Gerry Byrne

[Transportation between the Island of Newfoundland and Mainland Canada, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge and commend my colleague and friend, the hon. member for St. John's East, who has brought forward this motion to the House of Commons for discussion. I thank him very much for years of great service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the House of Commons and to Canadians.

I think it goes without saying that the hon. member has served the House well but, most important, has served his constituents exceptionally well. I wish him all the very best in having stated that he will not seek re-election. I know he is one of the finest members of Parliament that Newfoundland and Labrador has ever had the benefit of having as a representative in the House of Commons.

Motion No. 242 is a very important one. It is very timely. I also would like to think, and I feel confident in saying, that the MP for St. John's East would have liked to have gone out with a real high note on Marine Atlantic, having championed and spearheaded an initiative to reinforce and reinvigorate that Crown corporation, which serves our needs within the island of Newfoundland so importantly.

The motion was tabled in the House of Commons prior to the announcement of the Government of Canada in terms of its overall Marine Atlantic strategy. That motion having been tabled, called upon the government to adopt a comprehensive strategy for marine services and transportation links to the province.

The member who brought it forward fully intended that it would be a source to spur on the government and to create an incentive to fully fund and revitalize, from a policy point of view, the Marine Atlantic ferry services. Unfortunately, however, it did not achieve that.

The overall result, as a result of the Government of Canada's decision on Marine Atlantic, was to increase fares on an annual basis tied to the consumer price index for the next five years. That is completely unacceptable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Its second decision was to add an additional fuel surcharge to users who used the Marine Atlantic ferry service.

Its third decision was to look at ways of reducing fuel consumption within the ferry system. I do not know. There could be other ways to do it, maybe using blended fuels and other things which Marine Atlantic is already doing, but the only way to reduce fuel consumption is to reduce the number of crossings of the Marine Atlantic ferry service. That is unacceptable. Our objective here is to increase the level of standards of service, not to decrease them.

The fourth decision established by the Government of Canada, through the Department of Transport, was to increase user fees onboard the vessels and for related services. This is not a strategy to revitalize Marine Atlantic. This is a strategy to gouge Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and others who use the service.

Of all the perishable goods that come into the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, 90% arrive via the Marine Atlantic ferry service. This is our essential service. It is our Trans-Canada Highway. That is why the very excellent member for St. John's East brought it forward for debate in the House of Commons. He, too, understands and realizes the importance of this issue. Together we will continue to work and press the Government of Canada to provide a better, not a lesser, service for Canadians.

Marine Atlantic, the gulf ferry service, is unique in that it is constitutionally bound by the Government of Canada to provide, but it is not necessarily exclusive in that responsibility. There are three constitutionally based ferry services in the country.

In the province of British Columbia, the government bears a responsibility for a fortnightly mail boat service between Victoria and Seattle, Washington. In lieu of actually providing that service, a political arrangement was established between the Government of Canada and the Government of B.C. Instead of providing a fortnightly mail boat service, a financial compensation offer was granted. That compensation was established to increase annually, based on the consumer price index of Vancouver. Today's annual subsidy is roughly $30 million a year.

Looking at it fairly and genuinely, the Government of Canada has two options available to it. It could either provide a fortnightly mail boat service, a mail boat between Victoria and Seattle every four days, establish a Crown corporation to do it, maybe costing $3 million, $4 million or $5 million a year to do so, or it could have a political arrangement between the Government of Canada and the Government of B.C. and establish it based on some merit based principles. It established that service and provided close to $30 million a year, the annual federal subsidy tied to the consumer price index of Vancouver, not reducing the subsidy based on inflation, but increasing it. This is a very important point.

The second constitutionally bound service is between New Brunswick and PEI. PEI forwent its constitutional service for the construction of a fixed link. The Government of Canada paid 100% of all capital costs related to the construction of the Confederation Bridge, the fixed link that now binds the mainland of Canada with the people and the province of PEI It tied the fees or the rates charged to consumers to use the Confederation Bridge at an amount less than the value of inflation. It is well below the actual cost of providing the service. It structured a deal that annual subsidies would go to the private sector operator of the Confederation Bridge and it required the private sector operator not to increase fees to any level, other than below inflation. In other words, the cost of using the Confederation Bridge is lowering each and every year.

