Loyola Hearn

[Request for Emergency Debate, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will get right to the point.

I do not think I need to convince you that the issue is important locally and nationally. It is an emergency because before we get a chance to debate it openly and convince the government of the direction to take at NAFO, the NAFO meetings will have taken place. This is our last chance to go to NAFO with arguments supported by everyone in the country and not just the fishing industry. If the minister's opinion is the one we are going to NAFO with, we have lost our case already.

The government must be aware of what the committee presented. There is only place to make it aware: here in the House as members from the committee and others interested in the topic get a chance to make their arguments.

[Request for Emergency Debate, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is fairly complicated and I wanted make sure that not only you but the other members understood. The request I am making today could or would be made by any member who sits on our committee.

In a response yesterday to the press, not to the House but blatantly and openly to the press without any consultation, the minister stated that custodial management or unilateral expansion of the 200 mile limit were one and the same. They are not one and the same. This is not the way we can go to NAFO--

[Request for Emergency Debate, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the discussions about overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap have drawn a tremendous amount of attention not only in the Atlantic provinces but nationally and, recently, internationally.

When I first raised the issue with the fisheries committee last fall, pretty few were aware of the problem. The committee agreed to have hearings. It came to Newfoundland and was presented with tremendous amounts of information from all sectors of society, everyone involved with the industry and people interested and affected by it.

Mr. Speaker, shortly following that, after we had some examples of what was going on in the area outside the 200 mile limit, you granted us an emergency debate in the House which was supported unanimously by all parties and drew a tremendous amount of attention.

Since then the committee has been finalizing its report and listening to officials, people directly and indirectly affected by the industry, and the public generally. We have discussed the issue with people nationally and internationally. We are now seeing a fair amount of concern and interest expressed by other countries, especially the political arms. This is something we have not seen before.

The committee tabled its report yesterday. It was hard hitting and unanimous. However all it did was present to the House the same arguments people affected by the industry had brought before the committee. Unfortunately, without any consultation with his colleagues or the House, yesterday the minister rejected the report. What kind of signal is that sending?

The concern is that the autumn meeting of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, more commonly known as NAFO, will be underway before the resumption of the House of Commons and the next supply cycle. The opportunity allotted for a debate is therefore only available at the present time.

I am aware that a request for debate must be on an issue, it must be an emergency and it must be of national scope. Mr. Speaker, as you ruled before, this issue fits both.

The minister has made statements that indicate he is preparing to abandon efforts to combat overfishing at the NAFO meeting. The NAFO meeting could well determine the fate of our Canadian Atlantic fishery. The cabinet would benefit from hearing the views of members of the House of Commons before determining the policy it will follow.

In his comments the minister said custodial management, which was recommended unanimously--

[Health Care System, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member a question about home care.

One of the best bargains any government has in relation to caring for the elderly or the sick is the provision of home care, proper care within a patient's own home, which is where older people want to stay. Very few of them want to leave home to go to boarding homes, nursing homes, hospitals or whatever.

Because of a lack of government involvement and proper funding especially for home care workers who get paid very low wages, the seniors, the elderly and the sick people are forced to go into homes which quite often are a considerable distance from their own homes. This puts an increased burden on them, at a cost which is several times what it would cost to fund home care for them.

It does not seem to make any sense. We seem to be penny wise and pound foolish in this case. I would like the member to comment on what she sees happening in this area.

[Resource Royalties, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today the government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Inco signed a statement of principles to develop the Voisey's Bay site. Whether it is a good deal or not is yet to be determined.

What is clear is that the government of Newfoundland and Labrador had to squeeze out of the project every maximum benefit possible, especially in relation to the jobs to be created. It had to do this because the royalties that will flow to the province will be almost entirely clawed back by the federal government.

A province can only better its lot by developing and benefiting from its resources. What incentive is there to develop if Ottawa claws back the royalties, leaving the provinces no better off?

