Loyola Hearn

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, some people are yapping over there. Could you muzzle them, please.

If the government members are so concerned about this issue, which is one of the substantive issues that have been brought up in the House, why is it that half an hour ago they rejected the opportunity to let members speak out? There are other members over here who feel the same way as the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

Madam Speaker, I am going to give them another chance. I move pursuant to Standing Order 26(1):

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of consideration of the motion to adopt the first report of the Standing Committee on Health presented on Monday, November 1, 2004.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell started off in a tirade against the member for Winnipeg North. She is a member who, since I have been in the House and I presume long before that, has stood up time after time for the rights of those who have problems. She made a tremendous speech about people who have waited and waited for some just service from the government opposite and because of that she was attacked by the member.

However, he then did an about-face, and I will give him credit there, and said how his heart bleeds for these people and how he is going to see the minister and encourage him to push the issue in cabinet, to try to get compensation for those who have been affected through no fault of their own. Many of them are sitting and waiting and many of them are dying in the meantime. That member himself was in cabinet for a number of years and did absolutely nothing except turn his back on the request made by the people affected.

It is amazing to look at the issues that have been raised in the House since we have been back. The government has brought in a handful of inconsequential bills that have been debated. The real issues that have been debated in the House have been brought forth by the opposition parties.

There was the resolution from the Bloc about fiscal imbalance. We have been discussing the way the government is treating Atlantic Canada, particularly Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. We also have to look at the equalization program and the health issues that have not been resolved. These issues are constantly raised by people over here. The substantive debate has been on issues that have been raised by us, the opposition members.

All of a sudden the members over there, after they reject the opportunity--

[Natural Resources, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister from Nova Scotia has been invited to return to Ottawa to continue talks on offshore revenue sharing. When asked if Newfoundland and Labrador would be invited back, an official said, “We talk to those who talk to us”.

Seeing that the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the finance minister had to wait until an hour ago to get the call, will the minister tell us when officials meet, will they be talking about the premier's deal, the Prime Minister's deal or the deal put forth by the Minister of Natural Resources?

[Natural Resources, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources said in Newfoundland and Labrador this weekend:

--there is no cap on benefits in place, and offshore revenues can exceed that magical Ontario number under Ottawa's offer. If the market goes to $1,000 a barrel, you will get all of the royalties, no cap whatsoever.

Will the Minister of Finance tell us if this is the government's position?