Bill Matthews

[Government Response To Petitions, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am somewhat surprised today that we do not have a ministerial statement flowing from the NATO conference in Washington over the last few days.

Certainly with the significance of this conference to the world and our involvement as a country—

[Fisheries And Oceans, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in 1996 Mr. Chris Wicke, an employee of the International Fund for Animal Welfare and a key witness, gave false information, including his business card, to DFO officers.

Mr. Wicke also used fictitious names and addresses and lied to DFO Officer Marvin Oake. He also signed a false application to gain access to a sealing vessel.

Judge Fowler stated that Chris Wicke was a biased witness who behaved like a sophisticated con man. Chris Wicke still has not been charged.

Why were Newfoundland sealers wrongfully charged and why has Chris Wicke not been charged?

[Fisheries And Oceans, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, Judge Fowler of the Newfoundland provincial court ruled that DFO's main piece of evidence against Newfoundland sealers, an International Fund for Animal Welfare videotape, was not an original, that it had been altered and changed and did not meet the court's continuity principle requirement.

Now that the most important piece of evidence of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the videotape, has been judged inadmissible, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be dropping the charges against those Newfoundland sealers who were wrongly charged because of an edited and doctored videotape?

[The East Coast Fishery, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of our people have been forced out of work due to our declining groundfish resources. Underwater cameras have uncovered compelling evidence of the destruction of our codfish stocks by the growing seal herds in our bays and off our coasts. Tonnes of partly eaten codfish have been discovered on the ocean floor in the Bonavista Bay area.

Seals only consume part of the fish, leaving the rest on the ocean floor to decay. It is time the Government of Canada, the custodian and manager of seal herds and our fish stocks, immediately increase the seal harvest to give our groundfish stocks a chance to regenerate.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Alberta was not always a have province. We are going to be a have province, but we need some considerations from the Government of Canada to get there.

We would love to be a have province. We wish we did not have to come to the Government of Canada looking for five cents. That is our wish, but we are going to need some help and some consideration gradually until we get there. That is what we are asking for. Give us a sliding scale so that it is taken back over time, but at least let us get to that point where we are considered to be a have province and then we will not need as much equalization from the Government of Canada or from other provinces.

That is what we aim to do, but we are going to need some help to get there.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Unless things change, we will always be a have not province. If we give someone $10 and take back $10, they are no better off.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. For those of us who were involved in bringing the Hibernia project to fruition in Newfoundland and Labrador, we know at that time that there was a similar debate which took place.

The hon. member and I were members of a provincial government at the time and we negotiated an agreement whereby we got to keep a percentage of royalties from Hibernia. If memory serves me correctly, we got to keep about 30%. That has helped us a bit.

Right now we are into the development of Terra Nova and other oil fields. White Rose and so on will come onstream before too much longer. We are going to be a significant player in offshore oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador. Hopefully we will have significant mineral developments and mining and the smelting of various ores.

However, the point is that we should be afforded an opportunity to develop our natural resources and keep enough of our royalties so that over a period of time we will become a have province. That is my point. I think that is basically what the hon. member is asking.

Yes, the federal government should give serious consideration to a formula that would allow us to keep at least a portion of revenues from Hibernia, Terra Nova, White Rose and Voisey's Bay without knocking us back, dollar for dollar, off the equalization formula.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and his question. However, I do not think that I need a lecture from the hon. member on respect.

I am not saying that I oppose changes to the equalization formula. I am not saying that at all. Yes, he is right about Nova Scotia. Yes, he is right about Newfoundland and Labrador.

My point is simply this. If the government continues to take back, dollar for dollar, any royalties that we get from oil and gas, or from Voisey's Bay, if we ever get to develop it, we will not become a have province. Voisey's Bay is still in the ground. The company paid something like $4.2 billion for control of the resource, and there is much more than that there.

My point is that there had to be changes. If we are ever going to become a have province, then we are going to have to be able to keep some of the royalties that we get from those resources and not be penalized by the federal government clawing them back. That is my point.

I am not against changing it. I know what the hon. member is saying about three provinces and seven provinces. We want to be a have province.

What I said was out of no disrespect for the west. What I said was that too often in this Chamber members stand in their place who are a little too parochial but think that they understand the problems of other regions and have solutions for other regions when they do not understand the people and they have never been there. How can someone understand the people, their issues and concerns if they do not go to where those people are to gain an understanding of their problems?

