Loyola Hearn

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say, for those who may be watching, that the best argument any of us could make for a judicial inquiry is to listen to the member opposite. He gave us just about every reason why we should have an inquiry that would get to the bottom of the complete mismanagement of the fisheries.

However let me correct the member in what he said. He said that this morning the standing committee rejected a call for a judicial inquiry. I will give two reasons for that.

First, the standing committee just returned from British Columbia where it had three days of excellent hearings. We will hear a lot more about those hearings today. The committee needs to finish a report. It is only right and fair that the committee be given time. The committee was put on the spot. I respect the committee's right to say that this is not the time to make the request. It has not yet assessed the evidence. That is fair ball.

However, do members know how we were defeated this morning? The majority of the people who were at the hearings supported it but five Liberal goons, who had not been to British Columbia and who did not have a clue about the issue, were sent in and they voted against the inquiry. That is why the standing committee made that decision this morning.

The hon. member talks about other inquiries. The standing committee did a report in 2001, which was tabled in 2003, making pointed recommendations that would have solved some of the problems that we are facing today. The Fraser report did the same thing. Both reports were completely and utterly ignored by government.

The minister, under pressure, waxed together a committee, which every stakeholder out there said would not work because all the players around the table would just argue and fight and that there would be no coordination, especially with the short timeframe.

What we need are some recommendations from the committee, even such as it is, to deal with the upcoming season because if we lose this coming season we will lose half the cycle.

What we need for the long term is to get to the root of what caused the problems in 1992, 1994 and again this year, and the ensuing problems. If we do not have an inquiry, I ask the member, how will we get to the bottom of the problems?

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

It happened in 1992, 1994 and 2000.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member is very conscientious and looks at things very reasonably. He has really put his finger on the dilemma that we face in this country.

I say to the hon. member that even though we use the word equalization, and the bill is about equalization, he knows as well as I do that the provinces, particularly when we speak in fiscal terms, are certainly not equal. Perhaps they never will be. Some have more than others. That is why we have a central government that tries somewhat to equalize at least to some degree some of the opportunities and abilities.

Back in the 1930s when Alberta was going through an extremely rough time with farming, people from the east, from Nova Scotia, from Newfoundland, sent salt fish out so that people would have something to eat. Times were pretty tough. Things have turned around. Alberta is now the richest province in the country. It is contributing significantly to the funds that go to the have not provinces, if we can refer to them as such, and many of them are not.

Other provinces have resources. Let us look at Ontario, the pride of my friend from Scarborough—Guildwood. If tomorrow some of the major car manufacturers said that they were moving to Mexico, that they were taking their car production factories out of Ontario, imagine what would happen. If the federal government said that to really foster Canadian unity it would move the centre of government to Quebec, to Montreal, or to Regina or St. John's, what effect would that have on the economy of Ontario? Very quickly Ontario would become a have not province.

What I am saying is that the pendulum swings. Today we are well off; tomorrow we may not be. That is what Confederation is about. I have said that before. Alberta's turn today may be ours tomorrow. As its oil wells dry up, ours are coming on stream. Once we hit that magic number of the five province or 10 province formula, whichever one is in effect, we become contributing partners and we stay contributing partners. We do not look for equalization. We contribute then. We get the benefit of our own resources, but we pay into the equalization formula that helps other provinces. Somewhere down the road, the pendulum swings back again.

To answer the hon. member's question in short terms, provinces generally are in confederation to help each other and to share with each other. Whichever one happens to be fortunate looks after the less fortunate, because tomorrow the shoe could be on the other foot.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-24. I thank my colleague from St. John's East for sharing his time with me.

When we talk about equalization, quite often we hear people saying, “There goes Newfoundland and Labrador again, looking for more money”. Let me just put on the record quite clearly that our province is not the only province that gets equalization.

Newfoundland and Labrador, according to the legislation, next year will receive--and there is some argument about this--$860 million, probably closer to $861 million, but Manitoba will receive $1,600,000,000, twice as much. New Brunswick will receive $1,347,000,000, almost twice as much. Nova Scotia will receive $1,343,000,000, almost twice as much, and Quebec of course will receive $4,798,000,000, which is just about six times as much.

So right from the start let us make it clear that Newfoundland and Labrador is not the only province in the country that receives equalization.

The legislation itself, as far as it goes, basically just legalizes a process of delivering the equalization payments to the province, adjusting the formula somewhat and legalizing payments. As far as it goes, we have no problems with it. It is where it does not go that causes us real problems.

Equalization has its basis in section 36 of the Constitution. It is a redistribution program aimed at nation building. I want members to remember nation building, because I will come back to it in a moment.

