Fabian Manning

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we never have to worry about the egg when it is in the shell. It is when it is cracked, we have to be concerned.

I say in all honesty that I stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. With the Atlantic accord there was a misrepresentation. There is a misrepresentation happening here today because the Atlantic Accord is safe. The Atlantic accord is solid. The Atlantic accord will continue to reap benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Are the members opposite afraid that Newfoundland and Labrador will reap benefits under the Atlantic accord and be able to say to Ottawa to keep its equalization cheque? That is the question I ask the members opposite. Are they afraid that we can stand on our own two feet, or do they want us to be crawling to Ottawa all the time?

I do not want to be crawling all the time to Ottawa. That is why I hope at the end--

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great opportunity to stand today to make a few comments on the motion put forward by my colleague from across the House.

I will talk about the day I was in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, I was a member of the Williams government the day the Atlantic accord was signed and brought home. It was a great and very proud day in my province. I will speak about that in a few moments.

It was a hard fought campaign by everyone, including the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and other members from Newfoundland and Labrador on all sides of the House. They fought long and hard to have the Atlantic accord brought home. It was a great day and a credit to everybody involved, including people on that side of the House.

There are a few facts about the Atlantic accord, and I have a concern with the motion as it is worded. To remind everybody who may have forgot the wording of the motion, part of the of the motion states:

That this House regret that the party now forming the government has abandoned the principles respecting the Atlantic Accords...

The Conservatives have not abandoned the principles respecting the Atlantic accord, and I will explain why. During the campaign, and in discussions in the past couple of months, the decision was made that we would try to come together across the country to fix the fiscal imbalance. For two decades, parties on all sides had been talking about it, but the party on this side of the House said that it would try to do something about it.

We opted to take into consideration the recommendations by an independent panel, referred to by most as the O'Brien report. If we remember, that report called for a cap to be put on the payments of revenues going to each province. In budget 2007 there is no cap on the revenues coming from the Atlantic accord. I do not know how many times we have to say it on this side of the House. A cap does not exist on the Atlantic accord.

For the next number of years, there will be no clawback in any way on the Atlantic accord in Newfoundland and Labrador. One hundred per cent of the revenues that are generated from its oil and gas offshore will go into the coffers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

If in 2010-11 or 2011-12 Newfoundland and Labrador is still on equalization, the Atlantic accord then extends out to 2020. This is the concern that we raised as members on this side of the House. I was very surprised, knowing full well that this debate was ongoing in my province and in Canada with regard to the fiscal imbalance, that not a question was raised by the members from Newfoundland and Labrador in the House, regarding what the plan was or if a solution would be put forward to the concerns raised in our province.

On this side of the House, myself and my two colleagues continuously raised the concern about the issue with the Atlantic accord. We made sure that a cap was not put in place and that the benefits of the Atlantic accord would continue to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me talk for a minute about the concerns of fiscal imbalance. The Liberals and the Leader of the Opposition do not even recognize that there was and still is a fiscal imbalance in the country. I will read a couple of statements made by the Leader of the Opposition.

First, on January 22, the Leader of the Opposition said:

I don't think there is a fiscal imbalance...Every province...is arguing it gets shortchanged by Ottawa in one way or another, and it would be difficult to make “all the premiers smile”.

There is no doubt about that.

On January 17, in the Canadian Press he said:

Don't ask me to pretend there is a fiscal imbalance and elect me and (hope) I will fix it. I don't want to create these kinds of expectations.

He also said, “We should say that a province that does not receive equalization payments should not see, with its money, another province become richer than it. You need to have a ceiling, a kind of safety net that will protect Ontario”.

These are not my words. They are the words of the Leader of the Opposition.

The government decided against the recommendation in the O'Brien report to put a cap on the Atlantic accords and we gave Newfoundland and Labrador another option that the rest of the country would not have under this new equalization program. That option is to stay with the Atlantic accord, receive no clawback and that could extend until 2020. That is the concern we have on this side of the House.