Now we get to the Marine Atlantic ferry service, the third and final and most recent constitutional obligation that was brought in to the federation. Marine Atlantic is not lowering the fees and it is not stabilizing fees. What is it doing? It is increasing fees on an annual basis.

The disparity between how the Government of Canada treats other constitutional services versus how it treats the Marine Atlantic, the gulf ferry services, is quite evident. I am sure that is why the member for St. John's East brought this motion forward.

We need a comprehensive strategy that deals with the rising costs of Marine Atlantic, but does not bear those costs out on the consumers, on the users of the ferry service.

Here is one of the problems. When Marine Atlantic was a Crown corporation that encompassed all of Atlantic Canada, it had 17 ferry runs throughout all of Atlantic Canada. It operated ferries between New Brunswick and PEI, Cape Breton and PEI, Digby, Nova Scotia and Saint John, New Brunswick, between Nova Scotia and the state of Main, throughout the coast of Labrador and throughout the south coast of Newfoundland and the northeast coast of Newfoundland. It had 17 ferry operations plus the Saint John dockyards.

In 1995 the decision was taken to dramatically reduce the actual size of the Crown corporation. Today, Marine Atlantic is no longer a Crown corporation that offers 17 different ferry runs. It now operates one full time service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques and a seasonal service between Argentia and North Sydney.

The problem, and this is a very evident problem, the entire pension costs of all the former workers at Marine Atlantic from all 17 runs are still borne as the responsibility of the current Marine Atlantic Crown corporation. In other words, all pension costs, which now inflate to $25 million a year, are incurred by the users of one ferry services, the crossing between North Sydney and Port aux Basques.

The government opposite has decreed a policy of reducing net federal debt. I could not think of a better opportunity to apply some of that $10 billion in surplus that went to debt this past year and the $13 billion last year. Why does the Government of Canada not pay down that pension liability, that pension debt, and allow $25 million more to Marine Atlantic for use by consumers and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of net advantage the hon. member, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency said that this would provide a net benefit deal for all provinces. Unfortunately, to opt into the new equalization strategy formula, as proposed by the government under budget 2007, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador would have to agree to lose $238 million in the upcoming fiscal year. Also we would lose $101 million this past fiscal year and an additional $25 million next year.

However, the province of Nova Scotia would gain $95 million, according to the minister, if it were to opt into the new equalization formula, a formula that basically has two decision points in it, either a full exemption of non-renewables or a 50% exemption of non-renewables.

Is the minister saying, because this is a very interesting point, that it could gain $95 million this year? We know that in years to come, under the new formula, it could lose more money relative to what it would achieve under the Atlantic accord. Could it move back to the old Atlantic accord should that be a more beneficial circumstance for the province of Nova Scotia?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the goose egg goes into a negative. It is not zero. It is not a positive. It is a zero. When we look at table one in the document “Restoring Fiscal Balance for a Stronger Federation” in the 2007 budget documents, it describes exactly what the impact will be to Newfoundland and Labrador and to Nova Scotia should they abandon their Atlantic accords, as is required of them if they want to participate in the new equalization formula. Should they do that, according to the government's own documents, it will cost the government of Newfoundland and Labrador $138 million in lost benefits, or for the province of Nova Scotia, it will cost the government of Nova Scotia $95 million, should they opt in to the new equalization formula.

Therefore, would the hon. minister, who I think is quite committed and dedicated to his province, but is not on the right side of this issue, not agree that it is in effect a cap on the Atlantic accord?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there certainly was an element of Gerry in that. We on this side of the House worked very hard to get that Atlantic accord in place, and we were very successful with the $2.6 billion agreement being signed for Newfoundland and Labrador. In actual fact, the benefits of the Atlantic accord are probably much greater than that.

