Debates of Nov. 4th, 2004

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member that I understand perfectly what he is talking about. I could say to him as well that if I thought for one minute we were going to reach a deal on this particular issue or it had something to do with the resolution that we have here before the House, I would have it removed right now, and all of us would, because this issue is a very important issue. It is probably the biggest issue that has hit the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the last 15 or 20 years. Why? Because it has the potential to make us a have province, not in 2 or 5 or 10 or 15 years but maybe 20 or 25 years down the road.

The federal government and the Prime Minister do not have to worry about overheating the Newfoundland economy in the short term. It is going to take 15 or 20 years for us to get on top. It gives us something to hang onto. We made a bad deal on hydro 30 or 35 years ago. The federal government has been responsible for the fishery failing in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the last chance we have to somehow make it right for our children and make it right for our children's children. This is what we are fighting for.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but the five minutes has expired. It goes by very quickly. Resuming debate.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am from British Columbia and we are taking a great interest in this debate. I want people in Atlantic Canada to know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast agree with them on this issue.

I have an interesting seating structure in the House. Beside me I have a member from Manitoba. Beside him is the member from St. John's. We all touch salt water. We all have issues with the federal government and the way it chooses to try to control either our resources or our resource revenues.

British Columbia has an offshore oil and gas resource and we are now past the 30 year mark on a federally imposed moratorium that is depriving British Columbia of an opportunity to make its own choices on that resource. This is something that needs to end, and soon, and we have two reports that are going to be tabled in the next month, I presume. They will focus on a summary of public opinion on the issue and a summary of first nations input. We are expecting a decision on that moratorium in 2005, from both our provincial and our federal governments.

However, when we look at the precedent in Canada, of course it comes from Newfoundland and Labrador and from Nova Scotia. Over the last three months I have talked to basically every significant major participant in the oil and gas sector in Canada. There is one message that I can boil down from what they have said about what we are talking about today, and that is, if the offshore oil and gas royalty regime in place today in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador persists, they are simply not interested.

They are not interested because as long as the feds continue to control the resource revenues, the taxation and the regulatory regime in the way they are now, then there is so much unhappiness at the provincial level. The provinces are not in control of their own destiny, their own incentives, and their own opportunity to do things in the way that is required. Industry then becomes collateral damage in all of this jurisdictional problem and there is a squeeze for revenues that makes these projects untenable, so this is a very significant debate.

We have a deep-rooted political and philosophical division between the party I represent, the Conservative Party of Canada, and the Liberal Party of Canada. If we dig into the Liberal Party's philosophical roots, its deep-seated roots, one can go back to statements by Marc Lalonde when he was principal secretary for Pierre Elliott Trudeau. In some of the early constitutional wrangles on resources, he said in reference to oil and gas that “we will have no more Albertas”. The Liberal Party has never changed its spots.

Even if today the Liberal Party were to fulfill the Prime Minister's oil and gas promises of June 5 and June 27, one could bet that at the first opportunity the Liberals would be trying to find a way to undo or undercut the deal or somehow manipulate it so that it really was not 100% of royalties going to Newfoundland and Labrador and to Nova Scotia. This is something that needs to change.

When the member for St. John's East talks about what a benchmark or significant moment this is for Newfoundland and Labrador, I totally agree, but I go beyond that. This is potentially a watershed for how the provinces and the federal government deal with and arrange jurisdiction over our resources.

Many of us who are from the west coast or other parts of Canada have spent time in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know how strong, independent and full of pride those people are. They deserve no less than the people of Alberta, who control 100% of resource royalties from their oil and gas resource.

I am a Canadian who is older than Newfoundland and Labrador. The province came into this Confederation in 1949. In 1949, the people of the province brought the offshore oil and gas with them, probably unknowingly at the time, but Alberta had already taken jurisdictional control of its resource in 1930. There is a grand precedent here and one that we need to overturn in terms of ensuring that the provinces are the beneficiaries of their resource revenues. Otherwise, the whole system does not work.

There are many people observing this debate today who are from beyond Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. This debate does not just include the 10 provinces. The premier from the Northwest Territories is very interested in this debate. It affects the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Right now, resource royalties in the Northwest Territories amount to about 4% after the clawback and all the other arrangements. This means that there will be no progress on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline proposal until that is dealt with. Let us guess what the precedent is. It is Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, the very issue we are describing today. I completely sympathize with the direction they are taking. If Canada chooses not to resolve this in very quick fashion, we could potentially lose the opportunity, because the Alaska project has now received the full backing of the state of Alaska and the federal government, reconfirmed by the U.S. election this week. That project will proceed and ours will not, which would be a very negative thing for the country.

