Norman E. Doyle

[Business Development Bank Of Canada, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware that I have written him regarding the company named Eyeland Optical in St. John's, a company that is being forced to move from a prime storefront location to make room for the expansion of the Business Development Bank of Canada. This will probably put Eyeland Optical out of business.

How does the minister square that action with the bank's mandate to assist small business? Does he not realize that the BDBC in St. John's is attempting to put a small business out of business?

[Business Development Bank Of Canada, November 20th, 1998]

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

The Business Development Bank of Canada has a mandate to assist in developing small business in Canada. Can the minister indicate if this bank is subject to any constraints on its behaviour with regard to its dealings with the business community in which it operates? More clearly, can the minister indicate if there is a code of conduct that governs the operations of the Business Development Bank of Canada?

[Immigration, November 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration. A number of persecuted Turkish Kurds have reached Canada and have been granted refugee status.

The minister should be aware that being a Kurd in Turkey often involves the use of false papers. Two of these refugees were caught using false papers by Turkish authorities. Even though they are now safely in Canada, the immigration department is charging them $1,000 each as a rehabilitation fee for having used these documents.

How does the minister justify that fee to penniless refugees whose only crime was to use false papers to escape repression in their own country?

[St. John's Harbour, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on April 23 I was present with Premier Tobin and other dignitaries celebrating the start-up of the St. John's Harbour clean-up. At that time $4.5 million had been committed, one-third each by the municipal, provincial and federal governments involved. At that ceremony Premier Tobin announced the commitment of the provincial and municipal shares to the next phase of the project.

Noticeably missing on the platform that day was the minister of the federal cabinet. Also missing from the speeches was a further federal commitment to the project which, when completed, will have cost in excess of $140 million.

St. John's is one of Canada's 11 capital cities. If the federal government can spend $78 million a year keeping Ottawa beautiful, surely it can also help keep the other capitals clean and beautiful.

Today I call upon the federal government and the minister for Newfoundland to make funding available for the St. John's Harbour clean-up.

[Petitions, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition signed by 32 residents of St. John's East.

The petitioners are requesting that parliament initiate and conclude by the turn of the century an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

The petitioners wish to state that the continuing existence of nuclear weapons is a terrible threat to the health and survival of the human civilization and the global environment and that the surest way to eliminate the threat is to do away with nuclear weapons. The petitioners are requesting parliament to initiate and conclude by the year 2000 an international convention that will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

[Petitions, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition on behalf of 100 people in St. John's East who are concerned about the wolf population left in the world. A wolf hunt has been allowed in the Northwest Territories and snow machines are being used for that purpose.

The petitioners call on parliament to enact measures to put an end to snow machine hunting of wolves in Canada.

[Royal Canadian Mint, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac, for giving me a chance to speak on this motion today.

I want to thank the member for Elk Island for pursuing this very important matter in the House.

From the beginning our party has opposed the construction of the Royal Canadian Mint's new plant which will manufacture coin blanks. We believe the mint has not been forthcoming with Canadians on this new facility.

The motion the member has proposed today would give taxpayers and members of parliament the opportunity to examine in detail the decision making process at the mint which has led government to support the decision which will have very terrible consequences for Westaim, for its employees and for taxpayers as well.

Let me review a few of the facts and arguments that our party has talked about in this particular case.

Through Bill C-41 the Liberal government has moved to increase the borrowing authority of the Royal Canadian Mint, allowing it to build a coin plating plant, another patronage plum, incidentally, in the Minister of Foreign Affairs' backyard.

That facility would put the mint into direct competition with Westaim of Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta. Because the world market for coin blanks is going down, either Westaim will be forced out of the business and 110 employees will lose their jobs or the Royal Canadian Mint's new venture will go down in flames and taxpayers will be on the hook for a minimum of $30 million.

Why should the deal be stopped? Westaim is a legitimate Canadian business which has supplied the Royal Canadian Mint with coin blanks for 35 years. It employs 110 people in Fort Saskatchewan and the entry of the Royal Canadian Mint into the industry would jeopardize the Westaim division and its 110 employees.

Industry experts agree that the market for coin blanks will experience a slight blip in demand as the newer European currency starts up and then will continue on a steady decline as electronic transactions become more popular and the need for coinage and paper money decreases.

