Debates of Nov. 4th, 2004

Supply

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the difference between the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Conservative Party believes that if the Prime Minister makes a promise, there is no need for negotiation. He should live up to his word. I do not understand why the hon. member across the way does not understand that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to understand the hon. member's argument. He argued that Alberta was a have not province until it received its oil and gas revenues. What does he now expect? Does he expect Alberta to get equalization payments now that it is receiving the flow from its oil and gas revenues? He wants to have it both ways.

The argument is not that they do not keep 100% of their revenues. They do keep 100% of their revenues. When Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador reach the Ontario standard, then equalization will be reviewed.

I do not understand. He seems to want to argue both sides, keep the revenues out of oil and gas and keep equalization simultaneously. It does not make sense.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member is a parliamentary secretary and speaks for the government, it is pretty clear that it does not intend to keep its promise.

During the time when Alberta was getting on its feet with its oil and gas industry, it was getting revenues and equalization. That equalization was not clawed back. That is what the member does not understand. What we are asking for is the same deal for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia that Alberta received. I would hope the member understands that it served Alberta very well. Today, Alberta is a very prosperous province. Why does he not share the dream of having that kind of prosperity for Atlantic Canadians as well?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, representatives from every province of Canada have spoken on this issue and there is a wide range of consensus on the actual thrust, pretext and context of this and the actual language of this. During the course of the morning and the afternoon, I have been working not only with colleagues on this side of the House but with colleagues opposite to see if a further consensus could be built.

What the finance critic is suggesting is that there would be no problem whatsoever with actually putting in place a formula that would prevent the clawback of any equalization. Would the finance critic and the mover of the motion be prepared to amend the motion and put that into the actual language of the motion itself?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member across the way, the point I am trying to make is the Prime Minister made a promise. We want that commitment met. It is that straightforward.

When Liberal members start talking about negotiating the Prime Minister's promise, I am surprised some red flags did not go up and some alarm bells did not go off. Pretty clearly, if the Prime Minister made a promise, then it should be kept. That is the position of the Conservative Party of Canada. I do not understand why those guys do not get it.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a resident of Nova Scotia, I am proud to stand up for the residents in this very important debate.

First, I want to thank my Conservative colleagues for bringing forward this motion today. I am rather disappointed we will not vote on it. I do not understand for the life of me why an important issue of this nature is not debated and voted on right away, but somebody somewhere on the government side has decided he or she does not want to vote on this. There must be specific reasons for that, which is a debate for another day.

I want to correct a few things. I have heard my colleagues on all sides say this and I wish from this moment on they would stop using the term have not province. I do not come from a have not province. My colleague from Cape Breton, my colleague from Prince Edward Island and my colleagues from Newfoundland and New Brunswick do not come from have not provinces. We have some of the greatest people in Canada living in our provinces. We have some of the greatest scenery in our provinces. We have some of the greatest resources. Maybe we are not as financially well off as other provinces, but to say someone from Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., New Brunswick or Nova Scotia comes from a have not province indicates to us that we are have not citizens. That is absolute nonsense. That kind of dialogue originated from the south end of a north bound cow and it has to stop.

I encourage my colleagues on the federal level and, most important, on the provincial and municipal level, to stop using that term. I consider it very derogatory and it is not helpful in the debate. If we want a lift up instead of a hand out, then we should talk about that.

My colleague from Medicine Hat is absolutely correct when he says that the government must keep its promises. Government members must keep their promises. If they made them in the heat of the battle of the election, then the Prime Minister and the finance minister should not be too upset when we in opposition say that we want them to keep their promise. That is the basis of this debate. If people say something to the electorate before the election, they darn well will be held to account by opposition members, not only in the other three parties, but by the provinces as well to maintain their promises.

There is another error in judgment which the provinces have made in this debate. I go back to a question I asked my colleague earlier. During the Meech Lake debates, Gary Filman, the premier of Manitoba, was in a minority situation. At that round table, where there was a very serious discussion affecting Canada, he brought along the leader of the NDP, Gary Doer, and the leader of the Liberal Party, Sharon Carstairs. During that whole session, Mr. Filman and the other two leaders talked to each other on a regular basis to decide what would be best for Manitoba.

I encourage my Premier of Nova Scotia to bring along the leader of the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia, as well as the leader of the NDP to show a cooperative common front. I know Darrell Dexter of the NDP in Nova Scotia and Francis MacKenzie of the Liberal Party have indicated support for Premier Hamm's campaign for fairness. Why not bring them along to the debate?

