Norman E. Doyle

[Division No. 316, February 15th, 1999]

Pardon me? Did the hon. member say double dipping? No, I am not one of the individuals who double dip. I can say to the member that I am not one of them.

I served for about 14 years as a member of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. In that period of time I served during the administration of the PCs and of the Liberals. I remember both those governments making the case year after year after year to the federal government for a change in the way the equalization formula was written so that the province could have an opportunity to catch up to other provinces in Canada. I believe that was brought into focus by the massive Hibernia oil development on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. When the particular resource was discovered back in 1979 Newfoundland held a promise of jobs and revenues for its beleaguered provincial economy.

In the early eighties oil prices were high and the prospect of annual oil revenues were not out of the realm of reaching billions of dollars. Given that fact, overcoming the equalization hump was at least a possibility for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It would lose probably the first billion but we would keep subsequent billions and millions of dollars as the case may be.

It proved impossible for the government of the day to negotiate an offshore oil deal with the Trudeau administration when oil prices were very high. An agreement had to be held up until the PC government came in power under Brian Mulroney and there was a decent offshore contract negotiated with his government. By that time oil prices had fallen dramatically. There was not any possibility of a multibillion dollar oil revenue, so we could see all oil revenues simply going to replace equalization payments.

At about that time the government of the day negotiated with the federal government a change in equalization entitlements as they applied to the Hibernia resource development. Instead of having the dollar for dollar clawback it was negotiated that the federal government would only take 70 cents. Some recognition was given to the fact that oil prices were low at the time and Newfoundland would not be receiving all that much revenue from resource development in that project. That could be easily done again for other developments in Atlantic Canada like Sable Island, Voisey's Bay and other developments in general.

We are quite pleased to have an equalization program that keeps us from economic disaster, but we are not at all pleased it is the formula that keeps the receiving province from getting ahead. How can we ever catch up if every new dollar we earn is subtracted from our equalization payments? We have to catch up.

For as long as I have been in public life in Newfoundland the unemployment rate has been double the national rate. During that same time the federal government has cut transfers to the provinces by 35%. Not only do we have to use our equalization payments to help the province get ahead. We also have to use them to make up for the fact that the federal government has cut transfers to the provinces by 35%.

When that was done, in Newfoundland's case thousands of provincial public servants were laid off. The public services are now under a great deal of strain especially in rural Newfoundland. The federal government has cut the federal public service in the province by a full 30% as compared with 15% nationally. It is hard to believe but the province with double the national unemployment rate was saddled with double the rate of federal job cuts.

Because the public service in general plays a larger than usual role in Newfoundland's economy, the cumulative effect of these cuts has been very devastating upon the province and probably more devastating on Newfoundland than it has been on other provinces in Canada.

We need a new deal. Atlantic Canada generally needs a new deal in Confederation. If we are to move out of park and into high gear, the federal government needs to recognize we are a have not province which needs a greater say over the resource revenues that come into our province. We need revenues that would more than merely replace equalization. We need revenues to augment our economic situation, to catch up and to make progress. That will never happen unless the federal government is willing to recognize the plight of Atlantic Canadians generally.

To sum up, we need economic development and jobs. We need to maximize the impact of any resource development on our economy and the provincial treasury. The federal government has not helped today by invoking closure on the bill.

[Division No. 316, February 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to say a couple of words on this bill. It is a bill that is evidently very important to at least seven provinces, the seven provinces that receive equalization payments.

I was taken aback a moment ago by the member for Mississauga South who mentioned that this bill is a major cornerstone of Confederation.

He can make that statement but five minutes ago his government invoked one of the most hideous procedures available to government today, closure, on one of the major cornerstones of Confederation. The hon. member's words are not consistent with what the government did a moment ago.

This is a very important bill to the provinces that receive equalization payments. It is very important to Atlantic Canadians. It is very important to Newfoundland. It is very important to Nova Scotia. It is very important to New Brunswick. It is very important not only to Atlantic Canadians but to western Canadians. It is very important to Manitoba. It is very important to Saskatchewan. It is very important to Quebec. It is very important to Prince Edward Island. But today the government, in spite of the importance we attach to Bill C-65, has decided to cut off debate. It has decided to invoke closure. It has decided to stifle, to muzzle the opposition from making the comments it wants to make on this bill.

