Loyola Hearn

[Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member two brief questions, one dealing with one of his comments about older workers in particular being displaced when an industry shuts down.

Certainly we have gone through a lot of that. Quite often many of these people are left in a complete vacuum, yet we have a surplus in the EI fund of $40 billion, money which these people paid in over the years and for which in some cases they received absolutely no return. Some of these people worked all their lives and did not draw any social benefits. Others, because of seasonal employment, might have.

I ask the member why it is that some of this fund is not used to help people who have been displaced, particularly if they are at an age when it is almost impossible to find new employment.

Second, the member talks about Quebec and the need of each province to benefit from its resources and certainly I agree to a large extent. However, yesterday evening in the House we had a resolution asking the government to live up to its promise to let Newfoundland and Labrador benefit from its oil resources, to at least hold on to its share of the revenues from a major resource, and the very party that stresses provincial ownership and responsibility voted against the resolution.

How does the member account for the fact that his party did not support a sister province in looking for what his province is constantly looking for?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for raising the main point, that people in the House had a chance to speak out. The unfortunate thing about this is that people who are watching this tonight are waiting to see us vote. We fought for it. The Conservative Party, the NDP and the Bloc asked for a vote this evening on this very important issue. Who cancelled the vote? Who refused to vote? The Liberals. Why?Because they do not have the gall to stand up in the House and tell their own leader, the Prime Minister, that they do not believe a word he said.

With regard to the member's comments about Ontario, the people of Ontario dealt with that government. The people of Canada will deal with this one.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if I were that member I would not have the gall to stand in the House in a debate about the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, when a couple of days ago in this very House, following some questions from our leader, our deputy leader, the member for St. John's East and myself, that member said to the Speaker at the time, “Now I do not want to disturb the trend of questioning, but what about an important question?” He was telling us that raising questions on the deal promised to Newfoundland and Labrador were not important. He should not even have the gall to be in here when we are talking about Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me answer him when he refers to comments made in the past. First, I would like him to show me one politician who has said something because of not knowing about the bigger picture in the past that he would not love to take back. When did he change the mind of his Prime Minister who said, when he was talking about the CoR Party in P.E.I., “They will be speaking to empty halls in Atlantic Canada when we end the legacy of dependency that Confederation has given them”. What is the difference?

Now that we are on even terms, let us get back to what we are talking about, a deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his time.

Before I get into the points directly connected here today, I would like to comment on the question from my colleague, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. He asked about comments made by our leader. Perhaps he should reflect on comments made by his own leader when he referred to Atlantic Canada as a culture of dependency. Maybe he will want to check into that before he starts throwing slurs at other members.

I want to begin by thanking our leader for bringing forth this resolution today and the members on both sides of the House for participating in the debate. It is understood, I am sure, that my thanks to some of them is much deeper than my thanks to others.

Many of the people in the House today, all from our party, all from the Bloc and all from the NDP, have supported the principle of the resolution. Some of the members opposite, one in particular, the member for Random—Burin—St. George's was also very strong in his support for the intent of the resolution.

The resolution was brought forth to give people who represent the various regions of this country the opportunity to stand in the House and let the people of Canada, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, know how they feel about our request, but also to let the people of Canada know a little more about the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are referred to as a have not province. We are not. We have plenty. The problem is that we have never been given the chance to benefit from the great resources we have.

Canada joined us in 1949. When that happened we brought with us into Confederation tremendous resources. We had the greatest fishery in the world off our coast. That fishery has now been mismanaged by successive Ottawa-based, Ottawa-controlled governments to the point of almost non-existence.

We have some of the richest hydro producing sources in the world. What happened when we developed the Upper Churchill? Two things happened. First, the Liberal government from Newfoundland, which negotiated the deal with Quebec, gave away the shop. At the time, that government thought it had a very good deal. I want to come back to that, because that perhaps is the crux of why Newfoundland and Labrador is standing so firm today in demanding its full share of our benefits.

When we negotiated the deal on the Upper Churchill, we got about $10 million. It was a tremendous amount of money back in those days. Quebec got approximately the same thing, except the people who negotiated the Quebec side were much more astute. I do not blame my friends. We would have done the same thing. When I say my friends, it is because they have been very supportive in this. Today we are still getting $10 million but Quebec, from that same source, is drawing close to $1 billion a year.

We saw the Minister of Natural Resources, who is from our own province, go to Newfoundland a couple of weeks ago to try to shove a deal down our throats, a deal that was cooked up in Ottawa, without any understanding of the total concept of what the deal was all about. The deal offered us $1.4 billion over eight years. The Newfoundland request, and the deal we thought had been accepted by the Prime Minister, would have brought in over $4 billion during that same period. Just in that one short timeframe, we would have lost billions and billions of dollars if we had accepted the deal proposed by the government, the deal that it says is a good one.