The formula itself is not in the Constitution. Instead, it is set out in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. And here is the thing that worries us, particularly in light of negotiations that are going on at present. It has changed a number of times since its inception in 1957. It has changed a number of times and the concern of course is that if it changed once, it can change again. The enactment does not deal with non-renewable resource revenue sharing outside of equalization, and that is the other thing that scares us.

Let us talk about nation building and just talk about what some of the hon. members opposite think about equalization as it deals with nation building. Let me quote one of them. He said:

--we are now 10 independent little countries.

I respectfully submit there is no sense of nationhood or nation building out of these moneys. We have 10 little emperors. Each has his hands on ridiculous amounts of money. They erect trade barriers which interfere with each Canadian's ability to move from province to province and to practise his or her trade.

If I had any impact on the finance ministers of Canada, and that is somewhat dubious, I might ask some rather fundamental questions. How do these equalization transfers help build Canada? How is Canada better off at the end of the day once these transfers are done? How will Canadians know that their money is well spent?

The hon. gentleman actually went on to say:

I cannot quite fathom how we should take $1 billion worth of transfer moneys given to the Government of Newfoundland [and Labrador] own funds, not call on the federal transfer and still complain.

One would wonder who would say it like that, first of all to ridicule 10 provinces and 10 premiers and say they are a bunch of greedy little emperors with their grubby little fingers out reaching for federal dollars, and then to complain that Newfoundlanders or perhaps people from the north or any province with natural resources would sit back and not try to develop their own resources because Ottawa is passing out the money to them.

The interesting thing about it is that the statement was made by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood when he was the member for Scarborough East about four or five years ago.

So when we hear the hon. member, now the parliamentary secretary, constantly belittling equalization and trying to prevent the government from proceeding with its deal to give provinces that have non-renewable resources a fair shake, to develop these resources outside of equalization until and only until they become contributing provinces, this is where the problem is coming from, from people like that.

There he is on the record proving himself to the people of Canada. Maybe his own party will look at him and others who are the naysayers, including the President of the Treasury Board, by the way, and show some leadership.

The Prime Minister today in question period, in answering the question from the Leader of the Opposition, in referring to the deal the federal government has offered Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, said how much better off “our offer is than the Conservatives'”.

The offer that the Prime Minister made was a very good one. The offer he made Newfoundland and Labrador, the offer he made Nova Scotia, was a very good offer. He promised it during the election campaign. The problem is that it does not matter how good the offer was if he has no intention of delivering on that promise or the offer, if the little minions on the other side are saying to him, “You cannot, you cannot, help. One of these days these provinces might be as rich as Ontario. We can never let that happen, Mr. Prime Minister”.

We have a Prime Minister who came to Newfoundland and Labrador, who came to Nova Scotia, and in the case of Nova Scotia the day before the election, to try to save a few seats and save face, and promised to do what any good Prime Minister should do: give them a fair shake.

Do members know what are we asking for? Remember Oliver Twist and “Please, sir, I want some more”? That is almost the position we are in. We are not asking for anything from this government, or anything from this House, or anything from this province, or anything from this country.

What we are asking is that we can keep our share, not the whole amount but our share of our resource, which in reality is less than 50% of the total resource. We get less than 50%. The province gets to keep about 30%. The federal government wants to claw back 70% of our share, less than 50% of the total, on top of the 50%-plus that it has anyway. All we are saying is please let us keep our own revenues until we become a contributing province. Then the government can take equalization and help those who need the help.

Equalization in itself, as we know, is a bit of a joke, because the funds certainly do not equalize anything in this country. It just helps, however, some provinces that are not in a position to help themselves.

Therefore, let us say when we look at a bill like this that as far as it goes all it does is legitimize the delivery mechanism for the next round of equalization payments. That is fair ball as it goes. However, here is what we must look at and why we have so many concerns. When we hear a Prime Minister talk about an offer which he has no intention of fulfilling, when we see members throwing in every monkey wrench they can, when we see that there is no protection in legislation that the equalization will not be changed next year or the year after, is it any wonder that we are holding out for a good deal? No, it is not, and let me tell this House that until we get the deal we want, we will not be signing anything.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment and a question. I notice the member did not give us the figures, which my colleague requested, when they were presented to him by the parliamentary secretary. I believe, like the rest of us, he does not trust the figures.

However, my question for the member is this. As he represents an area that is very rich in non-renewable resources, much like I do, in light of that and in light of the fact that we probably have not even scratched the surface when it comes to developing the non-renewable resources in the great territories, does he not think that non-renewable resources should be taken outside the equalization formula, in other words, not considered when we discuss equalization?

