Debates of Nov. 29th, 2004

Question No. 19

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[John Cummins, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 5, I asked Question No. 5. I first asked that question back on February 3. Through access to information, I am aware that an answer has been prepared, yet here I sit still waiting for that question to be answered. The question is of some significance. It has to do with the siting of aquaculture facilities, and we would like an answer to it.

The same holds true for Question No. 6. Again, I asked that on October 5. It has to do with an arrangement where Canadian mariners are required to purchase electronic marine charts through an exclusive agent. I first asked this question back on March 25. Again, documents that I received under access to information suggest that an answer was prepared a long time ago, yet it is not forthcoming.

I would like to get an answer to these questions and it behooves the government to answer them quickly.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that we will take it under advisement and get back to him as soon as we can.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has notice of an application for a question of privilege from the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention the notice of question of privilege, which obviously I had in your hands prior to question period. It has to do with an article that appeared on page 6 of the November 26 edition of the Fredericton Daily Gleaner , one of New Brunswick's three provincial English-language newspapers.

The article was written by Jorge Barrera. He reports on my election as chairman of the Canadian section of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Group, which is a recognized group within Parliament, with a long and very proud history. Those elections were held on November 24. Many positions were hotly contested. You, Mr. Speaker, and other members could back me up on this that it was probably the most hotly contested election for one of the positions in the history of this place.

As honorary chairman of that association, you out of courtesy visited that meeting on the Wednesday evening of November 24. The presiding officer at the election for co-chairman on the House side also conducted the vote on the Senate side. Under co-chairmanship, we have a chairman from the Senate side and one from the House side. The Deputy Speaker of this House, an officer of this place, presided over the election. That was not by accident. Knowing full well that there was at least 200 to 250 members registered to vote that evening, we knew the procedure would have to be ironclad and it would have to be done properly. If I am correct, you, Mr. Speaker, were originally approached to do that. However, because you were busy that evening, it was delegated to your Deputy Speaker to conduct the vote.

Knowing full well that it was hotly contested, the Deputy Speaker wanted to ensure that the membership knew clearly how the rules would be laid out and how they would be applied. He wanted to ensure that they were consistent with the constitution of that body, which they were. There was clarification sought from the floor. There was unanimous agreement among all members, including the member from Saint John, New Brunswick, who I am questioning as to why he would say what did. I will quote that in a minute.

There was unanimous agreement, including agreement from the member from Saint John, New Brunswick, who I beat in that chairmanship race in a vote recorded that evening. I will quote from the newspaper article in question, the November 26 edition of the Fredericton Daily Gleaner . The member from Saint John, New Brunswick, said, “Everyone assumed (vice-chair) was the position [the member for New Brunswick Southwest] wanted and he had applied for co-chair”. He said that it was unfortunate. This is where it becomes very problematic for the member for Saint John, Mr. Speaker, because he is questioning the integrity of your position. I point out that in Marleau and Montpetit, at page 298, it talks about the authority of the Speaker. It says:

Every action of the Deputy Speaker, when acting in the Speaker's place, has the same effect and validity as if the Speaker had acted; or, in the terms of the Parliament of Canada Act:

Every act done and warrant, order or other document issued, signed or published by a Deputy Speaker...that relates to any proceedings of the House of Commons--

We know full well that its a body that the House of Commons recognizes. It continues:

--or that, under any statute, would be done, issued, signed or published by the Speaker, if then able to act, has the same effect and validity as if it had been done, issued, signed or published by the Speaker.

He is calling into question the integrity of the Deputy Speaker of this place and the integrity of that committee. He said, “Unfortunately the committee”, which reflects on all of us, Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Bloc, “decided not to follow the rules, leaving the Liberals following the rules”. That is not accurate and it is not true. The member himself was in that room when the Speaker sought clarification of how the rules were to be interpreted and applied, and he gave his consent. That is disingenuous at the least.

I believe there is a prima facie case of the integrity of the House and every member in it, the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the Senate. I believe it is contempt. At the very minimum, I believe you, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, this place, including the Senate, deserve an apology from the member for Saint John for acting in that very callous, disrespectful, irresponsible way toward you, the House and all members.