Besides our hydro power and our fisheries, we were not given the courtesy by the government opposite, by the Liberals, to have a power corridor through the rest of the country to sell our power. Alberta benefits greatly from its oil, but I suggest that part of that benefit comes from having the ability to ship the oil to other provinces where they buy because of the great need. We cannot do that with our hydro power. This government and successive governments have not provided a power corridor for our power to the American markets.

Whatever way members want to look at it, we have been deprived from benefiting from our own resources. That will never happen again.

During the election the leader of our party went to Newfoundland, as did all leaders campaigning, and made a commitment to give Newfoundland 100% of the royalties from the offshore. It put pressure on the Prime Minister who, up until then, had ignored the requests from Newfoundlanders to do so.

In the dying moments of the campaign, under pressure from the Liberal members, some of whom have not said a word yet today on this, although I hope they will in the time that is left, the promise was made. It may have been under duress and maybe he can plead temporary insanity, but he made a promise and a commitment.

Premier Williams and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador followed up in writing three successive times to ensure that the Prime Minister understood what the deal was about. Did the government respond? No. That led everyone in the province to think the deal was accepted. The leader of the NDP had made a similar commitment in writing. Our leader had made it in writing, as requested by the premier. Did the Prime Minister put his in writing, as requested by the premier? No. The premier, unfortunately, being an honest man himself, took a leader at his word. Danny Williams said, “He gave me his word.” Consequently, the premier accepted his word. The Prime Minister has gone back on his word.

Then, after all kinds of pressure, and Mr. Williams having to walk away from the equalization talks to make a point, the Minister of Finance scurried back to his office, drafted an offer and sent the Minister of Natural Resources, as the little lackey, back to Newfoundland to deliver the deal and said, “Here it is. Do you want it, Mr. Williams? Do you want it, Mr. Sullivan”, our great minister of finance? “This is it. Take it or leave it. There will not be any changes”.

I believe he was right in saying that because not one of those people across today has said there will be any changes. The Minister of Finance talked about the whole fiscal development around a revenue sharing between provinces. We know that because that is the way it has been. He basically said that is the way it will be. The parliamentary secretary has been spouting the same words all day. Nobody has said that the Prime Minister will keep his promise. The Prime Minister himself has not said a word.

The deal that the Liberals have tried to shove down our throats, the deal that they have been saying all day is a good deal, is not a good deal and it is not a deal that we will accept today or tomorrow. We will never accept it.

What we want is what the Prime Minister promised and we will not settle for less. If this government does not want to give that deal to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, let me assure members that the next one will.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today when I rose on questions and comments I noticed the support from different parts of the country.

As I watched the new member from Alberta deliver one of the best speeches I have heard in the House, I note that she is surrounded by people from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and we have already heard from Manitoba. We do not have anybody representing Prince Edward Island yet, I say to her, but we will.

What is quite evident here is that everybody right across the country and their representatives are supporting the request that Newfoundland has made. I will ask the hon. member a question, in light of her experience. She has already mentioned it in her speech, but I want her to reiterate it, because this is the crux of it all. What we are asking for is what her province got. In this situation, the similarities between Newfoundland and Alberta are dead on. They had resources they developed. They benefited. We are trying to develop--

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, what many people who are watching today may not know is that the member who just spoke is from New Brunswick. We have heard already from the leader, who represents Alberta. We have also heard from members from Nova Scotia and from members from my own province of course. During the day we will hear from members from other provinces who support our province in this because this is a fairness issue.

From my colleague's perspective as a New Brunswicker, what does he think about fairness? What does he think about broken commitments to Atlantic Canada? Is this the way to build a nation?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I know time is short so I have just a brief question for the hon. member.

Let me thank the hon. member on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for standing up for our province and for coming to our province and making a commitment. Along those lines, I would like to ask him a question. He was expected to put his commitment in writing, which he did. Our leader was expected to put his commitment to the province in writing, which he did. In the view of the leader of the NDP, why is it that the Prime Minister did not or would not put his commitment in writing?

This I ask particularly in light of the fact that just a week ago, after a long period of negotiations, discussions and commitments, the Minister of Finance gave what he knows is a half-hearted offer to the province, which has been rejected but was pushed by the Minister of Natural Resources with a take it or leave it comment. As the member has outlined, the effect would be disastrous for our province.

Why the discrepancy in what he was expected to do, what our leader was expected to do and what the Prime Minister should do?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would say to the people of Canada, particularly of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the explanation we have just heard is about as clear as drilling mud.

