Ryan Cleary

[The Budget, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the latest Conservative budget is not a good one for Newfoundland and Labrador. With yet more cuts to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, at this point Conservatives are amputating bone. There is no more meat within DFO to cut. I will come back to that in a moment. The Conservatives are charging tax on hospital parking. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are already vicious with the fact that they are being charged to park outside hospitals, in other words, charged to see their doctors. By increasing the age of eligibility for old age security to 67 from 65, this budget is not a good one for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not good for the fisheries. It is not good for the sick. It is not good for their families. It is not good for seniors.

It is not good for first nations. Workfare is to be introduced in this budget whereby aboriginal youth will be forced to work for their benefits. At the same time, post-secondary funding for aboriginal youth does not come close to meeting the need. This budget is also not good for the unemployed. The Conservatives are following through on their EI changes that punish workers by forcing them to take lower paying jobs or jobs outside of their communities, outside of their outports.

This budget is not good for the vast majority of students. There is nothing in the budget to tackle crippling student debt. The average federal student debt load stands at $28,000. There is a problem in this country with accessibility and affordability of post-secondary education from one province to the next, and there is nothing in this budget to address that.

This budget is not good for the vast majority of young Canadians. There are 240,000 more young Canadians unemployed today than there were before the recession. All this budget does for youth job creation is to re-announce $70 million in funding over three years for 5,000 internships. That is a start, but, again, it skims the surface of the actual need.

Closer to home, there is nothing in the Conservative budget to offset the 4% increase to Marine Atlantic fares that is due to come into effect on April 1. If that does not amount to a tax increase for all of Newfoundland and Labrador, I do not know what does. News flash for the Conservatives: Newfoundland is an island, and when the ferry rates are increased the cost of everything eventually goes up.

There is barely a mention of Labrador in the budget. The one mention there was for an old jobs program. For Conservatives, and I said this last week during question period, Labrador is just a place to pull puppet strings. If Labrador cannot get a decent mention in a federal budget that is released on the eve of a federal byelection in Labrador, well, Labrador will never get anything. Conservatives seem more preoccupied with winning the Labrador seat than actually doing something concrete for Labrador.

I also mentioned last week that back home they are saying “you either do it the right way, or the Penashue”. Conservatives choose to cheat Labradorians out of fair representation. That is the Penashue, and Conservatives defend it at every turn.

The Atlantic caucus of the New Democratic Party was in Labrador West this past fall. One of the chief concerns we heard in Labrador West was the desperate need for affordable housing. The mining industry, iron ore specifically, is doing very well but the vacancy rate is almost zero. The local college offers a mining course that practically guarantees employment, but classes are not full because there is no place for students to live. We heard stories about how women remain in abusive relationships because there is nowhere else for them to go.

There is nothing in the Conservative budget that tackles the national housing crisis in any real way. The Conservative government is investing $253 million in affordable housing, but that does nothing to address the lack of affordable housing in Canada through a national housing strategy. Throwing money at the provinces in the absence of a national plan is irresponsible. It makes no sense.

I should have said at the start that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

I stood in the House in February to address the need for a national housing strategy, to talk about Labrador's needs and to talk about housing needs in the northeast Avalon peninsula in Newfoundland. What did every Conservative member, including Peter Penashue, do? They voted against a national housing strategy.

There is nothing in the budget for the people of Labrador. Let me reiterate. If Labrador cannot get anything substantive from a federal budget that is released on the eve of a federal byelection in Labrador, from what would seem to be an election budget for Labrador, then it will never get anything from the Conservative government. Newfoundland and Labrador MPs are supposed to represent Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa. They are not supposed to represent Ottawa in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the Penashue way. That is not the right way. It is not the New Democratic way.

I mentioned DFO earlier in my speech. Newfoundland and Labrador may not be the great fishing epicentre that it once was. The Grand Banks of Newfoundland may not be what they once were, but that does not mean the Government of Canada should walk away from the responsibility for our fisheries that it took over when Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949. However, that is what is happening. The latest cut has the Conservative government slashing the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans' budget by $108 million over six years. There is talk that regional headquarters, like the one in St. John's, Newfoundland, could close.

I would like to quote from the budget:

To complement these savings, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will also improve regional program efficiency by reducing management overhead and consolidating decision-making authority.

Does that say directly that regional offices will close? No, the wording never does, but the writing most definitely appears on the wall.

I also mentioned hospital parking earlier in my speech. This budget would require GST and HST be paid on all hospital parking. Currently, public sector bodies are exempt; the change would make parking spaces or facilities operated by a municipality or hospital taxable. Canadians, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians see the parking fees, which are most definitely destined to increase, as a financial barrier to health care. The Conservative government is going to charge people to see their doctors. That is what this would amount to. It is going to charge people for medical treatment. That is what this would amount to.