This bill is very important to all members of the PC caucus. It is very important to Manitoba, to Saskatchewan, to Newfoundland, to Nova Scotia and to Quebec. But these provinces are highly dependent on equalization payments to better their economic situation. It is even more important to have this bill fully debated by all members to make the federal government fully aware of the impact that equalization payments have on at least seven provinces in Canada. Obviously we will not have that opportunity to make the federal government aware of the impact these payments have on Atlantic Canadians in particular because it has brought in closure today.

I was told that before this bill came to the House of Commons the province of Newfoundland requested some significant changes to the way the formula treats offshore resources, offshore oil and gas. The government has rejected the request of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead it is only going to make some very minor housekeeping changes to this bill, completely ignoring the request of Premier Tobin and the province of Newfoundland that Canada's poorest province should not be penalized because of the current equalization formula before it is given a chance to catch up and become equal to the rest of Canadians.

There cannot be any chance for catch-up for Atlantic Canadians or for that matter western Canadians in provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan who receive equalization payments. There cannot be any opportunity given to these provinces to catch up. There cannot be a chance of equality of provinces unless there is some recognition given to the fact that the very pool of money that keeps a particular province from falling into economic despair and economic disaster is the same pool of money that will keep that province permanently poor.

That is the unfairness and injustice associated with the way this formula is written. There will never be an opportunity for the provinces that receive these equalization payments to be brought up the same quality of life and the same standard of living that other Canadians enjoy.

I am not saying we should put in place a new formula for ever and a day. What I am saying is that there should be an arrangement worked out for the have not provinces which will see resource revenues clawed back on a more gradual basis.

For example, a Voisey's Bay development in Newfoundland could have its resource revenues clawed back not dollar for dollar but on a 50% basis. The Sable Island gas find could be clawed back on a 50% basis. In that way there is an opportunity to bring some fairness to the equalization formula and to bring the unemployment rate and the quality of life for the receiving provinces to some kind of acceptable standard.

I do not expect the government will make any changes in the equalization formula today. Obviously it will not. It has invoked closure on one of the most important bills ever to come before parliament in quite some time. I am not expecting the government to make any kind of substantive changes.

A few months ago I had a private member's bill on Newfoundland's unemployment problem selected and debated before the House. In my final remarks I made the point that if we had a fairer equalization formula applied to Newfoundland as it relates to our resource based revenues, not only would the province of Newfoundland be a lot better off but the federal government would be a lot better off as well. Eventually the province would become less dependent upon federal resources to keep it going.

In the long run there is every reason for the federal government to want these provinces that receive equalization payments to be brought up to an acceptable standard so that the federal government will not have to inject funds into the poorer receiving provinces.

As we are all very much aware the Canadian equalization program redistributes throughout the nation. Last year the province of Newfoundland received roughly $996 million in equalization payments. That is quite a great deal of money. In this fiscal year we are expected to receive roughly $925 million. There will be a reduction.

That number can be greatly affected by the overall wealth of the nation, the overall wealth of the economy. If the economy is good in any one particular year, the provinces receiving equalization payments will obviously see their payments go up. If the economy of the nation declines in any given year the provinces will expect to receive less.

One thing that determines how much equalization a province will get is the population of the receiving province. The population of Newfoundland has gone down significantly over the last number of years. I believe over the last six or seven years in particular the province's population has gone down by 7,000 or 10,000 people per year. That is quite a decrease in population for a small province like Newfoundland.

If Ontario, for instance, were to have a decline of 10,000 people per year it would not matter a great deal. When a province like Newfoundland with a population of half a million people loses 10,000 people per year it is very serious. Because of that our equalization payments go down as well. Over the last six or seven years Newfoundland has lost in the neighbourhood of 70,000 people. As a result its equalization payments have gone down dramatically.

While the out-migration factor is very important to a province like Newfoundland, the main variable I would be concerned about is the fact that with any new influx of resource revenues, revenues are deducted dollar for dollar over time from the equalization payments.

To make it a bit clearer, if a province has taken in a billion dollars in additional resource revenues in the 1997-98 fiscal year, it would have only $4 million in equalization payments because $996 million of the revenues would have gone to replace equalization payments over time. It may not happen in any one given year but over time the entire amount would be clawed back by the federal government.

There are not many incentives for a province to want to develop major resource developments. There is not much of an opportunity for a province that receives equalization payments to boost its standard of living comparable to a province that does not receive equalization.

I served as a member of the Newfoundland House of Assembly for about a 14 year period.

[Gulf Ferry Service, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the gulf ferry service connecting the island of Newfoundland with the mainland of Canada was guaranteed in our 1949 terms of union with Canada. However this is not to say that we are provided with the type of service we feel we deserve.