I also encourage the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who was very bombastic the other day, to do the same. He reminded me of the days of Brian Peckford. Of course the debate between Mr. Baker and Mr. Crosbie was very entertaining indeed. Is it helpful to the debate? I think if Mr. Williams brought along the leader of the NDP and the leader of the Liberal Party, it would show force that were united in our discussions with the federal government.

Now getting to the federal government, the Liberal government has to understand it is not in a majority situation anymore. It does not hurt to have the dialogue with the opposition parties on an issue facing Atlantic Canada, one that is so serious to our future.

Regarding the offshore oil and gas accords, there is no question that all of us in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would love to keep 100% of those royalties. We know that when we had the opportunity of joining Newfoundland in its confederation of 1949, when Canada joined it, part of the deal was the federal government would have responsibility to share offshore resources, including fisheries and any mineral deposits that may be there. We know how well the federal government has managed the fisheries off the east coast. We certainly do not want it managing our offshore oil and gas in the same manner. In my belief, those provinces have the right to 100% of those royalties. Just as important, we do not need to have the equalization clawback.

It is similar to when the federal government gave the national child tax credit to Nova Scotia, and then the Nova Scotia government clawed it back dollar for dollar. That is not helpful to those people and the clawback of equalization would not be helpful to the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is no question that we are on the precipice of something very good for Atlantic Canada. We have the opportunity financially to get our house in order, start reducing our deficits and debts, and start reinvesting into the economies of Atlantic Canada. Not just for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, but I also include P.E.I. and New Brunswick as we consider ourselves one big family. From the shores of Cape Breton to the shores of Labrador we have great potential to go forward, but we need leadership from the federal government. That leadership should be in cooperation with the leadership of the other parties as well.

That cooperative approach along with the cooperative approach from the provinces would probably have mitigated this debate here tonight. These two trains coming at each other on the same track dialogue must stop. I have been involved in union negotiations for many years with the airlines. I always noticed that it never worked if the two sides were yelling, screaming and threatening each other. It is helpful if the sides sit together in a room. I always like to say to lock them up in a room, give them a big pot of coffee, lock the doors, and do not let them out until they reach an agreement.

I am very hopeful that the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will come to a consensus with the federal government. But the federal government has to understand that it simply cannot do this on its own. Liberals need the cooperation, the discussions and dialogue with the other opposition parties. The Liberals are no longer a majority any more.

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have a great future ahead of them with oil and gas right now but with other aspects down the road. I do not know how many Yukoners actually moved to Nova Scotia to find work, but on the east coast, our greatest resource is our children and many of them leave Atlantic Canada for better jobs throughout the country, either to Alberta, B.C., Ontario or wherever. We would like to bring those kids back and we would like to provide them with the economic opportunities so they will not have to move in the first place, so that they can raise their children where their grandparents lived.

If indeed that happens, it would be a great day for all of us in Atlantic Canada and it would help the rest of the country. It would give up that perception that we in the east are the weaker sister or weaker cousin in this relationship since Confederation. I do not believe we are the weaker relation at all. Our economies may not be as strong as in other areas of the country and there is a myriad of reasons for that.

It is not just the federal government's fault. It is also the fault of the provincial and municipal governments. Collectively, we have not done a great job managing the economy of the east coast, but we have to hope for the future. We have to hope that there are opportunities down the road. We have to hope that we could once and for all get rid of the image, not only in this legislature but in other legislatures, that we are a have not province or a have not region.

We are a have region. With the right development, the right legislation, the right policies, and the right attitude we can go a long way in our future, not only for us but for our children and their children as well.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador was a little bombastic. I do not argue with that, but that strategy was very effective. It certainly focused attention on the commitment that was made during the election which is what we should be talking about and not the offer that is on the table today.

The member suggested that the Liberal leader from Nova Scotia should accompany the premier and the leader of the NDP on this exercise, but Mr. Mackenzie said they should grab the $640 million now and keep negotiating for the rest. Mr. Mackenzie said in the Halifax Herald :

Definitely not give up $800 million, but right now let's get the $640 million moving first,--

Mr. Mackenzie has already acknowledged the $800 million, but he is saying to get the $640 now and hope they can negotiate the rest. We are trying to get the Liberals to keep a promise they made in June. If we cannot get them to keep that promise, why would we ever think they would keep another promise?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague who has taken over the beautiful Musquodoboit Valley on my behalf.