[Crohn's and Colitis, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, November is Crohn's and Colitis Month in Canada. November is now coming to an end, but unfortunately Crohn's and colitis are not.

These chronic intestinal disorders can strike anyone at any time. They cause a variety of symptoms, from mild to extremely severe, and flare-ups that can occur without warning, sometimes resulting in hospitalization and surgery.

There is currently no known cause or cure, a cure which 170,000 Canadian men, women and children await.

We in the House cannot find that cure, but we can make sure that the best hope, medical research, is well funded. This, along with the support of thousands of volunteers across Canada working constantly, will get us closer to our goal each day.

Hopefully in the not too distant future, not only will November come to an end--

[Fisheries, November 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, recently, at a United Nations meeting, Canada was one of the sponsors of a resolution recommending action be taken on destructive fishing practices, including bottom trawling. This was done without any consultation with industry and without the minister's officials being aware of the key components.

While such a ban could be tolerated in certain sensitive areas, this one could be interpreted very broadly.

Why would Canada and the minister support a resolution that could have a disastrous effect on several of our fisheries, including the shrimp fishery?

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the member for Parkdale--High Park mentioned FACTOR, the Foundation to Assist Canadian Talent on Records. I totally agree with her comments about the great contribution some of the artists have made. What she forgot to talk about was the funding agreement which ran out last March. It received an extension for one year until March 31 of this year. It had been asking for increased sustained funding. It cannot plan for the future if it does not have long term sustained funding.

Why has the minister not announced long term sustainable funding for people like Nickelback, Alanis Morissette, Sarah McLachlan and Blue Rodeo who received less than $500,000 over the years but have made over $2 billion in sales for this country? Is it because she does not think it is important to plan or is it just bad timing?

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for reading what was given to him, but let me say to him that he should have checked it out beforehand because what he said is certainly not the facts.

Toward the end he talked about the province looking for equalization after it goes above and beyond the fiscal capacity of Ontario. That is not the case. We have always said that when we reach the five province standard, when we are looked upon as being equal, we do not want equalization, thank you. We want to be a contributing partner in Confederation, but we do not want the federal government taking back our share of our money.

We are not looking for 100% of all the revenues from the development, as some people think. We are looking for 100% of our share which is less than 50% of the total revenue. When we reach the average capacity, we do not want equalization. We are saying, do to us what the government did to Alberta. Give us the opportunity to use our own revenues until we reach that fiscal capacity. Equalization would disappear and the revenues would continue to flow.

Progress has been made, the parliamentary secretary said. The premiers from both provinces met with the Prime Minister. It was a cozy meeting. They turned it over to the finance ministers and they had a meeting. Everyone thought that everyone understood each other. Then they did the unpardonable thing by turning it over to the officials. From what I know, we are no further ahead. Hopefully things will work out because if not, the war has just begun.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I asked a question of the Minister of Finance relating to the present dispute between Ottawa and Newfoundland as it relates to offshore revenues.

In June during the election campaign the Prime Minister came to our province. Having been forced by the other two major parties, ours and the NDP, to take a stand on revenues, the Prime Minister accepted an offer put forth by the province of Newfoundland and Labrador through the premier, Mr. Williams. The Prime Minister said several times, and it is in writing, that he accepted the proposal put forth by Mr. Williams. However, when the election was over and the dust had settled, no one wanted to deliver on the promise.

After all kinds of meetings and pressure, the Minister of Finance finally gave in writing some indication of the government's offer. They talked about caps and timeframes. They talked about the fiscal capacity of other provinces, particularly Ontario. There were several things tied into the deal that had not been mentioned before and were not part of Mr. Williams' request to the Prime Minister, which the Prime Minister said he had accepted.

When people became upset with this process and this approach, the Minister of Natural Resources was summoned behind closed doors and briefed on the issue somewhat. He should have been there from day one because not only is he the minister responsible for that portfolio, but he is also the minister responsible for representing the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, he was called in and briefed briefly, pardon the pun, and sent to Newfoundland to sell the deal.

I quoted him in my question as saying that there is no cap, that there is no concern about tying it in with the fiscal capacity of Ontario, that if oil goes to $1,000 a barrel, we will get all the revenues, that it does not matter about any other province or the fiscal capacity of anybody.

I asked the minister at the time if this was the government's position. The minister did not answer my question. Tonight I know the question will be answered by the parliamentary secretary. I ask him to forget about the prepared text he has been given to try to talk his way out of this.

I want to ask him, is it the government's position that the Minister of Natural Resources has been enunciating in Newfoundland and Labrador? If not, what is the government's position and why is it taking so long to get to a point where the Prime Minister delivers on his promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?