House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was particular.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Liberal MP for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte (Newfoundland & Labrador)

Won his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply October 25th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Brampton—Springdale.

It is very productive for us in this House to debate the motion being put forward by the member for Markham—Unionville.

I certainly enjoyed the discussions from the New Democratic Party as its members continue to present themselves as the opposition to the opposition and from the Conservative Party as the Conservative Party enters the winter of discontent by Canadians of its particular policies.

As we embark on a discussion about where the country needs to go, I will preface my own comments by stating that never was there a greater time or need for the Government of Canada to step in and to support and strengthen the economy of all Canadians.

Just recently in the city of Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador, a very large employer was forced to shut down a paper-making machine with a reduction of over 100 employees within the mill gate and several hundred others outside the mill gate. Its chief concern was of course not only the Canadian dollar and the high price of oil but, as well, its ability to either generate and produce cheap, clean electricity. Currently, it is forced to buy up to 30% of its power off the grid, most of that being generated at the Holyrood diesel generation plant.

I know that this company would certainly appreciate and could use beneficially any assistance to enable it to produce cheap, clean wind power, and I will be exploring that with this House on another day the need for government intervention because, of course, we are capable of that intervention.

Over the last 24-month period, due to the sound, strong economic performance of Canada, the foundations of which were laid by the Liberal government, we were able to generate $26 billion in surplus revenue.

Now if the Liberal Party of Canada and its platform and its governance model were still in place, $13 billion would have gone toward social and economic programming, with $13 billion being applied to the debt, instead of the straight rigid A meets B formula of all 100% being established toward the national debt, which has been put forward by the government.

If we look at this very tangibly, there are industrial sectors in this country that are truly in need of public infrastructure investments which all companies and all sectors of the economy could avail themselves.

Look at what happened just recently in Washington. We had the Governor of the Bank of Canada going down to the U.S. to basically plead the case that the structure of the Canadian economy was in such a state that the high value of the Canadian dollar was not warranted by the money traders. He actually made the case that the Canadian economy was not as vibrant as what was being suggested by money traders and in so making that argument, the Canadian dollar immediately went down by 1.5¢.

If the Governor of the Bank of Canada is down in Washington saying that the very nature of the structure of the Canadian economy does not have sound fundamentals then, clearly, what we need to do is to deal with that issue.

There was an opportunity here and an option that could have been supported by the government to invest in key government sectors, such as the forest products industry, and the manufacturing sector generally. It failed to do this.

As a result, we are seeing layoffs right across this entire country in our manufacturing sector. That is a shame, especially at a time when, as they age, infrastructure in our cities needs to be replaced and expanded to meet changing population demographics. Yet, we are seeing no specific response to that.

In fact, the response that we are receiving from the government is that the government should disenfranchise itself from the provinces. That, quite frankly, is irresponsible, especially when it comes to the cities and their needs and communities right across this entire country.

I know that Canadians were certainly very optimistic as to where exactly this country was going, but I sense day after day, as each and every day passes, that there is a growing uncertainty about where exactly this country is going. Canadians see a federal government disenfranchising itself from their communities, from their own lives and from their provinces.

Newfoundland and Labrador is a perfect example. A promise was made that 100% of non-renewable natural resources would be excluded from the equalization formula, with no reference to any caps being imposed on the calculation of that formula by another province in its own fiscal performance. What did we see? We saw $11 billion drained from the public purse of the people and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of that broken promise.

That is a lot of nurses, physiotherapists, nurse practitioners, doctors and other health care professionals who could have been supported and engaged in public service had that promise been kept. That is an awful lot of bridges, roads, water and sewer systems, and other green infrastructure that is now gone because that promise was broken.

We have some very serious concerns about this. We have a tremendous economic opportunity in front of us if we invest wisely. The decisions of the Government of Canada not to do so are causing pause and concern for every Canadian. I too share in that failing optimism for the future of our communities, simply because we are in a moment of time in our history when never have we been blessed with so much but have done so little with it.

It is time now for the NDP not to simply become the opposition to the opposition. It is time for the Government of Canada to govern responsibly and to engage all people.