However, the bombastic style of the premier from Newfoundland is nothing new. Sure, it highlighted the debate. Was it helpful? I do not know.

I am not a Liberal, by any means, but I always believe that a cooperative approach by any premier along with the opposition parties in that particular province is the best way to go. Mr. Mackenzie may or may not have made comments regarding whatever deal was on the table, and said grab this and do that.

A few years ago Premier Hamm was here and we had a dinner upstairs. He was talking about his campaign for fairness. The approach that he took with the six members of the New Democratic Party there was very helpful. After careful reflection, the six of us gave the premier our total support because of the fact that he approached us on an even keel. He said that he was looking for our support and presented the concerns of Nova Scotia. We thought that was a very good way to do things. Instead of a top down approach, he treated us in the same manner that we would treat him if there were a concern among all of us regarding Nova Scotia.

I believe that is the approach to be taken especially when it comes to complicated negotiations such as the ones that we are involved in now. However, the member is absolutely right. The Prime Minister must keep the promise that he made before the election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to support my colleague in some of his opening remarks with regard to the Atlantic provinces, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in particular, and the reference of a have not area and have not province. There is nothing that infuriates me more than that reference. Further to that, I opened up the Toronto Star, of October 27 and saw the headline “Premiers reach deal on handouts”. It is an insult. They do not get it; they do not understand.

The coal miners of Cape Breton who mine the coal, who powered the navies through the first world war and the second world war, the miners who went underground and risked their lives to power the industry in Ontario to generate the economy in Ontario, they did not consider that a handout.

When the fish from Newfoundland and off the coast of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia fed the farmers in the dust bowl in Alberta, that was not a handout. That was Canadians within the federation helping Canadians. That is what we are talking about here.

My concern with this opposition motion is that it comes from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Calgary Southwest, who does not understand Atlantic Canadians and does not understand Atlantic Canada.

Anyone who was here in the mid-nineties understands fully that it was Atlantic Canada that suffered most through the cuts in the mid-nineties. He said the cuts were not deep enough. He said they did not go far enough and equalization would have been the casualty of any further cuts.

Does the member not think it is somewhat disingenuous for the motion to be put forward by the member for Calgary Southwest?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious why the member was elected in Cape Breton. He is standing up for the people of Cape Breton and he should be congratulated for that.

I remember quite well the former leader of the Saskatchewan Party, Elwin Hermanson, who supported every cut to agriculture and every cut to farmers in this place between 1993 and 1997. Then he went back to Saskatchewan as the leader of the Saskatchewan Party and said, “My god, the farmers are having a hard time”. I remember very well the member for Calgary Southwest. Although I was not here, I did read his comments regarding Atlantic Canada. However, that was then, but this is now.

I will congratulate the Conservatives for bringing this motion forward. There is no question, I have seen Stornoway turn around. I have seen little piglets brought to Parliament Hill. I remember that party's great person, Deborah Grey, who said, “Never will I take a pension” and boom, like that she took a pension.

Hypocrisy works on both sides sometimes, but the Conservatives have a long way to go to actually cleanse themselves of their previous sins. However, I thank them very much for bringing this motion forward.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about our former Saskatchewan party leader. The member should now come to Saskatchewan and see what the leader with his socialist views is doing. Talk about lies and hypocrisy. We do not have enough time in this House to tell him how very sad it is, the duping that was done in the last provincial election and the promises that were made. There is as well such a declining population in Saskatchewan.

The provincial government has reneged on its agriculture promises that it agreed to with the federal government. The NDP in Saskatchewan is saying that it is up to the federal government to help them. People are having a very difficult time in Saskatchewan. When the member wants to talk about hypocrisy, and I do not know if I can use the word “lies”, he should be looking at his own party, and the socialist views where it wants to share all the wealth. It does not believe in creating it. It is trying to keep everyone suppressed. It only believes in lowering the liquor age and putting VLTs in every bar that pounce on the very innocent and vulnerable. That is where the NDP is taking our province.

I would invite the member to come and see where his party and the NDP philosophies are taking Saskatchewan.

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

Ouch, Mr. Speaker, ouch.

However, the name Grant Devine comes to mind. In fact, it got so bad for the Conservatives that in 1981 they took over a profitable province of Saskatchewan from Alan Blakeney, who never once ran a deficit, and in nine short years they ran it to almost a $12 billion debt, a $600 million deficit. It took Roy Romanow and his finance minister everything to fix that province.