There is a very strong message for Canadians about all of this. The Liberal Prime Minister made promises on June 5 and June 27 for election purposes, the promise to Nova Scotia on the day before the election. All of his promises mean nothing after the election. The Liberals should be held accountable for that.

I will give the House some examples of other promises the LIberals made, although I realize my time is almost up. They said the border would be open by the end of the summer. They knew otherwise. They said that we in the party I represent were warmongers. Do members know why they said that? Because we wanted to fix the equipment and stop the rust-out of our military equipment within the Department of National Defence and fix other basic structural problems, and let us look what has happened. We have been proven correct on all of that.

The Liberals said that we were exaggerating the numbers in the budget. Who was exaggerating? What was determined very recently? Our surplus was $9.1 billion, not $1.9 billion and--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks of my hon. colleague. They were a little wide ranging for the issue we have at hand today, which is a an important and serious resolution. It deals with a serious and significant matter for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

From what I have heard today, there is a wide range of concerns and a big desire to find a solution to this problem.

I want to sincerely ask the hon. member this. Does he think it is constructive and useful to this debate and to solving this issue to have inflammatory references in the resolution as put forward yesterday by his leader, the Leader of the Opposition? Does he think it is constructive and useful to finding a resolution to a very serious issue on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I did not get an opportunity to do when I started speaking was to read the motion, and I will do that at this time:

That this House deplore the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada at and following the First Ministers' Conference of October 26, 2004, and that it call on the federal government to immediately implement its pledges of June 5 and 27, 2004, to allow the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia to keep 100% of their provincial offshore oil and gas revenues.

The only individuals who would find that inflammatory would be people who disagree with the point of view that 100% of the royalties should go to the provinces.

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, take that word out, if the member is seriously interested in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

[An hon. member]

What word?

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Take out the word deplore, and no rhetoric.

Will the hon. member tell me in 20 seconds or less what are the four components that make up the deal being offered to Newfoundland and Labrador and what he sees wrong with it?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we all know the government has been playing with the numbers and trying to find different ways that Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, would never be given the opportunity to become a have province. The province would always be restricted to be less than or equivalent to the revenues of Ontario. That is most inappropriate. That is one example.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I come from the province of Manitoba where, along with Saskatchewan and Alberta, in 1930 natural resources were constitutionally transferred over to those provinces. That was a good thing in terms of assisting development.

As a representative from a so-called have not province, this is nothing that would hurt Manitoba. It is a good thing that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia would be allowed to keep their own natural resources in the same way that Manitoba can, so they can develop their industries. The promise by the Prime Minister was 100%.

I am speaking on behalf of a so-called have not province. Why is that not good for Canada? It is good for every province. Perhaps the member could tell us why he thinks the Prime Minister does not agree with it?

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think most members of Parliament would know the answer, which is the governing party would prefer to take with one hand and give with the other, so it retains control of the agenda. The government is doing that through clawbacks and other formulas that are not nearly as beneficial to allowing unilateral action by the provinces to benefit themselves with their own initiatives.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like my presentation will be broken up in sections, seeing as I will soon be interrupted for statements by members and then of course by oral question period. It will be my pleasure to complete my speech afterward.

Since the beginning of the debate this morning, I have had the opportunity to hear all sorts of arguments filled more with demagoguery thansubstance. I have heard Conservative colleagues from Newfoundland and Liberal colleagues from Newfoundland who clearly do not share the same view and, while claiming the best interests of Newfoundland, are clearly interested much more in their own political interests.

We on this side share the outrage of the Government of Newfoundland. We understand this outrage, because it is in response to the traditional arrogance of the Liberal government, which has once again betrayed and broken a promise it had made. That comes as no surprise to us. We are used to this kind of attitude on the part of the Liberal government.

I will give a few examples toward the end of my speech if I have any time left. In Quebec, we have had many opportunities to see this and previous Liberal governments make extremely generous promises to Quebeckers and back out once in office in cowardly fashion.

We do understand the outrage of Newfoundland. But at the same time we are finding it pretty amazing that, after so many years of Liberal government, anyone can still be surprised to realize that it is this government's trademark, so to speak, to make promises and then ignore them.

In fact, this attitude of the government party, which has become somewhat of an institution in Canada, is responsible for the very high level of cynicism for politicians in the population, the cynicism that the Prime Minister, when he was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party, claimed to want to eliminate by improving standards. But indications are that, as soon as he took office, he simply started repeating, imitating, copying the attitude of his predecessors. As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot indicated, before the election, he promised the moon to everyone but, once in office, of course, he changed his attitude.