At the minimum, I believe all members deserve an apology. I hope that other members will take part in this in an attempt to lay out clearly before the Chair what happened the night of November 24 when the member for Saint John lost a very hotly contested election. It is sour grapes at the best.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, not having had the chance to read the article of November 26 in the Fredericton Daily Gleaner , as mentioned by the member for New Brunswick Southwest, I will refrain from commenting on it. I will certainly look at it and if there are comments that have to be made, I will endeavour to make them to you.

In the meantime, if I may, no sour grapes whatsoever, I would like to on behalf of the government congratulate the member for his election. As the chair of the Canadian section of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association, we are not contesting his election. I would perhaps encourage him not to be sour either on winning. That is quite an achievement.

As far as the conduct of the Deputy Speaker, I have not heard any complaints or comments from colleagues on this side of the House. I will endeavour to find out if there are, but we are not of a view to present any at this time. As far as we are concerned, there may or may not be quotes that are out of context. I am not sure that is at all relevant to the conduct and affairs of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association and the result of the election it held last November 24.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was at the meeting in question. I want to put on the record that it is quite mistaken to suggest in any way that the rules were not followed. The rules followed were the rules that were adopted by everyone at the committee, which basically was to allow nominations to be put from the floor.

Therefore, if the hon. member for Saint John has deliberately suggested or deliberately impugned the integrity of what happened at that meeting, as the quote from the Fredericton Daily Gleaner would suggest, then I hope he would take the opportunity to apologize for making that suggestion because the rules were followed, as they were adopted at the meeting.

There was even a bit of debate about whether nominations should be allowed from the floor. After it was decided by everyone there, I do not remember the hon. member for Saint John protesting that decision. If the hon. member for Saint John did not prevail in his quest to be the co-chair of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association, it probably would have been better for him to have left it at that.

However, I wanted to concur in the analysis of the hon. member who raised the question of privilege and hope that we do not have the integrity of what happened that evening impugned any longer. It is not the hon. member's fault nor anyone else's fault that there were four Liberals running. They could not get their act together and none of them won. I know they are not used to losing around here, at least over the last decade. However, that is no reason to impugn the integrity of what happened just because a Liberal lost.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for his usual helpful comments.

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that I was at that meeting as well and the rules were clarified, actually by a senator, prior to the vote. Nobody abused or contradicted the rules. The rules were followed exactly.

The newspaper article says that the committee broke the rules and that only Liberals followed the rules. That is absolutely wrong. Everybody followed the same rules. The newspaper article also says that the member for New Brunswick--South Shore did it by using a “sneaky move”. That just is not a reflection of what really happened and I believe the member for Saint John should apologize.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also was in attendance there. I do not recall seeing Mr. Speaker there, but I think the information that has been given to the Chair is quite right.

It should also be emphasized that in this particular matter the question is of whether or not nominations from the floor actually came up for debate, because they in fact were not the existing rules and the group there did indeed agree as a whole to permit nominations from the floor. The hon. member was nominated from the floor and was successful. We congratulated him on that. But there were only two candidates.

Having said that, we could go on a long time, but I do not believe that there is the linkage here between this particular parliamentary group, the House and the Chair, and that the Chair somehow has been impugned. The Deputy Speaker was there by request to assist the group. He did, and he did very well. I would think that maybe there is a misunderstanding here about whether or not historic roles and rules that were agreed upon at a meeting are even relevant to whether or not there is a privilege matter. I do not believe there is. I think we should get on with the business of the House.

[The Speaker]

I am quite prepared to deal with the matter right now. I thank all hon. members for their interventions on this point.

When the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest got up, I thought he was going to be objecting to the headline in the article, which said--and it quoted his name which I will not do--that he “squeaks win as committee chairman”.

I thought his question of privilege would be that he was being accused of squeaking in when in fact I am sure he won handsomely. A very popular candidate, I am sure he did well in the election, and I thought that was going to be his point of order.