There have been many complaints over the years about service quality, vessel cleanliness, the rate structure and the constant threat of labour unrest at the start of our tourist season. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, regional development agencies and the local business community have all been addressing these concerns on an ongoing basis.

I call upon the Government of Canada to set up a federal-provincial committee to examine the gulf ferry service with a view to initiating improvements in that service. The gulf ferry service is not between Newfoundland and Canada, it is in Canada and, as such, should be a service that all Canadians can be proud of.

[Bell Island Ferry, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of this House, and to the attention of the Minister of Transport in particular, a very serious incident that occurred last week on the Bell Island ferry service in the riding of St. John's East.

The ferryboat Hamilton Sound , fully loaded with vehicles and 75 passengers, lost a ramp in heavy seas during what should have been a routine crossing. Luckily the ferry made port without any serious injury or loss of life.

The operation of the Bell Island ferry service is very much a local matter, but the safety of ships at sea is also a matter within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. I call upon the minister to investigate and to act on the incident so the people of Bell Island can be assured they will have a ferry system that can operate safely under local traffic and weather conditions.

[Nunavut Act, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act. The bill is important not only for what the legislation entails but also for what it represents. The bill provides for a single tier court system in the new territory of Nunavut.

The creation of this territory on April 1, 1999 will be a very historic occasion. The legislation will help to ensure that when that day comes everything will be ready to begin operations and allow for a very smooth transition for this new territory.

The Northwest Territories and the rest of Canada will be watching with interest when Nunavut becomes a territory. With the unique justice system the legislation will put in place there will be even greater reason to monitor the situation closely.

The single court system has been discussed on many different occasions but has never been implemented by another province or territory. It will be interesting to see how well it meets the needs of the Inuit people. Currently all provinces and territories operate on the two court system.

I will provide some historical background and information on the demographics and size of Nunavut. The creation of a separate Nunavut territory has been discussed for many years, beginning in 1976 with a request by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada to have a boundary drawn between the eastern and western sections of the Northwest Territories. It was not until a land claim settlement was signed in 1993 under the Conservative government of the day that the new territory was realized. The creation of Nunavut was included as a provision of that agreement.

As the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said, the agreement gives the Inuit control of about 350,000 square kilometres within the more than two million square kilometres that will become Nunavut. The Inuit will make up approximately 80% of the population of the new territory which will be approximately one-fifth of Canada's land mass. However it will only have a population of 22,000. That sparse population base makes the one court system preferable in the eastern arctic.

Less time will be spent travelling to remote communities with only one court level. A judge will be able to rule on cases relating to criminal, civil or family matters while in the community, negating the need for a number of judges to make similar trips. That should reduce costs and eliminate administrative details such as the scheduling of numerous court appearances. In time the judges should become more familiar with the different communities, which may assist them in their duties.

The one court system was chosen for the eastern arctic at the request of the Inuit. The Inuit have their own views of what a justice system should provide. It is hoped that a one tier system will better meet their requirements. We shall have to wait to see if that is the case.

The creation of Nunavut on April 1, 1999 has special significance for me. It will be the first new territory or province created since Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949. Obviously that will be a very historic day for Canada. I am pleased to support a bill that will help to ensure the transition occurs smoothly and put in place a system which will be adequate to address the needs of the Inuit and non-Inuit residents of the eastern arctic.

I had the opportunity in the last session of parliament to speak to a bill which also amended the Nunavut Act. I am pleased to speak again to another amendment to the act. I will be watching closely with my colleagues when Nunavut becomes the newest territory in Canada in April 1999.

[Infrastructure, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, given that answer and given the regional disparity in sewage systems in Atlantic Canada, would the minister not agree that major harbour clean-ups in places like St. John's, Newfoundland warrant a special infusion of federal dollars, not token dollars, but a meaningful contribution that will make possible the clean-up of St. John's harbour at least sometime in the next century?

[Infrastructure, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Statistics show that as of 1994, 93% of Canadians served by municipal sewer systems have at least primary sewage treatment. However, in Atlantic Canada more than 50% of the people had no sewage treatment at all.

Does the minister acknowledge a significant regional disparity in the level of sewage treatment in Atlantic Canada as compared with the rest of the nation? Would she not agree that the matter warrants a major federal initiative to reduce that disparity?

[Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1998, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to respond, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, to Bill S-16 which will allow Canada to ratify tax conventions and tax treaties with Croatia, Chile and Vietnam.

