Debates of Nov. 4th, 2004

Supply

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister would like to see Saskatchewan become a have province. Would the minister like to talk to our socialist premier and perhaps help him to develop our resources? Our premier discourages any kind of development. He seems to like us being a have not province. I would encourage the finance minister to talk to our premier so we can become as rich as Alberta without having to move to Alberta.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, because of the advantages of resource development and production, I am very pleased that Saskatchewan is moving progressively these days toward that have status. It could be this fiscal year or next fiscal year, but Saskatchewan is right on the cusp of moving out of have not into that have category.

One of the things that will be there, however, if Saskatchewan has future difficulty, is the equalization formula that we are working very hard to ensure will treat all provinces equitably. I am sure my hon. friend would agree with me that we from Saskatchewan would by far prefer that we do not need that support system and that we would rather stand on our own economic strength. Like her, I want to see Saskatchewan not only become but stay a have province within Confederation.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Finance for participating in this because he is one of the primary players in finding a solution. I have a couple of quick questions for him.

First, no one would accuse Premiers Hamm or Williams of being ignorant to the consequences of finalizing the best deal for their provinces. I am curious, as I think many Canadians are, as to why these talks have turned so sour and why there has been no direct effort made to bring these premiers back to Ottawa to address some of the very complicated issues that are associated with it, which the Minister of Finance himself has laid out quite clearly.

I would also at the same time ask him if he would clarify a comment made by the natural resources minister on behalf of the government in regard to this issue, that there in fact is a possibility of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia exceeding the Ontario standard. This seems to be the point that the minister made. He also references, “if market value goes to $1,000 a barrel, you”, being the province, “will get all of the revenues”. Is that the minister's position as well?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the give and take of the discussion, to get to the hon. gentleman's first question, it is unfortunate that the tenor of the discussion took on a rather sour overtone. I want to assure him that in everything I have done on this file, and I think this would be verified by Minister Sullivan and Minister Clarke, has been aimed toward arriving at a constructive solution. I will continue to work in that fashion.

Over these last number of days I had the opportunity to talk to my provincial counterparts. I know the Prime Minister has had conversations with the premiers. The dialogue is ongoing and I want it to be fruitful and successful.

With regard to the second part of my colleague's question on the issue of misunderstanding, in some of the dialogue it may not have been clear as to what exactly was referred to in this Ontario threshold. Some people had the impression that it referred to the combination of own source revenue, equalization and the existing 30%. It has no impact there whatsoever.

The reference to that threshold, in the discussion thus far, has applied only to that fourth and incremental stream. In the realm of $50 or $55 per barrel of oil, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that on the basis of own source revenue, equalization and the 30%, that the fiscal capacity of Ontario could be matched without the incremental stream.

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for ceding me some of his time. I would like to acknowledge the great regard that we in Nova Scotia have for the work that he has done on this file, as well as the work that has been done by our minister in Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Halifax West. I would also commend the premier and energy minister of Nova Scotia who have sincerely tried to come to a sensible conclusion to this issue.

I would also like to acknowledge some of the great debate that has happened already today and would particularly reference the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's who has a very explicit and simple way of laying this out, in a way that everyone can understand because this is not generally an easy topic.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today because it raises some key issues regarding the role of the federal government in supporting ongoing improvements in the quality of life for all Canadians no matter where they live in this country, and in my case particularly, in my province of Nova Scotia.

I would like to begin my remarks by asking members of the House to cast their minds back in time, just a decade ago, because we cannot look at the future and we cannot look at this accord in context without looking at the past. In 1993-94 Canada found itself in a very precarious situation. We found ourselves mired in debt and deficit, facing an annual shortfall of some $42 billion a year and a debt level that was growing out of control.

Likewise in Nova Scotia, an overwhelming debt and crushing annual deficits from a previous administration burdened our people, burdened our province, and burdened a newly elected provincial government. At the same time Canada's unemployment rate topped 11%. Both inflation and interest rates were high. Millions of Canadians believed they would never own their own homes or start a business. That was particularly true in Nova Scotia.

The situation was so bad that the Wall Street Journal referred to Canada as an honorary member of the third world. But what a difference 10 years can make. As we stand here today in the House, Canada has an economic and fiscal record unparalleled in the G-8. We have recorded seven consecutive budget surpluses, something that has never been done in the history of our country.