But I read the article in its entirety, and it says--the hon. member quoted part of it--that the hon. member for Saint John said, “Unfortunately, the committee decided not to follow the rules, leaving the Liberals following the rules”, and suggested that somehow this implicated the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.

It does not say the Deputy Speaker did not follow the rules. There is no suggestion of impropriety on the part of the Deputy Speaker in anything the hon. member for Saint John says, so how that could reflect on the Chair, I do not know.

I did walk through the meeting before it got under way on my way from point a to point b , and I happened to go through rooms 208 and 209 to get back to the House for a vote. There was a number of members of the association there but the meeting had not started. I did not attend it and knew nothing of the hijinks and shenanigans that were alleged in this article until I read this, and alleged, as I said.

It said later in the article, however, “Usually, candidates have to file their candidacy 10 days before the vote, but at the meeting the committee decided to allow nominations from the floor”. So obviously the rules changed at the meeting. There was some grumbling about it from the hon. member for Saint John, but how this reflects on the privileges of hon. members or the Chair, I do not know.

The Deputy Speaker was there. I did not know that I had been asked. Apparently I was, if I take the word of the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest for that. I was busy that night; there was a vote in the House and then I had something else later. So I was not there, but the Deputy Speaker chaired the meeting. There is no complaint here in the article about the Deputy Speaker's work; just a complaint about the decision the committee made to change the rules.

I do not know how that affects the privileges of hon. members, so in my view, while I am sure the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest feels the article was perhaps uncomplimentary, I think his real complaint should be that the headline was that he squeaked in as committee chair instead of the other, because of course I am sure that whatever happened he did very well in the election. We will consider that matter closed.

Does the hon. deputy government House leader have more to say on this subject?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, just to offer, should the member feel better if we were to conduct the election over again, we would be quite prepared to do that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Could I suggest that members carry on that discussion elsewhere? It does not concern the Chair. I may be the honorary president of that association; that could be the case, but that is it, no more. I do not do anything more than that.

I wish all members of the association the very best in their continued efforts in improving relations between our two countries. I am sure the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest will have a wonderful time as president and I join all hon. members in congratulating him on his election.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts (fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and funding to the territories), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24 today. I am going to talk first about the equalization environment but most of my time will be spent on how this will affect the territories and particularly my riding of Yukon. I know that my colleague from Mississauga South will elaborate in great detail on the formula as it relates to the provinces.

On October 26, as everyone knows, the Prime Minister met with the provincial premiers and territorial leaders to discuss the changes in the equalization formula and the territorial formula financing programs that were put forward by the federal government in the September meeting. My colleagues in the Bloc were complaining that the parliamentary secretary said it was almost historic. It was not almost historic; it was historic. This is the most significant improvement in equalization and territorial financing programs in their history.

By providing predictability, stability and increased funding, the new framework will play an essential role in ensuring that Canadians no matter where they live have access to comparable public services.

The new framework for equalization and territorial formula financing will increase the support provided to provinces and territories by $33 billion over 10 years. Regardless of the details of the changes in the mechanism, I think the bottom line will be a huge increase in funding of $33 billion.

Officials in the various provinces and territories will be happy to have an increase in the funding available to them to provide their services. This will assist Canada's less prosperous provinces and the three territories in meeting their commitments under the 10 year plan to strengthen health care as well as funding for other important social and economic development.

As members know, an historic health care agreement was signed recently and the federal government has put in a substantial amount of money. But of course the provincial and territorial governments have to come up with a major share of the funding and this increase in equalization will also help them with their health care over and above the extra funds we have provided in this area.

The spirit of cooperation in which this agreement was developed so new in this mandate is of course very important because it reflects on a lot of other agreements and on a lot of other work that we have to do with the provinces and territories.

We are working on the new child care deal and the deal with cities and communities. We have work to do on the environment and a number of projects with the provinces and territories, so the fact that they have been able to work closely together with the federal government is an excellent start to this mandate.

These increases are not going to stop this year but will carry on. In 2005-06, the funding levels will be set at $10.9 billion for equalization and $2 billion for the territorial formula financing, the highest levels ever reached by these programs. It will go on from there and still increase, because both amounts are going to increase by 3.5% a year starting in 2006-07. Equalization payments will therefore increase from $8.9 billion to $12.5 billion over the first five years of the new framework, a 42% increase.