The new coin plating plant will not only replace Westaim as the source of supply of coin blanks, but will compete against Westaim in the world market.

The costs of getting the mint into the coin blank business are enormous. The $30 million announced is only to build the plant. Start-up costs are substantial for a new competitor in a mature to declining market.

The mint will be required to compete against established, experienced, well-entrenched competitors who have had years to build their expertise and economies of scale.

Not only will the Royal Canadian Mint have to contend with a high cost structure, but like any brand new business it is going to make many mistakes as well.

There is currently a 30% to 40% oversupply in the world coin blank market. The entry of the mint into that market will likely either drive Westaim and its 110 employees out of business or it will spectacularly go down in flames and take millions of taxpayer dollars with it.

Even though there is no direct subsidy being proposed in that venture, because all money spent by a crown corporation reduces dividends paid to the government, ultimately the taxpayer is the one who pays.

Parliament has not approved Bill C-41 that would give the Royal Canadian Mint the authority to borrow the money for the new plant. Westaim still has an unresolved lawsuit against the mint involving the softening process necessary to make these coin blanks. The mint cannot legally proceed with that venture unless it settles both of these outstanding matters, yet construction of the plant started in March.

Getting government right is a Liberal government policy that has been around since 1993. Among other things it stipulates that where the private sector can provide a service equal or superior to a government department or agency, then government should not be in that business. This venture violates that Liberal government policy.

The only reason this is being allowed to happen is because it is a patronage plum for the foreign affairs minister's backyard. The Westaim plant is in an opposition-held riding. It is as simple as that. If Westaim were in a Liberal riding this venture would never have made it past the cabinet table.

We do not have to look any further than the fiasco that the Liberal government created in the oil industry in the 1970s to know that it does not make sense for the government to take over part of an existing industry to compete with private companies.

Back then the Liberals nationalized Petrofina and created the national energy program. That hurt the industry. It cost jobs and taxpayers ended up paying out millions and millions of dollars. All that money was paid out quite unnecessarily. The same problem will happen with the Royal Canadian Mint.

In June of this year my colleague, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, had the pleasure to meet with the master of the mint, Mrs. Danielle Wethrup, and her vice-president of finance and administration. The meeting was an opportunity for our party to exchange views and information with the management of the Royal Canadian Mint.

They made some very convincing arguments concerning security of supply. But when we asked them to show us their business plan, they refused. When we asked them to show us their market projections which they claimed indicated a healthy growing demand, they did not do that. When we asked them to show us any piece of evidence that could reassure us that the $30 million of taxpayer money that was on the line would not be a risky venture, they said “You are just going to have to trust us because we cannot do that as well”.

We cannot trust them in that regard. As I have indicated, every bit of information we have seen on this matter reinforces our view that this scheme of the mint's will put Westaim and its employees out of business. It will put 110 people on the unemployment rolls and possibly on the provincial government's welfare rolls. It is going to cost millions of dollars.

I am happy at least that government members are going to vote for the motion to give access of information to the opposition. The motion will give our party access to the information that we need to determine the advisability of this proposed venture, and specifically if we should support Bill C-41.

I call on the mint to make public all relevant papers on the coin plating facility. I am very pleased indeed that all members are going to support that part of the process.

[Equalization, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to close the debate. I thank all hon. members for their submissions in this debate. I am not surprised that there is very little agreement among members especially from have provinces to change the equalization formula.

With respect, the government member who spoke talked around the problem of equalization. He talked around the motion. We are all very much aware of how the formula came about. He offered very little help and very little advice about how the formula could be changed to reflect the very real economic problems of the have-not provinces in this nation.

Simply put, we need economic development and jobs. We need to maximize the impact of any resource development on our economy and on the provincial treasury. We in Newfoundland and Labrador have lost a lot in our economy due to federal government cuts in programs and personnel. We are seeing the spectacle of every new resource dollar being clawed back, being subtracted dollar for dollar from our nearly $1 billion in equalization payments. As I said earlier in the debate, the Hibernia development is an exception. From those revenues, we will only lose 70 cents on the equalization dollar.

We need the equalization formula improved. This improvement needs to be applied to the other resource developments as well. That is the whole point of the motion, a change in the equalization formula. If there is no change, there will not be a catching up. There will not be a chance for equality of the provinces unless there is some recognition of the fact that the very pool of money made available by the federal government through equalization to keep provinces from starving is the same pool of money that will keep them permanently poor.

