Daniel James Macdonnell HEAP

HEAP, Daniel James Macdonnell, B.A., B.D.

Personal Data

Party
New Democratic Party
Constituency
Trinity--Spadina (Ontario)
Birth Date
September 24, 1925
Deceased Date
April 25, 2014
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Heap
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=a03c4e49-6a3d-4810-831e-4e694d169628&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
priest, printer, worker

Parliamentary Career

August 17, 1981 - July 9, 1984
NDP
  Spadina (Ontario)
September 4, 1984 - October 1, 1988
NDP
  Spadina (Ontario)
November 21, 1988 - September 8, 1993
NDP
  Trinity--Spadina (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 376)


June 14, 1993

Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Amnesty International's update report of June 1993 entitled "Mexico: The Persistence of Torture and Impunity" which I sent to the minister this morning states: "The Mexican government has repeatedly promised to defend human rights and to punish those who violate them. Yet torture is still widespread and to the knowledge of Amnesty International nobody has yet been sentenced for the crime of torture in Mexico".

My question to the minister is this. What action has the minister taken to insist that Canada's proposed partner in the North American free trade agreement begin to enforce the human rights principles that President Salinas has claimed to uphold for five years?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Full View Permalink

June 14, 1993

Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity -Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this motion. In spite of the interjections of the hon. minister I believe it is an unwise motion for all concerned within Canada, but most of all for the people most directly concerned.

It is a motion to spend about $1.5 billion over 35 years to build a bridge from New Brunswick across the Northumberland Straits to Prince Edward Island. While we have heard arguments in favour of it, I believe there are two serious arguments against it.

The first argument is the inadequately studied effect on the environment. Yes, there have been many studies. By the law passed by this government there is the environmental assessment and review process that looked at the other studies. About 150 people spoke to the matter and gave many points of view. They were from the Island mainly, but from elsewhere also. The conclusion was that the idea of a bridge-not a particular bridge but a bridge idea-should not be approved at this time.

The point of the government setting up an environmental review process was to have that sort of thing heard. I mentioned that 150 people spoke but I believe ten times that many attended. The environmental review process had to take all those points of view into account.

Some of the points made by the environmental review process were that there was risk of damaging the near shore spawning grounds. Also there was a general feeling it could be incompatible with sustainable development. There were difficulties in finding socially acceptable solutions for the displaced ferry workers and fishermen, and I will come back to that.

Government Orders

There was concern generally that not enough attention had been given to the environmental impact on the Island, even on how tourism might be affected by the bridge. My colleague from Sault Ste. Marie mentioned the opinions expressed by Islanders, including business people as to what the bridge might do to tourism.

We have heard about the benefits of putting a community in communication. It has often been found in Ontario and also out west that it works two ways. Communication, travel or information can bring activity to a community, or it can suck activity out of a community. The concern was that it was not at all clear which way the bridge as contrasted with the ferry might affect Prince Edward Island.

Those are only some of the environmental concerns but they are very serious ones.

There has been a great deal of discussion over the past decade or longer about the fisheries off the Atlantic coast particularly off Newfoundland. The argument continues as to where the cod went. We should at least take warning that if we do not seriously consider the possibility that these sources may be destroyed perhaps forever, we could be very sorry later on.

This brings me to the second argument. A number of the Islanders who are very directly concerned, particularly the ferry workers and fishermen, oppose this project.

We heard about jobs. Somebody has estimated 1,000 jobs. Well 700 jobs stand to be in danger. Whether there is any sure basis for 1,000 construction jobs has not been made clear. We know the company doing this project is foreign based. From experience we can expect that it will do its best to make sure most of the profit and if possible most of the jobs go to the United States or Britain where that company is based.

We have often been disappointed by rose coloured prospects of jobs from foreign investments that turned out the other way. They sucked jobs out of the country instead of putting jobs in the country. To drop 700 ferry jobs for an unknown number of construction jobs may not be wise. That is 700 jobs per year for the ferry crews contrasted with an unknown number of construction jobs per year over the next 35 years and unknown indirect effects on jobs and businesses on the Island itself. Perhaps more jobs will be gained, perhaps not.

June 14, 1993

Government Orders

Therefore I support the motion of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie that clause 4 of the bill be deleted. That is the clause by which Parliament gives up all concern for any effect of this bridge on employment, the environment, or anything else. It simply says the government can sign a contract with a company and that is it.

In particular, clause 4 indicates: "The minister may on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada enter into one or more agreements in respect of the crossing. These agreements entered into under this section may include (a) provisions respecting the design, maintenance, financing, development, construction and operation of the crossing''. In other words, from now on Parliament will have nothing to say about any of those important matters.

Clause 4 continues: "(b) undertakings in relation to industrial and employment benefits"-a pig in a poke-"(c) provisions respecting the tolls, fees or other charges that may be imposed in respect of the crossing". In other words, we do not know what this bridge is going to cost Islanders in terms of prices of products to be brought across the bridge instead of being brought as now by the guaranteed ferry service.

It is unfortunate that many of the other amendments were ruled out of order, but I can understand that clause seems to have that effect. I hope members will delete that clause to at least leave open the possibility of looking at various matters that have not as yet been looked at, such as halting the proceedings until the Friends of the Island court case has been completed.

