Debates of Nov. 4th, 2004

Supply

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the strategy the Liberals have been told to use is to come into the House, divert the issue away from the Prime Minister and get into the complicated equation of the equalization minutiae, as I mentioned earlier. That is exactly what the members were told to do. They were told to come in and try to divert attention away from the Prime Minister of Canada and the promise that he made.

I go back to the line that the member for Central Nova used this morning. What part of 100% do the Liberals not understand? That would be the question. The only thing they understand is making outrageous promises so they can have a seat the House of Commons. That is it. Once they are here, they forget about promises, commitment and fairness. What part of fairness does the member not understand?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, despite what someone may or may not have suggested to me, I am here of my own free will and I will speak exactly as I see fit. I have stood and I stand fast with the principles that have been articulated. I take a back seat to no one. What I am here to do is simply help this process along and try to generate all party support for a concept and principle.

When this was tabled at 2 p.m. yesterday afternoon, I was told by several economists that the phrase “100% of the provincial offshore oil and gas revenues” caused a lot of loopholes that prevented a direct analysis and correlation to the issue at hand. That is why I am asking for all party support for an amendment to provide clear, precise definition on where the House stands on this issue.

No one should take that intent with any suspicion or malice. It is genuine and I stand behind the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada and Nova Scotia.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, he is the last member who should be preaching to us on ethics and ethical behaviour in terms of principle and commitment. He is the member who, when he was the minister of ACOA, basically wrapped his arms around a pork barrel and took it back to his own riding at the expense of other parts of Newfoundland. He is the last member from whom we have to take lessons.

In fact he was bragging that his vote count would increase simply because he used the old pork barrel back in his riding. That is the Liberal way of doing things. I would expect nothing less from the member because he has a very good track record of behaving in that fashion.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my remarks, I will be splitting my time with the member for Random--Burin--St. George's.

We are having what I consider a very interesting discussion on the motion, and it is a very important issue. I sense that we are somehow hearing a lot more about the politics of the issue rather than the real issue itself.

As everyone in the House is aware, equalization has been part of our economic and political fabric in the country for quite some time now. We are talking about a matter of principle that all Canadians, wherever they live from coast to coast to coast, ought to be treated equally. They ought to receive comparable levels of service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. As everyone knows, we will never to get the system perfect. Also, as things have developed over the last number of years, it seems to be that the greater challenge going forward may be the discrepancies which exist between rural Canada and urban Canada. This is something perhaps that will be subject to another debate in the House of Commons.

From the comments from all parties in the House, the principle of equalization is certainly supported by everyone in the House and across Canada, and it is embodied in our Constitution. There have been problems with the equalization formula over the last number of years. I certainly had a lot of problems with it myself. I am very pleased about the agreement that was reached on equalization by the Prime Minister of Canada, the 10 provincial premiers and the three territory leaders on October 26.

One of the biggest problems was predictability. I had a lot of sympathy with the individual provincial ministers of finance, because they really did not know what their equalization funding would be for that year. I believe most provinces deal with a March 31 year end. They present their budgets late January, February or March of each and every year. They would be given a figure from the federal government and that would be the figure would be included in their provincial budgets. However, every provincial finance minister, present and previous, realized that this figure would change at least once, if not twice or three times during the year. Sometimes, and relatively speaking, these adjustments would be rather dramatic.

It was grossly unfair for a provincial minister of finance to receive a call at 3:30 or 4:00 on a Friday afternoon and be told by officials in Ottawa that his or her province's equalization funding would be reduced dramatically. As everyone in the House and people watching this on CPAC can understand, that caused a lot of problems in provincial finances and how provinces were operating. It may come as some surprise to hear this, but it also caused problems when the same finance ministers received a call on Friday afternoon indicating that they were getting considerably more than what they expected. The principles of caution and prudence would be thrown to the wind, some of the money perhaps would not be spent as wisely as it ought to have been, it would end up in the A-base funding of the province and it may not be there next year. We can see the problems that would be created. That was a problem that needed rectification, and it was rectified.

We also had the cap on equalization which again was a problem. That was remedied a couple of years ago. It was not dealt with in the last agreement that the first ministers made.