We of course agree with the concerns of the Newfoundland government, but the Conservative motion now before the House is a very inaccurate reflection of these concerns. While we understand the outrage of the Newfoundland government, and while we share its concerns up to a point, there is no way we can support the motion, as it is worded. After oral question period, I intend to provide a more detailed explanation of the reasons why we will not support this motion.

In the meantime, I will simply say that we are opposed to this motion because we believe that the potential negative effects of it and, of course, those of any agreement that might be reached between the federal government and the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia governments, could be worse than the benefits of it, and this is true even for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

This debate gives me an opportunity to go back, if only briefly, to the first ministers' conference on health, which took place in September. All the participants came out of that conference boasting, congratulating each other and saying that they had accomplished a great deal. However, we on this side said that we would not consider the conference a real success until after the October 26 conference. Obviously, the results speak for themselves. I will get back to this after oral question period.

Credit Card Interest Rates

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of high credit card interest rates in Canada is one that affects most Canadians. Users of credit cards can generally circumvent these exorbitant rates through the making of their money payments on time. However, for those who have, or maintain, for any reason, any balance on their credit cards they are subject to some of the highest credit card rates in the world.

Canadians carry an estimated $50 billion on their credit cards. As parliamentarians we have a universal responsibility to Canadians as a whole to protect them from such greed by establishing more ethical, responsible and civilized parameters so that we may alleviate some of this unnecessary debt burden that affects so many Canadians.

International Film Festival

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of this House to the 23rd edition of the Abitibi—Témiscamingue international film festival, which finishes today. This well-attended festival is one of the most northerly celebrations of film from here and elsewhere, with a particular warm spot for Quebec productions.

The high quality of its organization, the originality and calibre of its programming, its special guests, the excellence of its media coverage, and the enthusiasm of its faithful audience make this festival a popular and respected event.

My thanks to the organizers, whose meticulous and imaginative preparations for this event make it an attraction every year for cinephiles and a source of pride for everyone in the region.

Congratulations and long life to the Festival du cinéma international en Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Remembrance Day

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, Veterans Week and Remembrance Day will soon be upon us. The ranks of our wartime veterans are growing very thin. Soon we will have lost all our first-hand witnesses to the terrible and bloody conflict known as the war to end all wars.

World War I cost our very young country almost 66,000 of our men who gave up their lives on the blood soaked fields of France and Belgium.

Next week, as Canadians see the veterans marching proudly in Remembrance Day services across Canada, let us reflect upon the sacrifices made by these veterans on our behalf and remember those we no longer see, the veterans from the war to end all wars.

It is now up to us to pass on their story because if we do not, who will? Lest we forget.

Canada-U.S. Border

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Prime Minister visited Niagara. While there, I urged him to investigate the difficulties we are facing at the border crossings in Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie.

The Canada-U.S. trading relationship is the largest in the world and it is absolutely essential that our borders remain open to the efficient flow of goods and services. One would have had to have been asleep for the last three years not to have noticed the continued slowdowns and tie-ups at our Canadian borders. There are problems with border capacity, labour issues with customs officers and security concerns, all of which require the immediate attention of the Government of Canada.

The government's response has been the same for years. It is consulting with our American allies and it has plans to fix the situation.

Plans are a beautiful thing but plans alone will not solve the problem. I urge the government to get going and get the job done now because the health of the Canadian economy depends on it.

Paramedics

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our paramedics play a vital and integral part in looking after the health of Canadians. Their timely response in times of emergency and the stresses of their everyday working environment merit more than a degree of respect. Working closely with police officers and firefighters, they are there when we need them most.

This is why I would urge the Government of Canada to show how much it and we respect our paramedics by revisiting the current rules for pension plans pursuant to Bill C-52 and adding paramedics to the list of public safety occupations.

Including paramedics in this definition would not only pay tribute to the realities of their profession, but also enable them to achieve parity with other emergency personnel, including firefighters and police, when negotiating unreduced early retirement at the age of 55.

Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge this week's historic conference, Democracy in Action, organized by the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy.

I want to acknowledge the right hon. Prime Minister, leaders of the opposition and hon. members who participated in this keynote event. At a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise here in Canada and when Israel is besieged by terrorism, it is imperative for the Jewish community to come together with a powerful voice, build bridges with all Canadians and engage the political leadership of this country in a constructive and thoughtful manner toward peace.

The conference was a success, bringing together advocates and politicians from across the country around a cohesive agenda.