This morning an hon. member for the Liberal Party referred to the problem of delay that can be caused by a court case. It is better to look at it first rather than afterward. There is the uncertainty of the constitutional amendment that has not been passed. Another matter is asking the National Transportation Agency to show what the cost of the ferry will be as compared to the cost of the subsidy for the new bridge.

A number of other matters should be considered by this House not only because of the cost of $1.5 billion that will be laid upon the whole of Canada, but also the benefits that should be secured.

For example, there should be a plan for re-employment of at least half of the ferry workers. There should

be a plan to deal with the ice problem, so that it does not destroy the fisheries. We cannot rely on SCI, a foreign corporation, to take care of those things adequately. It is not clear that the government will negotiate them adequately. Therefore Parliament should have the opportunity to speak and decide on those points.

While I recognize that quite possibly a majority of the people on the Island are in favour of this, there is a minority who are against it. There are times when the minority has been right. The minority voice should be heard, especially when it affects far more than just the people on Prince Edward Island.

I hope the government will reconsider this bill and at least allow this amendment which opens the way for bringing back those vital concerns I have mentioned.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CROSSING ACT
Full View Permalink

June 14, 1993

Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):

Madam Speaker, still the sentences are at zero after five years of promises like the one we have heard.

My supplementary is for the Minister of International Trade. Since this government signed the North American free trade agreement, giving up some of Canada's sovereign control over our natural resources and our trade to a North American administration shared with the government of Mexico, is this government aware of the continued widespread, unpunished human rights violations by Mexico's police since President Salinas took office five years ago? These are violations of the rights of peasants, trade union members, journalists and opposition politicians. How does the minister condone by silence in his negotiations the brutal practice of oppression by the Salinas government and how can the minister assure this House that we-

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Full View Permalink

June 14, 1993

Mr. Heap:

Yes. The question is how these unfree workers and unfree peasants of Mexico are now being forced to provide unfair competition to Canadians.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   HUMAN RIGHTS
Full View Permalink

June 10, 1993

Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, I may not take the 10 minutes because what I have to say is fairly simple.

First I want to commend members on all sides of this House who have done a very large amount of work on this bill. As has been agreed on all sides, it could be better but it is best for it to go through now and it can be improved in further years.

There is a great weight of evidence that has been brought forward in the committee and sampled in the House about the need for Bill C-126 to defend against stalking. I admit that I was surprised at first at the expressed need for this bill although it is clear enough even from the daily newspapers and from phone calls to my office that something like this is needed. I asked myself if this was a change or if this something that was not needed before. I would say that it is not entirely so.

In the past, domestic violence, as it was often classified, was very rarely a subject of a court action and very rarely punished. The attitude was that it would be handled within the family. Many women in the past

June 10, 1993

spent more time within what was called the home and if there was violence there the police and the courts rarely intervened. Also for obvious reasons, in the past, women may not have complained when they perhaps in hindsight had reason to complain. What has happened in part is that a situation has been brought to light and brought to Parliament and Parliament has begun to deal with it in this act.

There is a further reason why this law should be coming now rather than 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. There has been a change and it is the rising status of women in the Canadian economy, society and politics. This includes Parliament. There are more women now in the work force.

So they are out. They are in one sense more exposed or more vulnerable to such a thing as stalking. On the other hand, the stalking becomes more visible and more obvious and more capable of being dealt with than perhaps it was before.

More women are now able in one way or another to act without their husbands. For example, when my wife and I were married in Quebec in 1950 we were advised by a friendly lawyer to get a marriage contract.

Otherwise by the then Quebec laws my wife would be considered a minor even though she is the same age as I am. She would pass from the tutelage of her father to the tutelage of her husband. She would not be able to sign a cheque if somebody challenged the fact that it was the signature of a minor, let alone conduct business or own property.

Although we had no money I was persuaded to settle a vast amount of money and property on her so that if she ever had to act alone she would have a sound legal basis for doing it under the 1950 laws in Quebec. Of course those laws have been long since repealed. They have been replaced with much more modem laws.

That is part of the change in our society. I remember about 35 years ago when a work mate-a man working in the factory where I then worked-remarked that it was too bad that a woman can just walk out of the house and leave her husband and get a job. Clearly he felt that the old days were better when she was forced to stay home in order to eat because she could not get a job as there were

Government Orders

not that many jobs for women. In the then modem circumstances of the late 1950s there were so many jobs that a woman could just leave her husband and walk out. My friend thought that was really quite terrible. I think he has updated his ideas since then. He and his wife are both together but I do not think he would say now what he said then.

I have given some extreme examples. What has been happening is that men at the present time tend to resent the fact of women attaining equality before the law, in employment, in social status and in social positions. I do not say that they have attained complete equality-far from it-but they have been moving up. Some men find that very hard to take. I

I want to say that it is a good law because it reflects a change for the better in our society. I do not mean the stalking is better but it is the change that has brought the stalking either into the light or into greater prominence. The rise in the status of women is in itself a good change.

This law will enable that change to go further still. I congratulate those especially on the committee from all parties who have worked on this law. I look forward to it being very useful to the people in Trinity-Spadina and to those in the rest of Canada.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CRIMINAL CODE
Full View Permalink