Geoff Regan

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

It is better than the present situation, and $80 million more a year for my province is real benefit, it is real dollars, and we should not have this nonsense of deplorable attitudes. The other night we saw that party join the Bloc Québécois in a motion saying that there was a fiscal imbalance.

What they are really all about, in other words, is not only supporting a separatist motion, but they are about dismantling the Government of Canada. What they want is a weaker federation. Canadians do not want that, but those members do not understand that they are on the wrong wavelength. They are out of touch with Canadians and what they want.

When they understand that, when they come around from that position, they might get somewhere, but they are a long way from that right now.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is certainly entertaining to hear that member talking about breaking promises, because if ever there were an expert in the House, he knows all about that area. All we have to do is ask David Orchard about that.

The fact of the matter is that we are working hard on behalf of Nova Scotia. We are working toward an agreement. We are working in a positive tone with the provincial government.

Those members know that and he is upset about the fact that I am talking about the history of his own party and their own comments in the past. It is no wonder he is upset. He must have his own problems with the comments of his own leader in the past and generally with those of members of his party toward Atlantic Canada. He knows what the attitude has been toward Atlantic Canada. It has been negative throughout, but Atlantic Canadians know that too and that is the reason they so clearly rejected his party in the last election and will in the next election again.

They know what those members stand for. They know how that party feels about the charter of rights and how it rejects the charter of rights. They are very upset now, and I see that, but the fact of the matter is that the deal on the table now is much better than the deal that their government, the Conservative government, negotiated in 1986. In fact, that is the problem here, the basis of that deal. If it had been done well back then by that government, it would be all right and we would not be having these discussions.

It is better than the Conservative deal that was put on the table this summer by the Leader of the Opposition, which would have cost my province $6 million.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing a concern about diplomatic tone. The fact of the matter is that we have had very good discussions with the provincial government.

When those members talk about a deplorable attitude and they accuse us of not having a diplomatic attitude, I do not know how they can suggest that. How could they possibly come up with that? It really is amazing.

The fact of the matter is Atlantic Canadians rejected, not their own provincial governments, that is not what I am talking about. They rejected the notion of that party, which has been saying that they have in Atlantic Canada a defeatist attitude.

In the interests of Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada in general, it is very clear to me that the House should reject what really is a nasty, negative, deplorable motion.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have got them excited now. They are awake again. I am pleased I woke them up.

How about the GST rebate? How about child care, which they are not interested in of course? How about funding to clean up Halifax harbour and $290 million to clean up the tar ponds in Sydney? Are those the kinds of measures that they are against?

We have shown our commitment to Nova Scotia in each of these instances. The deal on the offshore will be no different.

This commitment is much stronger than the members on that side have shown and Atlantic Canadians know it. We saw that in the last election. Atlantic Canadians rejected their regressive policies in the last election.

They know them well. They know who these guys are. They have listened for the past decade to that party across the way. They have heard the members of that party. They have not forgotten what they have said all along. They are braying now because of how much it hurt them during the election to have Atlantic Canadians actually understanding what they are really all about over there. They rejected the Conservatives' inadequate offshore offer in the last election.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I am very pleased to take part in today's debate because it deals with an issue that is very important to the future of my province, Nova Scotia, and also to Newfoundland and Labrador, the birthplace of my grandmother as a matter of fact. She was born in Cape Broyle and grew up on Bell Island, next door to the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl as he points out.

It is also important to get the facts on the table and explain exactly what is at stake in this situation and these discussions, which I am pleased to say are ongoing.

In my province for example, we are talking about something in the range of $80 million a year in additional revenues, on top of the revenues recently agreed to, new revenues, increased revenues for health care. This year, for instance, in Nova Scotia there is $62 million more for health care. That is important in my province. It is meaningful. It has real meaning for people who use the health system.

There is an additional $151 million this year in equalization money. That is important also. That has a real impact. My kids are in public schools in Nova Scotia. It is important to them to have good schools.

It is important to both provinces to have those benefits. Of course, all provinces that receive equalization depend on those moneys to provide good education and good health care. It is very important.

The fact of the matter is we are talking about this and we have these additional revenues coming because of the promises the Prime Minister made and the commitments this government made during the election, the commitments that we are living up to.

During the election the Prime Minister promised that our province, Nova Scotia, would retain the full benefits from its offshore resources. We already receive, as colleagues know, all the royalties and revenues. This is all about equalization and what happens with equalization.

We are also talking about building and strengthening the Nova Scotia economy and about working to make our province, from our point of view at least, and colleagues from my province would agree with this, the economic engine of the Atlantic region. I am sure my colleagues would agree with that on both sides of the House.