I wish to congratulate CIJA organizers and its affiliate organizations on a job well done, and commit to work closely with the organizations in the future. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Organisation de Valleyfield pour les personnes atteintes de cancer

[Alain Boire, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, November 13 will mark the 20th anniversary of OVPAC, the Valleyfield organization for cancer patients.

This organization has been recognized since 1984 for its devotion to the cause of cancer and the quality of the services it provides to people with cancer. In addition to helpful services, it takes over 500 patients a year to Montreal area hospitals for treatment.

One person who has devoted himself selflessly in these efforts is Réal Sarrault, who was only forced to give up during his final battle with his own cancer.

It is an honour for me today to pay tribute to all the men and women who, day in and day out, work in solidarity with their fellow citizens who are battling cancer. There is no limit to the generosity of heart of the OVPAC volunteers.

Health

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to welcome many of the chiropractors who are in Ottawa this week to meet with their federal representatives. I believe these meetings will provide an ideal opportunity for many hon. members in the House to learn about the integral role of chiropractics in the health care arena.

As a chiropractor, I have seen first-hand the benefit of chiropractic treatment for conditions such as back pain, neck pain and headaches. With musculoskeletal conditions, such as back pain, costing Canadians $16.4 billion in treatment and rehabilitation costs, and in reduced workforce productivity, the chiropractic profession definitely has a key role to play in addressing many of the challenges that we experience in health care.

As the dynamics of health care change, it is imperative that all health care professionals work together in a multidisciplinary environment to provide Canadians with the highest quality of health care. I wish chiropractors across Canada much continued success in their noble profession.

Diwali

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Indo-Canadians from coast to coast will be celebrating Diwali, popularly known as the festival of lights, on November 12.

Diwali is celebrated all across the world because of its message of good triumphing over evil. Indo-Canadians celebrate by praying and sharing sweets on this joyous occasion.

I along with the India-Canada Association of Ottawa will host the sixth annual Diwali celebration on November 16 on Parliament Hill. This annual event brings Canadians from different backgrounds together, strengthening our bonds and understanding of each other.

This is an open invitation for all to come and enjoy Diwali with fellow Canadians. On behalf of my fellow parliamentarians, I wish all Indo-Canadians a happy Diwali.

Arts and Culture

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

Mr. Speaker, this weekend in Dartmouth, many friends and supporters of Wendy Lill will gather to honour and pay tribute to this remarkable woman, my predecessor as MP for my riding.

Many members in the House know of the hard work and dedication she exhibited on behalf of her constituents. Her tireless efforts to help the poor and the disadvantaged are causes we all should champion. Her support of the disabled is an indication of her deep commitment to justice and equality.

Arts and culture were her profession and her passion. While I am at home next week I look forward to seeing her latest play, The Fighting Days , the story of Nellie McClung, at Eastern Front Theatre in Dartmouth.

While we all have partisan roles to play, Wendy's work must be regarded as stellar by everybody. Those of us who believe we must do more for the disadvantaged and who believe arts and culture are core to our Canadian values, pay tribute to her.

My family members are big fans of Wendy Lill, as were my late parents. I hope all members join me in saluting Wendy Lill for her dedication and service to Canada.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first nations and Métis veterans were cheated at the end of World War II and the Korean war and they continue to get cheated today.

It is well documented that aboriginal veterans did not receive the same education, land or resettlement benefits as other veterans. The government's own national round table on first nations veterans measured this shortfall in benefits to be approximately $125,000 each.

Yet, in a shameful abdication of responsibility, the government has offered a paltry $20,000 per person calling it a gesture of goodwill.

Time is running out for our first nations and Métis veterans to ever see justice from the government that they fought for.

I urge the government to reopen the file that is the sad history of Canada's treatment of its first nations veterans and compensate them or their survivors in an amount commensurate with the level of benefits extended to all of our proud veterans.

Health

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a study published in the October 11 edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine provides dramatic evidence that care for chronic back pain and neuro-musculoskeletal problems by chiropractors is less costly and more effective.

The four year study of 1.7 million patients concluded that if all of those studied had chiropractic coverage total health care costs would drop by 12% due to a reduced use of hospital beds, drugs, X-rays and most important, a speedier recovery.

This study confirms studies done in Canada by Dr. Pran Manga of the University of Ottawa. In 1998 Dr. Manga calculated that Ontario alone would likely save $548 million if it properly utilized chiropractic care. Extrapolated nationally, that would mean a savings of $2.2 billion.

If Canada is going to lead the world in health care outcomes, we will need to implement effectiveness and cost effectiveness strategies. This latest study indicates that if all health care professionals were properly utilized, not only would there be no doctor shortage, we could also reallocate precious health care resources--