Greg Thompson

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your generosity. This is twice in one day and I am overwhelmed.

I want to urge the government to proceed with answering questions. The parliamentary secretary is falling back on a technicality. He talks about the 45 day answering period.

If the Chair will listen carefully, which I know you do and you did, he said a 45 day delay. He actually used the word delay. Why the need for delay? The exact same questions were on the order paper on April 15 two parliaments ago. That is completely unacceptable.

The parliamentary secretary is very clever because he stands up and talks about how great a guy I am, which is fine, but he is trying to dodge the bullet.

The fact is this is a program with no transparency. Every member in this place who has a fisheries component in their riding wants answers to these questions. I am sure the member himself would like some technical and accurate responses from the department. The fact is that the department has no idea and is completely lost on this file.

I urge the parliamentary secretary to talk to the minister of fisheries and get some answers, and get them soon.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 29th, 2004]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, then debate; he turned it into a debate. I want an answer. He did not provide an answer.

[Questions on the Order Paper, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention the Order Paper and Notice Paper of October 6 of this year. The first question on the order paper in the House was by the member for New Brunswick Southwest, yours truly, in regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans licence buy-out program.

The point I want to make, and I was up about a week ago on this same issue, is that my questions are now two Parliaments old. The ministry was aware of these questions back on April 15.

We have gone through an election. The government has had several months to answer those questions. I know the parliamentary secretary will get up and say that there is a 45 day period, but that is totally unacceptable. When he stood in his place a couple of weeks ago with respect to the same question that I put today, he made a commitment that he and the department would get back to me to discuss the answering of those questions and why the delay. He has not fulfilled that commitment.

The fact is that we are entitled to answers to those questions. We can only have four questions on the order paper, but when we go through several months, there is something wrong. Why is there a delay in answering those very specific questions on the licence buy-out program?

[Transport, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, about 30 years ago the Canadian government said no to the passage of U.S. oil tankers through Head Harbour Passage to a proposed oil refinery in Eastport, Maine. Now 30 years later there is a proposal on the table in the U.S. for a liquefied natural gas terminal.

The passage is still dangerous. Has the Government of Canada taken a firm position on that?

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a per capita basis may create a level of difficulty in the smaller provinces. In other words, the more people, the more revenues that would flow to those provinces. There is a problem that has to be sorted out. Premier Binns has expressed that, as has Premier Lord of New Brunswick.

I do not want the member to get this debate off track. This is about the Prime Minister of Canada not honouring a promise that he made in the election to allow Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to keep 100% of all the revenues generated by the offshore.

That is the issue. I do not want them to dodge that bullet. I am sure my colleague who will be on his feet following my remarks will want to expand upon that theme.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the points that I tried to make. This whole equalization formula was based on fairness and generosity. That is the type of generosity that we would expect from the Government of Canada. However, the government's approach is to divide and conquer, not quite understanding the generosity of this country where every premier and every province will come to the defence of the other province.

In this particular case we are talking about offshore resources in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia specifically. Again, that may apply to New Brunswick in the future and possibly Prince Edward Island.

The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister made a commitment. That is what we do not want to lose in this debate. He made a commitment during the heat of an election campaign. It was a promise that would allow those provinces to keep those resource revenues. Now he has reneged on that promise, as he has done on a number of promises.

When I sat down in my place prior to question period, that was the point we were on, the litany of broken promises by the Prime Minister.

The generosity that the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl is referring to is exactly the point of this whole debate. That is what we are talking about, sharing the wealth in this country, rich provinces and poor provinces working together.

It is nice to see the premiers of Canada agreeing on that. The people who are reneging on that promise to share that wealth are the Prime Minister of Canada and his Liberal government. Those Liberal backbenchers, every single one of them, whether from Atlantic Canada or someplace else, should be simply ashamed of themselves.

We support fairness in this system of equalization. We are expecting the Government of Canada to share in the wealth of this country and honour its promises.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when I use the word “traitor” I have to be careful. I do agree with you, that is out of order. I do apologize, but the Benedict Arnold reference still remains.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of Benedict Arnold and I guess if the shoe fits, he had better wear it. I think he is wearing that title very nicely. However, I was not referring to a particular member. I was using literary licence to reinforce the point the member for St. John's East made yesterday that Liberal Newfoundlanders sold out their own premier and their own province at the expense of the very people they represent in the House. That is why we refer to Benedict Arnold.

I think that is a sensitive issue with that particular member because he is practising exactly the history of that particular gentleman. Benedict Arnold was a traitor. The member is a traitor in terms of how he is treating his constituents.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I could call him a typical Liberal two-faced politician because that is exactly what he is. He is just like the member for Kings--Hants who used to stand over here, point his finger at the Prime Minister and sum up what he was doing in “sponsorgate”. It appears that they bought him off. That is the last party that we have to take lessons from in terms of ethics and ethical behaviour.

I want to go through some of the things that those people ranted against in the past, but simply accepted when they came into office.

Remember the famous promise to eliminate the GST? Well, there are some big Liberal heavyweights in the front benches and backbenches who are here simply because they went door to door in 1993 on that promise to get rid of the hated GST, but they did not do that. Why? Because they love that cash cow that was created.

The revenues that they brag about in the House were brought about by the very policies they ran squarely against in every single election, including the free trade agreement. Remember that the leader at the time was going to tear that up.

The level of prosperity is a result of the initiatives taken by Conservative governments in the country and which the Conservatives spoke honestly about during elections for the benefit of all Canadians. When the Liberals talk about huge revenues and surpluses, they can thank the people on this side of the House who had the courage to do the right thing.

I am asking those people over there to do the right thing and give Atlantic Canada its fair share of wealth. Do not take it back to Ottawa, do not claw it back. They are famous for doing that.

Basically it boils down to typical Liberal behaviour. The Liberals say one thing during an election and forget about the promises and commitments that they made once they are back in power. Power is everything to the Liberals. Honouring one's word means absolutely nothing. There is example after example in the House where they have done that.

Talk about negative advertising in the United States, the Prime Minister did not have to take lessons from anyone. That was the most negative advertising campaign in the history of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada carried out a negative campaign to get into office and then reneged on the very promises that Canadians thought he would keep. That would be the minimum.

I see that Benedict Arnold has arrived back in the chamber. He may want to have a word or two on this.