would also allow a province or territory to apply sanctions to extra-provincial carriers for poor safety performance. Such sanctions would include downgrading their ratings and revoking their safety certificate. It is about time we had standardization across the country.

Bill S-3 would allow Canada to enter into arrangements with other countries for reciprocal recognition of carrier rating standards. This refers to enabling legislation which outlines the framework under which regulations are made for the safe operation of commercial vehicles on our nation's highways. As such, we can support the bill. We have a problem with the regulations and standards coming under the bill, not the bill itself.

Last August Mr. David Bradley, head of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the chief industry association, said that the national safety code upon which the ratings system would be based was neither national nor a code and that not one of the sixteen national safety code standards agreed to by the provinces in 1988 had been officially adopted across the country.

In 1987 the federal, provincial and territorial governments signed a memorandum of understanding to implement the national code by 1990. The most recent status report in 1998 showed that no province had by then adopted all fifteen mandatory standards and the one voluntary standard. The standards dealt with hours of work, driver training, driver testing, vehicle maintenance, roadside inspections, et cetera.

In February of this year the Ontario Trucking Association stated that safety rating systems lacked consistency across the country. Consistency is important to carriers because safety ratings are a matter of public record. Shippers and insurance companies are encouraged to use them in choosing a carrier or setting insurance rates. Consistency is also important to drivers, the majority of whom cross borders on their runs.

A standard issue which is a source of controversy relates to proposed hours of work for drivers. While changes to hours of service standards are not part of the bill per se, the act that the bill amends sets out provisions whereby the codes and hours of service may be changed.

As I said earlier, the bill is enabling legislation. The problem is in the details of regulations that can be made under the act.

While the trucking industry and the government appear to be singing from one page of the same hymn book, truck driver unions and public safety advocates are singing quite a different tune. What is being proposed is quite incredible. It would give Canada the least safety minded regulations in the western world. That is not something we should be proud of.

Sleep impaired drivers could be required to work a maximum 84 to 96 hours a week, forgo two consecutive nights of rest and drive without on board recorders, black boxes as we call them, to keep track of it all.

As we listen to what drivers could be expected to do under the legislation, we think of old trucking songs that led to an understanding of the dangers inherent in being a truck driver. One that stands out which everybody knows is Six Days on the Road and I'm Going to Make it Home Tonight . If regulations are not tightened up some of our truck drivers will be six days on the road.

The transport committee has been asked to study a federal government proposal that could see truck drivers on Canada's roads having to drive 14 hours at a stretch or up to 16 hours on alternate days. When this boils down to a truck driver's work week that can run anywhere from 84 to 96 hours, surely it is not in the best interest of either truckers or members of the general public with whom they share the road.

Since the North American Free Trade Agreement was implemented there has been a large increase in north-south traffic. However American truckers are not required to work more than 10 hours per shift. Given the increasing integration of the North American economy, I do not see why there should be such a difference between American and Canadian hours of service.

It was proposed in the transport committee that we hold hearings across the nation on this important issue. However the government majority on the committee, as usual, voted down the proposal.

Truckers' hours are a matter of driver and public safety. The government would do well to err on the side of caution on the issue. That is certainly the public's view. An Angus Reid poll found that 84% of Canadians surveyed favoured a maximum 60 hour work week for drivers and 78% of Canadians wanted black boxes on trucks to monitor what is going on.

The government gives lip service to the need for consistent regulations across the country but stands by while the provinces fail to implement the national code. Mr. Bradley of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, quoted earlier, said last August:

The federal government has the constitutional authority to introduce federal regulations and standards, to show national leadership, but it does not appear prepared to wade in—

One final point is that the bill would provide for, and Transport Canada is working toward, an agreement with the United States and Mexico to give motor carriers seamless regulatory treatment across North America. NAFTA requires nothing less if we are to ultimately see the free flow of goods across the continent.

The bottom line, however, is that the federal government has done a poor job of leadership when it comes to providing a seamless web of transport regulations and standards within the country. How does the government expect to harmonize with the United States and Mexican systems if we have not yet harmonized ourselves?

