Loyola Hearn

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in what could be a very record-setting debate. It may be the last sensible debate we have in this place.

Before I get into the gist of my speech and the comments on the speech made by the Minister of Finance, I want to refer to the last speaker from the opposite side. He talked about infrastructure and infrastructure agreements and the lack of involvement by the former Conservative government under Prime Minister Mulroney.

I cannot speak for the hon. member's province of Ontario, but I can speak for my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador. During that time, when I was a member of the provincial government, we had two major funding agreements on infrastructure for the province, very substantive ones, which certainly improved the infrastructure throughout the province, particularly in relation to highways. The last one was back in the 1980s. Since then, we have not had one cent coming to our province by way of major infrastructure agreements with the federal government.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech and also for her knowledge of the situation as it pertains to the Atlantic accord agreement and the benefits that should be accruing right now to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to Nova Scotia.

She mentioned taking the single piece of legislation pertaining to the accord out of this omnibus bill. The Liberals have countered with “pass the bill and everything passes”. I will ask her if this is reasonable. When we compare one two-page piece of legislation, which has been agreed to by the provinces and by the Prime Minister, with an omnibus bill, is it fair to ask people to make that comparison?

[Natural Resources, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals would love to see the 24 clauses passed without scrutiny or due diligence because that is the way they operate.

First of all, the Prime Minister had to be pressured into promising the deal. Then it took months of more pressure from us and the provinces to get an agreement. The government refused to bring forth stand-alone legislation. Then the Liberals eliminated our opposition day when we could have debated this. Now they are playing around with Bill C-43. Why does the government not want to give the provinces their money?

[Natural Resources, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, they would love to see--

[Question No. 106, April 15th, 2005]

With regard to the oil spill on November 21, 2004 off the Terra Nova platform and Canadian Coast Guard, CCG, involvement in any response: ( a ) how many CCG personnel were involved; ( b ) over what period of time were any CCG personnel involved; ( c ) how much CCG equipment, if any, was dedicated to the response and for what amount of time; ( d ) was there any reporting internal or external to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that resulted from any CCG involvement in responding to this spill; ( e ) if CCG ships were part of the response, what responsibilities were forgone in order to respond to the spill?

[Question No. 105, April 15th, 2005]

With regard to the study of the relationship between cod and seals being done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans DFO: ( a ) when did this study begin; ( b ) how is this study being undertaken; ( c ) how many DFO personnel are involved in the study; ( d ) is any portion of the study been outsourced; ( e ) what is the cost of the study to the department broken down by fiscal year for the length of time the study has been underway and for the projected time it will take to complete; and ( f ) what DFO policies or recommendations have been cancelled, altered or implemented because of this research?

[Petitions, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the concerns being expressed about the condition of rural post offices and the future of such entities, I am pleased to present a petition from the residents of Cappahayden in the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The petitioners call upon the government to ensure that the rural post office in Cappahayden is kept open to serve the resident users.

[Employment Insurance, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, individuals who apply for employment insurance benefits have now been informed that from now on they will have to apply online. No more report cards will be sent out and, in the words of one office manager, “These will be paperless offices”.

Could the minister inform us how individuals who have no access to or knowledge of the appropriate technology will be able to apply for employment insurance benefits?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member has an argument, but he has to remember that what we are talking about here is Confederation. We are talking about developing strong provinces by using their resources, whatever those resources might be, so that they can be contributing partners.

How can Ontario justify the fact that all the fall-out from the establishment of the federal government here in this province, the amount of money that flows into Ontario, is because the federal government is based here? All the federal departments are based here, and all the people who work here pay taxes. This benefit is not spread to the other provinces. We all have our strengths. If those strengths are developed, the funding from those developments, regardless of whether they are used properly, could make the provinces strong. Strong provinces make a strong country, and therein lies our argument.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members from Saskatchewan, the western provinces and most of the country for solidly supporting my province when it had to fight so hard to get the control of and benefits from these resources.

In relation to his general question, I am sure he is not asking if Saskatchewan should benefit from its offshore resources. He is asking about the fundamental issue addressed by our party generally when we committed to give Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia 100% of their share of revenues from offshore development. The fundamental commitment was to take non-renewable resources out of the equalization formula, which would ensure that Saskatchewan and other provinces that had non-renewable resources would benefit from the development of these resources.

I agree totally with what the member has been fighting for. I say to him that our support for his province will be just as strong as the Saskatchewan support for us throughout this process. Hopefully, in the very near future there will be a government in power that will be able to deliver on that commitment. It is not a wild promise. It is not throwing away money. What it is doing is leaving money from non-renewable resources. There is a finite time. Sooner or later they are gone.

Alberta benefited from the original development. For 8 or 10 years Alberta received all the revenues from the development of its resources. That is why we should get it also because it gives poorer provinces the chance to get the infrastructure and start moving so that we in turn can be a contributing partner in Confederation.

We do not want to be taking from the rest of the country, such as Alberta and Ontario. We can be givers. We have the resources. All we need is to get our share of the development, so we can also be a contributing partner.