Take out the word deplore, and no rhetoric.
Will the hon. member tell me in 20 seconds or less what are the four components that make up the deal being offered to Newfoundland and Labrador and what he sees wrong with it?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 58% of the vote.
Supply November 4th, 2004
Take out the word deplore, and no rhetoric.
Will the hon. member tell me in 20 seconds or less what are the four components that make up the deal being offered to Newfoundland and Labrador and what he sees wrong with it?
Supply November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, take that word out, if the member is seriously interested in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
Supply November 4th, 2004
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?
Supply November 4th, 2004
Madam Speaker, let me say what I know about the Newfoundland and Labrador deal. In Newfoundland and Labrador, one oil well will be coming into production next year, White Rose. That is included in this deal. That will give Newfoundland additional revenues and royalties, all the same things it is receiving from Terra Nova and Hibernia.
Supply November 4th, 2004
Madam Speaker, as a Newfoundland and Labradorian, I would do nothing less. Absolutely yes, I would vote for it.
Supply November 4th, 2004
Madam Speaker, it is unbecoming of my colleague opposite to be using that language. I have never used it toward him in all my political career, and we have had some discussions.
Let us talk about the misunderstanding. The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador said himself that there had to be some misunderstanding around this deal.
Let us get to the fiscal capacity of Ontario. First, we will receive, and are receiving today, 100% of the revenues. We will receive the equalization. We will receive the 30% on top of that. We will receive 100% of the 70¢, which 70¢ and 30¢ makes $1, on top of that. That will not change. That brings it up to the level of Ontario. Only when our revenue starts increasing above that, will we start losing on equalization. Until then, equalization will not be lifted. If that does not change within the next eight years, nothing changes. If our revenue grows beyond the 100% we are receiving now, we would still receive that and we would receive it until it reached wherever the limits would go, like Ontario or in particular, Alberta.
The hon. members opposite do not understand the formula.
Supply November 4th, 2004
Madam Speaker, let us go back to when I was briefed. It was not last Friday. I was briefed when the negotiations finished between the minister of finance of Newfoundland and the Minister of Finance for Canada, which was on a Thursday. I was called in on Friday morning and given the final briefing on this deal. I went back to Newfoundland and Labrador not to sell the deal. We were not supposed to talk about it because the minister of finance of Newfoundland was supposed to talk to his premier. The Minister of Finance for Canada was supposed to talk to the Prime Minister. Then they would communicate some time over the weekend, and let us assume it was Monday. I said that very clearly.
I also said that I was not to go to Newfoundland and talk about the deal in any manner whatsoever. When I arrived at the Halifax airport, I received calls from my office that the finance minister for Newfoundland was on the news and that the deal had all fallen apart.
Word was given not to discuss it, and that is not the case right now. The issue now is what we should be do on both sides of the House. If I were making a constructive argument on that side of the House, I would be saying to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to get back down to discussions. Let us see if there is some way we can work out a deal that will satisfy the people of Newfoundland and Labrador so they can be the maximum beneficiaries, as they should be.
I agree with all members of the House, all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we should and will fulfill the Prime Minister's commitment by giving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians 100%.
Supply November 4th, 2004
The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. With all due respect, the deal was signed in 1987 by the Hon. John Crosbie, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and the Premier of Newfoundland, Brian Peckford. My colleagues from the opposite side of the House were there, and I was there when we celebrated in Newfoundland.
Money did not start flowing until 1999, when all the expenses were recovered. I know what I am talking about, unlike the hon. member opposite. The offset clause in the Atlantic accord expires in 2011. That is the reason we have negotiated this, so Newfoundland and Labrador can become a have province, contributing to the economy of Canada and enjoying 100% of its revenues, like Alberta and Ontario.
I am proud to say, speaking on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that is where they want to go.
Supply November 4th, 2004
I will explain it again. In 1984 this deal was on the table. We will be drilling and receiving oil and gas for another hundred years. This will not end in a year. Why did we sign it in 1987 and accept 30%?
Supply November 4th, 2004
We are talking about royalties and revenues.