With the deficit eliminated, the government has been able to use its surplus moneys to reduce the national debt by billions of dollars. As well, the federal debt to GDP ratio stands at 41.1%, down from 68.4% in 1995-96, the lowest level in over 20 years. We are well on our way to meeting our target of reducing the debt to GDP ratio of 25%.

More than 156,000 new jobs have been created in the first nine months of 2004. Our unemployment rate now stands at 7.1%. In fact, we have had the best job creation record over the past year in the G-7. At the same time inflation remains well within the Bank of Canada's target range of 1% to 3% and interest rates are well below the levels they were a decade ago.

Perhaps the most telling evidence can be found when we look at the growth in Canada's standard of living. Since moving into surplus in 1997, our country has topped the G-7 list for growth and living standards. In fact, the statistics show the average standard of living for Canadians has increased at a faster rate in the past 7 years than it did over the previous 17.

As I said earlier, what a difference a decade can make. That difference makes these agreements possible that we talk about today. The question that needs to be asked at this stage is, how did we achieve that remarkable fiscal and economic turnaround in just a few short years? The answer is twofold: first, we must acknowledge the sacrifice and hard work of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who understood the need for our country to get its house in order. In some cases that meant short term pain. But I believe it has been alleviated by a long term gain in the form of a more stable and a more prosperous nation.

Second, our government's commitment to fiscal discipline and targeted spending in key areas made a significant contribution to ending the constant spirals of debt and deficits. Over this time period we have had to make some difficult decisions, many of which have aroused feelings of anger in some regions of Canada. Nevertheless, the wisdom of this course of action has been illustrated time and again in recent years.

Without a commitment to fiscal discipline, our government would not have been able to afford the largest tax cut in Canadian history in 2000. Our five year tax reduction package is worth over $100 billion, significantly lower in personal and corporate income taxes in a wide range of areas giving us a tax advantage over many of our international competitors, including the United States. That has been the critical point for encouraging new and expanding businesses to locate in Canada.

Tax reductions introduced since 2000 have removed one million low income Canadians from the tax rolls. Without our commitment to this discipline, our government would not have had the means to implement a host of programs aimed at bettering the lives of Canadians no matter where they lived.

We have raised benefits for low income children, provided support for caregivers of the elderly or the terminally ill, helped construct new housing for low income Canadians, and boosted funding for post-secondary education. It has been said before, but I believe it bears repeating, these are truly the fiscal dividends of our commitment to live within our financial means. These dividends benefit the people of Nova Scotia as they benefit all citizens of Canada. Nowhere is this more evident than in health care, identified as the number one priority of Canadians.

In September the Prime Minister and his provincial and territorial counterparts signed a deal that would provide an additional $41 billion in health care funding, in addition to the funding the government already invests each year for the health care of Canadians. We have created a solid blueprint for further progress and sustained funding to help reduce waiting times and to invest in new health care technologies. I hope and expect that we get serious about a national wellness plan to keep us healthy.

This new agreement will provide immediate and concrete benefits for the two provinces mentioned in the motion. Nova Scotia's share of federal health care funding will increase by $62 million in the current fiscal year and $91 million in 2005-06. That is not simply an abstract concept. It represents real increases in real dollars that could be used to address the health care priorities of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

The new equalization framework agreed to by federal, provincial and territorial governments last week was also good news for both provinces. Specifically, Newfoundland and Labrador will see its equalization entitlement rise by $87 million this year and $187 million in 2005-06. The new equalization framework for Nova Scotia will see an increase of $151 million in 2004-05 and $182 million in the next fiscal year. These are impressive numbers.

I want to make one thing very clear. Our government wants to do everything within its power to provide both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia with the moneys to which they are entitled to provide efficient services to its people. I want to make it clear that in the opinion of members on our side of the House that is exactly what the government's offer to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia regarding offshore oil and gas is intended to do.

Offshore resource revenues are today owned and collected 100% by the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia with equalization payments coming on top of those. Let us not forget that the Government of Canada adds at least a further 30% bonus to offset equalization reductions due to offshore revenues. We are proposing to add a further 70% for a grand total of 100% in offsetting funds on top of the current 100% in provincial resource revenue. This scenario will remain in place for each of the next eight years unless a province's combined revenues from these four sources match the level of revenues of Ontario on a per capita basis.

