Loyola Hearn

[Education, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows as well as I do that a lot of that funding is not going where it is really needed, to help the young people.

Will the minister show leadership by convening a meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts, as well as affected aboriginal nations, to address post-secondary concerns? This way the problem can be addressed and we can ensure investment in our most valuable resource, our youth, not only for their good but for the good of the country.

[Education, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. With an aging population and greater health care demands, a smaller portion of CHST funding is going toward post-secondary education. Labs and buildings are deteriorating. Class sizes are doubling and in many cases tripling. Tuition fees and associated costs are becoming unmanageable.

In light of all his positive announcements, when will the minister address this glaring deficiency?

[Hockey, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for culture and heritage. The Minister of Industry has given government approval to sell the fabled Montreal Canadiens to a United States entrepreneur.

Despite assurances to keep the team in Canada for a short period, it is still a sale of one of Canada's most prized possessions. What message does this send to Canadian youth and Canadians generally? What could be more Canadian than les Canadiens de Montréal? Why can we not just sell the Minister of Industry instead?

[Mike Bullard Show, May 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, so King Jean has granted his subjects a rare public appearance on CTV's the Mike Bullard show. Unfortunately, however, the general public is barred from the studio audience, apparently for security reasons and because Mike and CTV do not want to make the king to feel uncomfortable.

These are extraordinary measures because this is not our average Canadian. This is King Jean. King Jean must be protected from his lowly Canadian subjects and, God forbid, a dangerous heckler.

Instead, Canadians tuning in to the Mike Bullard show tomorrow night will be treated to a studio audience full of friendly PMO Liberal staffers and friends of CTV. Well at least King Jean will be assured of a few laughs even if his subjects do not see the humour.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister of fisheries who administers the great lucrative shrimp resource off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister has a whole lineup of people looking for quotas. Does the minister not think that it is about time his department, and the government generally, said to those who are looking to us for such quotas “I will give you the resource provided you show me how you will create jobs onshore”?

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for ACOA. Since the moratorium hundreds of millions of dollars have been dumped into Atlantic Canada in fisheries diversification and Atlantic partnerships, a lot of it through the minister's department. However a lot of that money cannot be reinvested in the fishery, yet the fishery is the best job generator in Atlantic Canada.

Does the minister not think his department should probably look at investing more money in the fishery in research, in experimental equipment, in marketing, and I suppose—

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

From the fall of 1999 to the fall of 2000, viewers of CBC Newfoundland dropped by more than 50% over the evening news time slots. Will this be the excuse for CBC to eliminate local news programming and do through the back door what it was embarrassed to do through the front door?

Will the minister finally agree with the wishes of rural Canadians and tell CBC to return to its original news format, here and now?

[Housing, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say a few words on the issue.

A little less than a year ago, shortly after I was elected, I found myself in British Columbia with a colleague, Gilles Bernier, who was then my party's critic for the department. Mr. Bernier did a lot of work on this file and we became well aware of the major problem facing people in British Columbia. People in other provinces were affected as well, but certainly the crisis was in British Columbia.

A lot of people do not realize the magnitude of the problem. The building envelope failure or, as we call it, the leaky condo crisis, has led to at least 7,500 condo owners having to claim bankruptcy. That is 7,500 owners.

Average repair costs are over $21,000 per owner, a total loss of investment of almost $59,000 for the average owner. There are estimated to be almost 13,000 consumer bankruptcies as a direct result of the leaky condo crisis. The issue impacts about 70% of the districts in British Columbia. This is not an isolated case of a housing program in some community. It is a major concern to many people in the province of British Columbia.

In reaction to the leaky condo crisis the British Columbia government empowered the Barrett commission to make recommendations. Motion No. 293 which we are discussing seeks to implement at the federal level the spirit of recommendations 79 and 80 of the Barrett commission. Recommendation 79 states:

For purposes of reconstruction, all GST and PST, payable on qualified repairs and renovations, should be repealed. In this way, the owner/occupier is treated by taxation the same way as the owner/landlord.

Recommendation 80 states:

All GST and PST that has been paid on renovations should be refunded to homeowners.

The B.C. government has embraced the plan and eliminated the provincial sales tax from qualified repairs. However the federal government has repeatedly refused to remove the GST from leaky condo repairs although it has exempted new homes from the GST and does not tax certain luxury items. The government does not tax luxuries in some cases and yet it taxes misfortune. That is what is occurring here.

As I listened to the parliamentary secretary I was hit by a couple of the words he used. One was sympathetic. He said that the government was sympathetic to the problem in British Columbia and that it was giving it serious consideration. I ask the parliamentary secretary and the government: How many leaky condos can be repaired with sympathy or serious consideration?

The parliamentary secretary said that tax credits could not be used for relief in cases like this. The government of British Columbia found a way to use taxes to relieve the situation. If there is a will there is a way. The problem with the federal government is that the will is not there.

Yesterday in the House we had a debate about the cleanup of St. John's harbour. Let us talk about coincidence. The NDP member who spoke before me mentioned $27 million that the parliamentary secretary said had been given to British Columbia. That was very good of him but he did not say when it was given. The hon. member from the NDP, a British Columbia resident, said that it was in October of last year.

What happened in October? An election campaign was going on. Perhaps it is my devious mind but I wonder if the $27 million given to British Columbia, which the government bragged about as if it were $75 million, had anything to do with the election. At the same time the government promised Newfoundland $33 million to clean up St. John's harbour.

We saw what happened yesterday. The government said that there was infrastructure money but that it needed to pick and choose. It said nothing about the ordinary infrastructure agreement last October. It was a specific program.

Two things are becoming quite clear. First, the government has no will to do what it should be doing. Ways can be found to help the people of British Columbia. A very simple way is being recommended here this evening with this motion. However the government says that it will not do so because it does not have the will. There are ways to help but the government says that it will not do so.

This is no surprise to any of us. The people affected by this are going through severe trauma. Many of them are bankrupt or wondering how they will pay for the necessary repairs. What are we saying here in the House? The government says that it does not care. That is not the way it should be.

This evening we hope to convince the government to change its mind, agree with us on the motion and provide the people of British Columbia the assistance they not only need but deserve. There is a way if the government is willing.

[Infrastructure, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of Industry said that the cleanup of St. John's harbour would take all the infrastructure money allocated to the whole province. This is incorrect. The $100 million cost is to be spread over a five to ten year period.

The province has committed its one-third share. The municipalities have committed their one-third share. In light of this, will this environmentally conscious minister commit to the one-third share, $3 million to $6 million a year, to finish the job?

[Patent Act, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I agree with the hon. member's opening remarks that we are fundamentally different in many of our views. I suggest there is no one in the House perhaps more concerned about the plight of average citizens, of which I am one, than I am. As I mentioned earlier, I also know full well that to be able to assist those who need assistance somebody has to pay the bills. People say that government should do it, but from where does government get the money?

If there are people who because of illness, disabilities or whatever cannot contribute to the public coffers, it is our duty to make sure they get every benefit they deserve. The dollars needed to do that have to be generated by someone, and that someone has to be the private sector.

If government is conscious of what is happening we can have, as I said earlier, the best of both worlds.

The people who need help should get it, but those who are producers will be protected in a proper legislative framework. Also the people will be protected from any rip-offs. I think we have to be very conscious of that.