I just want to go back and talk about the Atlantic accord once again. When the accord offset agreement was negotiated, the province and the federal government agreed to an expiry date, which will come, as I mentioned earlier, as soon as 2011-12 or as late as 2020, depending on whether Newfoundland and Labrador is still entitled to receive equalization in 2011-12. That is my concern and the bone of contention I guess that has been raised, and it concerns the level of equalization payment we receive.

I was in a hotel ballroom in 1985 when the original Atlantic accord was signed. It was a proud day in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said earlier, I was also involved and part of the government of Newfoundland and Labrador when the Atlantic accord was signed, another proud day in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, I say with all sincerity that I will be prouder than I have ever been before if I could stand in this House here or stand anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador and say that we are off equalization, that our province does not need equalization anymore, and that Ottawa can keep the cheque.

That is the goal that we should all be working toward, not creating the divisions that we are creating here, but working toward the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, and any other province that receives equalization can stand up someday, sooner than later, and say they do not need the cheque from Ottawa.

We have the opportunity to do that in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the opportunity to do that through developments like: the Lower Churchill, Hebron, Hibernia extensions, a second oil refinery, the fishery, major mineral potential throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and untapped tourism.

In order for these to work, in order for these industries to grow, so that we can take in the revenue from them and not be dependent on equalization, we need cooperation between the federal government and the provincial government. We need cost share programs that get these projects off the ground, that put the money into Newfoundland and Labrador, so we can reap the benefit from it, so that the sons and the daughters of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not on planes going to Fort McMurray and other parts of this country. We need them to stay in Newfoundland, continue to work in Newfoundland, and continue to generate the revenue that we need in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we should all be working toward.

We have many opportunities here. I would like to be able to stand in this House and be proud of the fact that we can tell Ottawa that we do not need its cheques anymore. The reason why Newfoundland and Labrador and many of the other provinces are still living in the world of a fiscal imbalance is because for a decade or more, the transfers to Newfoundland and Labrador were gutted by the former government. Health care, education, social assistance, all of these were gutted. Therefore, it created a fiscal imbalance in our province from which we are still trying to crawl out.

We have the opportunity here through the Atlantic accord to continue taking 100% of our oil and gas revenues and putting them into the coffers of Newfoundland and Labrador. By doing that until 2011-12, or until 2020, we will have a day in Newfoundland and Labrador when we can say to Ottawa, “Keep the cheque, we do not need it, we are off the equalization, standing on our own two feet. We are proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we do not need the help anymore”.

That is the goal that all members on both sides of this House and in both levels of government, whether it is here in Ottawa or it is Newfoundland and Labrador, should be working toward because then the whole question is answered because then we are standing on our own two feet.

I hope that by working together with all members here that we can continue to do that and then equalization cheques can stay in Ottawa. We can stand on our own two feet in Newfoundland and Labrador and be the proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we continue to be.

[Fisheries Act, 2007, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Fisheries Act is 139 years old and needs to be updated. Our government has put forward changes to the act. However, last Friday the new Liberal fisheries critic, who promised to be constructive, moved a six month hoist amendment. He said it was to allow for more consultations on the new fisheries act.

I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to tell this House what actually happens if this hoist amendment is adopted.

[Ocean Ranger, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago today, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada were awakened to the tragic news of the worst offshore accident in Canadian history.

In the early hours on February 15, 1982, during a major storm that brought 100 knot winds and 65 foot waves, the offshore drilling rig the Ocean Ranger sank beneath the waves. All 84 crew members lost their lives that fateful morning and the families and friends and communities of our province were changed forever. It was indeed a dark, sombre day in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today we stand in the House, from coast to coast to coast, and remember those brave pioneers of our oil and gas industry and express our sympathies and prayers to the loved ones who were left behind. Brave men is what they were, those who faced the icy winds, knowing as they left those sheltered coves that they may never return again.

May their souls rest in peace.

[From an Island to an Island, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to one of Newfoundland and Labrador's greatest ambassadors, award winning recording artist Mr. Kevin Collins.