Another contentious issue, which has always been on the table and is very much a part of the debate today, was the whole issue of non-renewable resources. It had been the position of a lot of provinces, and we certainly have to agree with this to a certain extent, that a non-renewable resource, whether it be a gold mine, an oil well or a potash mine, was a finite resource. Once that mine was depleted or that oil well is dug dry, there was no future revenue source. At some point in time every mine or oil well would come to an end.

This was different in each and every province. It certainly was not the issue in Alberta because it was not an equalization receiving province. However, it certainly was a major issue in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador because they were dealing with a non-renewable resource, and it has caused problems.

Some of the developments in Newfoundland and Labrador which dealt with Voisey's Bay skewed decisions. The royalties that came from Voisey's Bay immediately provided the province with resource royalty revenue. In the long term the resource royalty revenue was deducted from Newfoundland and Labrador's equalization entitlements and there was really nothing at the end of the day. I think that was the real reason behind the substantial delay in that project going forward.

We are dealing with a relatively contentious issue. I have listened to the debate that has taken place. I believe everyone is on the same page. We all want the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to prosper. We all want the people who live in that province to prosper. Going back years ago, there were situations in the province that were mishandled, such as Churchill Falls. There are still repercussions from that today. There was also the situation with the collapse of the groundfish, which has caused tremendous problems for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador especially, but also for the people who live in Atlantic Canada. It still causes problems.

I sympathize with the comments that have been made today with respect to the oil and gas revenue in Newfoundland and Labrador and in the province of Nova Scotia. It is important that the Government of Canada, in dealing with the provinces, especially those two provinces, get it right and ensure that it is in the best interests of the people who live in those two provinces.

If I had given this speech eight months ago, I would have stated that both provinces deserved a better deal. That is why I supported the agreement that was reached between the Prime Minister and Premier Hamm and the Prime Minister and Premier Williams in June of this year. The funding would be increased dramatically and they would be entitled to receive 100% of their royalty revenues. I was also pleased with the agreement reached on October 26 which dealt with, to a certain extent, the issue of predictability. Whatever an equalization receiving province was told it was entitled to receive early in that year would not be decreased no matter what happened. That provides a lot of certainty to the financial projections of each province.

I was also pleased that the level of funding for equalization would go up from $8.9 billion to $12.5 billion over the next five years, which will add, I believe, $33 million to the equalization funding over the next five years.

The election commitments made by the Conservative Party in May and June of last year concern me. They also trouble the people who live in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba. Its document states:

We will move towards a ten-province standard that excludes non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula...and do so in a manner that ensures no provinces receiving equalization will receive less money during the transition to the new formula than the current formula provides

If one does the calculations, it is extremely troubling. It would freeze those provinces forever and a day on the equalization formula. I am glad that has not happened. If there is anyone out there from Prince Edward Island, anyone out there from New Brunswick and anyone out there from Manitoba, I am glad we followed this formula and not the formula advocated--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a really nice try by the member, but the fact of the matter is we are discussing the fact that the Prime Minister did not keep his word. It has nothing to do with our promise or what we said or anything else. We would have followed through and we can have a debate about that, but this debate is about the fact that the Prime Minister has not kept his word.

I know the member to be a very honourable gentleman. He is also a person who is given to a great deal of candour in most of his public pronouncements. Let me ask him point blank in the expectation of a very candid answer. If he heard the Prime Minister, and particularly if he was to think for a second about the repetition of the Prime Minister's comments specifically as entered into this debate this morning by the Leader of the Opposition, how could the member possibly have arrived at any other conclusion than the fact that now as a result of the Prime Minister's current action, he has clearly, specifically gone back on his word?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. The Prime Minister has not gone back on his word.

As has been explained in this debate, the rebate, and that may not be the proper term, has been increased from 30% to 100%. It will be reviewed at the end of eight years. I do not think anyone in Canada would have a problem with that. And once the revenues of Newfoundland and Labrador reach the same levels as those of the province of Ontario, I do not think anyone living anywhere in Canada would have any problems with that.

Again I come back to my comments and the questioner did not allude to it. I am very disturbed that the debate is not focusing on the campaign promises made by the Conservative Party in May and June, which would have frozen forever and a day, not eight years, but it would be 88 years, the equalization funding received by the provinces of Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.

It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition is going to Atlantic Canada to talk about this. He is going to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. He is certainly not going to the province of New Brunswick and he is certainly not going to the province of Prince Edward Island to explain to the people who live in those provinces what he was trying to do during the election campaign.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again I have to say nice try, but it just does not wash.

