Loyola Hearn

[Natural Resources, February 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The government has been talking about unloading its 8.5% share in Hibernia for some time. Speculation is that it might be done soon. The Minister of Natural Resources, however, says that shares are “not on the table” and that “there are no plans to sell the shares and the topic hasn't even been discussed”. Is the minister's statement correct or is he still as confused as he was at the Atlantic accord?

[Constitution Amendment, 2005, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in responding, the member took it for granted that we thoroughly opposed what the minister did, but not at all. As he well knows, we are much more concerned about what is happening to the fishery than the government opposite.

I have to take issue with a couple of his remarks. He said that this decision was not made in haste, yet on the record, chief government officials have told us that the wording of the resolution was changed a couple of days before the meeting. Consequently, they did not know that some of the wording would be in the resolution. That to me is making the decision in haste.

He also said that any decisions made would be done after using sound scientific advice. We do not have any.

[Constitution Amendment, 2005, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to discuss with my friend, the parliamentary secretary, a fishing issue. Unfortunately, we have with us the former minister of fisheries. I know it will be difficult for the parliamentary secretary to read his prepared speech and try to explain why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is in such a mess. He knows as well as I do that a lot of the mess is because of the former minister, but he cannot say it very well.

Some time ago I raised a question concerning the minister's visit to the United Nations. At that time he, along with a number of others, agreed to a document that basically discussed the type of fishing gear that was being used. Concerns were expressed about bottom trawling, in particular, and other gear that would do damage to the environment.

No one in his right mind would object to governments expressing concern about some of the fishing gear being used, particularly when it is used in sensitive areas. We support any effort that the minister or the government would take in these areas.

However this initiative was taken in haste. We were told, and it is on the record, by officials of the department that even the department itself was unaware of some of the wording of the resolution until a couple of days before the actual signing, and that no one really knew what they were signing. There is no excuse for that because we should never sign a document that has been changed or tampered with from the original, which, I guess, approvals were given. Either someone is not telling us the truth of the matter or the government acted in haste.

The concern we expressed at the time was that the minister did this without any consultation whatsoever with industry. Industry picked up the information that the minister was going to agree to such an agreement a couple of days before it actually happened. There was a flurry of activity and we had several excuses about the wording being changed.

This might work out okay if it is done in moderation and if it is done to deal with poor technology used in sensitive areas not affecting the general harvesting of products such as shrimp for instance or general trawling for groundfish.

As Canadians we have to be concerned with the destruction that has taken place, particularly just outside our 200 mile limit. Most of that destruction is being done with bottom trawling and we have to be very sensitive about that. However just to go out and ban bottom trawling would be extremely unproductive at this time. We have to educate the people who fish in these areas, that such technology can be very damaging because a bottom trawl is almost like a vacuum cleaner. It sucks up practically everything that is there and in directing for one species it is catching several others, which is having complete and utter devastation on our stocks.

My question was not to express concern about certain technologies, nor was it that we were against using destructive technology in sensitive areas. It was the fact that the minister would rush off and do something like this without proper consultation, because sometimes we can do ourselves a lot more damage than good.

On the other hand, if properly presented with the right cooperation from other countries, we could get a stronger agreement. All we are seeing from the foreign countries with which we deal in these arrangements and all these conferences we have is lip service. They come here and listen when we talk to them about this but we are not getting anywhere.

I hope the parliamentary secretary will tell us that he learned from that and that collectively we can go on--

[Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to say a few words on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

I listened intently to my colleague from the NDP. I agree with my friend from the Bloc who said that she raised some very pertinent points in relation to the whole matter of equalization. There are a lot of concerns about equalization. When we hear the word equalization, we think of equality and everybody being treated equally. We know this is not the case.

I was intrigued with one of the comments she made. She talked about the disarray leading up to the conference last fall and that a lot of provinces were not pleased with the final outcome. The parliamentary secretary yelled, “read the communiqué”. There is no doubt about the fact that at the end of any federal-provincial conference when an agreement is arrived at, even though it is one into which people might have been forced or even though it is one with which people do not totally agree, everybody comes out singing from the same hymn book. Reading a communiqué at the end of any of these meetings does not paint the picture.