Born in Placentia, Kevin began singing at the age of six, having been influenced by a musical family, including his grandmother, Agnes Tobin Collins, and his dad, Tony Collins. Kevin has released 12 albums and has won several music industry awards, including songwriter of the year award in Ireland.

Kevin has recorded a song composed by our own current federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and entitled From An Island To An Island, describing the strong connection between Ireland and Newfoundland. It has become one of our province's signature songs and became an instant success in Ireland.

Kevin has toured Canada and Ireland and his music is currently played on radio stations all across Europe. Kevin Collins continues to live by his motto, “Newfoundland is a place where hospitality and friendship are not a business, but rather a way of life”.

We extend congratulations to Kevin and wish him the best of luck in the future. He makes all of us proud.

[Autism Spectrum Disorder, November 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join colleagues on all sides of the House and speak in support of Motion No. 172.

The issue of autism spectrum disorder is indeed an urgent problem that we all have to face. In the past six years the number of children with ASD has grown by more than 150%. While I stand here today in Ottawa in the House of Commons my mind goes back to my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed my own riding, where a few years ago I had the opportunity to meet a young boy by the name of Craig Walsh in a community called North Harbour in St. Mary's Bay in my riding.

Craig suffers from autism and he certainly opened my eyes to the challenges that he faces as a young person in society. He also opened my eyes to the challenges that his parents face and the community as a whole.

The reason we are here today and have the motion before us encompasses all those aspects of autism. Motion No. 172 addresses the concerns of the children themselves and hopefully the health care that is needed will be provided. It raises the concerns of the parents. As speakers before me have touched on here this morning, it raises how important it is that we as parliamentarians support the efforts of the parents of autistic children.

We stand here shoulder to shoulder giving the parents the tools and the research that they will need and indeed anything that we can do to make their life somewhat easier. We must also realize that their children too are an important part of our society. Their children need whatever we as parliamentarians can put forward. That is what we look forward to doing here today.

The fact that we are discussing this important topic in the House also gives us an opportunity to put autism on the front burner in the minds of Canadians from coast to coast. We have to address the concerns that Canadians have and also let the communities understand the importance of providing the proper assistance, funding and mechanisms that these children need and that these families need to address this very important concern.

It is estimated that anywhere from one out of 165 to one out of 200 children are now affected by autism and the numbers are growing. Autism spectrum disorders affect people in different ways and cause serious developmental disabilities in affected individuals and can affect all aspects of development. Each person with ASD will have different abilities, with symptoms ranging from mild to severe. Severe symptoms, such as compulsive behaviour and speech disorders can lead to isolation from friends, family and the community.

I congratulate the member for Fredericton for putting this motion forward. I have followed his work over the past couple of years. As previous members have said, this is not about politics. This is about children and their families. I congratulate the member for putting forward this motion and for giving us an opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder in support of this very important aspect of life in Canada today.

I mentioned the isolation from friends, family and community. As we go through our daily lives, healthy and secure, we are always concerned about isolation ourselves from time to time. When I arrived in Ottawa less than a year ago to a much larger political atmosphere than I was used to in Newfoundland and Labrador, I was concerned about isolation. We have all the ingredients here to learn from each other and become educated.

Then we look at the children who are afflicted with autism and we wonder about the isolation they suffer. We wonder about the isolation that their parents experience. We can assist today and begin down the road to making sure that these children and their families become inclusive in our communities, our schools and indeed, society as a whole.

Canadian families with children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders face serious challenges. They face the challenges of their child's development, behavioural issues and getting a clear diagnosis. I mentioned the young boy from Newfoundland, Craig Walsh. I have talked to his mom, Sherry, on several occasions about the diagnosis of children and the access to professional assistance. I certainly heard from that mother about her concern not only for her own child, but indeed, all children with autism. Professional assistance is what they ask for. I hope through Motion No. 172 that professional assistance will be on the way.

The cost of therapy and other services is an important issue, especially to parents of children with autism. I have heard the concern raised by parents back home about the fairness of making sure that these professional services, therapy and any other services are available to each and every child and that each and every child has the opportunity to avail himself or herself of those services.

