Loyola Hearn

[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?

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the speaker from the Bloc Party expressing concerns about a number of the amendments shows that if members in this hon. House have so many concerns about the legislation, undoubtedly there are a number of flaws in it.

I want to concentrate on clause 64 and the amendment suggested to it. Perhaps first we should ask what does Bill C-11 do in relation to appeals for permanent residents?

Bill C-11 as it is denies an appeal for permanent residents if they are subject of a report under section 44. Permanent residents can be deported without an appeal or without consideration of their circumstances as a result of a single criminal sentence.

I know it is hard sometimes for people to have patience. We say that people who come into the country should live by the laws and rules of the country. If they do not and they break the law, then they should be expected to pay the price. However, every court in the land has an appeal process. It is only fair that, regardless of how serious perhaps the offence is, at least the person should have the right to an appeal, because no one ever knows what might come up in the appeals process that will throw an entirely different light upon the case itself.

Even if they have lived here since infancy or whether they have been here for 20, 30 or 50 years, immigration officers will be solely responsible for making the decision as to whether deportation of these permanent residents is appropriate. Again, it is an awful onus or pressure to put on immigration officers of having the sole responsibility of deciding whether or not these people should be deported.

Once that decision is made, the wheels of enforcement turn and there is no review of that officer's discretionary decision. For all the talk from the department that these decisions are taken seriously, that they are serious decisions and that there will be safeguards to prevent inappropriate deportation for long term residents, the legislation provides no such safeguard at all.

We are reminded sometimes of the statement “I am from government, trust me”. That is basically what is being said here, that we should not worry about it because there will be no problem. If the legislation does not give any protection, then I am afraid we are depending, as is said, on a rotten stick.

When the department speaks of an adjudicator making a tribunal decision and the subsequent possibility of judicial review, it is only with respect to whether the permanent resident has the necessary conviction and sentence. There is no jurisdiction for the tribunal or the federal court to look behind the decision to proceed with enforcement. That is what has been lost by taking away the appeal jurisdiction, one of the most fundamentally important parts of Bill C-11.

While it may be necessary to remove individuals since they have reneged on the responsibilities that come with having status in Canada, we must for reasons of fundamental justice give them a real appeal opportunity. That is what the amendment asks. Despite the fact that once they cross that line they know what lies ahead, they should in all fairness have at least an appeal.

I believe in 1985 the Singh case set out the importance of the oral appeal and said that people should not be deprived of the rights to have their case heard. Canada prides itself on being a land not only that accepts immigrants. In fact, our country has been built because of people who have come from all over the world, settled here and have contributed so much. We also realize there are people who come here, break the law and must pay the consequence. Being the fair and honest government that we are, the type of free country where we feel everyone is equal, the least we could do for someone is to give him or her an appeal.

What the amendment suggests in this case is that the appeal rights shall be given to all permanent resident who have maintained permanent resident status for a three year period before being subject of report under section 44. The three year period is chosen in order to be consistent with the length of time one must be a permanent resident before applying for Canadian citizenship. Therefore, if within that three year period someone breaks the law, he or she then should at least have the right to an oral appeal.

There is a lot of good stuff in the bill, like most bills, but there are also some weaknesses. In passing legislation that is going to determine how we will treat immigrants coming to the country and how we treat immigrants who will be deported from the country, the least we should do is make sure the legislation is proper and that laws and rules apply in the spirit of the type of country Canada really is.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about two sets of objectives. One set of objectives relates to immigration and the other relates to refugees. Some clauses in the bill in relation to the objectives are laudable, but when we go beyond the statement of objectives and get into the meat of the bill, we, like our friends who just spoke, have concerns.

Some of the objectives would permit Canada to pursue the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration. Who can argue with that? All of us in the House could be considered immigrants to Canada at one time or another. In my case, my ancestors on both sides came from another island called Ireland. They settled in Newfoundland about 150 to 200 years ago. Many of the people who lived in the area in which I live came from the same place.