I see the Conservatives stand up and talk about the farmers and BSE and they are absolutely correct to do that. They should be congratulated for standing up for the farmers. The reality is that the border is not a provincial matter. It is a federal matter. Any funding coming to help those farmers should not be on the backs of the provinces. It should be on the back of the federal government. That is where that argument should take place.

If the member wants to discuss Grant Devine, we could. We could go on to Brian Mulroney, Sinclair Stevens and the list goes on and on. That is why Mr. Mulroney did not even make the top 50 of the greatest Canadians on CBC.

[An hon. member]

Neither did Grant Devine.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

We have before us a motion which deplores the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada toward the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. This motion calls upon the Prime Minister and the government to keep their word and allow these provinces to keep 100% of their provincial offshore oil and gas revenues.

This is an important motion not only for the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, but for all Canadians. I rise in this debate because I think it is important that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador understand that they have the support of other Canadians. While I am a member of this House from the riding of Calgary Centre-North, I am also a proud Canadian and I wish to bring to this debate the perspective of Calgarians and Albertans on this important issue.

Two years ago while visiting Newfoundland and Labrador, I had the opportunity to speak on a local radio talk show. As it turned out, the hon. member who is now sitting as the Prime Minister of Canada was also visiting the province. I challenged him. I called on him then to commit to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador that they would truly, fully benefit from their oil and gas resources, as is the case in my home province of Alberta. I am proud as an Albertan to stand once again to call on the Prime Minister to do the right thing. He did not do it that night on that talk show and he is not doing it now.

Let me be clear. The position of our leader and our party on this issue is unequivocal and unwavering. Our commitment is to ensure that Atlantic Canadians enjoy 100% of their non-renewable resource royalties. This was our position before the election, during the election and it has been our position since the election. It will remain our position until these provinces are dealt with fairly and honestly.

We have been clear, we have been consistent, and we have been steadfast, but clarity, consistency and steadfastness are not what we have seen from the Prime Minister and his government and those who will speak for him tonight. The prevarications, the perambulations and the peregrinations of the Prime Minister have been chronicled today by our leader. I will not reiterate that sad and troubling record.

Suffice it to say that Premier Williams thought he had the Prime Minister's word on June 5, 2004. In fact the premier was asked at that time whether and how he would be able to ensure that the Prime Minister of Canada would keep his word. Premier Williams, who is himself an experienced and successful businessman, a lawyer and a Rhodes scholar, thought then that the word of the Prime Minister of Canada was sufficient. He said, “It is by word of mouth. I am taking him at his word and that is good enough for me”. Woe is the premier, woe are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and woe are we as a nation, because the word of the Prime Minister of Canada is good enough for none of us, as it turns out.

It turns out that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not entitled to unrestricted access to the resources after all. There are caveats that restrict the time, and caveats which tie the prosperity of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador to the fiscal capacity of another region, Ontario. That was not the deal. It was not the deal which the Prime Minister promised to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Why should the people of one province be limited by or tied to the fiscal capacity of another province? Why would we want to limit the economic potential of any region of this country? Why cap the potential of one province to become a new economic engine of our country? Why deny a province the full and unfettered benefit of the resources which it brought into Confederation? Why could the people of Newfoundland and Labrador not depend on the word of their Prime Minister? Because it was during the election.

Thirty years ago Alberta was in a battle with another Liberal federal government over resource revenue. The then Premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed, wrote to the Liberal Prime Minister and said this: “The point that must be emphasized is that we are concerned about a depleting--a rapidly depleting--resource. We view the proceeds from this resource as a capital asset, the proceeds of which must be reinvested if this province”--Alberta--“is to maintain its economic stability”.

Today, because Alberta fought to receive the full benefit of its resources, it is one of the driving economic engines of this country. One hundred per cent was the right thing for Alberta and it is the right thing for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the right thing for Nova Scotia and it is the right thing for Canada.

These resources will not last forever. The opportunity for these provinces to reinvest these assets into their own economies is now. It will not wait while the Prime Minister dithers.

Who then will stand up for Newfoundlanders? We on the opposition side have heeded Premier Williams' call. Who will join us in the fight for Newfoundland and Labrador? Where are the Haultains and the Lougheeds of Newfoundland's future?

I say unequivocally that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can rest assured that there are such men among the Conservatives in the House, in addition to Premier Danny Williams and other Conservatives, such as the leader of our party. We have the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, the hon. member for St. John's East, and yes, Rex Barnes, formerly the member for Gander—Grand Falls.

