Scott Simms

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague points out, he and I have both worked on the issue of Bill C-45. We have been inundated with questions from all interests, environmental groups, aboriginal groups, fishing groups far and wide. They are wondering what the government is talking about when it refers to broad consultations. There was absolutely no or very little consultation. That is why we have vehemently argued against the Conservatives ramming through Bill C-45. Why do they recklessly continue to do this?

I am glad my hon. colleague pointed this out. Just the other day during debate at second reading our hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's moved a motion in the House to make sure that no more amendments could be made to the bill. Shameless. Shameful.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from New Brunswick has made some very, very good points. Let me point out again what was said this morning by the hon. member for St. John's East on the open line show:

We have a new equalization formula, a formula that was agreed upon by seven out of the 10 premiers in Canada. There is a cap on equalization; we can't do anything about that. I mean the cap is going to be there forever and a day possibly so we can't change that.

The member went on to say, “and the Atlantic accord is, unfortunately, not a perfect document”.

My impression was it was, or maybe it was not according to the Conservatives. We think it is perfect, at least as close to perfect as we are going to get. He went on to say that the accord is vulnerable on a couple of different fronts. The accord is affected by the price of oil and it is affected by whatever equalization formula happens to be in place at the time.

That is not true, because the whole point of the Atlantic accord, signed by my hon. colleague from Halifax West I might add, with the former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, stated that future changes to the Atlantic accord would not affect equalization. If changes were made to equalization, the Atlantic accord would not be affected. It would be effectively insulated from those changes.

Now what they have done, according to independent economists like Wade Locke in St. John's, is they have proven that this new formula does affect it and even if they went to the old formula, it still affects it. The Conservatives stand there and say it is untouched. That is the crux of the issue. Independent economists, unbiased people, say that we will suffer as a result of this. That is what I put before the House of Commons today.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very important time in the history of my province of Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly a very important time in the history of Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants, a beautiful stretch of the Nova Scotia coastline, I might add.

The motion that we have before us today is the second time that we have brought up this issue in the House. We have proposed another motion to allow our colleagues from the Conservative Party the chance to isolate this issue and a chance for them to speak up for their home province, in much the same way that the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley did. For the record I would like to read the motion brought forward by my hon. colleague from Labrador:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government has failed to live up to verbal and written commitments made to Premiers by the Prime Minister during the last election campaign with respect to the Equalization Program and the Atlantic Accords.

Just to give an illustration on how wide and how far the contempt is for the current government against the Atlantic accords, let me just point out that about a month ago, a gentleman from Newfoundland decided to start an online petition. His name is Steve Saunders. He went online and then he got help from the NLFM, which the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities.

In a three week period he had gathered, through many communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, signatures against the current actions of the current Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and of course the regional representation in the cabinet, our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

It went something like this, “We, the undersigned, residents of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, would like to draw the attention of the House of Commons that in the last federal election the Prime Minister broke his promise”.

What would a petition of this size garner in only a few weeks time? Members probably think a few pages here and there. In the short span of three weeks, we have managed to put together a petition that resembles this. In less than one month, this is what we have, saying no to the Prime Minister, saying no to the Minister of Finance, and saying no to three Conservative members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador.

Here are some names that lead the way on this petition, on the very first page, because at times the Conservative Party will say, “Well, this is a partisan issue”.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans earlier today said that we are simply opposing because it is a Liberal thing to do. We are opposing because it is a bad thing to change the Atlantic accords by which the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can truly realize that they are principal beneficiaries of our own resources.

Three signatures lead the way: number one, Danny Williams, premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador; followed by Gerry Reid, leader of the opposition, leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador; the third signature, Lorraine Michael, leader of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. How partisan is that? That is a clear message to our province and a clear message to the rest of the country.

At this point in time I want to mention my hon. colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's who sits with me today. Unfortunately, he is unable to speak in the House because of what he said earlier. The date was March 28, 2007. My hon. colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's stood in the House and used a word against the Prime Minister stating that he was a—, and it begins with an l ends with an r and has two vowels in the middle, as was explained by my hon. colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. No, it is not “loser”, but my hon. colleague is no longer allowed to speak because he used that word.

The funny thing is that in the last few days our hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley stood in this House and voted against the budget for the sake of his constituents, for the sake of his province and for the sake of Atlantic Canada, which completely vindicated my colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's for using the word that he used which is one that is absolutely and utterly correct. He will not stand up in this House, as he has so eloquently pointed out, because if he did that, he would only be doing the same to his own constituents by misleading them as well. My hon. colleague is retiring; he will not be running in the next election. I would like to say that it was an absolute pleasure to serve with him here in this House.

Let me refer to some of the quotes that have been talked about over the past year regarding this issue.

The interesting thing is that my colleagues from the Conservatives, the three members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador will say that they continue to work on this issue. At the very last minute, they proposed something different. To my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia who now sits as an independent, it was a scramble of issues.

Here is what some of them had to say. Shortly after the budget was introduced, the Minister of Fisheries who is from Newfoundland said:

We don't always have control over our own destiny. We all like to do things. We make commitments....The Prime Minister made a commitment.... The provinces involved, the majority of them said, “We don't want it. We want a different deal”. So there is the situation you're in.

Now how shameful is that. When they said that they were going to do their version of the Atlantic accord, which was to take the non-renewables out of the formula, we said that there may be some problems with the other provinces, but they said “Oh no, don't worry, because we have the fortitude to do it”. Well so much for that. Now they admit that they don't. Therein lies the first treacherous action.

