Loyola Hearn

[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.

[Harbours, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Is this another way of escaping the responsibility of cleaning up harbours such as St. John's and Halifax?

The government has divested itself of ports and now it is trying to divest itself of harbour bottoms. Is this another way to sneak out of your responsibility of cleaning up those harbours?

[Museums, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, employees of the National Gallery of Canada and the Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography are on strike. The requests being made by these dedicated workers are reasonable and unselfish. Yet, despite the fact that an agreement is within reach, no one has taken the initiative to finalize the deal. Where is the leadership? Where is the minister?

She who pays the piper calls the tune. The minister of culture and heritage pays the piper but she is slow to pay the employees. It is time she called the tune by making sure these frontline people are back doing the work they love and do best, making our national sites pleasant and rewarding places to visit.

The peak tourism season is here. Is this the best we can offer our visitors? I ask the minister to do her job.

[Sir John A. Macdonald Day And The Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, June 7th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the question I have been asking was in relation to the selling off of aircraft parts, not that it was done improperly. There was a tender call for the sale. In fact a number of companies received letters thanking them for their participation in the sale of aircraft parts. However the interesting point about the contract was that it was changed or amended after the firm got it. Was it to sell off another handful of aircraft parts? Not so. It was to sell off 10 or 15 jets and something like 40 helicopters.

I equate that to someone calling a tender to sell off used car tires and when all the bids are in and a favourite bidder happens to get the nod, the contract is suddenly amended and he is also asked to sell 40 Buicks and 15 Cadillacs, with the ensuing profit going to that friend.

Perception is reality. Both the perception and the reality here are not very pleasant for one to look at or to read about. It is the type of stuff that governments and politicians should not be involved with. If there is a bidding process, if there is a tender call, then whatever that tender call is we should live with it, not amend and adjust to increase it tremendously for the benefit of perhaps those who get the job, provided they are our friends.

Another concern about the sale is that a lot of the parts were stored in a warehouse in the United States. The people involved with that were also involved in some illegal activity in that country, according to the records. That left many people concerned about the security of the products and whether or not we could end up losing them if the company involved went into bankruptcy.

The minister did not give a clear cut answer to either, but he gave no answer at all to the question as to why the contract to sell parts was amended. I know the answer will be: What is the definition of a part? When we talking about parts we are not talking about Challenger jets or about helicopters. The question mainly that was unanswered is why that contract was amended to include them after the fact.

[Sir John A. Macdonald Day And The Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, June 7th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to speak this evening to a bill which has been unanimously passed in the other place and which recalls the contribution to this great country of two extremely honourable gentlemen.

When we suggest to others that we are to bring in a bill to honour Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, there will probably be other people who will say we should wait because there are other prime ministers who have made a greater contribution to the country. Were there?

If we were to give one person credit for bringing this great country together we would have to focus on the efforts and leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald, the first prime minister of Canada. Every time we look at a picture of the Fathers of Confederation and see Macdonald standing there with his bushy hair, a lot more bushy than mine or my colleague's from the Canadian Alliance, he stands out in more ways than one. There is an awe about him that we see in very few people.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the seventh prime minister if I remember my history correctly, and the first French Canadian prime minister, was known to be a silver-tongued orator. Some of the phrases he issued about the country would make anyone feel proud to be Canadian.

When I think about what Macdonald and Laurier envisaged this great country of Canada to be, and then look at the state of the country today, I can hear Laurier in some of his more pointed dialogues talking about the unity of the country. I will read one. I will read a little quote.

He said:

We are all Canadians. Below the Island of Montreal the water that comes from the north from Ottawa unites with the waters that come from the western lakes, but uniting they do not mix. There they run parallel, separate, distinguishable, and yet are one stream, flowing within the same banks, the mighty St. Lawrence, and rolling on toward the sea bearing the commerce of a nation upon its bosom—a perfect image of our nation. We may not assimilate, we may not blend, but for all that we are still the component parts of the same country.

How often in recent days or even in recent years have we heard this type of oration in a place similar to this? I would suggest it has been quite some time.

Even though Macdonald and Laurier were opponents in and out of the House, one a Liberal and one a Conservative, they were not opponents when it came to fighting for what they both believed in: a strong, united country where everybody, regardless of religion, race or language, lived and worked together for the benefit of the great nation.

Laurier felt so strongly about it that he said the 19th century was the century of the United States in terms of its development, but that the 20th century would be the century for Canada and Canadian development. He undoubtedly felt that others who came after him would show the same leadership and insight as to what the country could do.

However somewhere along the line we have failed. I think of the dream of unity and then look at the disunity in the House and within parties. I look at my friends in the Canadian Alliance who are conservatives and at my friends in the Progressive Conservative Party who are also conservatives and they are in the far reaches of the House at separate ends. I look at people here who tell us that their job is to take their province out of the country rather than to use their collective skills and wisdom to strengthen this great country. When I look at these things I ask where we have failed Laurier and Macdonald.

What did Macdonald say? In addition to the work he did in leading this great country and uniting the land physically by the construction of the railway, he too had some quotes we should never forget.

Macdonald talked about the French. He had learned that any relationship with the French depended on respect. If treated as a nation they would act generously, as free people generally do. If called a faction they would become factious.

In old age, Macdonald declared:

I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or render it inferior to the other: I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible.

Have we learned from that? I do not know. I guess history will decide.

When I came here and walked into this honourable Chamber I was asked if it was my greatest, most memorable political moment. I said no. My most memorable political moment to date was when I sat in the legislature in Newfoundland and saw Meech Lake scuttled. That night I said to myself something, which I hope will be incorrect, “I think this is the night we jeopardized the future of this great country”.