This does not mean it will end in eight years. It can be discussed. It can be reviewed. It can be renewed. That is a fair deal. It is good for Newfoundland and Labrador and it is good for Nova Scotia. It is also good for the people of Canada. This agreement is fair and reasonable. I believe it shows that Canada does in fact work.

As a Nova Scotian I am proud that our national government understands our unique position. I am pleased that Premier Hamm and Minister Clarke are engaged in discussions that I believe will lead to an agreement. This process is working and Nova Scotians will benefit. Nova Scotia can move from a have not province to a have province, and that is the goal of all of us.

For these reasons and for those advanced by my other colleagues on this side of the House, I will not be supporting the motion.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the remarks of my colleague from Nova Scotia, I cannot quite square what he said about his government intending to give Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its resources and yet his inability to support this motion.

The member will know, coming from Atlantic Canada, that historically there have been some travesties when it comes to our natural resources. Our fisheries first and foremost comes to mind.

The member from Prince Edward Island would agree as well that there are still huge challenges that face our fishers in this day and age as a result of mismanagement by successive governments of all political stripes. Similarly, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador had a terrible travesty with respect to the Churchill Falls agreement which deprived the province of huge revenue streams from a natural resource that should have gone into its economy.

The member would be quick to agree that this has historic long term significance. For that reason I would ask him whether he unequivocally supports the Premier of Nova Scotia in his effort to get the absolute best deal which assures that the 100% revenue stream will go to the province of Nova Scotia, similarly go to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, most important, that those positions are united, that this will not be an effort by his government to divide and conquer as we have seen so often play out in Atlantic Canada on issues such as this.

This will have long term benefits not only for those two provinces. It will flow to Prince Edward Island and hopefully to British Columbia and New Brunswick as well.

Does the member support his premier in an effort to get the best deal possible?

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member of a couple of things. I have great respect and admiration for Premier Hamm. We may be on opposite sides of many issues but his motivation, his belief and his commitment to the province of Nova Scotia is beyond reproach in my view.

That is why I commend him for his comments over the past week or so and those of Minister Clarke saying that they were optimistic that this will result in a very positive outcome for Nova Scotia.

This, after all, is $640 million for Nova Scotia over the next eight years. It will also include other developments should Panuke come on shore. There is no reason that Panuke could not be included in this deal. This deal is good for a minimum of eight years. It will be reviewed at that point in time. I believe it will be renewed because it is in the best interest of Nova Scotia. I also think it is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. I absolutely do endorse it.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to give a short history lesson. During the Meech Lake debate, Mr. Filmon of Manitoba, who was in a minority situation, brought along Gary Doer and Sharon Carstairs because he knew he did not represent fully the entire province of Manitoba.

In this particular debate the province of Nova Scotia, although we fully support Dr. Hamm's efforts in getting the best deal possible for Nova Scotia, which is a question we can answer in the affirmative, I think it would be better if Premier Hamm brought along the leader of the NDP, Darrell Dexter, as well as the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Mackenzie, in order to show a more united front when it comes to the position toward the federal government.

Would my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour agree that the premier, along with the other two leaders of the other two parties, because they are in a minority situation, would gather strength in their debate against the concerns of the federal government?

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to second guess the strategy of the Premier of Nova Scotia. It sounds like an admirable suggestion to me but that is not necessarily for me to say. I think the premier has handled himself with great class so far.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague stands in the House and speaks about the situation in Nova Scotia with regard to the financial situation, he speaks from a position of understanding. His late dad, who was a former premier, inherited a set of books from a past government that carried an incredible amount of debt, which is something Nova Scotians continue to deal with on a regular basis.

As well, there were references made to where the Government of Canada has come in the last eight to ten years to getting its own fiscal house in order.

Will the province of Nova Scotia have the latitude in these moneys coming forward? Where will the benefit be to the people of Nova Scotia? Where will those investments be made?

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the benefit does not only come from this accord, but the millions of dollars that go into health care which is so badly needed in Nova Scotia, where we have needs such as home care and palliative care that are not met in Nova Scotia as they are in other provinces.

I would also agree with him that my father, the former premier of Nova Scotia, did inherit quite a fiscal mess but never complained about it. Wherever he is now, and I have a good idea where, he is probably smiling and passing a nod to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.