What we should do is roll back the time to the weeks preceding the federal-provincial conference that dealt with equalization. Going into this conference, one wondered whether an arrangement or agreement could be reached at all. It was almost like anticipating what would happen when the NHL Players' Association and the owners got together. We had no idea. Everybody sat there hoping for an agreement so we could get back to some semblance of sanity on Saturday nights in Canada. Of course, it did not happen.

The provinces did get an agreement, but we certainly cannot compare them as apples to apples. The hockey players and the association can afford to push a hard bargain and wait until they get an agreement. The owners can do the same thing. In a case like this, the federal government might be able to sit back, wait and force an agreement, but the provinces could not. They had to accept the best deal that was offered.

Getting back to the communiqué, communiqués are very colourful. They can cover up a multitude of mistakes made during negotiations. That brings me to this morning.

This morning my province of Newfoundland and Labrador signed a very historic agreement, an agreement which will give my province, at least for a while, 100% of its share, not the total benefits from offshore which equates to about 47% of the total. The federal government and the country generally still take over half the benefits that come directly from revenue sharing on the offshore development.

This past fall before the conference on equalization all of us remember the concern expressed by the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We remember the concern expressed by many members in the House, most of them on this side, that the agreement might never happen, that the signing, which we saw today, might never occur.

During the meetings on equalization and health care funding, the premier of my province, Mr. Williams, had to walk out of them because he was so frustrated with the way the Prime Minister had dealt with the commitments he had made. Not only did he walk out to draw attention to the mistreatment of the province by the government opposite, for a period of time the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador lowered the Canadian flag on all provincial buildings.

During that period, we saw almost consternation from the government opposite. It said to the people of the country that this was terrible. It said that if Newfoundland and Labrador wanted to negotiate a deal on the offshore revenues, the first thing it would have to do was raise the flags. Until then the government would not talk to a province that did not fly the federal flag over provincial buildings. We all listened to that. I thought of my colleagues to the left. They do not fly the Canadian flag over any of the provincial buildings, yet nobody receives more attention from the federal government than my colleagues to the left, the Bloc.

I have no problem with that. The Bloc can do whatever it wants. However, for a prime minister to say to any province that it has to fly the Canadian flag or the government will not talk it, or for him to close his eyes to another province, is not the way Confederation works. We are supposed to be in the Confederation. We are supposed to receive equal treatment from the government.

This brings me back to equalization and this morning, when the Prime Minister had the audacity to stand in front of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will give him credit for coming through, signing the agreement and delivering on the commitment he made. He said, “I made a promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I have lived up to that commitment”. How hypocritical. The only reason the Prime Minister was in Newfoundland and Labrador this morning, signing an agreement with the province, was he forced into it by the province, first, and second, by the people on this side of the House, not on that side of the House.

The leader of the Conservative Party put into the election platform the commitment to the provinces that they would be the prime beneficiaries of the revenues from non-renewable resources. We are not talking about a promise thrown out in the middle of an election. We are talking about a solid, written commitment in our election document, our platform. That forced the Prime Minister into a corner. There were hurried late night meetings in Newfoundland and Labrador. He was told by his people there that either he made that commitment or the Liberals would be wiped out. At seven o'clock Saturday morning, he called the premier to say that he had accepted his offer.

Then when the Liberals won the election, we saw them back off. They were procrastinating. It was basically blackmail by the Minister of Natural Resources, who came in with an inferior deal and said that the province could either take it or leave it. Today, the people who did everything to keep us from getting that deal were praised by the Prime Minister as he took credit for delivering on his promise. He delivered on it because he had absolutely no choice. That is what is wrong our country, when we talk about equalization.

The member from the NDP is entirely right that provinces accepted a deal simply because there was no choice. It was shoved down their throats, up until now. Today turns things around. Never again will provinces, because they will follow the lead of Newfoundland and Labrador, have the federal government shove fiscal arrangements down their throats. From now on we will look for a fair share and if we follow the policies of this party, we can be sure to get it.

[Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague explain the legislation; however, I have also listened carefully over the last few days to his good friend and provincial colleague, Premier McGuinty, who is not happy at all with the present equalization arrangements.

This is a fairly lengthy commitment. It is good to see some stabilization in equalization. There is no doubt about that. However, I hear Premier McGuinty express major concerns that great changes have to take place. I wonder if the member could tell us how he sees the pressure now from Ontario, and perhaps some other provinces, to change the whole funding arrangement where it seems for the first time in a long time that we have some fairly lengthy stabilization where the provinces can more or less bank on what is coming down the line. Can he see all of this being disrupted because of provincial concerns?

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

A huge percentage.

It still inherited a big deficit. Three main factors took place that addressed that deficit, one being the GST. The GST was a policy brought in by the former Conservative government, campaigned against by the present government but when it won the election it kept the GST. The second factor was free trade, which is the big reason that today we have a balanced budget. The third factor has to do with the tremendous social cuts over the last 10 years.

Which one of those factors does the member think the present Prime Minister, the then minister of finance, can really take credit for?

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague opposite but I want to follow up on the question asked by the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore about the balancing of the budget.

The member gives credit to the Prime Minister, who was the former finance minister. However three main initiatives led to the balancing of the budget. I will throw in a couple of recent ones mentioned by my hon. colleague, which certainly were part of it, the EI surplus and the general surplus were lumped into it. In order to create the general surplus three main initiatives took place since the Liberal government came into power. It talks about inheriting a big deficit, most of which by the way was inherited by the former Conservative government from the former Liberal government.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, like all of us, my colleague has worked tirelessly for his province especially in relation to offshore resources. It was a team effort. People from Nova Scotia worked with us but we were solidly backed up by our colleagues right across the country unanimously. The support from other parties, the NDP in particular, helped us push through that agreement. There are other things and certainly security is a big issue.

About a year ago the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled a solid universally accepted report. When I say universally accepted, I mean it was universally accepted by the people directly involved with the Coast Guard, the employees and management and by those in the hierarchy. The government should listen to the recommendations made in that report and start concentrating on rebuilding the Coast Guard given its name and stature in Canadian history.

We have a tremendous asset here. Instead of the duplication we see happening now, let us start concentrating on building a solid agency that will make sure that our coasts are secure, whether it be in relation to the transfer of oil along our coasts, whether it be in relation to people landing illegally, or drugs or whatever the case might be, or whether it is in relation to protecting our people who ply the seas.

If the government would listen to those who make recommendations, and in this case a unanimous report from a standing committee, then we might see some of the things that we aspire to see happening.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is dead on in what he has said. As we approached the reopening of the House we could see a scurry of activity. The last thing the Prime Minister wanted was to come into the House today without an agreement because he knew what he would be facing. He was already in trouble in Atlantic Canada. The way he was treating provinces, forget which ones, was being looked upon right across the country in complete and utter disdain.

If the Prime Minister had not delivered a deal on Friday, as my colleague mentioned, at the eleventh hour, because a byelection is coming up in Labrador, because of the relentless pressure from here and knowing that the House would open, he would not win a seat in Atlantic Canada. I would say it would have damaged him tremendously right across the country.

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove.

It was a pleasure to listen to the member for Mississauga South who listed some of the real concerns in society when he talked about the need to address seniors' concerns, and about home care in particular.

Before I get into my own speech, I want to refer to one comment he made. He talked about family members being the ones best able to provide the home care or caregiving but that anyone but a family member can be hired to look after family members. He talked about how family members know how to do it and, undoubtedly, would do it with the most love and care. Even though there are great people in that field, no one can replace a family member, particularly when dealing with older members of a family. I think this whole area needs review.

He raised many other social issues. Others have talked about a wish list of needs.