Until the government changes its clawback arrangements on resource royalties, our have not provinces will always be so. We must be able to retain, reinvest and eventually become contributing partners in Confederation.

[Voisey's Bay, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been negotiating with Inco for quite some time concerning the development of the Voisey's Bay site.

The main reason for the delay is concern over benefits to the province. Jobs are essential, as royalties are just clawed back by the federal government.

In light of this, does the Minister of Finance not think it is time to develop a system that sees have not provinces benefit more from the development of their resources?

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago the minister gave credit to the committee for the work done, and rightly so, because the committee opened the eyes of the minister and the government in relation to many changes to be made and contemplated in the act. He said the real people who will ensure this is a success are the people on the ground. It is unfortunate that all these people, according to the correspondence we received, unanimously are not in agreement with the act either. Therefore, what is the rush?

As we get closer to a piece of legislation that satisfies everyone, what is the rush? Why can we not take our time and do it right? We are not trying to drag it, we are looking for that balance that was contemplated when the former government signed the biological diversity act back in 1992. If we take our time on this one, we can also have a good piece of legislation, but not if it is rushed.

[Main Estimates, 2002-03, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to take too much time because I know there are a lot of members over there who apparently not only agree with us but feel much more strongly about what is happening in the Prime Minister's Office than we do and I am sure they want to have their say.

I would like to ask my colleague a question with regard to the $101 million that we are talking about here above and beyond what was budgeted. Is he sure that it will not go to health care that we need so badly, to recreation that the former speaker was so much in favour of, as I am and which is certainly not well funded, and to drugs for seniors?

Perhaps the Prime Minister, in his maturing days, realizes the real needs in this country and is asking for some money that he personally can channel through his office to the departments that need it. Is that what we are talking about here? How does the member feel about that?

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's conversation. Being from Cape Breton is the closest one can get to being a Newfoundlander, so we think alike in many ways.

He mentioned that he is not an accountant, but I would like him to check some figures in relation to the equalization payments and CHST transfers he talks about and how much the increase has been. He will find out that in Newfoundland we are getting fewer dollars today, if we combine all of them, compared to what we got in 1999. The real value of the dollar creates an even greater discrepancy. Newfoundland is the only province getting fewer dollars, simply because of its declining population. However, that creates two problems, fewer dollars and an aging population, with a lot of the out-migration being younger people. This means it costs more to service what we have, but we are getting less to do it. Federal health transfers should be based on need, not on population.

On top of that, we have the clawback arrangement on our resources, the same as Nova Scotia. I am sure the member is a strong supporter of the drive by his premier, Premier Hamm, to get a fair deal in relation to clawbacks on resource funding.

I would just ask the member to comment on that and tell us how he is going to support the drive by Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to get a fair deal on our resource funding.

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to both my colleagues. One of the things the member for Brandon--Souris mentioned was that the people of Atlantic Canada in particular are in a different groove. This was also reiterated by the member for Cumberland--Colchester. He mentioned that we are not defeatists, as some parties think, not at all. In fact we see a great ray of hope for the economy of Atlantic Canada, nor are we going to be defeated by the way we are being treated by the present administration in relation to funding.

I just wonder if my colleague would comment on how Atlantic Canada has been treated. I am thinking particularly of provinces that have rich resources, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in particular. Others may have them also and in time they will be developed.

However, as our resources are being developed the only encouragement we are getting from the federal government is for it to say it is there, it is waiting, that we are to develop the resources and the federal government will take the revenues,. We will end up with no resources and be no better off economically. How can provinces, regardless of where they are geographically, improve their own lot in this country if, as they develop the resources and bring in revenue, that revenue is grabbed by the central government? It would be just the same as if we were being grabbed by a foreign country and were not able to reinvest in the province's concerns.

We can get on our feet economically if we get fair treatment. This is similar, in a way, to the clawback. We have a clawback on our resource funding similar to the clawbacks that we are seeing right now for Ontario, Manitoba and the other provinces involved. I would like the hon. member's comment on that.