Just to ensure that when the new formula comes into effect no one goes backwards this time related to the old formula, there was also a floor put on it so that no province or territory will receive less than was originally predicted in the 2004 budget under the old system.

I want to talk more specifically about the territorial financing formula, because it is a different scenario than equalization financing. At the time of the meetings, the equalization process and the territorial financing formula were quite different. They have somewhat different objectives, and I will get to that later on.

At the meeting held from September 13 to September 16, changes were made to the territorial financing formula that are the most significant in history. The changes were made to try to make these payments more stable and more predictable for the territorial governments. The old formula had a lot of determinants and was very complex. Several years behind the statistics arriving, it could result a reduction in funding that made it difficult for the territories to cover certain fixed costs.

To address concerns about the levels of financing and increasing financing, beginning immediately the government will provide protection against those declines, thereby providing stability. The overall level of 2004-05 for the three territories will be protected with $1.9 billion. There of course will be a guarantee that no territory will receive less than was estimated at the time of budget 2004.

The new framework will establish fixed payment levels, and provide predictable and growing funding for the territories. As the provinces will go up, the territories will go up and their funds will go up to $2 billion. It will also grow at a rate of 3.5% a year. Over the next 10 years and subject to review after the first five years, these changes will provide an estimated $4 billion in territorial formula financing, compared to the annual amounts in 2004-05. There are all sorts of challenges to governing in the territories and I know this $4 billion in extra funds will be well received.

All this of course is on top of the extra funds of $41 million in the health care agreement that was signed and invested in the provinces and territories over the next 10 years. This is an excellent sign for future fiscal cooperation. Within a few weeks, the new House has a historic deal on health care and then a historic deal on equalization,

I want to speak about how the agreement and the funding will affect my riding in the Yukon Territory. Once again, it would like more funds and it would like stability in its funding to help cover fixed costs.

The current data indicates that the Yukon Territory will receive about $448 million in this fiscal year of 2004-05 representing $14,907 per person. Even though the territorial financing in Yukon has increased each over recent years, and it has been growing steadily, there were still concerns about the adequacy of funding. I am sure in that respect Yukon will be happy for this additional funding.

The economic environments in the territories are a boom and bust cycle. As I said earlier, if certain parts of the formula were to go down there could be a sharp decrease in the funding available and governments have fixed costs.

Therefore, the territorial financing is slightly different in purpose from equalization. My territory wants to ensure people understand that equalization is to ensure that as the various provinces exceed in prosperity, whereas others are having a rough time at a particular time, then there is equalization of funding so that they can provide similar equivalent services. At any particular time one province could be having a rough time in obtaining equalization payments and at another time it may have a boom and prosper, and can help out those provinces that are less able.

The territories have a fixed challenge that will be there all the time, in that they have a very northern harsh climate and it is very costly to deliver government service. Relative to the rest of Canada there are few constituents in a very large area that increases the costs of delivering government services. There are of course very few taxpayers to fund those services.

Therefore, just the challenge of operating a government in such a harsh situation requires added funding. That is the purpose of territorial financing. It is to ensure that there is increased funding to cover these added costs.

There are always fixed costs. To have a government in place, there are fixed costs regardless of the situation in population, the economy and taxes available. We can only go down below a certain level. The floor permits those funds from going down.

A member suggested earlier in the debate that the government may not recognize the added funding requirement to do business in the north. That is not true. There has been a tremendous recognition by the government. I know that northern members have been very excited and happy about some of the special arrangements that have been made for the recognition of these added costs in the north.

I will refer to a couple of examples of the recognition of the added costs of doing business in the north, which is why we have extra money in the territorial financing formula to help cover those costs.

The first example is with health care. As we know, there was a historic agreement between the federal government and the provinces for health care in 2003. Every province and territory received funds, but in recognition of the added costs of health care in the north, the territories were provided an extra $20 million in that agreement.