Perhaps members could criticize me for not having a great enough understanding of the west. I could probably be fairly criticized for that. However, I am suggesting that if members of parliament are going to recommend solutions for people from other parts of the country we have to understand the people and the problems before bringing solutions that just do not cut it.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to make a few general comments on Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

I must say at the outset that I have listened very intently to the hon. members for Broadview—Greenwood, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, and Palliser. I found their remarks on this topic to be most responsible and very interesting. After listening to those three hon. members speak, I wonder why we do not find solutions more readily in this House of Commons and why the government of the day does not listen more to what hon. members say about taxation issues and the other issues facing our country.

I come from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have listened with great interest to a number of speakers today. They have talked about equalization, the fairness and the unfairness of equalization. Newfoundland and Labrador has a great desire to be a have province. I remind some of my friends from the west that all of the western provinces were not always have provinces. So the wheel turns and the wheel turns slowly. Some day, please God, Newfoundland and Labrador will be a have province and Atlantic Canada will be a have region.

We have great resources. We have a great natural resource base, as great as any in the country. The province I come from has oil and gas resources. We have a growing oil and gas industry. We have forestry resources. We have one of the richest mineral discoveries in the world at Voisey's Bay which we hope will be developed someday for the benefit of all of Canada but more so for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The greatest resource we brought into Confederation when we joined in 1949 was our fishery resource. About 20 years ago the export value of fish products from Newfoundland and Labrador was about $3 billion. Imagine what that value would be today in 1999 dollars. Of course we are sad to say that successive governments of Canada mismanaged our most important resource. Our groundfish stocks have been practically eliminated and our people have paid a great price.

We can be a have province. It will take very good management decisions on our fishery from now on in to bring that back. We are going to need good decisions on our oil and gas, on our minerals and forestry and so on. We are struggling to become a have province.

I have listened intently to what people have had to say here today. I have listened intently to the equalization debate over the last number of years. What strikes me most about the equalization debate is that yes, we have resources that we are developing in Newfoundland and Labrador but unless we change the equalization formula accordingly, we will always be a have not province. If the federal government is going to knock us back dollar for dollar, for every dollar we get from Voisey's Bay when it is developed, or from our Terra Nova oil field when it is developed, then we are never going to be a have province. These are the concerns of the people of the province I represent. They are my concerns.

Unless there is going to be a significant and substantial change, we are never going to get to the level of other affluent provinces, such as the provinces of our western friends. We have to keep this in mind when we come to this great chamber and debate what should be truly national issues. It is not a regional issue or a provincial issue; equalization is a national issue.

I listened to the three speakers before me. They talked about this great country of Canada, about how caring we are in this country. Yes we are, or some of us say that we are. Sometimes that takes a lot of tolerance, understanding and patience.

I say to all hon. members that the best thing we could do in this chamber, the 301 of us who are here, is to go to the other provinces, the other regions of this country, meet the people and understand their problems and their issues. Then we would all be better versed to stand in this place and make constructive suggestions about equalization, about tax regimes and about every other issue that affects us as Canadians.

I find too often in this chamber that people bring their own provincial or regional perspectives and biases to the debate. Most times it is not out of general concern for all of Canada and all Canadians. Those were the few general remarks I wanted to make.

I have to say that have I found the debate to be very professional today. There was some great debate between government and opposition members. However, I want to go on record as saying that if we are truly Canadian, and if we come here to espouse a truly Canadian perspective, then let us try to better understand the needs of all Canadians because there are regional differences and regional disparities that still exist big time in the various provinces of this country.

I suggest to my friends from the west that they go to the east to gain an understanding of those problems. I suggest that they not bring western Canadian remedies to the House of Commons which they think are in the best interests of eastern Canada. On the other hand, we should not come here thinking that we know what is best for the west when we do not. I say that with all due respect. Too many times in the last 18 months or so I have heard too many western Canadian solutions for eastern Canada when the people who are proposing them do not truly understand eastern Canada. They do not understand its people, its solutions or its issues.

Let us be tolerant, let us be considerate and let us be ever mindful that all of the provinces which are now affluent, well off and have provinces were not always have provinces. Provinces today which are have not provinces could very well in 10, 15 or 20 years be have provinces, and those which are have now could very easily become have not. Let us not forget that can happen in this great country. Hopefully we will all be caring Canadians, we will be caring parliamentarians and we will do what is in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Unemployment, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first in Atlantic Canada we had the government's inflexibility on the post-TAGS program. Last summer communities in British Columbia were devastated by an inadequate salmon fishing plan.

Recently we had the Devco closure announcement. All of these decisions are downgrading the communities and their viability in rural Canada.

I ask the Prime Minister, when will his government implement a comprehensive regional economic development program, a plan for Canadians in economically depressed areas to create employment?