Committees of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, conversations have taken place among all parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study on acquisition of submarines by the Canadian Forces, 12 members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to Halifax, N.S. from November 17-18, 2004, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, National Defence; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the very distinguished member for Medicine Hat.

I would first like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this motion forward because it is so important to my province of Nova Scotia. I would like to compliment the member from St. John's East for seconding the motion and on his activities so far in pressing this ahead.

Today in question period, the Minister of Natural Resources kind of said it all. He said that the offer on the table today was great. However Newfoundland and Nova Scotia do not want the offer on the table today. We want the offer that was on the table in the election.

Throughout this debate the Minister of Finance has stood and talked about everything under the sun except the offer that was on the table in the election.

With all due respect to the member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour, I listened to him talk about housing, education, taxes, health care, equalization framework, services, deficits, benefits and a whole bunch of other things, but all he had to say was that the government will keep the promise it made during the election.

The debate should only be about that. It should not be about all the intricate, complicated, convoluted subjects that are coming up. It is a complete waste of time. Either the government is going to keep its word or it is not.

Members will be pleased to know that I sold used cars for 20 years, but I would not have survived two weeks or even two days if I had done what the Prime Minister did. If I had not kept my promises I would not have survived. In this case the Prime Minister made a promise to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in order to get the votes that he was seeking in the election but as soon as the election was over he tried to renegotiate the deal.

Mr. Speaker, if you bought a car from me on Tuesday, we made a deal and agreed on a price, and on Wednesday you came back and the car was smaller and the price was higher, you would not agree with it. You would not even renegotiate it, but that is what these guys are trying to do. They are trying to turn this into a fiasco by saying that this is a good deal. We had the deal we wanted. We all agreed to the deal, and that was the deal in June.

If the Prime Minister would take some advice from a used car salesman, if he would keep his word and follow through on the agreement that was made in June, that is 100% of the royalties, no limits, no caps, no conditions, we could all go home and be happy.

The Minister of National Defence stood up in question period and said that he would not make irresponsible promises. If they promised to give Nova Scotia and Newfoundland 100% of the royalties in the election and then did not do it, is that not an irresponsible promise? I think it is. If they are going to make responsible promises, then they also have to keep them. It is not complicated. It is really simple. As a used car salesman, I could give the Prime Minister a few lessons on that.

I want to take a minute to congratulate Premier John Hamm. He started this campaign for fairness in 2001 and he has been on it ever since: same goal, same target. I want to compliment Premier Danny Williams for the excellent job that he has done to raise the profile of the whole subject. They have done a great job of pushing this argument forward. I also think our party here has done a great job. We have some great members who have done a super job on that.

I am from Nova Scotia, a rural part of Canada. My riding is almost all rural. Every day I see government policies that are stealing resources from my riding. I am talking about fishing offices and customs offices. I am talking about jobs. The government is trying to polarize this country, it seems to me, and there is no help for rural Canada, no help for Cape Breton. I get calls from Cape Breton asking for help, and I ask them where their member of Parliament is. It seems that the government has a big city agenda and the heck with us.

However this agreement is important to rural Canada, to rural Nova Scotia and even more important to rural Newfoundland. Rural Newfoundland is going through some of the most financially trying times of any province in the history of Canada. It has an $800 million deficit. Can anyone imagine having an $800 million deficit? That is a huge debt. It has massive unemployment. The awful thing is that the young people must leave their towns and their province to get work because there are no jobs.

Those are the reasons that we need this agreement, the one the Prime Minister made in June during the election, to go ahead, not the offer that the Minister of Natural Resources is putting on the table today. We want the offer that was put on the table during the election when they wanted our votes. It is absolutely critical that we press forward on that.

I think the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore mentioned bringing in the political leaders from the other parties in Nova Scotia. It is amazing that all the political leaders from all the parties have agreed with Danny Williams that we should get the deal that was made in June. In Nova Scotia it is almost the same, except for the Liberal leader in Nova Scotia.

I picked up the paper the other day and read, “Grit leader would have signed deal”. If the leader of the Liberal Party in Nova Scotia had been the premier, he would have signed the deal. He would have sold out Nova Scotia to the tune of about $800 million. So there would be hardly any point in bringing him here to helps us get a good deal for Nova Scotia because he would have sold us out. He would have sold us out and the estimate is $800 million.