These people are leaders who will protect the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. Their voices resonate in the House. They are admired and respected for their resilience and determination which they have shown in the House. Unlike others, they will not be cowed. Unlike others, they will not be muzzled. Unlike others, they will not turn their backs on their history, their birthright and their fellow citizens.

The Liberals toy with the hopes and aspirations of Atlantic Canadians. They came this past June bearing false promises and there are members opposite who directly benefited from those false promises. Now it is time to stand up and be counted for their promises and their country. The Prime Minister was not forthright with Atlantic Canadians and this is an undeniable truth.

I would like the Prime Minister to reflect on the following words:

Here lies a great and mighty king,Whose promise none relies on;He never said a foolish thing,Nor ever did a wise one.

Many people from Newfoundland and Labrador have contributed to the economic success by working in Alberta. Now Newfoundland and Labrador deserves the chance to enjoy its own economic success. Like Alberta, people will succeed and future generations will count them as the architects of the new deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member. I was a member in the previous Parliament, a whole bunch of parliaments for that matter, and I remember when the same person who is today the Conservative leader said that giving assistance to Atlantic Canada was, in his view, creating a cycle of dependence.

I want to know from the hon. member when his leader stopped believing that and started believing the new proposition that is in today's motion. I am sure Canadians would want to know at precisely what date he converted from the previous mindset regarding assisting people in regions, with particular emphasis on Atlantic Canada I might say, and when he started believing the new one.

I see it agitates members across the way to remind them of the position of the present Leader of the Opposition not that long ago. I do not blame them for being a little perturbed when I remind them of that. Canadians even reminded the Leader of the Opposition of those statements during the last election campaign.

Given that the member is close to the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps he could inform us whether he helped to change the mind of his leader. Did in fact his leader change his mind at all, or is he just posturing today because he sees an opportunity to do so? Perhaps he could assist us and all Canadians in understanding this new conversion on the road to Damascus. Perhaps he could tell us if maybe his leader fell off a horse in order to arrive at this conversion or how else it occurred.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us deal with what my friend has said. Let us talk about the election and the leader of the Conservative Party in the election.

The leader of the Conservative Party campaigned the length and the breadth of the country, including in Atlantic Canada. He has stood by his word on every matter on which he campaigned, whether it be health care, the Canadian Forces or whether it be a new and fair deal for Atlantic Canadians. On each and every one of these issues, the leader of our party has stood and been counted. He has put out his ideas and he has been prepared to be judged accordingly.

With respect to a new deal for Atlantic Canadians, the leader of our party has been on record for some time pointing out very clearly that we are in favour of 100% of the oil and gas revenues from the offshore resources accruing to the benefit of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. That has been our position. It was our position before the election. It was our position during the election and it is our position today. We are unwavering. We will continue to be unwavering.

This party has never brought forward a concept of a cap, that in some way the economic prosperity of Newfoundland and Labrador should be capped or tied to the prosperity of another region. Who else in Canada faces that circumstance, where their way forward, their future is tied to the economic capacity of another region of Canada? That is not the way forward. That was not the way forward for Albertans and it is not the way forward for Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the province in which I live, many people who have made their way to Alberta, who are succeeding in Alberta, have come from Atlantic Canada. We are proud to count them among us. What we need in the country is to create more opportunity in Atlantic Canada so that those people can succeed, so that their friends and neighbours can succeed in Atlantic Canada and so that some of them, if they so choose, can go back and take part in a thriving, dynamic economy.

The way to do that is to give people access to their resources. I cannot imagine anything in the country that is more unfair than the people of Newfoundland and Labrador being forced to come before the Government of Canada and plead for access to their own resources. They are resources which those people brought to Confederation when they joined this country. They belong to them and they should be benefiting from them.

They should not face the hypocrisy of my friends opposite standing up and saying that they will be capped, that they will be time limited, that they will be limited in any respect in the development of those resources. That is not the Canada we believe in on this side of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing his time.

Before I get into the points directly connected here today, I would like to comment on the question from my colleague, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. He asked about comments made by our leader. Perhaps he should reflect on comments made by his own leader when he referred to Atlantic Canada as a culture of dependency. Maybe he will want to check into that before he starts throwing slurs at other members.

I want to begin by thanking our leader for bringing forth this resolution today and the members on both sides of the House for participating in the debate. It is understood, I am sure, that my thanks to some of them is much deeper than my thanks to others.