Let me sum up all the people that the Conservative government is leaving behind or so arrogantly neglecting in this budget: Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first; Labrador, or the big land, in particular; seniors; students; young people; first nations; low-income Canadians and fishermen.

Labradorians are lucky in a way. As I mentioned, a byelection will be called there soon, a byelection in which the people of Labrador will have an opportunity to send the message to the Conservatives that their way of governing by dictating from Ottawa, without a moral compass, is unacceptable. All Canadians should be so lucky to have that voting opportunity, because the Conservatives would find themselves out of office here and now and we would not have to wait two more long years.

[Ethics, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the seal hunt, the biggest collapse of the world's seal market, has happened under the Conservative government's watch.

The fact of the matter is that this man, Penashue, broke the law. He cheated. As his time as an MP was coming to an end, Conservatives used his ministerial position to make a government announcement and gain an unfair advantage. He started a website and took out a full page ad, all before he resigned.

Why is the Prime Minister standing with a man who cheated, who broke the law and who abandoned any pretence?

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Labrador has been all over the national news lately. Unfortunately for Labradorians, none of it has been good. Back home, they are saying one can either do it the right way or the Penashue.

To make matters worse, Labradorians were also stiffed in yesterday's budget. Labrador was only mentioned once, and that was for an old jobs program. For Conservatives, Labrador is just a place to pull puppet strings.

Why was the big land forgotten in yesterday's budget?

[Natural Resources, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as of last week there was a vacancy on the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

Reg Bowers, former campaign manager for Peter Penashue, resigned from the C-NLOPB just hours after Penashue stepped down as MP. With the vacancy, I am sure the Conservative puppet masters are waiting patiently until they can make their next appointment.

This time can the minister at least promise, and I ask this on behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that the next patronage appointment will not be an inexperienced volunteer?

[Natural Resources, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is fall for the Conservatives.

As of last week, there is a vacancy on the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board—

[Ethics, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Peter Penashue has done everything he can to get a leg-up for his re-election campaign, even if it means cheating, even if it means breaking the rules. He used his ministerial office to make spending announcements. He gave himself an unfair advantage. He started campaigning before he even resigned. He is using the power of incumbency, which he only has because he cheated last time.

Labradorians can see through Conservative talking points. How can they trust anything Conservatives say when Conservatives are willing to say anything to give Peter Penashue an unfair advantage?

[Intergovernmental Affairs, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let us see if we have this straight, because people are still shaking their heads.

On one hand, Conservatives are sending EI inspectors to people's homes to spy on them to check up on how many résumés they are sending out each week. On the other hand, Conservatives are taking away a $2-billion transfer to the provinces, a transfer that helps people get back to work, to retrain, and to re-enter the workforce.

Why can Conservatives not see that unemployed Canadians need new skills to find a job more than they need Big Brother spying on them?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to take the hon. member seriously when he stands and asks a question about the Senate. Every time he asks a question about the Senate, I see it as the hon. member defending the old boys' club of the Senate, the Liberal appointees. I do not only hear the hon. member speaking; I hear him speaking on behalf of his old boys' network. It is the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party protecting their friends. That is what I hear. I find it hard to take any question that he asks seriously.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I would also ask the hon. member to please listen to my answer. He said at the beginning of his question that the Conservatives listened “somewhat”. The problem with the Conservatives is the fact that they listen somewhat. They do not listen like they should to everything that is being said.

I did not hear a question from the hon. member, so I have nothing to respond to. As the member is only listening somewhat, I will repeat again: first things first, abolish the Senate, and then democratic reform.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of today's motion that immediate steps be taken toward abolishing the Senate, tabled by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

One of the debates in this country involving the Senate that I followed as a young journalist covering former Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Clyde Wells in the 1990s was the debate over whether the upper chamber should be reformed into a triple-E model, as in elected, equal and effective, a triple-E Senate.

Today, there is no debate that the upper chamber has become a triple-U Senate, as in unaccountable, unelected and unapologetic.

We should abolish it. There is no alternative. The Senate is too far gone to save. It has become a gated country club, a political pasture and a golden handshake for friends of the Conservative and Liberal parties for fundraisers, for partisans and for failed politicians. The senators do the bidding of the parties they represent. They are unelected. They are unaccountable to the people. They are unapologetic for the embarrassment they have become.

Yes, the Senate is an embarrassment, an embarrassment to Canadians from one end of this country to the other. It is an embarrassment to real Canadian politicians like the elected members of Parliament in the House today.

I have no excuses for the Mike Duffys of this country who take months to figure out exactly where they live. What a joke and an embarrassment.

