Debates of Nov. 4th, 2004

Supply

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have got them excited now. They are awake again. I am pleased I woke them up.

How about the GST rebate? How about child care, which they are not interested in of course? How about funding to clean up Halifax harbour and $290 million to clean up the tar ponds in Sydney? Are those the kinds of measures that they are against?

We have shown our commitment to Nova Scotia in each of these instances. The deal on the offshore will be no different.

This commitment is much stronger than the members on that side have shown and Atlantic Canadians know it. We saw that in the last election. Atlantic Canadians rejected their regressive policies in the last election.

They know them well. They know who these guys are. They have listened for the past decade to that party across the way. They have heard the members of that party. They have not forgotten what they have said all along. They are braying now because of how much it hurt them during the election to have Atlantic Canadians actually understanding what they are really all about over there. They rejected the Conservatives' inadequate offshore offer in the last election.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

It is funny how that diplomatic tone has disappeared now.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing a concern about diplomatic tone. The fact of the matter is that we have had very good discussions with the provincial government.

When those members talk about a deplorable attitude and they accuse us of not having a diplomatic attitude, I do not know how they can suggest that. How could they possibly come up with that? It really is amazing.

The fact of the matter is Atlantic Canadians rejected, not their own provincial governments, that is not what I am talking about. They rejected the notion of that party, which has been saying that they have in Atlantic Canada a defeatist attitude.

In the interests of Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada in general, it is very clear to me that the House should reject what really is a nasty, negative, deplorable motion.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans throwing the word deplorable around a lot in his rhetorical flourish. He started off in such nice diplomatic terms and he was on the high road, but he descended very quickly, as is often the case, into the usual attacks and the distractions and the deflections in an attempt to get away from the real issue.

The real issue is the Prime Minister keeping his commitment to Atlantic Canada, giving that province and Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of the revenues, 100% of the benefit that should flow to the minister's province. He should be the strongest defender of the province in that regard. He should be the first one to line up and back the premier of Nova Scotia and ensure that it happens. That is not the case. He is spouting the government line here today, just as we have heard from all members opposite throughout this debate.

The reality of what is happening is that the Prime Minister and the minister himself, who has been involved in these negotiations, have added conditions. They have added an eight year cap. They have put in place this equalization stacking, which will prevent the province from receiving 100% of the benefits. When we see more revenue coming on stream in future development like the Deep Panuke project, the clawback will kick in again and Nova Scotia will not receive 100% of the benefits. The minister knows that. He is being mendacious if he is telling us otherwise. He is being very, very disingenuous. I will tell--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Some hon. members]

Point of order.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The member knows.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is certainly entertaining to hear that member talking about breaking promises, because if ever there were an expert in the House, he knows all about that area. All we have to do is ask David Orchard about that.

The fact of the matter is that we are working hard on behalf of Nova Scotia. We are working toward an agreement. We are working in a positive tone with the provincial government.

Those members know that and he is upset about the fact that I am talking about the history of his own party and their own comments in the past. It is no wonder he is upset. He must have his own problems with the comments of his own leader in the past and generally with those of members of his party toward Atlantic Canada. He knows what the attitude has been toward Atlantic Canada. It has been negative throughout, but Atlantic Canadians know that too and that is the reason they so clearly rejected his party in the last election and will in the next election again.

They know what those members stand for. They know how that party feels about the charter of rights and how it rejects the charter of rights. They are very upset now, and I see that, but the fact of the matter is that the deal on the table now is much better than the deal that their government, the Conservative government, negotiated in 1986. In fact, that is the problem here, the basis of that deal. If it had been done well back then by that government, it would be all right and we would not be having these discussions.

It is better than the Conservative deal that was put on the table this summer by the Leader of the Opposition, which would have cost my province $6 million.

[An hon. member]

Six million dollars is a lot of hospital beds.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

It is better than the present situation, and $80 million more a year for my province is real benefit, it is real dollars, and we should not have this nonsense of deplorable attitudes. The other night we saw that party join the Bloc Québécois in a motion saying that there was a fiscal imbalance.

