Debates of March 15th, 1996

Supply

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will ask again. Is there unanimous consent to make the motion votable?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not hear any nos. I will assume therefore that the motion by unanimous consent is made votable.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Health in reply.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me reply to the hon. member's intervention when he said: "I did not speak to the motion". I spoke to his motion. He said: "That the House condemns the government for its neglect of Labrador". The things I have outlined are exactly the things that the government has done for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the things we intend to do in the future. Therefore the first issue is false.

Second, the hon. member says that we are satisfied with the status quo. We are not satisfied with the status quo but we are certainly not satisfied with the approach of the Reform Party. It wishes to cut transfer payments even further. It wants to do away with regional and economic development.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

You would not need those things.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

The hon. member says: "You would not need these those things". He knows that there is a legally binding contract, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. The hon. member's reaction opposite is to throw his hands in the air and say, so what?

I am afraid that members on this side of the House and people across the country respect the law and it is high time that the hon. member opposite showed some respect for the law as well.

The hon. member is somewhat agitated and I can understand why. His party has gone down to 13 per cent nationally and it is going to go down the tubes in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The hon. member is making a false case. If he thinks that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to buy this new found concern and compassion during an election campaign when you have stood in this House and repeatedly faulted this government for putting money into regional economic development, for putting money into Goose Bay, for putting money into various economic development agreements, for putting money into various institutions in that part of the country, you are the party that have opposed all that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The minister has now used the word you at least seven or eight times. I would ask him if he would please remember the rules of the House and not use the word you other than referring to the occupant of the Chair.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that his is the party that has consistently and repeatedly railed against economic development in Canada for two and a half years. Now, all of a sudden, because there is a byelection in Newfoundland, the people in that part of the country are now going to accept that the members opposite are compassionate. We will not be fooled by that hypocrisy.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate, the hon. member. Before I do, colleagues, I might indicate that not having heard a no on the final time I asked if there were any nos, I ruled that the matter was votable and the question will be put at the end of the debate.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to debate this issue. The previous speaker was pretty good. I would say he generated fair emotion and experience in his speech.

However, I do reflect on his words in a specific way. I would like those who are listening to the debate to decide whether the minister is satisfied with the Churchill Falls power agreement. Is he satisfied with the status quo?

I was the first Reformer to go to Labrador. I visited quite some time ago. It was my choice to visit. Having made that choice, some of my colleagues asked: "Why are you going there? This is a cold and bitter spot. Why would you go to Labrador?" The answer is very straightforward. I am quite interested in the activities of the north and I found myself on the ground.

I was inexperienced in Labrador. I have spent some time in the north in my own part of the country but I had never been lucky enough to go to Labrador. It was fascinating how I was treated. I was treated with some scepticism, I must admit. I was treated with some degree of misunderstanding, which I also accept. However, I found a few issues in Labrador that are profoundly important to the people there.

One of those issues was brought to the table by my colleague, the power agreement at Churchill Falls. I met one of the men who first worked in Churchill Falls. He told me that whatever Reformers do, we should not buy the line that the Churchill Falls agreement is over and done with forever. He told me to look at the agreement and I would find that the excess power that is generated could be used by Newfoundland. It need not go through the convoluted agreement to coffers elsewhere. He told me to look carefully and I would find that the only thing necessary for Newfoundlanders to benefit from their own power is for superconductor transmission lines to go from Churchill Falls, the source of the power, through

Newfoundland. In fact Churchill Falls could provide all of the power needs for Newfoundland at a significant savings to that province. Why can we not do that? We cannot do that because the money is not available to build that transmission line.

I took the time to look into that agreement and what he told me was true, that Newfoundland could generate its own power and the excess power and benefit from it. To those status quo Liberals who say that the Supreme Court has ruled this agreement is over and done with, I say hear, hear. The agreement is a secure binding agreement, but Newfoundland could take the excess power.

The fellow who showed me around Labrador also said that the former member had been a very dignified member. I take nothing from the member who has gone on to the Senate, his reward in the sky. He told me that when the issue of gun registration came on the table, many Labradorians did not understand it. They asked for the former member's advice. They could not reach the member; he would not come home; he did not respond. His executive assistant in Labrador was usually easy to reach but he seemed to disappear and became very difficult to reach. He would not answer their phone calls and he would not respond when they asked for public meetings.