I will tell members what is most vexing to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When the promise was made on the equalization formula and then broken, the excuse that was given was that the government could not fulfill the promise because it did not have the consent of the provinces.

It was a promise that was made by the government when it was in opposition. It was put in writing on January 4, 2006, to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it was also put in writing to each and every premier of this federation on January 15 in an open letter to the Council of the Federation, and yet the promise was broken and $11 billion was retracted from one particular province, Newfoundland and Labrador. Several other billion dollars were retracted from Nova Scotia. Saskatchewan now has a lawsuit in front of the federal government trying to get it to honour its promise.

When we look at those kinds of provocative statements coming forward, that antagonistic position, it is no wonder there is often a time when people simply sit back and reflect on whether we are going in the right direction as a country. The answer they come to is no. They want a country in which the federation supports each other and builds on its own strength but, most important, they want a government that is prepared to listen and talk to each member of the federation.

We have not had a first ministers meeting to talk about critical infrastructure needs, health care needs and post-secondary education needs since the government took office. There has never been a first ministers conference and yet the government, when it stands in this House to deliver a budget, actually has the audacity to claim that the days of federal-provincial bickering are now over.

When we have one province suing the federal government over a broken promise, three provinces engaged in a fair share campaign against the federal government and a fellow Conservative premier who is actually engaging in an ABC campaign, anything but Conservative, we are led to believe that the strength of the federation has supposedly never been better. Quite frankly, it is wrong and it is wrong by the test of any reasonable person. When we look at what is really happening with our federal-provincial relations, it is just not happening.

We have never been blessed with so much and had a government do so little with it. We have had $26 billion in annual surpluses that could have been invested, at the advice of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, to revitalize our critical industry sectors and promote jobs, but the Government of Canada did not do it. It chose simply to go in a linear action without responding to those fundamentals and, quite frankly, I think the winter of discontent is on its way.

Equalization October 24th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, since it appears a fundamental principle of the government is to break a promise, would the government at least table the legislation to amend last year's budget so we can see for ourselves exactly what it is intending to do, especially when the government said in the House last Friday that under the accord, “provinces received 100% of its investments of its offshore... under the new equalization agreement, Newfoundland will be the chief beneficiary of 50% of its offshore revenues”?

Perhaps the Minister of Finance could now enlighten the House how 50% is the same as 100%.

Equalization October 24th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives made a promise that 100% of all non-renewable natural resources would be excluded from the equalization calculations and there would never be an artificial cap imposed by another province on any of those payments.

The Conservatives however in their budget changed the 2005 Atlantic accords and imposed exactly that, a cap.

Having been squeezed into leaving the full protection of the accord and forced to move to the new equalization formula, does the recent secret unwritten Nova Scotia side-side deal still include a cap on its equalization payments, yes or no?

Fisheries and Oceans June 18th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Members of the European Union are putting a squeeze on Canadian fishermen through an illegal ban on seal products. In a flagrant violation of international trade law, Belgium has now banned Canadian seal products on the basis of domestic public concern.

Action must be taken by the government before other EU members consider enacting similar bans due to a perceived lack of consequences.

Will the minister and his colleagues formerly commit to launching WTO actions against EU members that are illegally banning Canadian seal products?

Atlantic Accord June 15th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I think the finance department has struck again and the finance minister in what is now being called a typo. In a letter dated June 4, there was a promise given to Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse the earlier betrayal and restore the Atlantic accords. That turns out to be some typo.

Only the government, in a letter that fulfills a promise, would now call it a mistake. The minister is in over his head.

How could the minister possibly sign a letter to a province on a topic this hot, this critical and make such a fundamental error? Reading, writing and comprehension, does he now understand the impact of cuts to adult literacy education programs?

Atlantic Accord June 15th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the federal budget not only compromises the Atlantic accord, it tears it up. I know it. Atlantic Canadians know it. The Minister of Finance also knows it or he is misleading us or he just does not get it. Neither one of these is acceptable.