I was reminded of what happened at home just recently when our premier came back with the news that he had finally beaten an agreement out of the federal government with the help of a lot of people on this side and the obstruction of some people on that side. However we did get a very good deal and the people of Newfoundland should be very proud of those who worked on their behalf. However when he came home and said that we had a good deal and that we would have $2 billion up front, everyone had a suggestion as to how to spend the money. Each sector of society wanted a piece of the action. However, we have to remember that if all we think about is spending money, once it is gone then we are worse off than ever.

I just heard the hon. member for Mississauga South talking about paying down the debt. Not only does the federal government have a debt, many of the provinces have huge debts. We sometimes use up to one-third of our total potential in paying down that debt. It is hard to move ahead. It is like having a credit card. Instead of being able to do what we want with our paycheques, we end up putting most of our money toward our credit cards or on bank loans. It just disappears and we get absolutely no good out of it. Whereas if we could pay down that debt, the saving each year would give us some cash flow and after a while we would have all our own money in our own pocket.

It is along those lines that I would like to spend my few minutes. In order to be able to spend money and address the needs of seniors, a crying need in society; in order to address older people in the workforce who should be able to retire, sit back and enjoy the few years they have left; in order to look after those who cannot look after themselves; in order to build our infrastructure, pave our roads, put in water and sewers; and in order to provide for the aboriginals in this country, we must concentrate on the dollars coming in because these things require money.

This past week a lot of attention has been paid to the negotiations between Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and the federal government. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister came to our provinces, despite the fact that he was behind the eight ball because of pressure from his people who did not think they could get re-elected and because of an example set over here when the commitment was made to these very provinces to allow them to keep, not all the revenues from offshore development, but their share of the revenues until they could get back on their feet and become contributing provinces, the Prime Minister finally relented and made the commitment. However when the election was over he tried to back out of it.

On TV the other night I saw the kissing match, all the handshaking and hugging and everyone giving everyone else credit. Let us call a spade a spade. The Prime Minister and his government delivered to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia only because of the pressures from here. The way was paved by a commitment from our leader and the pressure in the House over the past few months, and the unrelenting pressure from Premiers Hamm and Williams and their teams. If not for that, we would never have had the deal that we have. To give credit to anyone on that side is ludicrous because all we saw was obstruction and toeing the party line all the way along, but I guess that is politics.

It is amazing to read in the paper that part of the agreement was that the premiers had to give credit to the local ministers so they could get re-elected. That is taking politics to a new low.

Having said all of that, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia now receive a large percentage, their share actually, of offshore revenues and will for some time. This will enable those provinces to do some of the things that they have needed to do for quite some time.

Besides offshore development we also have another offshore resource. It is the fishery. Again the government has completely and utterly ignored the fishery. From the west coast of Vancouver Island to Cape Spear in Newfoundland and Labrador, everyone will agree this great resource has been completely and utterly mismanaged.

Let us hope when the budget comes down that we see some money in it for science so that we will know something about this great resource, so that we can start rebuilding it. It is a renewable resource. Some small groups on their own have concentrated on protecting their local resource. We have seen regeneration. We have seen increased employment. That is where our money comes from, the development of our resources.

This country has a major resource which is called the fishery. With some attention, with proper management and with the right enforcement both locally and in relation to foreign overfishing, we could protect our resource and see it grow again. Instead we see the government take people across the country and reduce them to fit the benefits of the resource. Fish plants have been closed, eliminating hundreds of jobs. Licences have been taken away, which takes people out of the fishery. The government has tried to buy people out, saying that there are too many people chasing too few fish. That is what the government has been doing. It has been managing people.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not there to manage people. It is there to manage fish. If it had concentrated on managing the fishery, we would not be in that boat today. If we had only been able to hold on to what we had 30 years ago, the ground fishery alone in Newfoundland and Labrador which is worth a minuscule amount today would be worth $3.6 billion. The $2 billion we got over eight years from the offshore oil development would pale in the shadow of what the fishery is worth.

Let us hope we see mechanisms put in place in the budget that will enable people to develop resources, our tourism resource, our fishery resource, our oil resources, our mineral resources. Let us hope we see an encouragement for companies and people to develop these resources because therein we create the wealth that will enable us to do the things that everyone else wants us to do.