The federal Liberal members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada are the only people in Canada who are not clearly aware, or at least will not admit that the Prime Minister has clearly, specifically, gone back on his word.

Is the member saying per chance that Premier Hamm and Premier Williams do not understand English? Is he saying that they are too slow to understand the fact that the Prime Minister has gone back on his word?

Let me ask the member this question: How does the member explain the actions of Premier Williams when Premier Williams left the conference on equalization, was not prepared to take part and has clearly and specifically said that the Prime Minister of Canada is not to be trusted, that he is a person who will not keep his word? How does he explain Premier Williams' position?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to attempt any explanation. I answered the learned member's questions already, but he is going back with all this talk and suggestions about allegations and innuendo that someone has gone back on his word.

I was very disturbed about the platform of the Conservative Party during the last federal election. A lot of people did not understand it. I certainly understood it. I certainly understood the ramifications and repercussions it would have on the people living in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

I will repeat for the record what the member for Central Nova said. I think he hit the nail on the head about the Leader of the Opposition:

Comments Tuesday by Stephen Harper, leader of the Canadian Alliance, reinforce what a narrow, regionally based party the Official Opposition continues to be. We should not be--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, resuming debate.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for sharing his time with me on this very important date. I have listened with great interest to the views of all members this morning and this afternoon. I am pleased to say that this is a serious debate which is being taken very seriously by all members on all sides of the House.

I want to start by categorically stating that I support the desire of Newfoundland and Labrador to obtain 100% of revenues from its offshore resources. I want to go on the record at the outset as saying that I support the province of Newfoundland and Labrador receiving 100% from its offshore resources.

I remember very well the days of discussion and negotiation when it became apparent that there was a need for an Atlantic accord. Some of my colleagues on the other side were in provincial politics with me at the time. We remember it very well. It was emotional, it was heated and there was a lot of debate. Eventually the Atlantic accord was signed.

The principle of the Atlantic accord was that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia would be the primary beneficiaries of their offshore resources. They would be the primary beneficiaries. That is the principle on which the Atlantic accord was negotiated, discussed and signed.

There are a couple of reasons. One is the location of our resources. They are offshore, under water. This morning someone referenced the cost of extraction which is true. The other very important point that has to be remembered is that the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have not been as well off economically, from a wealth point of view, as some other provinces in Canada. We have an enormous debt. In the past we have not benefited the way we should have benefited from our resources.

The Atlantic accord was supposed to correct that. That is what the debate is about today. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel very strongly that they are not the primary beneficiaries of their offshore resources. They feel strongly that the Government of Canada benefits from its offshore resources more than they do and they find that to be totally unacceptable.

Since this whole issue blew up a couple of weeks ago I have been preoccupied with trying to understand the problem. In order to solve any problem we have to understand what it is.

The Prime Minister is very committed and is very convinced that he has offered Premier Williams and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its offshore resources. Premier Williams is just as committed and determined that the Prime Minister has not delivered the 100%. We have a basic, fundamental misunderstanding. I have been trying to understand where the problem lies.

There are a couple of issues that have created this problem. In Premier Williams' correspondence to the federal government, he consistently talked about a timeframe which would cover the petroleum production period. That really means that while oil flowed from the wells off our coast, this agreement would apply to it.

In the letter of the Minister of Finance back to finance minister Sullivan and the province a few Fridays ago, the federal finance minister referenced an eight year agreement. There is a big difference between eight years and the petroleum production period which is unknown. I guess we could project how long oil will flow from some wells; there is a certain amount of uncertainty, but the production span certainly would be more than eight years. That is a problem.

Another problem is when it comes to fiscal capacity. Newfoundland's fiscal capacity from own source resources is currently $4,900 per capita. When we add the equalization payments to that $4,900 it brings Newfoundland's fiscal capacity to $6,200. Of course, in his letter the Minister of Finance referenced the Ontario threshold which is between $6,600 and $6,700.

If we calculate the equalization payments that Newfoundland receives through its own source revenues, it does not give it a lot of room before the flow of revenue from the offshore revenues closes that gap. There will not be a significant amount of revenue flowing to the province before we reach the Ontario threshold. That is another fundamental problem that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has with this.