Coming along to the new agreement on September 13 to 15, as everyone knows, there will be $41.3 billion provided to the provinces and territories over the next 10 years. Of that, my riding in the Yukon Territory received another increase in funding for health care. Our proportion was at, first of all, $3 million for the health transfer, $34 million for the Canadian health transfer base and $.5 million for medical equipment. That is more than $37 million in additional funds. I am reading out of the November 23, 2004 Hansard . That is another $37 million in recognition of the added costs of providing services like health care in the north.

In places like Vancouver or Toronto when a serious incident occurs, someone could get into an ambulance for very little cost and in very few miles that person would be in a hospital. Whereas, such a situation in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories or Yukon could take $5,000, $10,000, $20,000, or $25,000 simply in Medivac fees for small planes, and in special spots large planes, to get these people to a hospital where major surgery could occur. Of course, with only 100,000 or so people in the north, there is not a large enough volume of people to maintain specialists in every discipline there. That would not make any sense either, so people have to go outside for those specialists and that is another tremendous cost in the north.

We are absolutely delighted that the government has recognized those special costs in the north with the $20 million in 2003 and the extra $37 million in this year's agreement. In this year's agreement there will also be other moneys that will be very helpful in the northern parts of Canada. There was money for aboriginal people related to health care. About 23% or so of my riding is made up of aboriginal people. We are very happy with the attention being paid to aboriginal people.

The first part of that money is $200 million for the health care transition fund. As we know, there are a number of programs delivered by various bodies to aboriginal people and this will help ensure a seamless service there.

There is also, as I mentioned in the debate this morning, $100 million for the aboriginal health human resources initiative. I applaud the government and the Canadian Medical Association for trying to ensure that there are more aboriginal people and professionals working in the health care system.

There is also $400 million over the next five years for health promotion and disease prevention for aboriginal people. In my personal opinion, this was one of the exciting components of the 2003 agreement because the money invested in prevention and promotion is certainly saved many times over when dealing with the health care system.

All the money has been given especially to the north to deal with its special problems, challenges and extra costs in health care. Over and above all of that, the Minister of Finance made a special deal due to these extra costs and provided in the deal in September for an extra $150 million over five years, $65 million for the territorial health access fund, $10 million for the federal-territorial working group, and $75 million for medical transportation.

This kind of money can be used for services like Telehealth, which is an essential way of reducing the Medivac costs. If it can be done with modern technology, where I think we are leading in some ways, medicine over the computer with screens and X-rays can sometimes prevent a trip south and save the costs I was speaking about earlier of $10,000, $20,000, or $30,000, but more important, it can save lives. It was very heartwarming for me to hear about a person whose life had been saved by some of that recently funded equipment.

The other example for my colleague opposite who suggested that the difference was not recognized in the north relates to the infrastructure programs. As we know, when these programs first came out, they were totally done on a per capita basis. For the reasons I stated earlier, this would not make any sense in the northern territories. We could not possibly make enough progress. We have vast areas to cover. If we are building a road, or a sewer along that road, there may be only two or three taxpayers, whereas in an urban area, there would be many taxpayers. That particular sewer could buckle due to permafrost and heaving. We would have all sorts of extra heating costs. In fact, sometimes we would even have extra freezing costs because we do not want the infrastructure to thaw and, therefore, buckle. It is much more complicated, much more expensive, and there are less resources available.

When the strategic infrastructure program came in, the government very kindly agreed to the point made by the members from the three territories. Instead of providing roughly $600,000, which might fix the length of one road and one sewer in a community, and I could tell members that we have needs, the government said, “We will give you a base amount”. A few years ago I saw one of those sewers that was being replaced by the infrastructure program and it was still made out of wood staves. We got $20 million per territory so that we could realistically deal with those challenges in the north.

Subsequently, the strategic infrastructure program was very successful across the country. With major projects being done that could not be funded by all the projects that were done under the smaller community and rural infrastructure funds, that were also very popular, this program was increased again. Once again, instead of getting a few hundred thousand dollars, the territories got $20 million. I know in my riding, for instance, we are finalizing the rebuilding of the Alaska Highway with that money, which is important to our economy, resource extraction and tourism.