I am not saying that we should put in place a new equalization formula for ever and a day. I am saying that we should work out an arrangement for have-not provinces that will see resource revenues clawed back on a more gradual basis. For example, there could be a 50% clawback on a development such as Voisey's Bay and maybe a 35% or 40% clawback on a development like Sable Island. That way there would be an opportunity to play catch up, to bring back to an acceptable level the employment rate and the quality of life for people who happen to live in a have-not province.

I am willing to listen to an alternative to that. If there happens to be no agreement on changing the equalization formula, maybe in the next budget some alternative measures could be taken to help the economically deprived provinces of which I belong to one. I do not expect to change the world today but I want the people of Canada to know that the current equalization formula is taking one step forward and one step back. If that is the case, how can we ever get ahead, how can we equalize, how can we catch up?

[Equalization, September 30th, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should review the current equalization program formula with a view to decreasing the clawback on provincial revenues from resource development projects.

Mr. Speaker, last fall I had a private member's bill on Newfoundland's unemployment problem selected and debated here in the Chamber. In my final remarks I remember saying that if we had a fairer equalization formula applied to Newfoundland, and for that matter applied to all of the have-not provinces which receive equalization payments, then we would be a whole lot better off as a nation.

The Canadian equalization program, as we are all very much aware, redistributes the wealth of the nation. Last year the province of Newfoundland received about $996 million in equalization payments.

In this fiscal year we are expected to get roughly $896 million. That figure, of course, can be greatly affected by the national economy. In a good year any province that receives equalization payments can receive more and, of course, it can receive less when the economy is down.

The population of the receiving province is also a factor. In recent years it has meant a downward trend because of Newfoundland's decreasing population. Since 1987 Newfoundland has lost approximately 60,000 people. It is very serious indeed when the province in total has a population of less than 600,000 people.

However, the main variable I am concerned with is the fact that, with any major new influx of resource revenue, those revenues are deducted dollar for dollar from our equalization entitlements. That is to say, if the province had taken in about $1 billion in additional resource revenues in the 1997-98 fiscal year, we would have been only $4 million better off.

Just imagine that a province like Newfoundland can take in a billion dollars in additional resource revenues in any fiscal year and only be $4 million better off because, of course, the first $996 million of revenue will have merely gone to replace equalization.

There is not much of a chance for a province receiving equalization payments to catch up, to become equal with the other provinces. Of course, there is not much of an incentive for any province to develop.

I served as a member of the Newfoundland House of Assembly for a number of years. During those terms both PC and Liberal governments talked about the equalization formula that we have in this nation.

I think that was brought into focus in Newfoundland especially by the massive Hibernia discovery on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. At the time of that discovery in 1979 Hibernia held the promise of jobs and revenues for our beleaguered provincial economy.

In the early eighties oil prices were high and the prospect of multibillion dollar annual oil revenues was not out of the realm of the possible. Overcoming the equalization problem, the equalization hump, seemed to be within the realm of the possible. That is to say, we would lose the first billion but we could keep subsequent millions or billions of dollars, whatever the case may be.

However, as we are all aware, it proved impossible at that time for the government, the Trudeau administration, to negotiate an offshore oil agreement. So an agreement on offshore revenues was held up until the Mulroney administration came to power in Ottawa. By the time we actually started to develop that project oil prices were a whole lot lower. Now there was no possibility of multibillion dollar oil revenues and it looked as if the oil revenues that would be generated would merely replace equalization payments.

What happened then? To his credit, John Crosbie negotiated a deal with the Mulroney administration that would see us lose only 70 cents on the equalization dollar for revenues raised from the Hibernia project. However, the deal applied only to that particular project. The revenues from projects like Voisey's Bay would still be subtracted on a dollar for dollar basis.

Do not get me wrong. We are pleased that we have an equalization program. That equalization program can keep a province from starving. However, we are not pleased that it is a formula that will also keep us from getting ahead as a province. How can we ever be expected to catch up if every new dollar we earn is subtracted from equalization entitlements? And catch up we must.