The province contends that the equalization payments, which bring that gap up to $6,200, should not be calculated and included in its fiscal capacity. It is contending that its fiscal capacity from own source revenues, which is $4,900, should stay there, let the revenues from oil flow in and reach the Ontario threshold. It is not going to take the province long at $50 or $55 U.S. a barrel, if we put the equalization payments in with it, before the Ontario threshold is reached.

That is a fundamental problem which has to be addressed if we are going to reach an agreement on this.

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's North, NL]

John doesn't understand that. You're right Bill, you're right.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

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.

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's North, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really have a question for my colleague, but I do want to say that it was a good speech. I really enjoyed that speech. It was the first indication that I have been given so far today that there is someone on that side of the House who truly understands a little about this offer and this agreement. The hon. member has demonstrated that.

I have been saying all morning and to the Minister of Natural Resources that the Prime Minister has been saying that we will get 100%. I will speak in a few minutes on this debate and I will repeat it again. That is the key in order for people to understand fully what this deal is all about. It has to be repeated over and over again. I said to the minister today that the Prime Minister has been saying that we will get 100% only until our province's fiscal capacity equals that of Ontario. Ontario's fiscal capacity is based entirely on the performance of its economy and that is what was said by the member.

If Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal capacity was based only on the performance of its economy, we would be getting 100% of our oil revenues forever and a day. All members who understand this agreement would agree with that. However, here is the key and I will repeat it again. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have artificially jacked up Newfoundland's fiscal capacity by adding in our equalization payments and the offshore revenues that we are currently getting.

That puts us artificially close to Ontario's fiscal capacity. It would not take a long time for Newfoundland and Labrador, under that scenario, to reach the fiscal capacity of Ontario, at which time of course the clawback provisions of the equalization agreement would kick in again. This has to be repeated over and over--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

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.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from St. John's, I too appreciate the comments of the member opposite. There is an issue at stake here of fairness and we do need to get back to the table. It does need to be at the absolutely top level between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, unlike the member opposite, I do not agree totally that this is something that became bogged down in bureaucracy. The Prime Minister of Canada is the chief of Canada. He is the boss. That individual can call the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador tomorrow and tell him he wants a face to face meeting. It is not up to his bureaucrats to do it. It is up to him to do it.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

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.

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's North, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer a few remarks in the debate on this very important issue. I have spoken on the issue, as the House is well aware, probably 8 or 10 different times over the last couple of weeks either in question period or in debate. Every time I speak on the issue, I get very angry. I am going to promise today that I am not going to get angry. I am going to keep my blood pressure at its normal level if I can.

We all get angry when we know that we have been made victims. The realization of knowing we have been made a victim in this whole thing makes me very angry and that is why I have been angry every time I have spoken in this debate. We all get angry when we know we have been hard done by, when we have been made victims, and when we have been treated as if we do not matter. This is what has been going on here over the last couple of weeks in particular.

I got angry again today when I heard the Minister of Natural Resources speak in this debate. The minister is really the master of bafflegab. He implied something today in debate, which I think has to be corrected on the record. The minister made the allegation that the Premier and finance minister of Newfoundland and Labrador, two highly educated and intelligent gentlemen, really did not understand this particular proposal that was being made by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister and, as a result, they will never sign because they do not understand it. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we know.

The resolution we have before us today is going to serve a good purpose. It is going to highlight the broken promise made by the Prime Minister of Canada. What it should do as well is send a message to the Prime Minister of Canada that one cannot make a promise of that magnitude to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, involving billions of dollars over the long term and the long term future of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and then simply walk away from it, renege on it or break it without suffering the consequences.

This is what the Prime Minister of Canada has done. I think the resolution is a very important one. We heard my colleague from Burin—St. George's a moment ago who made a very good speech, one that made sense. If the Minister of Natural Resources had the good common sense to make that kind of a speech today, all of us would be a whole lot better off because of it. It will give the Liberal members of Newfoundland the opportunity to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador where they stand on this issue.

Are we on the side of cheap, partisan political game playing, as the Prime Minister has been doing over the last three or four months at the expense of Newfoundland and Labrador or are we going to tell the federal government that it made a very important promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that helped it win five seats in that province and now it has to deliver?

That is a bit partisan, but that is exactly what happened. I believe that if all seven members stick together on this issue, we have the opportunity to hold the federal government to account.

Let us not forget that the federal government is in a minority government situation. If we had the support of all five Liberal members from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador along with the two Conservative members here and the Conservative Party, we could make a difference and hold the federal government's feet to the fire on this particular issue.