Those people came to Canada when Newfoundland was not a part of the country. Canada joined us in 1949. They came here to settle in different communities and fish, because at that time they could make a living. Today we would not refer to it as a living. I guess we would refer to it as an existence, but sometimes we do not know the difference. As somebody once told me, we did not know we were poor until somebody told us. I guess that is it when we start comparing standards. It depends on how much we have and how well we deal with it. In those days people dealt with their lot very well.

However, today it is entirely different when people come to our country. We have an immense country. We just have to fly over it and look out the airplane window at the open spaces. I quite often think about that, having flown over places such as India where the population is so dense that there are very few open spaces any more. Even when we fly into mainstream Europe or over England, we can see that almost every inch of the land is cultured and cultivated. Then we fly over Canada and see what a difference there is and how people who live elsewhere in the world in crowded conditions could appreciate our openness, our fresh air and what we have to offer.

We do have a tremendous amount to offer, particularly in the development of the great resources in our country, if only government regulations would let us develop these resources for the benefit of the people without throwing in a lot of red tape and political jargon.

One of the concerns I have heard raised just recently by people who have immigrated to our country was that as new groups come in, new people who are perhaps not familiar with our customs and language, they are having a problem finding suitable employment. In a lot of cases they are not aware of the customs and do not speak the language very well. They find it very hard to get by the different industrial concerns, particularly in our large cities.

That raises a major concern. First, I suppose it is idealistic to say there should be a crash preparatory course, something like a premarital course, for people coming to our country. Quite often people come not because they want to but because they need to depending on the conditions they leave behind.

When people come to Canada I do not know how well we are prepared to make sure that they fit into our society, that they are accepted and that they are nursed along so they can establish themselves without basically being rejected because they do not fit into the mainstream.

In our larger centres we have groups who are not brought into the mainstream and cannot find employment because of where they came from, the language they speak or whatever reason. There is a tendency for younger people in such groups to do what our own young people do when they are kept not active: get into trouble.

Some of the concerns raised in larger cities about such groups are not raised simply because there is an innate, built-in reason for them to rebel against society. It is because they do not fit into the new society in which they find themselves. The onus is on us not only to welcome people into the country but to make sure we have provisions in place to deal with them when they come here.

We talk about enriching and strengthening the social and cultural fabric of Canadian society while respecting the federal and bilingual character of Canada. It is an extremely important objective. The people who come here from all over the world add to the culture of our country. They add to the strength of our country. They all bring much with them and make a contribution.

We can look around the House on an ordinary day and see members who represent different districts in the country. Looking at the backgrounds of members we realize that they come from all over this great world. We are now living in Canada and are all Canadians. It does not matter what our backgrounds are. All of us in our own way have contributed to the growth of this great country.

One of the concerns is in relation to the second part, respecting the federal and bilingual characters of the country. One of the things we must realize is that when people come to Canada they ask to be Canadians. If people have problems where they come from, if they leave countries because of oppression, persecution, social conditions or whatever reason and choose Canada, as so many do, they must be encouraged as immigrants to make sure they are now part of this great country we call Canada. Quite often it means having to leave behind habits, customs and so on, but that is the choice people make when they come here.

Canada is a bilingual country whether or not we all accept it. A lot of people may say that is insignificant. However those of us who move throughout the country realize that the two founding nations are still extremely strong. The two languages are extremely strong and are the accepted languages of the country. We should make sure we know them and can communicate quite well in them.

We also must keep in mind that people who come to our country might find it hard to adapt. That again is where it is great to have objectives, but if we do not provide for the implementation of the objectives then people who come here will have no way of coping with what we require.

Again in relation to refugees, many people come here because they are forced to. Again, these are things we must deal with. The objectives are tremendous. The implementations in many cases are weak and that is what we must work on collectively.

[Energy Industry, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister because I agree with him. I wish to ask him if he is now prepared to exercise the same power to let Newfoundland and Labrador electricity be transported through Quebec to United States markets without Newfoundland being charged exorbitant wheeling fees.

[Energy Industry, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. Premier Klein of Alberta originally indicated that his provincial government might interfere with the transportation of oil and gas from the north through Alberta to United States markets.

He has since said that the federal government holds the hammer when it comes to such issues. Will the Deputy Prime Minister clarify whether or not the federal government has such jurisdiction?