House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Natural Resources October 28th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, who said in 1991 that we were a culture of dependency, promised to give Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its offshore petroleum production revenues.
He has gone back on his promise. Now his lackey, Scott Reid, says that Premier Williams may get some short term gain but that he will pay for it in the long run.
I ask the Prime Minister, who tried to bribe us in the past, is he now trying to blackmail us for the future?
Natural Resources October 28th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he is willing to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador the deal which Premier Williams requested.
Premier Williams has now made public his written presentation to the Prime Minister. It states that the province is requesting, as promised by the Prime Minister:
100 per cent of direct provincial revenues generated by the petroleum areas in Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area, to accrue to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador and be sheltered from the clawback provisions of the equalization formula (currently at 70 per cent). Those revenues...were “over the life of the offshore petroleum production”.
If this is the deal that the Prime Minister accepted, I volunteer to make the phone call, right here, right now.
Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act October 27th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I guess this indicates to the member that I was not satisfied with his answer. I wish I did not respect the member so much, I think he is a fine gentleman, because I would like to go after him on this one. However, he does not have a clue of what he is talking about.
We are talking about a province that is considered to be a have not province, a province rich in resources whose resources have been raped and pillaged over the years for the benefit of others. Now we have a major offshore development. We are not looking for sympathy. We are looking to hold onto the revenues generated from our own resources until we reach the point where the revenues will be ours.
Equalization only kicks in when we reach the fiscal capacity of the average of five, it should be ten, Canadian provinces. We want to be a contributing partner. We have the resources to do so. We are being hamstrung and we are being penny anted by a penny ante government.
All we want is fairness. All we want is what is ours. All we want is for the Liberals to deliver on what the Prime Minister promised.
Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act October 27th, 2004
Madam Speaker, last week I asked a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, which was responded to by the Minister of Finance, about negotiations with Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to a promised deal by the Prime Minister as it concerned offshore revenues.
The response from the minister was a little hazy. Instead of saying the deal is done, which everyone thought at the time, he said there were negotiations with the minister of finance, a great fellow by the way, Loyola Sullivan, my local MHA and hockey playing partner, who had done a magnificent job on this. The minister left an element of doubt. We in the House thought the deal that the Prime Minister had promised was progressing suitably.
Let me give a bit of history. Leading into the election our leader promised to give Newfoundland and Labrador, if we were elected, 100% of its share of the offshore revenues. There would be no clawback and equalization would continue until we were a contributing province, which is common sense. The Prime Minister promised the same thing. In fact, in the deal which Mr. Williams was offered, the Prime Minister said that there were different provisions. Let me quote what the Prime Minister said on June 6:
I had a discussion…with the premier this morning, and I have made it very clear that the proposal that he has put forth is a proposal that we accept.
The Minister of Natural Resources, in a letter circulated to his constituents, said “the Prime Minister has given me the responsibility of finalizing the deal on the Atlantic accord as soon as possible. That will bring Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its offshore oil royalties without affecting the provinces equalization payments”.
The deal was offered Sunday, two days before the imposed deadline, as promised by the Prime Minister. He promised Premier Williams the deal would be done by October 25.
On October 24, for the very first time, despite a litany of letters and phone calls from the province, the first response in writing from the federal government was two days before the official deadline with all kinds of little provisos put in: caps, sunset clauses, the fiscal capacity of other provinces, et cetera. It was very complicated. Of course, it was rejected, as we know, by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and, more importantly, by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The rest is history.
The Minister of Natural Resources was summoned, briefed thoroughly, and ran down to the province to sell the government's deal that he did not understand, but saying in the process, “Take it or leave it. This is it, no changes”. However, in response to a question two days ago he said:
--this government is allowing 100% revenues and 100% equalization.
If that is the case, the deal would be signed right away. We would accept it, I say to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who will be responding.
The parliamentary secretary is going to talk about the process, what is going on and whatever. What I want him to tell us tonight is that there is an agreement. I want him to tell us that the deal we offered on this side was the best deal, was the catalyst, and that the government has agreed to that deal. I want him to tell us that the government is going to call the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and say, “We made a mistake. We should have responded in writing. We will correct past mistakes. We will meet tomorrow. We will sign the deal Newfoundland and Labrador wants, a deal like the opposition promised, and a deal like the Prime Minister promised originally”. If he says that, I will not even come back with my supplementary question.
Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act October 27th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I would like to know if the member can assure us that federal powers will prevail in relation to a clause which says that the Tlicho government has the power to enact laws in relation to fish harvest licensing, the use of water for aquaculture and other activities, fish harvest limits, fishery openings and fish gear.
We all saw the fiasco that took place on the Fraser River this year. Fingers were pointed at the different groups involved. Some said that the problems were caused because of agreements or whatever. If in any part of a river one group or another has control and the federal government cannot assert its jurisdiction, that is asking for trouble.
