Loyola Hearn

[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.

[Question No. 37, January 31st, 2005]

With regard to the inclusive quota catch of Northern shrimp: ( a ) what are the categories of allocation; ( b ) how much is allocated within each category; ( c ) do the Labrador Inuit receive a specific quota and, if so, what is the amount; ( d ) what criteria are used to allocate the quota to specific groups and individuals; ( e ) how does a group or an individual qualify for an allocation of the quota; and ( f ) who decides which groups and individuals receive a quota?

(Return tabled)

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. One of the things which he brought out quite clearly was that mistakes of the past should not be visited upon the future, as we would say, and that we always try to improve our legislation to make sure that any wrongdoings in the past are corrected. I agree with the member on that.

In light of that, I will ask him, has he now changed his mind in relation to the fact that poor interpretations of regulations in the past have seen provinces, particularly resource rich provinces, being robbed of their resources? Should commitments to change be done as soon as possible to make sure that these benefits go to the people who are deserving in the first place?

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, our party is delighted to have been involved to some degree in the motion because it does strengthen the bill. However the bill itself only goes so far. It would increase fines, which, without any no doubt, would be a deterrent and would perhaps make people think twice before dumping bilge oil, in particular.

Over the years most ship owners have known there was little chance of them getting caught so it did not matter to them. In this day and age, when we have good, on shore dumping facilities and we have the technology to greatly reduce pollutants in the waters that boats discharge, if they are installed properly on the boats, there should be little excuse for the major dumping of oil into our waters.

I would just like the members comments on the fact that on one hand we are increasing fines, but on the other hand the government is cutting back on overflights, which has happened. It is also reducing the number of vessels, as has been done in the east coast, which ply our waters, such as fishery patrol boats and the Coast Guard, knowing that our radar system is so poorly maintained, particularly on the west coast, that we cannot do a proper job.

On one hand, we are doing cosmetics and on the other hand, where it really counts, we are seeing major cutbacks. How can we ever solve a problem unless we stop talking about it and instead start doing something about it?

The other thing we see is the infighting within the present government. The Department of Justice, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are fighting over jurisdiction. We saw one major case of the Tecam Sea which should have been a hard and fast case against illegal dumping at sea. Every bit of evidence we would think we would need was there but because of infighting among departments, the case was dropped before it went to court and another boat sails away free and our waters are polluted.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, December 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member talk about what this bill is going to do. As we have said before, we certainly support the bill.

I know that increasing fines will be a detriment to some degree. I am not sure exactly what the maximum fine is at present, or I do not know exactly what the largest fine imposed to date has been. I know they have been inconsequential. But I believe that if the member were to ask the Prime Minister he could probably tell him, because I believe it was one of his ships that got the heaviest fine issued so far.

I will ask the member one simple question. Does he think that simply by increasing fines we are going to stop the pollution of our waterways?