As we know, the Atlantic accord was established for Nova Scotia with the hard work of the MPs from Nova Scotia, and from Newfoundland and Labrador, based on an oil price of $35 a barrel. We now know the price of oil is much higher than that. Therefore, the $900 million that the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour helped to achieve for his province, a $900 million cash payment upfront, was achieved with a $2 billion payment for Newfoundland and Labrador.

We know those benefits will be much higher under the circumstances with the price of oil. That is working very hard for one's province and constituency and seeing results, and that is the Liberal thing.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when parties start to use language, and I do not think is very parliamentary, which is meant to belittle, we know exactly the platform from where they come, which is probably not a platform of strength.

However, we come from a platform of strength in saying that when we made a promise, when we made a commitment, we fulfilled the promise. In fact to this day, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has received the benefit of a cheque of $2 billion from a promise made, promise kept. However, it has not been kept by the Conservatives.

A fundamental, unfair choice was required, which restricted the national program from gaining access to the people, to the province and to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador. A decision point had to be taken. Either it had to take the new equalization formula, a 10 province standard that exempted 100% of non-renewable natural resources or 50% of all natural resources, with a cap, or keep its Atlantic accord and not enjoy the benefits of a 10 province standard, without fulfilling the Conservative promise of 100% of non-renewable natural resources.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know very well that non-renewable natural resources also include the riches of Voisey's Bay, the iron ore of Labrador City, Wabush, the gold of Baie Verte and onshore oil developments that are occur in the Port au Port Peninsula. That is the fundamental difference.

A cap is being proposed on the Atlantic accord. Either the province accepts the national program with the cap or it loses $225 million, according to the budget documents tabled in the House. That is not a promise kept.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte and less pleased to have to speak on this issue in the House of Commons.

There are two debates going on right now about budget 2007. One is occurring on the floor of the House of Commons between members opposite. The other is occurring between provincial legislatures and the federal government. We now know that several provincial governments have gone offside with budget 2007 from the Conservative minority government. Those are the provinces of B.C., Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and as well New Brunswick. Others have expressed strong reservations about content in the budget.

However, one debate is no longer raging and that is among Canadians, who have rejected the budget. They are very concerned. They understand exactly what is being expressed by those provincial premiers and are concerned for the well-being of their provinces.

It is very clear that each and every one of us in this debate is fully engaged in what is in the best interests of our provinces. This is not a new debate in some respects. Previous debates have been categorized as being with strong acrimony, strong language directed at members, sometimes there were personal taunts and insults. I am very pleased that this debate has not come down to that because this is about a very important issue. It is about maintaining the best interests of not only our individual provinces but our country as a whole.

Strong concern has been expressed in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The issue at hand is about a promise being made and a promise kept. What is even more concerning is that when the promise was made, it was made emphatically, unconditionally and repeated over and again.

On January 23, 2006, a new minority government took office, one that held the smallest minority in the history of Canada, at only 125 seats. It reinforced again and again that it would maintain a commitment to remove 100% of non-renewable natural resources with no caps, no small fine print and no excuses.

For the last 14 months, that promise has been whittled away and not with a clear emphatic statement that the Conservatives would not honour the promise. We have heard messages, messages in budget 2006 issued by the finance minister. In a document called, “Restoring the Fiscal Balance”, the Atlantic accord was described as a side deal, not supported by the current minority Conservative administration.

We then heard statements from the finance minister and others that the Atlantic accords created an unfair advantage for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

Today on the floor of the House of Commons, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for the first time, described it in very explicit detail. She said that the Atlantic accords established an unfair advantage to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and that the new budget would now create equality. Obviously this is an admission that the Conservatives are quashing the benefits of the Atlantic accords.

This is is of great concern to me. For the last 14 months, premiers across the entire country have been operating under a set of principles or an understanding that the precision of law and the language of law is equal to the precision of the language of a promise. They have been establishing their own fiscal frameworks based on an understanding that the promise would be maintained and upheld.