That is why it has been critical for the federal government and provincial governments to have ongoing discussions in an effort to conclude a deal. It is why both sides have stayed at the table to explain their positions and work together to find a solution, to get the right wording that gets the job done for Nova Scotia. That is why we continue to make progress. I am very encouraged by the progress that is being made. This is a process that is serving Nova Scotians well, a process that should be allowed to continue.

The Minister of Finance and I have worked closely on this file for a number of months now, with Cecil Clarke, Nova Scotia's minister of energy. I can say to members on both sides of this House that Minister Clarke's mature and responsible attitude throughout these talks is deeply appreciated and very constructive. I know the Minister of Finance would join me in that sentiment. I have enjoyed working with Minister Clarke and the Premier of Nova Scotia to discuss these matters in working toward an agreement. I am confident we will see one before long.

Speaking of which, I was pleased to see just outside the House today the minister of fisheries and agriculture from Nova Scotia, Chris d'Entremont, with whom I also work regularly. I recently had the pleasure of working with him when we were in Whitehorse for meetings of the provincial, territorial and federal ministers. We had a very good session. We are working on a number of fronts in a very positive way. That is important because that kind of cooperation between levels of government is vital.

I am pleased with the strong degree of cooperation between the two parties in these discussions, despite the best efforts by others to put their own selfish interests ahead of the interests of Nova Scotia. We have seen that in this debate.

Not only do the ongoing talks show that both parties are committed to doing what is right for Nova Scotia, they also show that they can keep petty politics from derailing the process. We are going to make sure that it does not derail the process no matter what members on that side want to achieve, because that is what the people of Nova Scotia want. They want these discussions to continue fruitfully, not get derailed by politics. The people of Nova Scotia want both sides to work together to make sure that at the end of the day we have a deal hammered out. That is where we are going.

I can only hope that my colleagues across the way, the Conservatives, are genuine in their interest in discussing the proposed deal that has been put on the table. If they are, they will recognize, as any reasonable person would, that this government is being fair to Nova Scotia. We are committed to working with the province in good faith to work out an agreement that works. This government is committed to providing Nova Scotia with 100% of its offshore revenues. That is important and that is the basis of our discussions.

There is another important point that ought to be clarified. The Government of Canada has made it very clear both orally and in writing that if a deal is reached with either Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador, similar terms will be offered to the other party. There will be an equivalent deal either way. That has been the deal all along. That is very clear. There is no doubt about that.

It means there is no risk for Nova Scotia to accept the offer which has resulted from the ongoing negotiations. I think we are very close to that point.

I am not sure why the opposition finds a deal that gives 100% of its offshore benefits to Nova Scotia so deplorable. In fact I would put this deal up against the one the opposition leader tried to slide by Atlantic Canadians during the election. It sounded very good. It sounded like 100% but if we look at the fine print, in the case of Nova Scotia in fact it would have meant $6 million less in equalization and the opposition members know it. They make all these noises about suddenly being friendly to Atlantic Canada, but we see lots of converts on that side to this care about Atlantic Canada today.

I find it quite remarkable after all the years of attacks on Atlantic Canada from that side of the House how wonderful they feel about us today. It is really heartwarming.

The opposition says that our government's treatment of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is deplorable. This raises a few questions given what has been achieved in the past year.

What is deplorable about billions of dollars in additional money for health care? What is deplorable about billions more in equalization? I am not hearing any answer, but I am sure I will in due course.

[Fisheries and Oceans, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the science shows that these herring stocks are in fact healthy. On the basis of science, this year the total allowable catch was increased by 10,000 tonnes.

As part of the management plan I announced earlier this year, the line for the commercial fishery was moved out to 20 fathoms, out of an excess of caution. Scientists will study the effects of the seiners on the ecosystem in the shallower waters to get the information needed to resolve this matter once and for all.

[Points of Order, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In answer to a question during question period I indicated that I met with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development yesterday morning. In fact, it was Monday afternoon.

[Fisheries and Oceans, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on Tuesday morning to discuss these matters with her. I certainly take these concerns seriously.

I can tell the House that in fact the wild salmon policy will be released in a matter of weeks. Following that, there will be consultations this winter to determine the final impact of that policy.

[Fisheries, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I share my hon. colleague's concern about the state of the sockeye fishery in British Columbia. The fact is that my department took strong precautionary actions in that fishery.

However, as he knows, record water temperatures in that river, one in 100 year conditions, caused unexpectedly high mortality. That is why I have called for a public and independent post-season review, and he should know that.

[Fisheries, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague's first question, this issue has been raised with me by a number of colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador, including the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte.

I share their concerns about the impact of a possible listing and I agree that all Newfoundlanders should have a chance to have their say at these meetings. Therefore I have instructed my department to hold some of these meetings during the evening hours and a new schedule will be released shortly.