It is an honour and a privilege to stand here and talk about these two great men who made such an impression on this nation, not only by what they did but by what they said. Their words, if we read them, listen to them and heed them, can be an example for all of us.

As the waters from the west blend with the waters that flow through the St. Lawrence and into the ocean, so too do the energies of the people of the territories, British Columbia, the western provinces, central Canada and on to the Atlantic. If we only believed in this nation as did Laurier and Macdonald, we would not be having some of the petty problems we are having today.

Perhaps if we focus a little less on ourselves individually and a little more on our nation, as did Macdonald and Laurier, somewhere along the line people might look at us as parliamentarians and say that we too made a contribution to this great nation.

I am pleased and proud to support the bill and I hope others will also.

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the various members speak on the bill, some of them extremely familiar with the farming sector, and some not so much, but who do have a concern for the principle of providing funds to those who need funds in a way that will enable them to continue to work and make a living and to hold on, in a lot of cases, to the property they own.

In my own case I cannot claim to be familiar with the farming area to any great extent, although certainly in my district we do have farms, despite what people think about the province of Newfoundland. A lot of people think it is a rock because it is referred to as The Rock, but it is a very big island, as we all know, and there are many very fertile areas on that island where we have large farming operations.

However, what we are talking about here is not unlike an industry with which I am much more familiar, and that is the fishing industry.

When we talk about agencies, whether it be the Farm Credit Corporation or whether we call it Farm Credit Canada or whatever, what difference does it make as long they do the job that the farmers want it to do? If it will be costly to start implementing changes, although I cannot see why it really would be, then we certainly should look at why the name should be changed. Other than that, the bill itself basically is one that is supported by farmers. The amendments would not be, certainly not Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

I mentioned the fishing industry. There are commonalities. Within the fishery we also have agencies that provide assistance directly to the people in the fishing industry. If they were not there, the people who participate in the fishing industry would have no one to turn to, especially the little fellow, as we say, the person who is operating on his own, who is not backed by a major company, who is not owned by a company or corporation, who is trying to operate his family fishing business the same way as a farmer would operate a family farm, quite often when the going is tough, whether it is a poor fishing season or a poor farming season.

If we did not have such agencies it would be the regular bank we would have to turn to. Banks are great. If we have money in the bank and are worth a few bucks we have absolutely no trouble getting money from a regular chartered bank. However if we have no money in the bank and times are tough, try getting money from the bank then. A lot of farmers and a lot of fisherpersons are really left in a bind.

Unless we have assistance groups such as credit corporations dealing with the various sectors, many of the people who are trying to operate within these sectors, in most cases successfully, find the going very tough in times of need.

In western Canada in particular, unless we have a change in the weather, this year could be an extremely tough year for farmers. Mother Nature is a very rough person to try to fight, and as many of us have learned, whether we are farmers or operate on the ocean, it is a battle we cannot win. As we debate legislation that is so important to them, they are undoubtedly wondering if the protective clauses will be there to protect them if they need assistance from such agencies during the fall.

As we proceed through this legislation, we should try to protect those who most need the protection. Those who need the protection most generally are the family farm owners, the small boat fishermen, the family enterprises. They do not have the support of the major corporations. They are not owned and manipulated by the big corporations.

When we hear the words family farm and we hear people talking about the difficulties some farmers and some families go through, we all think of the old westerns that we watched when we were growing up. They are almost gone from the screen. It is very difficult to see a good John Wayne movie or any other movie. It may be because of the violence. If those movies caused violence, we would all be pretty violent people, I would say, looking around here. We ran around with guns strapped to our hips when we were young and playing cowboys. However, many of these old shows talked about the family farm, with the bank holding the mortgage and calling in the mortgage, whereby the family would lose the farm except for the hero.

Perhaps in this scenario here the hero is actually the Farm Credit Corporation or Farm Credit Canada or whatever we want to call it. It is agencies such as this that the owner of the farm now has to depend on to make sure that he is not just swallowed up in the process, that when he is paying his bills there is not a problem, and that when he runs into difficult times, as we have seen in the last couple of years and as we may looking at this year, he needs a crutch to lean on. It is up to government to ensure that the crutch is there and that the family farm and farms generally will exist beyond the period of drought, beyond the period of fires and beyond the period of rough agricultural times. One of the things we have to remember is that it is the farmers and the fishermen of the country who provide the sustenance needed to keep the country going.

We hear people talk about subsidies. What is the alternative to farming and fishing in this country, the provision of the very food we need to keep the country going? We must make sure these people have every break they can get in order to carry on such worthwhile industries, because they are such worthwhile contributors to the country themselves.

We support the bill. We cannot support Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 at this stage because of the effects they might have on the smaller operations within the farming system.

[Grants And Contributions, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of heritage and culture, in an attempt to enhance her leadership bid, has been making funding announcements all across the country.

The minister of industry and trade, not to be outdone, is giving away public money like it is going out of style in order to enhance his chances at the leadership.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs uses CIDA and other corporations to deliver some of his goodies for appropriate credit, attention and hopefully support. Benefits from a lot of these expenditures are questionable. A large percentage of that money should go to the Department of Health where it is needed to help the underdog minister in his bid.

The final player in the leadership race, the Minister of Finance, is so busy solidifying his lead that he does not know where the money is going. He did not bring in a budget. This is blatant pork barrelling. It is not good government

What price are we paying for power? Is the golf course not good enough any more?