When the municipal rural infrastructure fund comes in, all of rural Canada has to thank the government because most of that fund goes to rural Canada, and it is a big chunk for the north. We would have received $600,000 if it had been done on a per capita basis but, instead, our riding will be receiving $15 million. The eight municipalities and the first nations in my riding have a lot of projects waiting for that fund.

Over the next 10 years there would be $4 billion of extra funding for the territorial funding formula. I thank the government and congratulate it on its success in this new regime.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment. The formula is there to determine the fiscal capacity of the provinces. I would suggest to the member who just spoke, that the formula is kind of like using a barometer to measure the temperature outside. It is an inaccurate device.

I want to give an example. Over the past 10 years, the province of Manitoba has received on average $1.1 billion a year in equalization payments. The province of Saskatchewan, which has the same population and sized economy, has received on average $300 million a year. If we cranked out the numbers, the best indicator internationally to measure the standard of living is to take the GDP, divide it by the number of people in that country or province, and come up with a per capita income. Guess what the difference was on per capita income for that 10 year period between the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It was roughly $1,000, give or take a few dollars, in favour of Manitoba. Saskatchewan receives $800 million less a year than Manitoba.

Now the government and the Minister of Finance declare Saskatchewan as a have province. I have a lot of problems with that. The waiting lists in Saskatchewan for health care are double the national average. The MRI wait is 25 weeks, where in some provinces the wait period is six or seven weeks. The infrastructure in that province is falling apart before our eyes. There is only one other province than Saskatchewan that loses a higher percentage of its young people on an annual basis. They are leaving in droves. The university is a factory for students to go to other provinces to pursue their careers.

As a person who lives in Saskatchewan, to say that Saskatchewan has reached a have status is a joke. Saskatchewan has major fiscal problems. If it were not for royalties from non-renewable resources, Saskatchewan's tax base would be just about non-existent. Finding net taxpayers would be a challenging job.

I will mention something else. I have gone through the formula. Four or five major academic people across the country have looked at that formula and have condemned the emphasis on non-renewable resources for determining fiscal capacity. At least five or six very knowledgeable academic people could give us a dozen reasons why that should not be in the formula. With 13 components out of 33 tax bases, they are focused on non-renewable resources.

If the government would just listen to what the Conservative Party proposed in the last federal election, which was to go to a ten province formula and phase out non-renewable resources, the Prime Minister would not have the fiasco he has in Atlantic Canada nor would he have the fight with the premier in that province. The problem would be addressed. As far as I am concerned, what is going on in Saskatchewan is a temporary buy-off for that province, which really got his back against the wall, instead of seriously addressing the major problem we have in the country.

I am sure the member is a very knowledgeable person. Could advise the House how much money the province of Manitoba is receiving in fiscal years 2004-05 and in the 2005-06? What is the exact amount is so I can compare it to our Saskatchewan figures?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, after my lengthy speech on Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the member asked about future money for Manitoba. I have the figures here and I will provide them to him in writing, so I do not have to use all my time answering the question. I want to answer some of the other things about which the member talked.

First, he talked about per capita financing being a good component. Per capita, the income a person makes and the income per capita of equalization payments or of the person's depends on the area he or she is living in to some extent. In different parts of the country it costs more to live and it costs to deliver government services.

Obviously, the member will be a strong supporter of this new deal. He has complained about the old formula. We are making corrections to that. He said the old formula disadvantaged certain provinces. We are ensuring that there is no reduction. We put the floor in so no province would be reduced in its funding. It would be increased. Therefore, the member will be happy about that because the formula cannot hurt them.

On top of that, as the member knows, we are convening a special panel to look into some of the parameters, just as he explained them. I hope he ensures that he conveys those concerns to the expert panel about how the difference affects Saskatchewan unfairly as related to Manitoba. The panel will then make corrections if there is a fault in the formula. That is exactly why the provinces and the federal government agreed to have a special panel to look at improving things. That is one of the positive items of this deal, which I hope he will support.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment and a question. I notice the member did not give us the figures, which my colleague requested, when they were presented to him by the parliamentary secretary. I believe, like the rest of us, he does not trust the figures.