To quote Michael Bliss, a professor and historian at the University of Toronto:

This is a classic case of Canadians discovering that senators have no clothes.... They've turned themselves into our daily comic relief segment of politics.

I was a journalist in my previous life. I have no defence for Mike Duffy or Pamela Wallin. Wallin is supposed to represent Saskatchewan, but her primary residence is in Toronto and she holds an Ontario health insurance card. I personally find the Duffy and Wallin cases particularly appalling. Journalists should know better, when we spend our working lives holding politicians to account. It is bred into us. We instinctively know where the line is that must not be crossed, and it has most definitely been crossed.

Then there is Senator Patrick Brazeau. If it was not bad enough that he is facing allegations of abuse of his housing allowance, there have also been sexual assault complaints lodged against him.

The embarrassment has become constant. The embarrassment is daily.

The scandal over senatorial housing allowances has led the Senate to seek legal advice that says that as long as senators sign a declaration of qualification form that says they reside where they reside, then it is okay. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay stood in the House yesterday and equated that declaration to a pinkie swear.

In my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there is Senator Fabian Manning. He was a member of Parliament. He lost his seat. He was appointed to the Senate. Then he was cherry-picked for the 2011 federal election to run again for the Conservatives in the federal riding of Avalon. Manning lost again. Then he was appointed to the Senate again. We have a senator who was rejected by the people, not once but twice, speaking on behalf of the Conservative government all over my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl. Is Senator Manning supposed to be Newfoundland and Labrador's voice? He is not. We are supposed to represent Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa. We are not supposed to be representatives of Ottawa in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not the way it is supposed to work.

Senators are held to one level of account; Canadians are held to another level of account. For example, EI claimants have investigators knocking down their doors, while senators hide behind their doors; that is, if their doors can be found.

The budget of the Canadian Senate is $92.5 million a year. Most Canadians cannot even fathom that much money. Let me bring this home. Senator Wallin's $350,000 in travel expenses would cover old age security for 57 seniors a year. Mike Duffy is eligible to collect another $1.3 million in salary before his mandatory retirement at the age of 75. Patrick Brazeau will bring in another $7 million in salary before he turns 75.

These are basically jobs for life. Well, they are not really jobs for life, but salaries for life. The average number of work days in 2011 and 2012 for a Canadian senator was 56 days, with an annual salary, as has been said before, of $132,000 a year plus living expenses, for a job, I am sorry, for a salary, that they will continue to receive until they are 75.

They do not have to run for election. They are not accountable to anyone. They do not have to apologize to anyone when they fleece the taxpayer. The Senate absolutely should be abolished.

Senators vote according to the interests of the parties they represent, as I mentioned earlier, rather than the regions they are supposed to represent. However, the Senate was created as a chamber of sober second thought. It was created to offset the representation by population in the House of Commons. Again, it was envisioned that senators would vote according to the region they represented, to offset representation by population.

Small provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, have seven seats in the House of Commons. Small provinces like Prince Edward Island have five seats in the House of Commons. Altogether, the Atlantic provinces have 32 seats. Then, we have provinces like Quebec that has 75 seats, and Ontario with 106 seats. The bigger provinces with the larger populations obviously have more seats in the House of Commons, and those totals are destined to increase. The number of seats in the House of Commons will rise by 30 in the 2015 general election. Quebec, Ontario, B.C. and Alberta will all see their number of seats increase. Meanwhile, provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador and the three maritime provinces will not see any increase. Our representation will be watered down.

The point that I am getting to is that while I agree with the abolition of the Senate 100%, there is a bigger debate taking shape in this country over the need for democratic reform. Let me cut to the chase.

How does a smaller province like Newfoundland and Labrador, with a population of 514,000 people, half the population of Ottawa, ensure we have an equal seat at the confederation table with larger provinces like Ontario and Quebec that have more representation because they have larger populations? How do we ensure that the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador are heard and acted upon?

This week, in my province, we have news that three more groundfish plants will be shut down, throwing 300 rural Newfoundlanders out of work. It has been more than 20 years after the northern cod moratorium, and there is still no recovery plan in place. Ottawa's handling of the fisheries has been a disgrace and an affront to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Again, how do we ensure that smaller provinces have an equal seat at the confederation table? From Newfoundland and Labrador's perspective, and from the perspective of smaller provinces across the country, that is the debate that must happen. That is a debate that is destined to happen.

The Senate absolutely must be abolished, but the question must also be asked on how we offset representation by population so that smaller provinces have an equal footing, for the good of our culture, our identity, and for the good of future generations, and so that small provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador are not made to feel like lesser provinces?

Yes, abolish the Senate and the abomination it has become. However, we must then get to the real work of democratic reform.