Let me go on to say what else was said. They are now saying that they are continually working for their home region of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, and of course Atlantic Canada. This very morning, on a show called Open Line in Newfoundland and Labrador, the hon. member for St. John's East spoke to the host, Linda Swain. Here is part of what he had to say:

We're in the middle of talks right here and now with [the Minister of Finance]. We've met with the Prime Minister on a couple of different occasions.

Obviously something is amiss, yet my hon. colleague from Alberta and my hon. colleague from Saskatchewan continue to rise in the House and say to the people of Canada, “We honoured our commitment”. What are they talking about? Why do the members from Atlantic Canada say that they were continually talking with the Minister of Finance to make this right? It does not make sense. Who is wrong? Did they mislead or did they not? Did they break a promise or did they not? This is all coming from the government side.

Every time that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister stand in the House and talk about how they did not break their promise in regard to the Atlantic accord, the members from Atlantic Canada sit there, all of them, with faces like a robber's horse, as my colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's pointed out to me earlier.

Here are some of the other things the Conservative member of Parliament for St. John's East said. He said. “Well, you know, I think if [the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley] had been at the last meeting, and of course it wasn't his fault that he wasn't there because he wasn't invited to be there--”

Here is a gentleman who did the honourable thing by voting for his constituents and before he did that, there was a meeting about the fuss that was going on and he was not even invited. This is absolutely ridiculous. This is a charade, and yet some stand and say they have not broken a promise. Some others say they did. It just does not make a lot of sense.

By the way, several other things were discussed in the House. I will just make one brief mention. I would like at some point for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to answer a question, now that we are on the topic of broken promises. On February 4, 2004, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans brought this motion to the House:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to extend custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and of the Flemish Cap.

I asked that question in committee and it turns out that the minister has not done this at all.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I would first like to say how proud I am to be the member of Parliament for the 9 Wing Gander in Newfoundland and Labrador. At this point I would like to send a big congratulations and a bon voyage to our outgoing base commander, Lieutenant-Colonel James MacAleese. I am proud to say that our next base commander will be Lieutenant-Colonel Tammy Harris who is the first female base commander in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Swirling rumours have been going on for quite some time about the fact that 103 Search and Rescue, a proud and big part of 9 Wing Gander, one of most active search and rescue squadrons in the country, is being moved from Gander to St. John's. I was wondering if the minister could clarify the position that it will indeed stay in Gander.

Also, he mentioned earlier that he was awaiting information from the air force about fixed wing aircraft search and rescue. I was wondering how he personally feels about the necessity of fixed wing search and rescue and the valiant efforts shown by our members of search and rescue across this country.

[Fisheries and Oceans, May 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador is now experiencing the worst ice conditions in decades.

Unable to get their fishing gear in the water, hundreds of families have been without any income for about a month and, as a result, many are unable to provide for their families.

The minister has stated that he is monitoring the situation but time is running out. Something needs to be done and it needs to be done right now.

Will the minister stand in the House and announce an ice compensation package for fishermen on the northeast coast?

[Prime Minister's Horoscope, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer advice to the minority Conservative government. We can do that by checking the Prime Minister's horoscope.

Today is the Prime Minister's birthday and caféastrology.com tells us, “restlessness, rebellion, and impatience figure prominently”. It is a clear reference to the Conservative Atlantic caucus.

It says his “energy tends to be erratic and temperamental” and he can “act on sudden impulses without considering consequences”. That is an allusion, no doubt, to the government's confusing storyline regarding Afghan detainees.

The horoscope says, “confrontations engaged in this year could clear the air and help you move forward”. Are the stars speaking of the clean air act? Is there hope for a real environmental plan to emerge from the Conservative chaos on this file?

The future seems uncertain, except for one last prediction. It reads, “Arguments and confrontations are likely. Anger can erupt seemingly from nowhere”. Can question period be far off?

Finally, sincerely to the Prime Minister, happy birthday.

[The Budget, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the last thing the Conservatives did was break their promise. That is what the government prides itself on doing.

Recently, even the great Progressive Conservative, John Crosbie, says that he supports Premier Williams and admits that a promise was indeed broken.

This week we have learned the Prime Minister's need to cover up anything that may tarnish his sterling facade.

How will he cover up the fault lines in this budget that is opening up all over this country of Canada?

[The Budget, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the most controlling Prime Minister in the history of Canada seems to be losing his grip on the Afghanistan mission and now the same is happening in his own caucus. Here is the latest.

A report last night from Radio-Canada says that his Atlantic colleagues are seeing the light, or perhaps feeling the heat. Now they are considering voting against the budget, the budget that is hammering them and is hammering Atlantic Canada.

What is the Prime Minister going to do to put out the fire in his own caucus?

[Equalization, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should relax while I explain to him an e-mail exchange from his office. It said, and this was in the St. John's Telegram:

I have apologized to Wade that a previous e-mail from one of our staff may have misled him.

That was from his office. The minister is responsible for a great deal of misinformation. Remember income trusts? Remember interest deductibility?

The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams, has called for the minister's resignation. Will he stand in the House and respond to the premier's request?

[Equalization, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on April 4 Wade Locke, an economist with Memorial University, did a study which showed that Newfoundland and Labrador would gain over $5 billion in the new budget. However, a week later through an exchange of e-mails Mr. Locke discovered he was given wrong information by the finance minister's office. When he revised the numbers, it turned out Newfoundland and Labrador would actually lose money under the new formula.

Why did the Minister of Finance mislead the work of the independent economist whose goal was only to seek out the truth?