The amended motion recognizes the challenges that many families face and suggests a comprehensive approach to addressing their needs. Once again, I am delighted that the member for Fredericton has accepted the amendments to the motion.

On November 21 the hon. Minister of Health announced a package of initiatives to improve knowledge and research on ASDs and to help children and families. In addition to the measures already undertaken, the federal government intends to sponsor an ASD stakeholders' symposium in 2007 to further the development of ASD knowledge and dissemination of information among health care professionals, researchers, community groups, teachers, individuals and family members.

The federal government intends to begin exploring the establishment of a research chair focusing on effective treatment and intervention for ASD. The federal government intends to launch a consultation process on the feasibility of studying and developing an ASD surveillance program through the Public Health Agency of Canada to help shape appropriate ASD programming and research.

We also intend to create a dedicated page on the Health Canada website to guide the public to ASD information. We also plan, with the help of the policy branch of Health Canada, to coordinate all actions related to ASD taken by the health portfolio in the future.

It is important that Canadians be educated about autism. It is important that we understand the concerns of parents, caregivers and health care professionals themselves. Just a few moments ago teachers were mentioned. I realize the challenges in the schools system. Hopefully, by our actions here today through Motion No. 172 we can begin to address some of these concerns.

There is no doubt that we all feel concerns for--

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, over the past weeks Canadians have been subjected to accusations and constant warnings that time is running out on the fish stocks, and that a UN resolution banning bottom trawling on the high seas was the only way to protect vulnerable ecosystems and that Canada was blocking it.

I was surprised at the criticism given Canada's strong stance in protecting vulnerable marine ecosystems at NAFO. Would the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans please tell the House, and all Canadians, how this has been resolved at the UN?

[National Defence, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month Liberal Senator Colin Kenny called for the closure of Canadian Forces Base Goose Bay located in Newfoundland and Labrador. Was this the secret Liberal agenda all along?

Then just last week Liberal Senator George Baker stated:

If the Senate committee had any brains at all, which they don't, they should have suggested the closure of Bagotville, Quebec. But I'll bet you that they'll never recommend the closure of a base in Quebec, although it makes all the sense in the world.

Can the Minister of National Defence inform the House as to the status of the above mentioned bases and whether or not he will be taking advice from the Liberals who want to close these bases?

[Canadian Forces, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday evening, September 30, Corporal Keith Mooney of St. Mary's, Newfoundland, received a hero's welcome in his hometown on his triumphant return from Afghanistan. A large motorcade, followed by a packed community hall, welcomed Corporal Mooney back to his roots in St. Mary's Bay.

Recovering from severe shrapnel wounds, Corporal Mooney spoke to the people about his experience and about his comrades who had died in an effort to bring peace and democracy to that faraway land. He told us about the success of our Canadian soldiers and the all important difference they are making in that wartorn country, especially in the lives of the children.

While he was delighted to be home again, Corporal Mooney said that if a request came for him to return to Afghanistan tomorrow, he would do so in a heartbeat.

They are winning the fight and our continued support is needed.

When given the opportunity to speak, I thanked Corporal Mooney and his comrades and assured him that the military has the government's 100% support for this mission.

Corporal Keith Mooney's family and community are proud of him. His country and his government is proud of him. God bless him and we welcome him home.

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member across the way as he gave his speech and made his comments. Certainly, I am not surprised that he is supporting the bill that has been put forward in the House. This is a good bill and it is part of our strategy as a new government to fix some of the wrongs of the past. I look forward to more progressive legislation coming forward in the House.

I want to ask the member a question in relation to fixed election dates. The member talked about different issues in his constituency and the concerns he had. When the member talks with his constituents, does he feel that they would like to see fixed election dates and this legislation passed? What feedback is the member receiving from his constituents?

When I talk with my constituents, they want to see fixed election dates. Many of them think that having five elections in seven years is a waste of taxpayer dollars. People look at this as playing games.

What feedback is the member getting from his own riding? Is that the type of feedback he is getting? Is that why he is here today supporting the bill and hoping to see the bill pass in the House?