If there ever was a time when we had to deplore the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada, it is now. I think the time has come in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the defining moment. This is the cornerstone moment for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the time when we have to state our case.

I have been here now for about seven and a half years. I am not a great veteran of the House. What I have learned in the seven and a half year period is that we are treated like an annoyance by the federal government. We are treated like the pain that has to be tolerated because we exist. That is the way we are treated by the federal government. The federal government and the Prime Minister of this country have no respect.

The Prime Minister has no sympathy for the very difficult financial problems that we have to deal with in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He has no understanding of it. He certainly has no sympathy for it until an election rolls around and then we see the promises trotted out. Promises are thrown around like confetti. It is really disappointing that the Minister of Natural Resources has been part of that. He has aided and abetted the Prime Minister on this particular issue and he has not stood up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on this issue.

I have great criticism for the Minister of Natural Resources because he is our federal cabinet representative for Newfoundland and Labrador. He has failed miserably to stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Maybe that is why we used the word “deplore” in the motion we have before us today. People are saying that we should possibly remove that word. We should remove language that inflames. Who knows? I am not in a position to say that these words will be removed because it is deplorable. That is what the resolution actually reflects.

These are very tough times for our province. The gloves have to come off at certain times in our history. This is when the gloves have to come off. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is in a very difficult position financially. There can be no room for soft language. We have to say to the people of Canada and to the federal government that now is the time when we become equal partners in Confederation. We have to make a stand for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because this is deplorable. There is no room for mealy mouthed people who want an easy ride on this particular issue. It is time to stand up and count ourselves either in favour of Newfoundland and Labrador or against it.

Again, if we stand together on this particular issue, we can make a big difference for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We can hold the Prime Minister's feet to the fire on this particular issue. The time has come.

This is a very important issue. It is the biggest issue that has ever faced the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in a long time. Why? Because it has the potential to make us a have province, maybe not in 2, 3, 5 or 10 years, but in 15 or 20 years we may finally have the ability to keep our children home for a change. They might have a future if we can get this through.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will have just one minute for questions and one for responses.

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, to say the time has come is absolutely right. I agree with that. The time has come to stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador and to make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador gets the best deal, the 100% deal, that is committed in this proposal. The only way to do that is to ensure that we leave politics aside, and the wording in that motion deplores the credibility of the Prime Minister. If members opposite were interested in getting the best deal for Newfoundland and Labrador, that wording would be excluded from it and we would vote on Newfoundland and Labrador getting 100%.

But I will also say that we should leave the rhetoric aside and I will ask the hon. member one question. Will he explain in one minute what the four components that make up this deal mean to Newfoundland and Labrador in the formula that is put down? Does he understand what it means?

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's North, NL]

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to dignify that kind of question with an answer but I will see what I can do.

I hope the hon. member was listening to the speech made a few minutes ago by the member for Random—Burin—St. George's. If he was, he would have some understanding. I know it is a complicated issue. I know the hon. member has difficulty in understanding the issue, and that is okay, but at least the member for Random—Burin—St. George's had some grasp of it.

The hon. member stood here today and talked about fiscal capacity as if he had some understanding of it. He keeps up this bafflegab, expecting that then I can get up and in 30 seconds come up with four components that are going to contribute to the deal. It would take me an hour or an hour and half.

I said to the hon. member this morning on one particular issue, when it came to the fiscal capacity of--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Exploits, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to compliment my hon. colleague from St. John's East. I enjoyed his speech thoroughly and there is no doubt in my mind that he believes what I believe. What I believe unequivocally is, for Newfoundland and Labrador, 100%. In my riding in central Newfoundland, I have received hundreds if not thousands of e-mails and calls talking about the sincerity of this issue. I too believe in the sincerity of this issue, much as my honoured colleague does. Again I compliment him on his career and I compliment him on his speech. There is no doubt in my mind that all of us here believe in Newfoundland and Labrador 100%.

These are troubling times for us and the reason is that this is an incredibly important issue. This is our Meech Lake accord.

My question is for the member for St. John's East. We are trying to keep all the rhetoric down. I have had several conversations, including one with the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I would urge all people to keep the rhetoric down at this point, to see that we can reach this deal, so that the decision can be done with information, and everybody is--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for St. John's East.