What they are really all about, in other words, is not only supporting a separatist motion, but they are about dismantling the Government of Canada. What they want is a weaker federation. Canadians do not want that, but those members do not understand that they are on the wrong wavelength. They are out of touch with Canadians and what they want.

When they understand that, when they come around from that position, they might get somewhere, but they are a long way from that right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the last speaker in this debate that has gone on all day I probably should try to stick to the facts, which the hon. members opposite seem to be somewhat unable to do.

Here are the facts. Offshore resource revenues are today owned and collected 100% by the provincial government. Equalization payments come on top of that. On top of that, the Government of Canada adds at least another 30% bonus to offset equalization reductions due to higher offshore revenue. We are proposing to do this and to add a further bonus of 70% for a grand total of 100% in offsets on top of the 100% in provincial resource revenues. This will be for eight years for this arrangement, unless the province's combined revenues from these four sources reach the level of Ontario's on a per capita basis.

Let us recap. Premier Williams has asked for 100% of offshore resource revenues. He already has this and he will continue to receive 100% of his offshore revenues. He wants an arrangement that will not reduce equalization revenue. Our offer does that by providing matching payments to ensure the province is protected against 100% equalization reductions due to its offshore oil revenues until its total fiscal capacity rises to that of Ontario.

This offer provides a guarantee of eight years, after which it would be reviewed. And the province will continue to receive full benefits under the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord as well as fully enjoy the benefits of the generic solution under the equalization program.

In the end, Newfoundland and Labrador will receive $2 for every dollar it receives in oil benefits until it reaches Ontario's revenue potential.

The Government of Canada's offer is fair to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as to all Canadians, and that offer is still on the table.

I would like to, if I may, contradistinguish that to the Leader of the Opposition, who during the election was quoted by the reporter from the CBC. She described that proposal fairly. Leslie MacKinnon said, “Under that proposal, the non-oil and gas producing provinces are disadvantaged because the equalization formula would change and they would lose money”. Then the minister of finance for Manitoba said that “New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Manitoba would likely see their position deteriorate relative to those provinces dramatically over time, and it would create a two-tier Canada”.

Then the reporter said:

In fact, the reality is that the Conservative plan announced in the east with such fanfare, designed to help the poorest provinces in Confederation, would actually benefit the two western provinces the most because of their oil and gas revenues and because one has a large population.

Under the opposition leader's formula, said the reporter, B.C. would receive a significant increase. Saskatchewan would also receive a significant increase. Newfoundland would do well, with about $180 million extra. Nova Scotia initially, because its revenues are small now, would see a net loss of $6 million. The two other Atlantic provinces with no oil or gas production, New Brunswick and P.E.I., would also lose. But, said the reporter, the opposition leader said he would ensure a transition period and no province would receive less. The Manitoba finance minister made this comment, “It would be somewhat equivalent to me saying your salary will never go down, but hey, don't worry, everybody else's salaries will go up”.

Canadians have heard this debate all day. They have seen the proposal put forward by the government. It is a 100% proposal, and I just read into the record the proposal by the Leader of the Opposition.

I see that my time is up, so I say to Canadians that they can compare--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Order. It being 6:15 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

All those in favour of the motion. will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Call in the members:

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Accordingly the vote stands deferred until Monday, November 15, 2004 at the end of government orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before starting my remarks on the adjournment proceedings, I want to say it is quite shameful that the government would defer the vote without the approval and without negotiating with this party when it was we who put forward the opposition motion today. It just shows that the Liberals want to avoid the vote until after the break week.

When I asked the Minister of National Defence during question period on October 22 about the tragedy on board the HMCS Chicoutimi , he replied that we owe it to each other in the House to be forthright. Well the official opposition has been very forthright about our belief that the men and women of our armed forces deserve the support and the respect of their government. The government however has been far from forthright when it comes to its intentions for the Canadian Forces. It is gutting the morale and capability of our army, navy and air force by stealth.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, and his parliamentary secretary are well versed at offering up platitudes to Canadians about how they want to provide the best equipment necessary to our troops. Yet not only have they denied the resources necessary to replace old, broken down equipment and supplies, they will not even give our soldiers, airmen and sailors the money they need to keep their present equipment running.