Many of the people in the House today, all from our party, all from the Bloc and all from the NDP, have supported the principle of the resolution. Some of the members opposite, one in particular, the member for Random—Burin—St. George's was also very strong in his support for the intent of the resolution.

The resolution was brought forth to give people who represent the various regions of this country the opportunity to stand in the House and let the people of Canada, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, know how they feel about our request, but also to let the people of Canada know a little more about the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are referred to as a have not province. We are not. We have plenty. The problem is that we have never been given the chance to benefit from the great resources we have.

Canada joined us in 1949. When that happened we brought with us into Confederation tremendous resources. We had the greatest fishery in the world off our coast. That fishery has now been mismanaged by successive Ottawa-based, Ottawa-controlled governments to the point of almost non-existence.

We have some of the richest hydro producing sources in the world. What happened when we developed the Upper Churchill? Two things happened. First, the Liberal government from Newfoundland, which negotiated the deal with Quebec, gave away the shop. At the time, that government thought it had a very good deal. I want to come back to that, because that perhaps is the crux of why Newfoundland and Labrador is standing so firm today in demanding its full share of our benefits.

When we negotiated the deal on the Upper Churchill, we got about $10 million. It was a tremendous amount of money back in those days. Quebec got approximately the same thing, except the people who negotiated the Quebec side were much more astute. I do not blame my friends. We would have done the same thing. When I say my friends, it is because they have been very supportive in this. Today we are still getting $10 million but Quebec, from that same source, is drawing close to $1 billion a year.

We saw the Minister of Natural Resources, who is from our own province, go to Newfoundland a couple of weeks ago to try to shove a deal down our throats, a deal that was cooked up in Ottawa, without any understanding of the total concept of what the deal was all about. The deal offered us $1.4 billion over eight years. The Newfoundland request, and the deal we thought had been accepted by the Prime Minister, would have brought in over $4 billion during that same period. Just in that one short timeframe, we would have lost billions and billions of dollars if we had accepted the deal proposed by the government, the deal that it says is a good one.

Besides our hydro power and our fisheries, we were not given the courtesy by the government opposite, by the Liberals, to have a power corridor through the rest of the country to sell our power. Alberta benefits greatly from its oil, but I suggest that part of that benefit comes from having the ability to ship the oil to other provinces where they buy because of the great need. We cannot do that with our hydro power. This government and successive governments have not provided a power corridor for our power to the American markets.

Whatever way members want to look at it, we have been deprived from benefiting from our own resources. That will never happen again.

During the election the leader of our party went to Newfoundland, as did all leaders campaigning, and made a commitment to give Newfoundland 100% of the royalties from the offshore. It put pressure on the Prime Minister who, up until then, had ignored the requests from Newfoundlanders to do so.

In the dying moments of the campaign, under pressure from the Liberal members, some of whom have not said a word yet today on this, although I hope they will in the time that is left, the promise was made. It may have been under duress and maybe he can plead temporary insanity, but he made a promise and a commitment.

Premier Williams and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador followed up in writing three successive times to ensure that the Prime Minister understood what the deal was about. Did the government respond? No. That led everyone in the province to think the deal was accepted. The leader of the NDP had made a similar commitment in writing. Our leader had made it in writing, as requested by the premier. Did the Prime Minister put his in writing, as requested by the premier? No. The premier, unfortunately, being an honest man himself, took a leader at his word. Danny Williams said, “He gave me his word.” Consequently, the premier accepted his word. The Prime Minister has gone back on his word.

Then, after all kinds of pressure, and Mr. Williams having to walk away from the equalization talks to make a point, the Minister of Finance scurried back to his office, drafted an offer and sent the Minister of Natural Resources, as the little lackey, back to Newfoundland to deliver the deal and said, “Here it is. Do you want it, Mr. Williams? Do you want it, Mr. Sullivan”, our great minister of finance? “This is it. Take it or leave it. There will not be any changes”.

I believe he was right in saying that because not one of those people across today has said there will be any changes. The Minister of Finance talked about the whole fiscal development around a revenue sharing between provinces. We know that because that is the way it has been. He basically said that is the way it will be. The parliamentary secretary has been spouting the same words all day. Nobody has said that the Prime Minister will keep his promise. The Prime Minister himself has not said a word.

The deal that the Liberals have tried to shove down our throats, the deal that they have been saying all day is a good deal, is not a good deal and it is not a deal that we will accept today or tomorrow. We will never accept it.