However, my question for the member is this. As he represents an area that is very rich in non-renewable resources, much like I do, in light of that and in light of the fact that we probably have not even scratched the surface when it comes to developing the non-renewable resources in the great territories, does he not think that non-renewable resources should be taken outside the equalization formula, in other words, not considered when we discuss equalization?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the member's last question, renewable resources are being dealt with in another forum, as was said a number of times this morning. I look forward to and agree with those discussions.

I have to set the member straight on one fact that he put forward. He felt that I did not trust the figures. I trust the figures, but because there is so much money being provided to the provinces and territories, I could not extract Manitoba's, in a quick minute, from the fine print. However, I have it now and I will give him those figures because these are wonderful for Manitoba as well.

The total benefit in 2004-05 is $184 million. In 2005-06 Manitoba will get $179 million for equalization, $114 million for health with a $293 million increase. For the years 2010-11, the equalization will be $4,011,000. In health, it will be $3,426,000, for a total increase for the country of $7,437,000.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Yukon who has been a tireless defender of the interests of Yukon. His speech outlined a number of the aspects affected by this bill and the formula financing.

I note in the bill that the amount under the formula financing payment to Yukon is $487,147,000. That will be escalated at about, I believe, 3.5%, compounded annually thereafter for four years.

When we talk about $487 million, or a billion dollars, how does that translate into the ability of Yukon to deliver the national programs to the ordinary citizen? It sounds like a lot of money, but how much does it really cost and how does it translate into ensuring that the citizens of Yukon continue to participate fully in the programs of Canada?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, there are many cost shared programs. For instance, the daycare agreement is coming up. The territorial minister of health is hoping that will be put in place. As the Minister of Social Development said, we hope the provinces and territories contribute to that so there can be even more money for daycare and early education. Health care is the major proportion of the cost. Many programs in this federation, which is the way it works, are cost shared. The added money provided to territorial governments will not only allow them to put their part into these cost shared programs, but it will also help them deliver the services.

There are only 33,000 taxpayers in Yukon in an area that is bigger than any country in Europe. There is a harsh climate in Yukon, which is exacerbated by climate change. With global warming now, roads to get to communities to provide services are buckling due to the permafrost melting. Sewers are buckling and administration buildings are changing. This money will serve the territorial governments well to help them deal with these new challenges, plus the systemic challenges.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

I want to make a few remarks on Bill C-24, an act to amend the Fiscal Arrangements Act. It is quite a complicated act, but what it means is that we are making some changes in Canada's equalization program.

Bill C-24 is quite timely given the current set of negotiations that are ongoing between the federal government and the Governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Nova Scotia regarding the division of offshore oil and gas revenues and how equalization could very well factor into all of that.

While Bill C-24 does not address that issue directly, it is nonetheless a bill that acknowledges that some changes are needed in equalization as it currently is and how it applies to various provinces in Canada.

First let me say that the Conservative Party views the current equalization program as an essential component of Canada's nation building. In order for Canada's provinces to grow and prosper, it is important that we have a good, strong equalization system in place and it is equally important that this equalization program effectively deals with the problems that have not provinces have. By striking a panel of experts to revisit the current equalization formula, the government has acknowledged that there are problems with the current formula.

We are pleased that the government has bowed to a little bit of pressure from the provinces to hold this review and we, in the Conservative Party, are eagerly awaiting the results of that review.

One of the drawbacks of the equalization program that I and my colleague, the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, have raised consistently over the past seven years has to do with the clawback of a province's non-renewable resource revenues by Ottawa through corresponding reductions in the equalization payments.

I do not know if all members are aware of this but at present, for example, Ottawa claws back 70% of Newfoundland and Labrador's provincial oil revenues. Under that kind of an equalization system, a province is prevented from economically drowning, as we are all aware, but the clawback effectively prevents that province from making any progress on its own. The clawback provisions so far have seen the lion's share of Newfoundland and Labrador's oil money, for instance, ending up in Ottawa.