For as long as I have been in public life the unemployment rate in the province has been double the national average. On top of that, the federal government has cut transfers for health and education by 35%. As a result, thousands of provincial public servants have been laid off and our public services are now under a great deal of strain, especially those in rural Newfoundland. The federal government has cut the federal public service in Newfoundland by 30% as compared with 15% nationally. It is hard to believe that a 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 the province's economy, the cumulative effect of these cuts has been more devastating in Newfoundland than in other provinces. That is one more reason we need a new deal in this Confederation if we are to move out of park and into high gear.

The United Nations says that Canada is one of the best countries in the world in which to live, but I guess it all depends on where you happen to live in this nation. How can Canada hold up its head in the community of nations while one of its provinces, in this case the province of Newfoundland, has an unemployment rate that is double the national average? That is another reason we need a better equalization formula, to leave more wealth in the hands of the people of the province.

The province of Newfoundland and Labrador has vast oil and gas reserves. It has a lot of iron ore, nickel and hydroelectricity. In most countries that would form the basis of a massive industrial complex which would bring more people into the province. Instead, what we have in Newfoundland is the exporting of people and raw resources. I do not want to be cynical about this, but it seems to me that the centres of power in the nation do not want that to change.

Indeed we have recently been treated, if you will, to political and editorial comments out of central Canada that our nickel reserves should be used to feed smelters in Ontario and in Manitoba as well. The premier of Ontario really should have more sense than what he demonstrated in making that point about resource development in Newfoundland in Voisey's Bay. He should be saying as the premier of the largest province in Canada that we should be allowing the province to develop and we should be allowing the province to catch up.

We should be helping provinces like Newfoundland do that by implementing a new program that would see equalization cut by only 50%; a 50% clawback on the resource related revenues in the province.

I suppose some provinces can argue, and rightly so, that Newfoundland and the have-not provinces owe them something for providing jobs to migrant Newfoundlanders over the years, but should we therefore give away the wherewithal that we need to make us self-reliant? I think not.

I can understand, for instance, that the good people of Sudbury are concerned that the days of cheap local iron ore are over. Mining and related operations generally have a very fixed lifespan, as we are well aware.

I remember in Newfoundland, in my own constituency, that the towns of Bell Island and Buchans had to deal with the reality of ore running out and the tragedy of those mining towns shutting down. Such is the eventual fate, of course, of any mining town.

While we wish all the best to the good people of Sudbury, I do not feel that the nickel discovery at Voisey's Bay is the solution to their problem. Rather, the Voisey's Bay find is one of the solutions to Newfoundland's chronic economic problems. Properly done, with a new equalization formula, that project could provide thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue. Being able to hold on to some of that revenue from that resource is what this motion is all about today.

We need revenues to do more than merely replace equalization. We need revenues to augment our economic situation. We need revenues to augment our equalization. We need those revenues to catch up, to make progress and to try in some way to become, if we possibly can over time, equal to the rest of Canada.

Canada will never be the nation that it should be if it does not seriously try to help rectify the crippling unemployment problem that we have in Newfoundland. I have suggested one mechanism, that of an improved equalization formula, which would leave more wealth in the local economy. Lower payroll taxes and income taxes could also help.

However, I do not believe anything will change if there is not an attitude change on the part of the federal government. That is why I am standing here today in the House asking for understanding for the kind of plight the province finds itself in. I am asking for understanding for a new deal within the Confederation of Canada, where all Canadians can be truly equal, wherever they happen to live, whether it is in Newfoundland, British Columbia or Nova Scotia. I do not think that will ever happen unless we get a new deal in this Confederation.

[Unemployment In Newfoundland, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the dictionary defines “decimate” as kill or remove one in every ten. Since 1986 Newfoundland has lost 60,000 through out-migration. Given that our population is below 600,000 people, it is fair to say that Newfoundland has been literally decimated by out-migration since 1986.

Our unemployment rate is 19%, more than double the national rate, and I shudder to think what the rate would have been had these 60,000 people not left.

Newfoundland's chronic unemployment problem is very much a local tragedy, but it is also a national tragedy. Not until Canada helps Newfoundland solve that problem can she truly deserve the United Nations title of best country in the world in which to live.

We appreciate our right as Canadians to seek work elsewhere in Canada; however, after nearly 50 years in Confederation it is time we had a share of these jobs at home.