I am more perturbed by another clause which says that the local government will have control or prohibition of transport, sale, possession, manufacture or use of weapons or dangerous goods. Surely to God the government is not going to give up control of the manufacture of weapons in this day and age in any area, regardless of who is in charge of that territory or province. Hopefully the federal laws will prevail, but the big question is whether they will or not in relation to this agreement.
In these two areas, and I am sure there are more, we have very grave concerns.
Natural Resources October 26th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the only person in Newfoundland and Labrador who believes this is a good deal is that very minister, who in a letter to his constituents said that the Prime Minister promised to finalize the deal to give Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its revenues without affecting equalization. Every Liberal candidate in the election reiterated that promise.
Why has the Prime Minister not lived up to his commitment, and what part of 100% does the Prime Minister not understand?
Supply October 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member to comment on something a bit different from what he spoke about, but something that deals with the topic generally.
Throughout the country we have several strategic areas, and we have seen government cut back and cut back in relation to our bases. In my own province, I am thinking of places like Goose Bay in particular, Gander and Stephenville. At a time when security is so important, when we talk about defending and protecting our nation, surely this is not a time for weakening our defences or our presence in strategic locations. I know in the member's own province, certainly in the north and Goose Bay would be in that category, our presence at this time is imperative, with our own people ensuring that the rest of us are protected.
I would like to know the member's views on this. Does he agree with the government's idea of downsizing our forces and our presence, especially in strategic locations throughout the country?
Natural Resources October 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources said that the Prime Minister gave him the job of working out the deal.
However, at the recent meeting of health care ministers, the Prime Minister promised the premier of Newfoundland that a deal would be delivered before October 26, six days from now.
Will the Prime Minister live up to his promise and deliver the deal, the whole deal and nothing but the deal, by October 26?
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, fishermen on the east coast of Canada who know what is happening are having the biggest laugh of their lives. This has to have been the biggest joke they have heard in quite a while, to say that the government is putting an end to illegal fishing. Just before the election, a couple of extra boats were sent out and the government held a press conference to tell people that it was going to take care of this problem.
I do agree that there are not as many boats out there today as there were. The only reason the boats are gone is that the quotas have been capped and the boats are now fishing somewhere else. They will be back again in the spring. People know that is true.
He also said that the Prime Minister has been running around the world dealing with the issue. That is foolishness. The Prime Minister has mentioned two or three times that we have a problem with overfishing. He can talk about it all he wants, but we want to see some substantive government action. When the Prime Minister convenes a conference of these people, when the Minister of Fisheries convenes an international conference then--
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply October 20th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I asked the Prime Minister why he had gone back on his commitment to deal with the overfishing issue off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.
During the election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to deal with the overfishing “even if it meant taking custodial management”. When I asked why he and the government had done nothing since, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans replied, “Our process that we are using is working. We have had 130 boardings this year. There are fewer boats out there and we are finding fewer discrepancies”.
The average person might buy that, and even statistics to a point at this time of the year might prove that statement true, but overall it is not the case.
If we go back just a couple of months before the election, the same minister was up telling us that we had increased our activity out there, that we had put out more patrols, that we had done more boarding and found more blatant abuses and that we had to do something about it.
The Liberals cannot have it both ways. They have already admitted that they found more abuses. If there are fewer abuses it has only been recently, since the election, and I will tell the House why. First, they are looking for an excuse to back off on the commitment. Second, this time of the year the allocated quotas have been caught. Most of the boats have returned to their own nations or have gone fishing somewhere else. In the case of the Spanish and Portuguese, they are off the coasts of Australia, Africa, or wherever because they travel the world using vacuum cleaners to scoop up everything that swims in the ocean.
The minister is not being factual when he states that this problem is correcting itself. It is not. It is the time of year when we would expect less activity in this area and, consequently, fewer abuses. The problem is that the government has done absolutely nothing to deal with this serious situation.
The parliamentary secretary, undoubtedly, will be answering for the minister who should be answering for himself, who in turn answers for the Prime Minister who should be answering because he was the one who committed to deal with the issue. The parliamentary secretary will tell us that they have had so many boardings with fewer abuses. As I say, statistics can be used any way one wants to use them, and, in this case, all he is doing is taking the time of year when there is less activity and consequently fewer abuses to rules and regulations.
However the issue has not been corrected. The only way to deal with this is for the government to take a strong stand in making sure that the rules and regulations are adhered to, that the quotas allocated by NAFO are fished but not overfished and that species under moratoria are protected. This can be done in two ways: by the government doing it itself, or by showing some leadership within the international organizations to get others to work with us for that benefit.
I look forward with interest to the parliamentary secretary's answer.