This individual took me to meet people to whom firearm registration was an unknown concept. He asked me what we would do with firearm registration. I told him that I had a commitment from my leader and my caucus colleagues that firearm registration was not the way to go. I told him we would love to have the bill split into two. We would quickly pass the portion of the bill that makes stricter penalties for the criminal misuse of firearms. We would take the part of the bill that talked about interfering where we do not think interference would be successful and we would toss it into the dustbin of history. He asked if I would give him that in writing. I said not only would I give it to him in writing but I would get it in writing from my leader. He responded by saying we should talk to some people with strong feelings on the issue.

On a rainy Sunday afternoon he drove me out to a gravel pit. I wondered where I was going; I thought perhaps he was going to finish me off. At the gravel pit there was a group of young men who were keen internationally renowned competitive shooters. He said to them: "Fellows, come over here and talk to this guy. He is from Alberta, a Reform member of Parliament. He is the first one to step on Labrador soil as a member of Parliament. He says the Reform Party will throw the gun registration component of Bill C-68 into the dustbin of history. Do you believe him?" They replied: "No, we don't believe him for a second. He is a politician and they are all as crooked as question marks". The fellow said: "Boys, I have talked to a lot of politicians and I have looked them in the eye and I think this fellow is telling us the truth". He said that he was going to join the party and that he would work hard for it.

This was well before the byelection was called, well before there was any idea that we would be fighting on this ground. I came back and told my colleagues that there was fertile ground in Labrador.

There is another issue that annoyed the people of Labrador. There is a line on most maps that indicates the boundary between Labrador and Quebec. One of the fellows told me there are some people in Quebec who do not accept that boundary. In fact, on some maps the boundary is absent. When tourists come from Quebec to Labrador, they are actually told that Labrador is part of Quebec.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Come on.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

It is true. Annoy a Labradorian more than to tell a Labradorian they do not belong to Newfoundland; I do not believe that can be done. He said to me: "You make sure that your Reform colleagues know that Labrador is a part of Newfoundland and we are going to stay a part of Newfoundland. When you come here make certain that is clear".

It was fertile ground for Reform well before the byelection. It was fertile ground because those individuals determined that we are no longer going to dump wheelbarrows full of money on the ground to try to buy their votes. Reformers will tell it exactly as it is.

ACOA, FEDNOR and western economic diversification have been mechanisms for big political parties to buy votes. The way to get votes in Labrador is to tell the truth, to specifically say to individuals in Labrador that they do not need handouts. They need an environment in which they can thrive. They need a debt that is no longer sucking the lifeblood out of the future of their children. They need to have places where they can go to university and not be left without training.

Labradorians respond to that truth. Labradorians respond to common sense. Labradorians respond to a specific issue that says when they send a Reformer from Labrador to the Parliament of Canada they will not be sending a trained seal. They will not be sending someone who bows to the party wishes. They will be sending someone who gives party input.

I say plainly to my colleagues across the way: When the old way of doing politics is over, when the old way of campaigning is over, Labradorians may look again at the Liberals for their member of Parliament.

I make a prediction here today that Labradorians are going to show the way of the future in Canada when they vote in the byelection.

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the words of my colleague from the third party.

He spoke about Newfoundland being a part of Labrador. Newfoundlanders always knew that Labrador was a part of Newfoundland, not Quebec. They have known it for years. We do not have to be told that. We are not dumb.

He also said that we need to get rid of the debt so that the government is not sucking the lifeblood out of Newfoundlanders. During the budget debate and prior to it, if we took what they were saying, those members would have sucked the lifeblood out of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians long ago, not just Newfoundlanders but other Canadians as well.

There is one point the hon. member made to which I take particular exception. It was his comment that the gentleman who took him on a tour of Labrador brought him to a sandpit and he thought he was going to be done in. Newfoundlanders are not like that. Newfoundlanders are responsible, trusting, respectable people. We do not go around doing other people in.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I seem to have struck an interesting chord with the hon. member opposite.

Light hearted comments made in the House I am sure should be taken in a light hearted fashion. If the hon. member thinks for one second that I really thought I was going to be done in during my visit to the gravel pit, that is quite far from the truth. A little chuckle might be worthwhile in the House occasionally.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question and a small comment. Can my colleague from the Reform Party tell us why his party, which has so much to say about the law and financial matters, which has so many principles on paper, introduced this debate today, unless, as my colleagues across the way have so eloquently said, it was simply for the purpose of indulging in petty politics, or wasting the time of the entire House? I hope that he will give an honest answer to this question.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, why a debate on this topic? Is a byelection not a very important debate for the Bloc Quebecois members? It is not a very important question for him, but it is very important for us. It is difficult for a Western party to come East and make a new proposal for this region of Canada.