Canada, as everyone is aware, is a trading nation. Last year our exports totalled some $344 billion. Our imports were up around $329 billion. That gives us some indication of how important trading is to Canada.

While the majority of our trade has traditionally involved the United States, we do have trade and we do have investment treaties and ties with virtually every nation on the face of the earth, including the countries mentioned in the bill.

Therefore, it is vital that trade and investment be promoted and carried out with the maximum degree of certainty that we can possibly have both for us and for our partners.

Over the last quarter century Canada has sought to expand on a number of tax agreements it has with other nations, especially with the countries mentioned in the bill. That has been the policy, as we are all very much aware, of both Liberal and Conservative administrations. We have now reached a point where we have 70 such agreements in place. That is pretty impressive.

Such tax treaties have two main goals. They sort out who has the right to collect which amount of tax when a business or person residing in one country earns money in another country. They also ensure that taxes that are paid in one country are recognized by the other country.

One knows, for example, what withholding tax to expect on income that one takes out of that country. As a result, one can invest and earn income in the secure knowledge that the foreign country will not make it impossible for one to bring home one's profits by imposing new and unexpected withholding taxes.

The result is that business and individual investors can pretty well feel secure that they can invest internationally with confidence and that they will not have their profits withheld. That is an important economic objective, whether it be through treaties such as these or through trade agreements such as NAFTA, the World Trade Organization or the proposed free trade agreement of the Americas.

Such treaties prevent tax evasion. They allow the free flow of information and encourage communication between individual countries that is needed to catch individuals and corporations that are evading tax. This is a result, I am sure we could all agree, everyone would be in favour of.

The member for Kings—Hants, the finance critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, knows full well the benefits of international trade. They are well known to all members of the Conservative Party. It was the PC government, incidentally, that designed the the North America Free Trade Agreement.

The PC Party also liberalized trade in telecommunications for Canadian business. The Liberals who were in opposition at that time were opposed outright to the notion of opening up Canada to the rest of the world. Now we are all aware they have had a great conversion. They have seen the light. They are quite pleased to associate themselves with the North America Free Trade Agreement. Very often the Prime Minister uses every opportunity, whether at home or abroad, to promote that agreement. Just recently we saw the Prime Minister actually take credit for negotiating the free trade agreement.

On numerous occasions our finance critic has risen in the House to remind the government and the Prime Minister that the Liberals are born again free traders. Now that it has become fashionable, the Prime Minister and his government cannot get enough of international trade and discuss it at every opportunity.

The PC Party was the party that took the initiative when issues such as free trade were not fashionable because we knew that it was in the best interest of Canada. Also the PC Party was the party that let Atlantic Canada prosper under more liberalized trade both within Canada and other nations around the world.

Free trade has created a prosperous economy and has created thousands and thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada for which the Minister of Finance is currently taking credit as he did in the House yesterday.

It is encouraging to see the Liberal Party of Canada finally seeing the light and supporting the very ideas the Conservative government embraced as the best bet for the future of Canada.

The Conservative Party has no problem with the bill. It is a good bill and Canada will be better off for it.

[Health Care, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the last budget the Minister of Finance put more money into federal transfers for health and education. In the case of Newfoundland, that only slowed the rate of decrease in our transfers. This year Newfoundland received $274 million in these transfers. By the year 2002 the amount will have dropped to $245 million.

As of November there have been 429 cardiac surgeries done in Newfoundland. When asked recently in question period about the 220 cardiac patients on the waiting list at the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's, the Newfoundland Minister of Health said “Unfortunately we have to live within our fiscal means”.

When those means keep decreasing it is possible that some people may not live. I call upon the Minister of Finance to increase transfers for health in his upcoming budget. For some people on the waiting list it will be a matter of life and death.

[Child Poverty, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in 1989 the House of Commons passed a resolution that our nation should strive to eliminate child poverty by 2000.

However, between 1989 and 1995 the number of poor children in the nation increased by 58%, resulting in more than 1.5 million children living in poverty. In my province of Newfoundland some 38,000 children live in families that are below the official poverty line and many of these children go to school hungry each morning. In other words, the problem has become worse since that 1989 resolution.

I call on the Government of Canada to significantly increase the Canada child tax benefit in the upcoming budget and to generally support initiatives by the Canadian School Boards Association to deal with the issue of hungry children in our schools.

The budget is in surplus. The time for talk is over and the time for action on child poverty is right now.