House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
Petitions June 1st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure today in presenting a petition on behalf of 136 petitioners from the riding of Avalon in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The petitioners ask Parliament to define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf.
The Budget May 18th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, when members of the Liberal Party stood up and voted for the budget, members of the Conservative Party sat in their seats and abstained.
Now, in a sudden turnaround, the Conservative Party wants to vote for one part of the budget implementation bill and vote against another part.
Surely the Conservative members from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia know that voting for one part of the budget and defeating the other will result in defeat of the government and the entire budget.
The Atlantic accords will be lost with it. If this happens, I hope the Conservative members across the way do not have the gall to go back to their ridings and say that they voted for the Atlantic accord.
Premier Williams said earlier this week, “A vote for the budget is a vote for Newfoundland and Labrador”. That is the entire budget and not selective parts of it.
Natural Resources May 13th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue of critical importance to my province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
On January 28 the Prime Minister delivered on his promise to make Newfoundland and Labrador the main beneficiary of our offshore oil and gas. It is a deal worth more than $2 billion to our province.
The hon. members for St. John's East and St. John's South--Mount Pearl promised to support the Atlantic accord, even if it meant breaking ranks with their party. In a recent article in the St. John's Telegram , the member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl stated:
You cannot ever turn your back on your province on an important issue like this, even if it meant your party says, tough stuff, you have to sit in the last seat, last row.
Today, the Atlantic accord is in serious jeopardy as a result of the new partnership of the Conservatives and the Bloc, the separatist party.
The hon. members opposite from Newfoundland and Labrador promised to support the deal and now they are going back on their word. This is a gigantic flip-flop, the likes of which people in our province have never seen before.
Atlantic Accord May 4th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not being straight with the public in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Conservative MPs have repeatedly demanded that the all important Atlantic accord provisions be severed from the 2005 budget. They are telling anyone who will listen that this will speed up the passage of the accord. Mr. Speaker, you know, I know and even the Conservatives know that this is not the case.
Under the rules of this chamber, the Atlantic accord bill can only be accelerated with the consent of all parties, including the Conservatives' new-found allies, the separatist Bloc Québécois.
The Atlantic accord's shortest route from here to royal assent is for the Conservatives, especially those from Atlantic Canada, to keep their promise, support the budget and support the Atlantic accord.
Will they vote in the best interests of their constituents or will they vote with the Bloc? The decision is theirs. The decision will be that of their constituents real soon.
Points of Order February 1st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, in question period, with reference to the parental leave costs to Quebec, which was somewhere around $265 million I believe, the question I asked was: how many francs did that equate to? I was reminded by one of my colleagues that I should have asked how many Euros would that be? It had nothing to do with anything else and the member is absolutely exaggerating what I said. I asked how many francs would there be in $265 million?
Fisheries and Oceans November 29th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last week Fishery Products International announced the closure of its groundfish processing plant at Harbour Breton. The plant employs some 350 people.
Fishery Products International is allocated fish resources by the minister, a common property resource owned by the people of Canada. The future of Harbour Breton is dependent upon fish quota allocations. The minister has full authority over fish quota allocations. Would the minister consider allocating to the community the quota traditionally processed at the Harbour Breton facility?
Supply November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks of my hon. colleague. They were a little wide ranging for the issue we have at hand today, which is a an important and serious resolution. It deals with a serious and significant matter for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
From what I have heard today, there is a wide range of concerns and a big desire to find a solution to this problem.
I want to sincerely ask the hon. member this. Does he think it is constructive and useful to this debate and to solving this issue to have inflammatory references in the resolution as put forward yesterday by his leader, the Leader of the Opposition? Does he think it is constructive and useful to finding a resolution to a very serious issue on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia?
Supply November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, again there was no question asked. I can only comment that the Minister of Finance and Minister Sullivan agreed a number of days ago to allow their officials to talk. The reason being was so that the officials from both levels of government could understand the position of the other level of government. That is what it was about. There has obviously been a big misunderstanding as to what the 100% meant in the federal government offer and what the provincial government expected it was getting in the 100%.