I have a question for the Bloc Quebecois member. Before the sovereignty debate, why did we speak about Quebec? It is the same thing.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Reform Party motion.

I will talk a little bit about the actual facts in the motion, the Churchill Falls agreement. I want to talk about what has been discussed over the last few minutes, exactly how much support the federal government has provided to Newfoundland and Labrador. It is indeed significant.

I will also talk about the absolute political inconsistency and hypocrisy of the Reform Party in bringing forward this motion some few days before a byelection takes place in Labrador, an area which before the byelection the Reform Party hardly new existed.

I will be quite straightforward. A contract exists in respect of Churchill Falls that was freely entered into and which has been ratified by the Supreme Court. That is a reality. In hindsight one might suggest it was not necessarily a good contract to enter into. Coming from the financial business area, I can say there are a lot of contracts that one could look back on and ask: I wonder why I ever did that. Unfortunately, one rule of law, one of the tenets we have in Canada and something that keeps us going is the fact that we respect contracts. In this case, the contract has been ratified by the Supreme Court.

The member is right. Things have changed a lot since the contract was signed. At the time it probably seemed like a good deal. Energy costs were low. The only practical way to deliver power from Labrador is through Quebec. Quite frankly, when the project was being developed thousands of jobs were created for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, hindsight is 20-20. An oil crisis ensued shortly after that and there was an increase in the cost of energy. I guess we learned that long term contracts are probably not always the best way to go. The Supreme Court spoke to this matter and clearly stated that it was a firm contract.

The Reform Party knows and consistently insists that natural resources and the management of natural resources is not the purview of the federal government but is the purview of provincial governments. That is something the Reform Party not only wants to see continue but it also wants to see it enhanced.

Quite frankly, the federal government does assist Labrador and Newfoundland in developing its natural resources. It has worked with the province in the hope of finding ways to develop on the lower Churchill. It went on record in 1975 of offering financial assistance in the development of a transmission link to the island. It is now working at Voisey Bay to find the tools we need to find ways of streamlining the regulatory regime. In fact the member who put forward this motion has worked closely with the natural resources

committee and signed off on a unanimous report on finding ways to ensure that we can assist in the important development of Voisey Bay to make sure that it can come on stream, that it can be a reality and that jobs will be created in Labrador and Newfoundland.

Not just as the federal government have we supported that province through the natural resource sector, in Labrador today there is the Canadian forces base at Goose Bay which adds $128 million to the local economy. That is more than fish harvesting and trapping; it is about the same as what pulp and paper and agriculture together supply. The federal government through the establishment of CFB Goose Bay adds tremendously to the economy.

Other types of assistance are provided. There is the whole issue of transfer payments from the federal government to the provincial governments. I know that my Reform colleagues across the way might suggest it should be equal for each province, but we feel a little differently over here. Areas of the country which are most in need require greater assistance than some of the other areas. That is borne out when we look at the fact that Labrador and Newfoundland has the highest per capita rate by which we provide transfers to the provinces. That is the way it should be. It is the way the Reform Party would want to see ended.

Let us talk about the Reform Party and Labrador and Newfoundland. First, it was very difficult in fact near impossible to find that subject in the 1993 Reform Party campaign literature and campaign platform. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this discovery of Labrador and Newfoundland seems to have occurred only with the advent of a byelection in that area. If one goes through the record of this House and looks in Hansard for a reference to Labrador by the Reform Party, it will be a very thin record that will be found.

Let us talk a bit about the Reform Party and what great things it will do for Labrador. I notice the finance critic was one of the architects of the 1995 Reform budget. Unfortunately the Reform Party did not get around to doing a 1996 one. I will touch on some of the things Reform suggested and the impact they would have on the people of Labrador.

Reform would get rid of the Canada pension plan. It would give up on it and replace it with private RRSPs. This is great if one happens to have a lot of money. Those who earn a lot of money can establish their own RRSPs. With the Reform budget, those who are not that fortunate to be at the upper end of the income scale are simply out of luck.

A $20 billion suggestion on reductions in social programs was in the Reform budget of 1995. I wonder how that would play out for the people of Labrador. I doubt that it would be a real positive thing for them.