Will the Minister of Finance confirm that a letter he sent to Newfoundland and Labrador on June 4 promises a fiscal cap based on the highest non-equalization-receiving province, meaning no cap at all? Will the minister confirm that the June 4 letter represents the federal government's revised position on equalization and the Atlantic accords?

Canadian Coast Guard May 30th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the full scope of the courageous and professional work of the men and women of the Canadian Coast Guard all too often goes unnoticed by many Canadians.

One recent event, however, brought that professionalism to full view. This past spring over 100 fishing vessels were trapped and stranded in ice conditions off Newfoundland and Labrador that were dangerous and considered almost unimaginable even to an experienced mariner. Lives and vessels were in danger and the situation appeared very bleak.

Men and women of the Coast Guard, men and women like Helen Doucette, Renee Gates, Howard Kearley, Crystal Smith, Paul Veber, Chris Whelan, Barry Witherall, Kevin Champion, John Butler, Stephen Decker, Ray Browne and Jane Kelsey stepped up, with their Captain Brian Penney in command, and brought all these vessels home.

Today, on behalf of the mariners of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte and all of Newfoundland and Labrador, I thank the Canadian Coast Guard Newfoundland and Labrador region for bringing every one of our proud fishermen home. It was a job well done.

Fisheries Act, 2007 May 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal community and first nations are justifiably concerned about the direction of this legislation. First nations are still reeling from the comment that was made by the Prime Minister about no race-based fisheries.

Without explanation or contemplation of exactly what that statement meant, that was the statement that was made, “an end to race-based fisheries”. The Prime Minister has a duty to explain exactly what his intentions are and whether this bill provides an opportunity for him to fulfill that particular objective.

I am concerned, as well as first nations, as to exactly where this is going. There has been no consultation and first nations are placed in the same position as members of this legislature.

Without a reasonable opportunity to review the act prior to second reading, as all members of the committee had contemplated and requested, there is no reasonable opportunity to make substantive changes to the act should glaring flaws be identified. That is a concern not only to first nations as fishing stakeholders but to each and every one of us.

Fisheries Act, 2007 May 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary is confused about the act, let us imagine how just about every other stakeholder is feeling about this particular act.

I will tell him what system I would prefer. When inshore fishers from the Gulf of St. Lawrence want access to a crab stock after being isolated from other fisheries, and when the crab stock in the Gulf of St. Lawrence skyrockets in biomass and abundance and the value of it increases, I would prefer a system whereby I would have a minister and an act that would enable a decision to be taken to allow temporary permitted access into that fishery.

I will him what else I want. I want a minister and an act that allows the northeast coast cod fishery to be open on a commercial basis when fishermen and stakeholders agree that there is enough resource there to be able to do so. This act would prevent that.

I want an act that enables the minister to be able to allow new entrants into the northern shrimp fishery, as the minister did in 1997. This act could potentially bar that through a legal action.

That is the kind of act I want.

Fisheries Act, 2007 May 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, consultation is key. Whenever we deal with a common property resource, such as the fishery resources of Canada, consultation among stakeholders is absolutely essential.

However, I will give the hon. member an example of someone else who was not consulted, someone who spoke out publicly against the act, and that is the member for Delta—Richmond East. The Conservative member for Delta—Richmond East wrote a letter to my local newspaper and, I understand, to local newspapers right across this entire country, speaking out against this act.

The hon. member for Delta—Richmond East of course has been a long-time member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Shortly after that letter was published in local newspapers across the country, he was no longer a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. That is of strong concern, because of course he too represents a fishing constituency.

However, I can tell members that the 3K north shrimp committee in my riding was not consulted, the 2J committee was not consulted, and the 3K south shrimp committee was not consulted. Nor were the 4R shrimp committee or any inshore fishermen's organizations ever consulted on this particular initiative. I can think of no one in my constituency who was. I have fishermen's organizations throughout the entire coastline. In the 148 communities that I represent, not one consultation occurred that I am aware of, and I asked for any input that I could get.

What I do know in terms of consultation is that letters were sent out saying that a new act would be tabled. That was it.