Loyola Hearn

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when we have these late shows sometimes they come long after we have asked the original question. A few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Finance when he would be bringing in legislation to deal with the Atlantic accord.

For those who are not sure what I am talking about, a deal was made between the federal government and the provincial Governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to improve benefits from offshore development. This deal was made, of course, after a tremendous amount of hassle and pressure from the opposition and also from both provinces. However the deal was made and an agreement was signed but then we wait weeks and weeks for legislation.

The thought at the time was that the government would bring in the two page piece of legislation, which it had developed and to which, by the way, both provinces had agreed, but it dragged on and on. Consequently, I asked my question.

The legislation has now been introduced and members may be wondering why I am still looking for an answer.

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, in his ruling this morning, which is what makes it entirely different from the present situation, the Speaker stated that the amendment was only to a part of the report, but it really referred to the entire report and therefore was not really relevant.

Certainly, in this case, this is not the case. The amendment that was made is very relevant as it relates to the piece of legislation, so we are not talking about apples and apples at all. We are talking about two entirely different cases.

If we look at the ruling the Speaker made earlier, given this type of amendment, the Speaker said quite clearly that this would be proper, right and acceptable.

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last year in St. John's the Prime Minister promised to deal with foreign overfishing and give Atlantic Canadians improved offshore royalties. Yesterday he made the same promise, but the foreigners continue to steal our fish and the Atlantic provinces are still waiting for their money.

If the Prime Minister can make a deal with members of the NDP, and I hope they have it in writing, why can he not make a deal with the NAP, the neglected Atlantic provinces, and bring forth stand-alone legislation which they request?

[Committees of the House, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if that minister wants one word, which he has said more than anyone else, certainly on this side, the word is “no”. It is not hard to count the dollars that we do not get.

[Committees of the House, April 22nd, 2005]

People are saying that it was shameful. It drew attention. There was no disrespect to the flag or country. It was a sign to the government that it had better pay attention to the provinces.

That is the attitude our provinces faces, the attitude that it is only Newfoundland and Labrador, it is only fish, it is only oil. Who cares? We do not. We care. We will make sure, when the election is over, that the funds will flow from the agreement that has been signed already.

When the agreement was signed, we still had to force the government to try to deliver. It brought in the bill, part of an omnibus bill, which it knew would not go through the House.

Let me give one example why the budget bill will be slow in going through. One of the clauses gives the Department of Public Works the right to manipulate all contracts. If we look at the news today, we see the same department has rented a building for $1 million a month with no one in it just because it is owned by a friend. That is terrible.

There is so much more to talk about and we will get the chance.

[Committees of the House, April 22nd, 2005]

The Gong Show

is playing around me, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday I had a good session with representatives of the Coast Guard. One of the concerns they had with the budget is that a lot of money has been cut out for the Canadian Coast Guard. They raised the question of what would happen if the budget does not pass.

Before I had a chance to answer it, they answered it. They know that the money in the budget for the Coast Guard came strictly as a result of a tremendous report done by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, a report that forced the government and embarrassed the government into dealing with one of the greatest agencies in this country, particularly now in light of the movement of oil around our coasts, in light of the security needs of this country, in light of the fishing that is going on off our coasts, where, because of mismanagement, more and more fishermen are being forced further and further to sea in small boats.

These people know that the report was done because of the people on this side of the House, with the support of other good, conscientious members on the other side of the House, and it had nothing to do with government. They know that we would remember the Coast Guard, as we would remember the cities and as we would remember the seniors. The records will show that this party over here has stood up more for seniors and more for students who are trying to achieve an education in this country. The record speaks for itself.

Members can check the number of times education has been raised in this House and see where it came from. They can check the number of times the word “seniors” has been raised in this House and see where it came from. It was certainly not from the governing party.

As for all this bit about the fearmongering, the scare tactics and how unless people vote for the Liberals everything in the budget will be gone, no, not at all, because conscientious people sit in this House of Commons, conscientious people who are here to represent their constituents and who are here to make sure that the people of this country are looked after.

Forget that foolishness about who will do what. It is who will do it better. That is the question and it is the question the people of Canada will soon get a chance to answer.

Before I run out of time, I want to mention two other important topics. One is agriculture. Again, who has been the champion for agriculture in the House? The answer to that is quite clear. The people on this side of the House.

The one advantage for the people to my left is when the election is over, if any of them are looking for jobs, there is no doubt about it, it is one of the best comedy shows I have seen in quite some time. They can do very well.

The other issue is the Atlantic accord. Last year during the election our party committed to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia that should our party be elected, they would receive 100% of their share of revenues flowing from offshore development.

The Prime Minister when he was in St. John's and under great pressure from his candidates made the same commitment to Premier Williams in a phone call at seven o'clock in the morning, after a hard night's pressure. He said to the Premier that he would accept his offer. Then he did the same thing in Nova Scotia the day before the election.

We came back to the House and it was like pulling teeth. We had to beg, borrow and steal to try to get the government to make a commitment. The premiers had to try to embarrass government to get a commitment. In our case in Newfoundland and Labrador, the flags were taken down to create attention.

[Committees of the House, April 22nd, 2005]

I had a meeting yesterday with representatives of the Canadian Coast Guard and--

[Committees of the House, April 22nd, 2005]

If I said it I will leave it on the record. I will not bother to withdraw it. Anyone worth his or her salt representing the people of Canada in this House will deliver for the needs of the people of the country.

There is an interesting thing about it, and it is why people are more interested now in looking at this side of the House forming the government than in bringing back what they have seen over the last x number of years. It is that not only will we put money where it is needed, into seniors, into homelessness, into the veterans, into infrastructure and into municipalities, but we would have more money to put in. We would not be giving away money to our friends and ad agencies. We would not be letting other people rip off the people of this country. We would not be spending $2 billion on the gun registry.

Let us look at some of the other issues.

[Committees of the House, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of Finance that he should know. He is the Minister of Finance. But if he is like the former minister of finance, he probably does not know either what is going on in light of his department and the funding that flows through to provinces or to agencies or to friends.

Having said that, I note the record will show that the last major infrastructure money that went to Newfoundland and Labrador came from the Mulroney government.

In his speech, the Minister of Finance would want the people of this country to believe that should his party be put out of power, all the topics that would be covered by the budget, money for seniors, money for cities, money for homelessness, money for child care, would disappear. No one in his right mind would even think that any government, even--I will not say even--the NDP, the Bloc--

[Committees of the House, April 22nd, 2005]

It is true. Check your records. You were the minister. You should know, unless you are like the former minister--