Officials from the Department of National Defence reported earlier this year that the government had left the forces so short of cash in the coming fiscal year that they would not be able to afford the fuel required to sail ships and fly aircraft. How can the minister claim to be forthright when he says his government supports the Canadian Forces but then he forces our military men and women to make do with questionable second-hand equipment like the Chicoutimi ?

I want to point out that as the time spent overseas away from their families is increasing for many of our troops, some of these same families are still living in on-base housing that is sadly substandard, and the Canadian Forces Housing Agency continues to increase their rents; all this while a private in the Canadian military is still only being paid about $26,000 a year. We just learned recently--and thank goodness we do have caring citizens out there--that charities are raising money for Christmas hampers for needy military families.

The Conservative Party has been very honest with Canadians about our steadfast desire to restore resources and morale in the Canadian Forces. If the government were as forthright, it would admit that it does not have the political will to do the same.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition member knows full well that the question he posed to us was on the HMCS Chicoutimi , which I will deal with in a moment. However, I will address some of the concerns he has mentioned and some of the accusations that are baseless.

First, on the issue of equipment, very recently the government made a commitment of $7 billion for the purchase of five new equipment platforms for our military. This will address some of our concerns. We have also made a commitment to increase our troops by 5,000 on the sharp edge of our regular forces, plus 3,000 members in our reservists.

We cannot do everything, but I would submit that this is a very good start in trying to improve the conditions for our armed forces and ensuring they have all the equipment, the tools, the manpower and the training they need to do their job.

The opposition member also mentioned substandard equipment and suggested that the HMSC Chicoutimi was of that nature. I can tell the hon. member that when the House and the standing committee on national defence got together to discuss this, the issue of submarines came up. All parties, including the member's party, recommended unanimously that we purchase the four Upholder subs from Great Britain. This was a recommendation that was put forth to the government. The government acted on that recommendation and purchased the subs. If I can quote the head of our maritime forces, Admiral MacLean, and the British defence admiralty, both agreed that the Upholder submarines were excellent submarines.

We have the largest shoreline of any country in the world. It is our responsibility to ensure that we guard that area and that we have the ability to patrol those waters. With 40 countries in the world having subs, it would be ridiculous if we did not have them. We managed to purchase those subs at one-quarter of their value. With 80% of their lives left, that is a good deal. I think I can say that members from all political parties recommended we purchase them.

In closing, we do not account for a moment or except the claims the member has made.

On the issue of the Chicoutimi. , I summarize by saying this. When the member brought up this question, he made some accusations. I was here when the Minister of National Defence informed every leader and every party in the House in real time of what was happening after the families were informed. They were kept informed in real time to ensure they had the information that was of concern to all of us. That is responsible governance. It is our duty and we will continue to do that.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely shameful for the member to stand in his place and make such outlandish statements to the Canadian public. When he was a member of the opposition, he used to raise concerns about our young men and women in the military and their substandard housing, some of which is in his own riding. Now he stands over there and tries to pretend that the government he decided to join belatedly so he could get his exalted position is actually doing enough for our military. It is absolutely shameful and he should be ashamed of himself.

The minister at the time stated, “All hands are safe and handling the accident very well”. Either he was getting this information or he was misinforming the House and, by extension, the people of Canada.

Let us be very clear about this. The navy bought these subs because they were the best it could afford and because the government would not give it adequate resources. That is the reason it bought them. He pretends to indicate that this is something the navy willingly did. It was only because that is all it could afford.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the subs were purchased on the recommendation of all parties in the House. Yes, we purchased them and it was the right thing to do. The member might want to inquire, if it had cost four times that much to purchase submarines, would we have had the money to do that? We did not. With the resources we have, we make sure we get the best bang for the buck for the Canadian public.

On the issue of informing the public about the situation, I can tell the member that the House was informed in real time as quickly as we received the information. That information was given under very difficult circumstances.

The members of the Canadian Forces and the crew of the Chicoutimi are heroes in all of this. They ensured that we had the best information we could have had under difficult circumstances. As things changed, we again informed the House and the public on what was happening. All information was given in an utterly transparent fashion. I think there was nothing more that anybody could have done.