Bill S-3 has laudable goals. The problem is that such a bill would require considerable leadership and detailed groundwork, things the federal government has so far failed to take seriously. Leadership on the file would require hard work and consistency. Leadership in a federal democracy is never easy but we have a government that prefers a quick and inadequate fix. It is a babe in the woods compared to our neighbours to the south.

The new rule of the road, whether one drives a car or a transport truck, is: Drivers beware; government asleep at the wheel.

[Women Veterans, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour and a privilege to stand in support of the motion presented by my left leaning colleague to my right.

First, I should say to the hon. member from the Bloc before he leaves that I could say hear, hear to his speech and sit down, because he covered the issue extremely well. He indicated for us what women went through during the war, as well as how he addressed the response from the government.

I sat in amazement as I listened to the government member try to explain why we should not do anything to recognize women who served during the war either directly or indirectly through their involvement in the ammunition factories, in the preparation of bandages or by keeping the home fires burning. There is a line in a poem which says “they also serve who only stand and wait”. So many people waited for their husbands, brothers and sons to come back, and many never did. How can we recognize the trauma these people went through?

The member of the governing party asked which women veterans would be recognized. My answer is that all of them should be recognized regardless of the confrontation and regardless of how they were involved. The member has also said that there were other agencies that could work with the provincial and municipal governments. I say to the hon. member that if provincial or municipal governments balk or throw blockades at suggestions like this, then they are just as bad as the government opposite.

For too long we have found red tape and bureaucracy to put in the way of doing what we should be doing. We spend more time and waste more money finding reasons for not doing something than if we had gone ahead and done it in the beginning. That is typical of the government opposite.

I was born during a time when people were not involved in major wars, such as World War I or World War II, but I knew many of my relatives, friends, neighbours and countrymen had been. The two countries that fought in the war—unlike my colleague from the Bloc I am not saying Canada and Quebec—were Canada and Newfoundland. Newfoundland was not part of Canada at the time. It was a country on its own. The contribution made by Newfoundland, now a proud province of Canada, was second to none. The contribution made by Newfoundlanders was recognized not only here in the new world but by countries the world over. Many Newfoundlanders paid the supreme sacrifice to give countries, such as the homeland of my hon. colleague, the freedom they now have. We are very proud of that.

The soldiers who fought so valiantly in the wars would not have been able to do so without the support on the homefront and the involvement of women, whether it was direct involvement or the supportive roles that many of them served. As our veterans came back home and tried to fit into life after the wars, the trauma they went through is something they have and always will carry with them. It has not been easy for them to come back and live a normal life, carrying the memories that they carry with them. The support of the women on the homefront has helped carry them through it.

I think of the Canadian Legion branches established all across the country. If we listed all of them we would find that many of them are active today because of the involvement of the women legionnaires. One of them is Elizabeth Lee who is from my area of Riverhead-St. Mary's Bay. Long before my involvement in active politics and all during my political years, whenever there was anything on the go it was Elizabeth who was organizing it. She sought out the funding and to enhance the facility. It is women like her who have been the backbone behind the efforts of keeping this great country going.

It is not a question of being able to afford to do something for these women. It is that we cannot afford not to do something for them. The excuses, red tape and hurdles that have been put in place because of a very simple suggestion give us an idea of what we are going through. We should all be together, proud of our heritage and culture. Yet people just sit and fiddle while Rome burns.

In about 10 minutes the issue will die on the order paper, but if my hon. colleague who introduced the motion is satisfied to keep it alive, I am sure many of us, certainly on this side of the House, would be satisfied to work with him to make sure it does stay alive.

[Social Housing, June 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of the motion. I must say that I am a little disappointed that members opposite did not see it right and proper to support the motion as votable because it is certainly one that should receive a lot more strength than an hour's homage through the words that we utter and then to be forgotten. This is an extremely important issue all across the country.

Three words are highlighted in the motion: homelessness, poverty and affordable housing. I would suggest that if the affordable housing issue were addressed, the other two words would not be of such significance. A lot of the poverty in Canada is caused by the fact that people have to spend the little money they have on the real necessities of life, and what is more important than housing? Housing is so expensive for many people that they are in what we call a state of poverty.