I want to raise another point . I do not want to make this sound any worse, or even bad, but four days later I read another article about how the Liberal leader in Nova Scotia has two companies. It was right out of the Halifax Herald . He has two companies and “neither makes money and both have loans” to the Government of Canada. Accordingly, the ability of the corporation to continue as a going concern is uncertain. The loans are somewhere in the amount of $400,000 or $500,000.

I think that a person in provincial politics in a position of influence should move quickly. It does not matter who it is or what party it is, if they are dealing with the Government of Canada they should divest themselves of their interests, their personal guarantees and everything else as quickly as possible to avoid any of the accusations or the perception of conflict. We live in a poisoned atmosphere here in Ottawa because of the sponsorship program. Because of that, I think provincial politicians should make sure they are squeaky clean. I urge Francis MacKenzie to divest himself of his companies that owe the Government of Canada money.

I want to go back to the topic of my riding for a minute. Just a little while ago the Department of Fisheries sent some people to my office and said, “We want to tell you that we are going to close the fisheries office in your riding”. This is just one in a long list of offices that the Government of Canada has closed in this particular town of Parsborough. This town fights for its very life. The people of the town raise money. They do everything they can to fund a brand new theatre and to put on benefits and socials to help people who need help. Again it is the same there as it is in Newfoundland, where the population is declining and the people staying are aging. On average, the people are older.

It gets tougher and tougher for our small communities to survive, and here we have the Government of Canada leading the way. It is just like a big vacuum cleaner going into rural Canada, sucking the life out of rural Canada. It has this big city agenda, and this whole refusal to give Newfoundland and Nova Scotia the resources that it promised in June is just simply a part of that as far as I am concerned.

We can make this argument really complicated. The Minister of Finance comes in and says the proposal on the table--same story--reflects the agreement with the premiers. That is not true or the premiers would have signed it. It is the proposal that was on the table in the election that we want, it is the proposal on the table in June that we want, and we will stand here and we will fight until we get it, those of us from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and all our colleagues who have supported us from right across the country. It is really impressive to see the support we have gained.

I call on the government to stop the rhetoric, to stop talking about all these things it is talking about and just get down to the point and say, “We made a promise. Now we are going to keep it”. I will be supporting this motion with both hands.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I might suggest that if those phone calls were coming from Cape Breton, it was probably during the election and it was probably people from Cape Breton asking the member to intervene on the part of his party, which wanted to carve the heart out of ECBC, Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, and in fact out of the rest of our regional economic development agencies. I would think that would be the nature of the calls from Cape Breton.

With all due respect for his past profession as a car salesman, I will say that I think my colleague has taken a little liberty with the numbers and the arithmetic with reference to his comments about the newly elected leader of the Nova Scotia Liberal Party, that being that if in fact he had signed the deal he would have left $800 million on the table. I would like to know how he arrived at those figures.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I read it in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald so it must be right. It was the October 28th Halifax Herald . It said that Mr. MacKenzie said the province should take the deal now and negotiate more in the future. Can we imagine that? Negotiate more in the future? That man has a lot of faith if he thinks we can take the deal now and negotiate more in the future. That man could take a lesson from a used car salesman too.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley is driving his point home as a former used car salesman, but I know he would appreciate the fact, as would my colleagues opposite from the province, that the situation in Nova Scotia is such that we are spending 42% of the provincial revenue to cover health care. I would suspect that there is a similar number in the province of Newfoundland. That does not give us the flexibility to address the issues of infrastructure, education and the many other sources within that province that need attention.

My friend is right when he talks about the need for the best possible deal, and that must be the 100% return on the non-renewable resource, which is our oil and gas resource.

There is an issue we are talking about in terms of going forward, and there is his reference to the Nova Scotia Liberal leader saying we should take the money now and try to negotiate something later, which does not wash. First of all, we have seen what happens when provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador pre-emptively signed a deal that effectively gave away any real means that they might have had to benefit from the Churchill Falls project in a substantial way, in a way that would get that province into a have status.

Nova Scotia is not going to be bullied. We are not going to be divided between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador on this issue. We are going to work collectively for the best possible return.

The issue here is ensuring that the Prime Minister keeps his word and that he is held to account for having made that promise during the election. The issue is obviously the long term prosperity of our province, to allow us to ensure that children who grow up in the province can stay and work and be the full beneficiaries of that natural resource. I would ask my friend to comment on that as well.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and all of Atlantic Canada want economic independence. We want to be sending money back. We do not want to take money. We want to send it back. We want to be in a position to do that, but under the current formula it is absolutely impossible and will never happen.