What we want is what the Prime Minister promised and we will not settle for less. If this government does not want to give that deal to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, let me assure members that the next one will.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are making some progress here. We are trying to find the date on which the now Leader of the Opposition changed his mind about Atlantic Canada. It is very important for the House to know this. We now know that on May 29, 2002, the member for Calgary Southwest said:

--there is a culture of defeat that we have to overcome. It's the idea that we just have to go along, we can't change it, things won't change. I think that's the sad part, the sad reality traditional parties have bred in parts of Atlantic Canada.

We know of course that the member for Central Nova was very disturbed at this because at the time he said:

Comments Tuesday by [the member for Calgary Southwest], leader of the Canadian Alliance, reinforce what a narrow, regionally based party the Official Opposition continues to be. We should not be surprised by [his] ill-informed and antagonistic attitude.

Would the member tell the House when the ill-informed antagonistic attitude of the Leader of the Opposition changed from what it is today? We know it was ill-informed and antagonistic because the member for Central Nova told us so, and he always tells it as it is. Therefore, we want to know precisely on what date the Leader of the Opposition became better informed.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I were that member I would not have the gall to stand in the House in a debate about the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, when a couple of days ago in this very House, following some questions from our leader, our deputy leader, the member for St. John's East and myself, that member said to the Speaker at the time, “Now I do not want to disturb the trend of questioning, but what about an important question?” He was telling us that raising questions on the deal promised to Newfoundland and Labrador were not important. He should not even have the gall to be in here when we are talking about Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me answer him when he refers to comments made in the past. First, I would like him to show me one politician who has said something because of not knowing about the bigger picture in the past that he would not love to take back. When did he change the mind of his Prime Minister who said, when he was talking about the CoR Party in P.E.I., “They will be speaking to empty halls in Atlantic Canada when we end the legacy of dependency that Confederation has given them”. What is the difference?

Now that we are on even terms, let us get back to what we are talking about, a deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we could look at the negative things which are the broken Liberal promises or we could, as Johnny Mercer would say, accentuate the positive, which is the whole issue of equalization payments and clawbacks.

I am feeling very good tonight in the language being used about giving people a chance to come up. That is really moving. It is good for Canada because there has been a fear that some of the hon. members of the opposition are negative about that approach. I think the idea of equalization and ending clawbacks that we are going to apply to Newfoundland we could perhaps apply to Canadians in general.

For example, in the province of Ontario a few years ago the Ontario Tories came up with the idea of clawing back money that was given by the federal government to the poorest children in the province. Many women have come to my office over the last year asking me to explain how a program designed to put food into the mouths of the poorest children of Ontario could be clawed back by the Conservatives. I had no answer for that. How could one steal food out of the mouths of babes?

I think about the example a few years ago of a woman in Ontario who was nine months pregnant and was left locked in a room to die because she was collecting welfare payments at the same time that she was getting student loans. That was a program that was not illegal under the New Democrats but the Conservative government decided it was an unfair equalization. She could have been allowed to pay back the money as some provinces are allowed to pay back over-equalization but the Conservatives did not allow her to pay it back. Instead they made an example of her.

We are setting a precedent tonight. I will tell Canadians that they should not be afraid of those hon. members, that those people have turned over a new leaf. It is a good sign for Canada. I would like to commend the hon. member of the opposition for his warm stand for Canadians. We are setting a wonderful precedent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for raising the main point, that people in the House had a chance to speak out. The unfortunate thing about this is that people who are watching this tonight are waiting to see us vote. We fought for it. The Conservative Party, the NDP and the Bloc asked for a vote this evening on this very important issue. Who cancelled the vote? Who refused to vote? The Liberals. Why?Because they do not have the gall to stand up in the House and tell their own leader, the Prime Minister, that they do not believe a word he said.

With regard to the member's comments about Ontario, the people of Ontario dealt with that government. The people of Canada will deal with this one.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I am very pleased to take part in today's debate because it deals with an issue that is very important to the future of my province, Nova Scotia, and also to Newfoundland and Labrador, the birthplace of my grandmother as a matter of fact. She was born in Cape Broyle and grew up on Bell Island, next door to the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl as he points out.

It is also important to get the facts on the table and explain exactly what is at stake in this situation and these discussions, which I am pleased to say are ongoing.

In my province for example, we are talking about something in the range of $80 million a year in additional revenues, on top of the revenues recently agreed to, new revenues, increased revenues for health care. This year, for instance, in Nova Scotia there is $62 million more for health care. That is important in my province. It is meaningful. It has real meaning for people who use the health system.