We can understand full well why there is not a deal. The minister who just spoke has no idea what this is all about. He himself just now admitted that he was briefed last Friday. We know that to be true. We know that the Prime Minister had the Minister of Finance handle the deal. The Newfoundland minister of finance also handled the deal.

The Minister of Natural Resources was briefed last week. He went to the province to sell a deal that for the first time, since negotiations started, was put in writing. He referred to the Government of Newfoundland turning down the deal in 1984. Why? Because when the minister at that time, Mr. Chrétien, made the offer, the minister of finance, Mr. Lalonde, and Prime Minister Trudeau would not put it in writing. Does that have a familiar ring? Yes, it does.

Mr. Williams said quite clearly that the agreement which he thought he had negotiated was not in writing. He had absolutely nothing from the government in writing until the Minister of Finance gave the minister a copy of a deal to take to the province and sell it. The premier says that the agreement he thought he had reached did not include a cap or a reference to a fiscal capacity. It did not include any linkage to the fiscal capacity of other provinces. It did not include a timeframe. In fact it specifically excluded it.

However, the deal the Minister of Natural Resources was sent to the province to sell included all of the above.

The minister went to Newfoundland and Labrador and said, “Here is the deal. Do you want it, Mr. Williams? Do you want it Mr. Sullivan? Take it or leave it. There aren't going to be any changes”. Does he still stand to that position?

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for staying around this evening. Quite often when we have these discussions on questions, the ministers send in their parliamentary secretaries or somebody else to read a prepared speech. They read the prepared comeback to my comeback and most of the time it is not even related. I want to thank the minister for staying around for this very important issue because it is important to him and it is important to us.

Having said that, let me say to him that there is something wrong here. What the Minister of Natural Resources said, the individual who should be the person in charge of all of this, does not jibe with what the Minister of Finance was saying. Unfortunately, the deal made between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Newfoundland was not in writing. We do not have anything with which to compare. However, we do have the letters from the Premier of Newfoundland which undoubtedly must have been accepted by government.

The government did not say it would not accept it until two days before an imposed deadline, imposed by the Prime Minister by the way. The letter from the Minister of Finance really did not say what the Minister of Natural Resources was saying. They talked about the cap, they talked about deadlines, and they talked about fiscal capacity of other provinces, so somewhere in between there lies the truth. For the minister's sake, for my sake, and for the sake of the people in our great province, we hope we find it, and find it very soon.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, last week I asked a question of the Minister for Natural Resources, who happens to come from my province. The question was why the Prime Minister had not lived up to his commitment to give Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its revenues from offshore petroleum production. I also asked what part of the 100% did the Prime Minister not understand. That is neither here nor there in the question.

The minister stated in his response that Newfoundland and Labrador was receiving 100% of the revenues. Nobody really agrees with that. He also said:

Last Thursday evening, when they concluded negotiations between the finance minister of Newfoundland and the finance minister of Canada, the premier called me and said that is was going for sign-off and to make sure that sign-off was done.

I made sure the sign-off was done....

He did not get to finish. We know there has not been a sign-off. I am sure the minister will explain it when he rises.

What are we talking about? For the record, I am going to read what the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador says about it. He states:

On June 5 of this year, after months of discussions and aggressively pursuing the federal government, the Prime Minister made a commitment to me personally and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He acknowledged the commitment to local and national media.

He committed to accept our proposal for 100 per cent of our offshore revenues under a revised offset in the Atlantic Accord.

The Prime Minister and I had an agreement that would finally allow this province to benefit from our offshore resources.

This agreement did not include a cap or a reference to fiscal capacity. It did not include any linkage to the fiscal capacity of other provinces. And, it did not include a time frame. In fact, it specifically excluded it.

The agreement was simple and clear. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador would receive 100 per cent of all of our provincial offshore revenues with no clawback.

Our proposal that was given to the federal government clearly illustrates this.

This would be accomplished outside of the equalization formula so that we, as a province, could finally achieve self-sufficiency, fiscal stability and prosperity....

We have sent several pieces of correspondence and documentation to the federal government throughout this period.

Included in that information is a formal request for the federal government to put their commitment to the province in writing.

The federal government refused to do so, and we had little choice but to continue to take the Prime Minister at his word....

My clear understanding of the agreement reached between myself and the Prime Minister and confirmed to him in writing was never refuted....

The Premier of Newfoundland is saying that he gave to the Prime Minister of Canada the agreement as he perceived it. That was never refuted by the Prime Minister. The government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador feel that a commitment has been made and a commitment has been broken. It has not been followed through.

I hope the minister can clarify that because he his answer last week certainly was not satisfactory. However, if we look at the transcript, he did not get a chance to finish answering the question. I presume he will clarify it now so I and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Canada will know exactly what the government is offering Newfoundland and Labrador, and then we will ask the government whether it will accept it.