The member for Cape Breton—Canso has given me a chance to read out this sentence, again from the article about Mr. MacKenzie, the leader of the Liberal Party in Nova Scotia:

Mr. MacKenzie said the province should take the $640 million now and keep negotiating for the rest.

So even the Liberal leader acknowledges that they are leaving some on the table and says that somehow we will negotiate for the rest. He is acknowledging it is there, but says we will not take it and we will make a deal with the Liberals and hopefully get it later on.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would buy a used car from that man, but I have never been accused of being a smart shopper.

The member will agree that the deal that is presented for Nova Scotia is a very good deal, as the leader of the Liberal Party has said, and it can be improved. As I said today, I encourage the premier to continue negotiating if he can. When we look at the three agreements, the health care accord, the equalization improvements and the offshore accord, we are looking at over $300 million annually going to the province of Nova Scotia. I think that will help give the services that Nova Scotians require and demand.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member told me one time he does not like to clean his car, so we would have to take that into consideration when we made our deal.

It is exactly the same thing. He still does not get the point. If I made a deal with him today for a certain amount of money for a certain car and he came back tomorrow to pick it up and I had a different car and asked for more money, he would be wild. I think he is a little wild now, but he would be even wilder. That is the whole point. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland made a deal. The Liberals said, “You give us your votes and we will give you this deal”. We did and they did not keep their end of the bargain.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and address this motion today, which was brought forward by my leader. I have to say at the outset as an Albertan how proud I am to stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador in support of these provinces that are trying so hard to really benefit from the resources that so far they have not had the chance to benefit from.

I know that people in my part of the world understand how difficult it is to face a federal government that is intent upon raiding their resources, really, in a way that we have seen in Alberta before and that occurs as a matter of fact today in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

Just by way of background, I want to say that the member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove gave a great speech a little while ago and talked about the fact that Alberta for many years--and a lot of people do not remember this--was a recipient of equalization payments between 1957, when the program came into place, and 1965. But even if people know that, what they may not realize is that Alberta, as it received those equalization payments and as its revenues from the oil patch grew, did not have its equalization payments clawed back. Of course we discovered oil in Alberta in a big way in the 1940s. The first big find was in 1947 at Leduc, I think, and over that period of time as the revenues grew we did not have our equalization payments clawed back.

The point is that because we were allowed to keep both our equalization payments and the full benefit of our non-renewable natural resources, we were able to start to build some infrastructure and we were able to start to expand our economy so that eventually we became the wealthiest province in Canada.

That is what Albertans want for these other provinces as well. We want to see them get the full benefit of these non-renewable natural resources.

How do we do that? It starts with the Prime Minister keeping his promise.

He went to Newfoundland and spoke to Premier Williams on June 5 during the election campaign and said that he wanted Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to get the full benefit of their resources. But how do we get the full benefit of the resources if suddenly the equalization starts to claw back some of those equalization funds that we currently receive? Well, we do not get the full benefit. That is so obvious.

Now we have all that equivocation on that side of the House, where the finance minister says there was a misunderstanding. I can tell the House that Premier Williams and Premier Hamm do not misunderstand how equalization works. They know how it works because they have to rely on it so they can have the services that we in Alberta take for granted. So I just do not buy that for a moment.

What makes me even more angry is that today Newfoundland and Labrador in particular is in just the most dire economic circumstances one can imagine. I have been to Newfoundland several times. I remember speaking to a third year political science class at Memorial University once. I remember that after I spoke one young woman got up and was just really distraught. She talked about the fact that she would have to leave Newfoundland to find work. She knew there was just no hope of finding a job in Newfoundland at that point because the economy was in such tough circumstances. Let me tell the House that it is heartbreaking to see that.

As my friend has pointed out, Newfoundland today has an $800 million deficit. It has incredible depopulation in the outports. One sees many communities where homes are abandoned and people are leaving in droves. The infrastructure is breaking down. There is tremendously high unemployment, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an unbelievably difficult situation.