There is an additional $151 million this year in equalization money. That is important also. That has a real impact. My kids are in public schools in Nova Scotia. It is important to them to have good schools.

It is important to both provinces to have those benefits. Of course, all provinces that receive equalization depend on those moneys to provide good education and good health care. It is very important.

The fact of the matter is we are talking about this and we have these additional revenues coming because of the promises the Prime Minister made and the commitments this government made during the election, the commitments that we are living up to.

During the election the Prime Minister promised that our province, Nova Scotia, would retain the full benefits from its offshore resources. We already receive, as colleagues know, all the royalties and revenues. This is all about equalization and what happens with equalization.

We are also talking about building and strengthening the Nova Scotia economy and about working to make our province, from our point of view at least, and colleagues from my province would agree with this, the economic engine of the Atlantic region. I am sure my colleagues would agree with that on both sides of the House.

That is why it has been critical for the federal government and provincial governments to have ongoing discussions in an effort to conclude a deal. It is why both sides have stayed at the table to explain their positions and work together to find a solution, to get the right wording that gets the job done for Nova Scotia. That is why we continue to make progress. I am very encouraged by the progress that is being made. This is a process that is serving Nova Scotians well, a process that should be allowed to continue.

The Minister of Finance and I have worked closely on this file for a number of months now, with Cecil Clarke, Nova Scotia's minister of energy. I can say to members on both sides of this House that Minister Clarke's mature and responsible attitude throughout these talks is deeply appreciated and very constructive. I know the Minister of Finance would join me in that sentiment. I have enjoyed working with Minister Clarke and the Premier of Nova Scotia to discuss these matters in working toward an agreement. I am confident we will see one before long.

Speaking of which, I was pleased to see just outside the House today the minister of fisheries and agriculture from Nova Scotia, Chris d'Entremont, with whom I also work regularly. I recently had the pleasure of working with him when we were in Whitehorse for meetings of the provincial, territorial and federal ministers. We had a very good session. We are working on a number of fronts in a very positive way. That is important because that kind of cooperation between levels of government is vital.

I am pleased with the strong degree of cooperation between the two parties in these discussions, despite the best efforts by others to put their own selfish interests ahead of the interests of Nova Scotia. We have seen that in this debate.

Not only do the ongoing talks show that both parties are committed to doing what is right for Nova Scotia, they also show that they can keep petty politics from derailing the process. We are going to make sure that it does not derail the process no matter what members on that side want to achieve, because that is what the people of Nova Scotia want. They want these discussions to continue fruitfully, not get derailed by politics. The people of Nova Scotia want both sides to work together to make sure that at the end of the day we have a deal hammered out. That is where we are going.

I can only hope that my colleagues across the way, the Conservatives, are genuine in their interest in discussing the proposed deal that has been put on the table. If they are, they will recognize, as any reasonable person would, that this government is being fair to Nova Scotia. We are committed to working with the province in good faith to work out an agreement that works. This government is committed to providing Nova Scotia with 100% of its offshore revenues. That is important and that is the basis of our discussions.

There is another important point that ought to be clarified. The Government of Canada has made it very clear both orally and in writing that if a deal is reached with either Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador, similar terms will be offered to the other party. There will be an equivalent deal either way. That has been the deal all along. That is very clear. There is no doubt about that.

It means there is no risk for Nova Scotia to accept the offer which has resulted from the ongoing negotiations. I think we are very close to that point.

I am not sure why the opposition finds a deal that gives 100% of its offshore benefits to Nova Scotia so deplorable. In fact I would put this deal up against the one the opposition leader tried to slide by Atlantic Canadians during the election. It sounded very good. It sounded like 100% but if we look at the fine print, in the case of Nova Scotia in fact it would have meant $6 million less in equalization and the opposition members know it. They make all these noises about suddenly being friendly to Atlantic Canada, but we see lots of converts on that side to this care about Atlantic Canada today.

I find it quite remarkable after all the years of attacks on Atlantic Canada from that side of the House how wonderful they feel about us today. It is really heartwarming.

The opposition says that our government's treatment of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is deplorable. This raises a few questions given what has been achieved in the past year.

What is deplorable about billions of dollars in additional money for health care? What is deplorable about billions more in equalization? I am not hearing any answer, but I am sure I will in due course.

[An hon. member]

Reneging on your deal is deplorable.

[An hon. member]

Not giving 100% is deplorable.

[An hon. member]

Not keeping your word is deplorable.