Many people wander around homeless. Some admittedly are homeless because that is the style of life they want but many of them are not. It is a style of life that is imposed upon them by the restrictions of society.

What is happening in the country when we see people who are destitute, homeless, living in a state of poverty and cannot afford a place to live? All of us here in this Chamber are in the position to leave here in the evening and go home to a nice, comfortable home. Even if it is an apartment somewhere here in the city, at least it is warm and comfortable. As we walk to our homes, we pass people who are without homes. They cannot always afford shelter because we have uncaring governments that do not consider it a priority to look after those who need help most.

I had two experiences that will always remain with me. The first one was because of the impact it made on me and the other was because of the red tape and bureaucracy that governments create and the walls they put up.

The first experience I had was when I visited London, England, several years ago. I had just walked past Buckingham Palace and everyone was in awe of the tremendous building, the richness of the area and the riches displayed. About five minutes down the street from Buckingham Palace is Westminster Station. As I passed through the station to catch the train at about 11 o'clock at night, there were a number of homeless people starting to gather. It was an open shelter which was just a covered bridge operation or a large building with no ends. The heat from the trains underneath apparently warmed the pavement which made it a good place to sleep during the cold nights.

People say that Newfoundland is in a state of poverty. I challenge them to drive around our province. We might not be making a lot of money on average, but it depends on what we do with what we have. We are very fortunate. Even though incomes might not be as high as the national average, many people own their own homes, which they built on their own land, and provide a lot of their own food and materials. They are doing very well.

Seeing people lying around on pavement in London was something I had never seen before. What made it more heart rending was the fact that some of them were very old. I will always picture one lady who appeared to me to be in her seventies. That might have been because of the hardships she endured. Maybe she looked older than she actually was. To see a person the age of our mothers trying to lie on concrete and pull a newspaper around her to keep her warm is a sight I will never ever forget, particularly when we were within a stone's throw of Buckingham Palace.

Another experience I had will perhaps show why we have these problems. Some years ago when I was a provincial member serving a rural area I was approached by a gentleman who wanted to move from an old, dilapidated home in which he lived with a couple of daughters to a home that would be much more comfortable and reasonable and close to his relatives. The price of the new building was $24,000, which was very reasonable. It had been completely renovated and modernized with new wiring, new plumbing and whatever.

We went to the department of housing and arranged for the loan program provided to those looking for affordable housing. The gentleman was extremely pleased he was to get this new, comfortable home, which would solve a lot of his problems.

A couple of days later the department said that it could not provide funding to buy the home because its inspectors indicated that the upstairs ceilings were not eight feet high. They were only six and a half feet high. Its regulations stated that they must be eight feet high to meet its standards, or otherwise it could not provide funding. However, there was another house for sale in the community. It was a very modern bungalow that was selling for $50,000. As its maximum was $55,000, it could buy that house for him.

I approached the gentleman and he asked why he should buy that house, even though it was much better, more modern and whatever. He was quite satisfied with the other one, but if the department would not give him money for that house he was willing to accept the bungalow. The request went in to provide funding for him to buy the $50,000 home, which was a very good, modern home.

However the request was rejected because the appraisers stated that the day after he bought the house the resale value would be only $30,000 because of its location. Even though it was selling for $50,000 and worth a lot more, they could not provide it because the quick sale value would only be $30,000 the next day.

The department indicated that it could build him a house. It would not be as good as the one for sale, but it would be worth around $50,000. Because it was building the house, it could provide the $50,000. I asked what would be the resale value of that house the following day and the answer was $30,000.

I do not lose my temper very often but I did on that occasion. Within a couple of days the gentleman had his $24,000 original house. It was nothing but red tape and bureaucracy.

This is what we face. Within a stone's throw of Ottawa, and I am sure within the town, a number of housing units could be provided for people who are homeless. There is a base just outside Ottawa with all kinds of beautiful houses that are closed up because some department or other had to divest of it in a certain way.

It is about time we used some common sense and did what must be done for the people who are so much in need.