House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
The Budget March 8th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, the member who shared his time with the hon. minister could not stay for questions and answers, so we saved five minutes. I am wondering if that five minutes could be added to the minister's time, so we would have more time to ask questions?
Natural Resources March 7th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, after months of dithering the government made the same commitment to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Prime Minister said, “Legislation will be brought in as quickly as possible”.
Would the minister clarify for the House what does it mean when the Prime Minister says “as quickly as possible”?
Agriculture February 25th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the government brags about investing in research, it is closing the only agricultural research facility in Newfoundland and Labrador without even consulting the provincial government which shares the facility.
The Minister of Natural Resources says that there is a silver lining: jobs might stay in the province at the university. This is impractical and that minister always settles for silver rather than gold.
Before the minister rushes off to meet his program review commitments, will he discuss this with the provincial government, industry and his own people in the province?
Civil Marriage Act February 21st, 2005
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member, I congratulate him on a pretty good speech.
We have heard a couple of things in the debate on this issue that I think have perturbed more people than anything else. The first is on rights, that we are depriving people of their rights if we do not pass this legislation. I would like to know what the member thinks about that.
The other is the fact that we look upon marriage as the union of one man with one woman. Throughout the world this is basically the accepted norm. Of all the countries that have looked upon same sex marriage and the possibility of introducing it, only two countries in the world have gone along with it. Does the member not think that if it is such an abuse of rights that more countries would have accepted the same sex marriage situation than has happened?
Fisheries February 21st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the federal agency responsible for the management and conservation of wild salmon and trout stock in Atlantic Canada. Instead of reacting to the declining stock by reducing catches and closing rivers, why is DFO not trying to prevent the decline by trying to find out what caused the decline in the first place?
Civil Marriage Act February 21st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on what I thought was an excellent speech on this issue. However, as he is well aware, those who speak on the other side from his point of view basically say that they do so because the legislation ensures that the people involved have rights, that their rights are protected and that we should not be taking away their rights.
The member addressed that very clearly in his speech but I wonder if he would elaborate a little bit because the crux of the matter seems to be that we are depriving people of rights if we do not support the legislation.
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.