When we were embarking on the oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, that was one of the reasons the province insisted on an extensive multi-billion dollar concrete production platform for its first oil field, which was Hibernia. If the province had gone through a cheaper Hibernia production system and more revenues, most of these revenues would have ended up in Ottawa. Knowing it would have had the money clawed back under the current equalization program, the province instead opted for jobs and industrial benefits.

The equalization clawback became a major election issue in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia in the most recent federal election campaign. As a result of that, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources called Premier Williams and promised that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia would get to keep 100% of their offshore oil revenues without those revenues being subject to the clawback provisions of the equalization formula that we operate under today. At the moment of course we are waiting patiently for the Prime Minister to keep his election promise.

Unfortunately, the Minister of Natural Resources turned the province down and broke his promise and said essentially to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that here were a few crumbs and that they could take them or leave them. That was his attitude.

We are hopeful that the Prime Minister will keep his promise because we already have a promise in writing from the minister who represents Newfoundland and Labrador in the federal cabinet, the Minister of Natural Resources.

Some observers of the June 28 election have been saying that the province should have received the Prime Minister's promise in writing. However, given that the Prime Minister had made his promise on prime time television, that was not a major consideration at the time. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Natural Resources did follow up on the Prime Minister's verbal promise and provided a written statement to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, specifically to the people in his own riding. I have a copy of a flyer he sent out to people in his riding which states, “The Prime Minister has given me the responsibility of finalizing a deal on the Atlantic Accord as soon as possible that will bring Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its offshore oil royalties without having any effect on the province's equalization payments”.

It could not be said a whole lot clearer than that.

I am at a loss to understand why the federal government, right in the middle of this equalization debate that is going on across the country, is dragging its heels on this issue and why the Minister of Natural Resources, who represents the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, would offer the people a few crumbs and tell them to take them or leave them.

I have spoken on a number of occasions to this particular issue because it is an important issue to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I feel in my heart of hearts that the Minister of Natural Resources should apologize to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for breaking that promise. He should apologize to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for his lack of concern for the struggle that Newfoundland and Labrador has had to undergo ever since Confederation to get its rightful place in the Confederation of this country. The minister, most of all, should apologize to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for putting the party first instead of the province. He should be ashamed.

I have absolutely no reservation about standing here today to repeat in this equalization debate what I have said many times before since the promise was made by the Prime Minister of Canada to Newfoundland and Labrador. I have absolutely no reservations in saying to the Minister of Natural Resources that he should resign rather than break such an important promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is a very important issue and it gives the member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl and myself the opportunity once again to talk about the most important issue facing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is the broken promise of the Prime Minister and the broken promise of the Minister of Natural Resources concerning equalization.

As a result of that I feel very strongly that the minister should resign. The least he should do is apologize to the people for his broken promises and the fact that he would tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to heck with the promise and then offer them a few crumbs saying that they could take them or leave them.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech but I did not hear too much on Bill C-24, the bill that is in front of the House. I heard a lot about offshore accords but I did not hear much on the actual subject matter that is before the House.

I wonder whether the hon. member has anything to say with respect to Bill C-24.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have something to say about Bill C-24. We as a party support certain components of Bill C-24. The fact that this particular bill will be the subject of a review by a panel of people who will meet over the next year or so to make recommendations on equalization is a positive step.

However I think a full year to review equalization is too long. When we have been talking about equalization for the last 20 to 25 years, I do not know why we need a full year to talk about equalization again. It seems that when the government introduces a committee or a study, it is given a full year. The Gomery commission is one example. I wonder if the government is contemplating an election in the spring when it can tell the people that the sponsorship scandal cannot be talked about because it is before a committee. The equalization will not be a factor in that election because the committee looking at equalization will not report for a full year.

It seems to me that we are supposed to feel and think that the federal government is taking the right direction here but after talking about equalization for 20 years I fail to see why we need another full year to study this particular issue. However we in the Conservative Party at least support the fact that we have a panel of experts to look at this particular issue because it is an important issue facing the people of the country.