On the other hand, they sit on a finite amount of oil and gas that they need to develop as their chance to break out of this, and this government, instead of being generous at a time when the government itself is running some huge surpluses, although it tries to mask them all the time, instead of being generous and understanding and looking at what happened in Alberta and saying that maybe that would be a model for how to help Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, instead of that, the government says no. It says, “We are going to break our promise and deny those people the same chance that people in Alberta had”.

That is disgraceful, but that is what is occurring. I cannot believe that this government can sit here and its members from Atlantic Canada can defend this government on this issue. It is absolutely unbelievable.

As an Albertan, I want to see Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia get the same chance Alberta got 30 years ago. That is only fair.

As Canadians we believe in fairness. We all talk about that. We believe we should treat everybody the same way. If that is the case, then why is this happening today? Does the Prime Minister's word not mean anything? He says one thing during an election campaign when seats are on the line, and he knows it. He went to Premier Williams and said, yes, that they had a deal. Premier Williams in good faith believed that to be the case and letters went back and forth, or at least letters went from Premier Williams to the Prime Minister's office restating his understanding of the deal. However, there was no letter in response. Finally, a letter arrives many months later that has all kinds of conditions that were never agreed upon in the first place.

That is not bargaining in good faith. That is denying Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the people of Nova Scotia a chance to really achieve what I think they are capable of achieving. We should remember this is a finite resource, a resource that will be utilized and then will be gone forever. It is their chance to take this and turn it into the infrastructure, the universities and the hospitals that are necessary to build a greater economy, so when the oil and gas is gone, they will have something else going for them. Newfoundland and Labrador has already lost the fishery.

What do we do now? We have to make this work, but when we start to put these caps on, all of a sudden we deny people the chance to aspire to their dreams. That is just so fundamentally wrong and so frankly un-Canadian. I am just in disbelief that the Prime Minister would take that stand with a province that is clearly the worst off province in the country today. It is unbelievable that would occur.

I probably do not have a lot of time left, but I will say a couple of words about some of the things the finance minister said when he spoke a couple of minutes ago. I believe the finance minister's heart is in the right place, but what we have heard today is a lot of doublespeak. He talked about the various streams of revenue and all that kind of thing. He talked about the Ontario fiscal capacity and things like that. When we boil it all down, the finance minister was saying that the government would let Newfoundland and Labrador get to a point in its ability to generate revenue to the same capacity as Ontario.

However, he was taking into account the money that Newfoundland and Labrador gets from equalization. Clearly, if we factor that in, then we do not get a true picture of the actual fiscal capacity of a province like Newfoundland and Labrador. What is important is not what they get through equalization. It is the ability of the province without equalization, without that support from the federal government, to generate revenue, jobs and a standard of living for people. It does not take into account is the huge amount of infrastructure that already exists in places like Ontario. That is not factored into these things.

The finance minister is disingenuous when he does not talk about these things. We are talking about two completely different situations. I hope people do not buy into the idea that when the province has the same capacity to generate revenue with equalization, that somehow means Newfoundland and Labrador would be just as well off. It is simply not the case.

It is time for the government to live up to its word. It is time for it to ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have the same opportunities as the people of Alberta had a generation ago.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to listen to the hon. member's fine words.

I am pleased to hear such genuine good wishes for the for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador for the future of those. Rather than building fences and walls around Alberta, it is better for us to talk about Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador being able to reach their economic potential. I am pleased to hear that. I would encourage him to look over the fence a bit more because he would see that there is still a vibrant fishery in Atlantic Canada, and we are proud of it. We have had some hits, but we are very proud of the fishery that employs many people and is part of our culture and heritage.

We see some changes on that side. In the few years that I have been here I have noticed that a lot of people are using my first language, French. I suppose if I stay here long enough, some of the members will start using the metric system, but that will take some time.

The member will surely recognize that maybe the proposed deal is not perfect. That is why we encourage the premier to continue negotiations to ensure he will get the best deal he can for Atlantic Canada, for Canada and for Nova Scotia. I my case, I am interested in Nova Scotia. Other members will speak for Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we look at the total that has been negotiated, when we look at the health accord, when we look at the equalization improvements and when we look at the offer of over $300 million a year for Nova Scotia, there is no doubt that the premier is tempted to take it. However, he wonders what will happen eight years down the road, so he and Minister Clarke continue to negotiate, and I support him in that. Members must recognize that the Prime Minister has to speak for all of Canada. This is a good deal for Nova Scotia.