The officials were supposed to sort that out so that at least they could understand both positions. That was all one could expect the officials to do. Following that, I think it is time for the ministers and first ministers to settle this issue.
Supply November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, there was no question from the hon. member. I guess he gave part of his speech which I enjoyed and I look forward to the rest of it after.
In all fairness to the member opposite and to others, it is a positive thing that the Minister of Finance, in his letter to the province, referenced the Ontario fiscal capacity threshold because if he had referenced the five province standard, it would have been less than Ontario. Some people of Newfoundland and Labrador were annoyed with the reference to Ontario because they say it would be something if they woke up some morning and they were better off than Ontario. They would not be able to sleep for weeks at the thought of it.
The reference to Ontario is positive because it gives us more room and allows more offshore oil revenues to flow into our province, before we reach the Ontario threshold. The other thing that complicates this is the national equalization program. We must be mindful of that. The Prime Minister has to operate within the parameters of a national equalization program that was designed and agreed to by the Prime Minister and the premiers of the provinces, so he has to be careful what he does with that, in fairness here.
All I can say to the hon. member is that I want this matter resolved. We must get back together on this and I do not think in all sincerity that it is ever going to be concluded if we leave it to the officials. That is where the problem lies now, at the official level. We must elevate it to finance minister to finance minister and prime minister to premier if we are ever going to sort this out. If we leave it to the officials we will be here forever trying to settle this issue.
Supply November 4th, 2004
The member from St. John's is saying that I am right. I thank him for that.
I have tried to figure out, by discussing with federal financial officials, federal ministers, the Prime Minister, Finance Minister Sullivan and Premier Williams what this all means.
Finance Minister Sullivan told me as recently as this morning that based upon the province's projections for fiscal year 2005-06 at $50 a barrel, the flow of provincial own source revenues from our offshore would be $426 million. Minister Sullivan contends that, based upon the agreement he understands has been offered by the federal government, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador would only be allowed to keep $233 million. That is what Finance Minister Sullivan firmly believes. If in fact that is true, that is a difference of $193 million. For a province that is cash strapped and has a severe debt which it needs to get out from under, that is a significant amount of money in one fiscal year.
For fiscal year 2006-07 with three oil fields producing, when we will peak, the projections for the flow of provincial revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador would be $850 million. Minister Sullivan says that in that fiscal year, again the province would only be allowed to keep $233 million, which is a difference of $617 million. In fiscal year 2007-08 the province projects that the flow would be $731 million. It can keep $233 million for a difference of $498 million.
I have gone through this because we have identified three problems. There is the eight year period versus the petroleum production period, whether or not equalization should be calculated in Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal capacity in reaching the threshold of Ontario, and of course, I just went through the projections and what Newfoundland and Labrador claims it would lose off the table with this deal. That is the problem.
My goal as one member of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador is to get the best deal possible for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not about anything else. I do not have any other agenda. I do not have an agenda of ambition. It is about getting the best deal possible.
Where do we go from here? It is very important that everyone on all sides keep the rhetoric and the name calling down. Both sides have agreed to that. Premier Williams has agreed. Finance Minister Sullivan has agreed. The Prime Minister has agreed. The Minister of Finance has agreed. All the Newfoundland and Labrador MPs have agreed. We all agree that we should cut out the rhetoric and the name calling and get down to business. All I want to do here is to get back to business and sort this thing out.
There are fundamental differences and misunderstandings. Solutions have to be found. If we are ever going to get rid of the debt in Newfoundland and Labrador, if we are ever going to be able to offer the level of services that our people deserve, this is our chance.
I will stand for no less than 100% of offshore revenues accruing to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador on behalf of the people that I represent. I am interested in the two sides getting to the table and getting back to serious negotiation. Stop the posturing. If there are misunderstandings, if there is blame to go around, let us forget it. The main thing is to find a solution.