Loyola Hearn

[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.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, June 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe what I am hearing. I am sure the hon. member does not agree with a word she said because she is an hon. member and is very concerned about her constituents. Unfortunately she had to read what was prepared for her.

There is no way a large company, an American company in particular, is going to return to this country the type of benefits we could derive from having small businesses benefit from the tender calls. The jobs that are involved are local and the revenues that are made are put back into the system.

Efficiency is only efficiency for the government. It is no help at all to the working class and small business people of this country. The government is going further and further away from its own people in relation to all its tenders.

Our postage stamps are made in the United States. It does not even have the nerve to put “made in the United States” on the back so when people lick the stamps they see it.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, June 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I had difficulty with the answer of the minister responsible for Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

The minister recently issued a proposal to supply office supplies to all offices across the country. In other words, she called for a blanket proposal to supply regular office materials to every office Canada Customs and Revenue Agency operates. Only companies like Staples or Grand & Toy would be able to handle such a huge tender, both of which are huge American based companies.

Over the years the department has called local tenders at the provincial level for supplies to local offices. This gave small businesses across the country the opportunity to compete. Government always brags that small business is the engine that drives the country. The Prime Minister stands and brags about all the new jobs that are being created. Besides the few being created by the government slush fund, most are created by small businesspeople investing their own money. What breaks does government give small businesspeople? All it does is give them increased bureaucracy, high taxes and all kinds of red tape.

What can government do to help? Besides cutting bureaucracy and red tape, lowering taxes and providing incentives to invest and create jobs, when the opportunity arises it can give small businesspeople opportunities to deal with government. The dollars the government spends to purchase supplies are taxpayer dollars. They come from the pockets of Canadians, many of whom are the same small businesspeople who are asking for help.

The minister said doing it this way makes it more convenient for the office and the taxpayer. The taxpayer might save money if the one big bid was a bit lower than the combined lower bids. However the dollars that are made go elsewhere instead of being reinvested to create opportunities at the local level and increase the tax return.

Who are we supposed to serve, the people in the minister's office or the business people across the country? I think the voters will answer that one.

[Mining Industry, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry is about to give Inco in excess of $100 million to construct a test plant that will use the hydromet process to refine ore from Voisey's Bay.

Does the minister have a rock solid guarantee that following the three to five year process the company will not renege on a permanent facility and continue to ship ore from the mine, benefiting the rest of the country but giving Newfoundland and Labrador the shaft again?

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, June 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is going to support the bill. The minister just returned from a meeting of the ministers of fisheries of the North Atlantic. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Russia all state that one of the biggest concerns they have about fish stocks is the increasing, ballooning mammal population in their respective domains. Already here in Canada we know the problems we are going through with the seal hunt off Newfoundland and Labrador.

I just wonder how the minister is going to explain, first, how this piece of legislation is going to give protection to the people who have to prosecute the seal hunt, and second, if the seal hunt is wiped out because of such legislation and in regard to the support this will give groups that are against seal hunts, what is going to happen to, number one, the imbalance in our oceans, and number two, to the fish stocks around our shores and those of similar countries?