Besides looking at the Reform budget and campaign literature, perhaps we should move right to what the Reform leader had to say about Labrador and Newfoundland. I understand the leader was in that area in September 1994. I happened to look at a couple of newspaper clippings on that visit. I want to make sure the people of Labrador know exactly what the leader of the Reform Party had to say. On another issue affecting Newfoundland he said: "The unemployment insurance system should be reformed so that seasonal workers are taken out of the system". My goodness, the leader of the third party is suggesting that seasonal workers, on whom we depend so much in rural Canada and in Labrador, should not be included in the UI system. I hope the people of Labrador know that is the position of the leader of the Reform Party.

We know from many exchanges in the House that the Reform Party does not believe in regional development agencies. That is certainly shared by the Reform leader when he goes on to say in that article that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency should be disbanded.

The Reform Party is suggesting all the assistance that has been provided over the years has not been the appropriate way to go, regardless of the fact that there might be an economy that is in need of special assistance so that the private sector can do its job. I agree with him that long term job creation will come from the private sector but sometimes the private sector needs assistance. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency does that but the Reform Party would see it eliminated.

There are some inconsistencies between what is being put forward by the third party today, what its policy seems to be suggesting in this motion and what in fact it says on an ongoing basis. Earlier we talked about natural resources. The Reform Party's policy states clearly that the federal government ought not to have a role in the management of natural resources. What did Reform do today? It put forward a motion that suggested the federal government should intervene in it. This is totally inconsistent. Reform cannot on the one hand say we do not have any business there and then on the other hand say we should intervene.

We have here a party which prides itself on being the party of free enterprise, the party of the private sector, and all of the stuff that goes with that. Yet the Reform Party says a contract that was freely entered into, probably as a mistake by some of the parties, and confirmed by the Supreme Court should be set aside. That seems a very strange position to be taken by the Reform Party.

We should see this motion for exactly what it is: a crass political attempt during a byelection to gain political support in a part of the country the Reform Party historically has ignored. It is a party

whose policies are certainly not in the best interests of the people of Labrador and Newfoundland.

Reformers talk about doing politics in a new way and bringing something new to this House. All we have seen is old politics, the old way of trying to take advantage of the situation and the old inconsistencies.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made some point of discussing the regional economic development which goes on out there and Reform Party policy. He mentioned my leader, the member from Calgary Southwest, at least three times. He has said a lot of things.

The hon. member should look at what the Reform Party is about and not simply what his own party is saying about Reformers. The Reform Party really would like to see Canadians be independent, to be able to care for themselves, to take satisfaction in their achievements. That is what we would like for the provinces as well. We would like for Labrador and Newfoundland, as well as all the other provinces, to be strong, economically capable and self-sufficient. As a British Columbian I am really proud that we have the strength, the economy and the wealth that benefits other provinces and other people in Canada.

In the member's justification of all the things the government has done over the years for Newfoundland and Labrador, such as the army bases and bringing in money through economic development funds, would he tell me how prosperous the province has become as a result of Liberal initiatives?

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite went on about his great pride in the country, which I share with him.

He talked about wanting to have the opportunity for everybody to have a fair shot at economic prosperity. What is missed here, which I think the Reform Party generally misses, is that government has a role to help both the people and the areas of the country that are least advantaged.

Reformers are right in that we have an economic responsibility as a government. We fulfil that economic responsibility very well. But what they forget and what they ignore is the fact that government has a second responsibility, a social responsibility. The people of Labrador and Newfoundland know very well that the Reform Party if given an opportunity to govern would spend its time strictly on economic affairs and would forget the social responsibility. That is what the future would hold if that party were in power.

The government when it governs the people must remember that it has that dual responsibility. Yes, it must manage the economic affairs of the country well and it has a firm responsibility in that area. However, it has a social responsibility to ensure that those regions which are less advantaged and those individuals in society who are less advantaged have an opportunity as well.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1969, the federal government could have forced Quebec to open a corridor to let Newfoundland run its power lines through Quebec's territory. It did not do that. Had it done so, it would have been totally unacceptable.

I ask the member opposite, who is the chairman of the natural resources committee, to assure me that his government will respect the terms of the contract, which was duly signed-as the member himself said earlier-between the CFLCO and Hydro-Quebec.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I accept the fact that there is a contract in place which governs the power coming from the upper Churchill River. There will come a day, hopefully in the not too distant future, when the economics of energy will be a little different from what they are today. The demand for hydroelectricity will increase and the opportunity will exist for Labrador and Newfoundland to sell the power to create new facilities on the lower part of the system. That will come when the economy changes and demand increases. At that time it will be quite right for the people of Labrador and Newfoundland to look at the best way in which they can use that increased capacity.

I look forward to that day. I look forward to the people of Labrador and Newfoundland being able to do further development in their best interests.