As they established their own budgetary processes, like the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is doing, such as consolidating and securing public sector pension plans, putting in place new transportation strategies, a new ferry rate system and establishing other progressive and positive measures for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, it was based on an understanding that a commitment to remove 100% of non-renewable natural resources, no cap, no fine print, no excuses, would be maintained.

We have heard from the finance minister of Newfoundland and Labrador that the budgetary process will be maintained. The province is now developing its budget based on its understanding as it was, and that it will guide its actions accordingly.

However, it concerns me that we now have had statements in the House that the Conservatives were key players, instrumental in crafting the Atlantic accord. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said on the floor of the House of Commons this morning that as far as the Conservative Party of Canada was concerned, the Atlantic accords created an unfair advantage to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and to Nova Scotia, that they would not have supported them and that budget 2007 was the correction to all of that.

I do not think this was the commitment given by that party, which now forms this minority government, when it put out campaign literature and literature during the Atlantic accord saying, “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”. The Conservatives promised they would have a regime for equalization that would exempt non-renewable natural resources at a level of 100%, with no caps, no excuses and no small print.

The government said that if it did not, then in effect the benefit from the natural resources would be removed 100% and it would maintain Newfoundland and Labrador as a have not province. Establishing the cap on equalization, as proposed, is effectively a cap, a clawback, and, therefore, by its own definition and words, is meant to maintain Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and other provinces as have not provinces. That is not fair.

What the government has proposed in budget 2007, which is one of the many reasons why I cannot accept this budget, is to establish a dual track equalization system once again. The Conservatives will agree to exempt 100% of non-renewables or 50% of renewable and non-renewable natural resources from the equalization formula on the provision that a cap be instituted so provinces receiving equalization must be maintained as have not provinces in perpetuity. That is from the Conservatives own party literature.

Alternatively, the government suggests if those provinces that have received what it has deemed to be the unfair Atlantic accords, unfair in the national interest that create better benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia than other provinces, wish to maintain those Atlantic accords, they cannot accept the new equalization formula and, therefore, will also be left out of the 10 province standard. The government says the provinces cannot have it both ways. There cannot be a 10 province standard. The provinces cannot enjoy the enrichment of equalization to the tune of $1.5 billion and maintain the Atlantic accords.

In other words, Newfoundland and Labrador will not receive any benefit whatsoever from the Conservatives fix to what they call the fiscal imbalance. What has been created by this is several provinces feel very strongly that there is now a strong interprovincial fiscal imbalance in this country.

Why else would B.C., Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador express the concerns and the frustrations that they have expressed since budget 2007 was presented in the House on March 19? Why would those provinces come forward and say that they no longer know if they can afford or provide the essential public services that they felt were able to if the promise had been kept.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the issue today is the enactment of a promise, keeping one's word. Very simply put, on January 4, 2006, the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition of the Conservative Party of Canada, specifically wrote to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador saying, in unequivocal, unconditional language, that he would remove 100% of non-renewable natural resources.

During the election campaign, particularly during the heat and the debate of a campaign, sometimes when a position is put forward which seeks favour and enjoys favour with the electorate, it often results in votes. In many cases that is exactly what happened. In fact, the Newfoundland and Labrador seat count went up for the Conservative Party.

Now what we are finding today is that honour, that promise, that respect to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is not being adhered to. This goes beyond the Atlantic accords. Anyone who understands anything about non-renewable natural resources will also conclude that the promise would have entailed and enacted and encompassed Voisey's Bay nickel, Labrador and Wabush iron ore. It would have taken into account Baie Verte gold. It would have taken in all non-renewable natural resources within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and across Canada, including the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and others.

Does the federal budget 2007 enact the promise of the Prime Minister to exclude 100% of non-renewable natural resources for the benefit of those provinces that harvest them?

[Canada Labour Code, March 22nd, 2007]

He did that.

[Parliamentary Poet Laureate, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the riding of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte along Newfoundland's west and northwest coasts, I proudly welcome Mr. John Steffler to the position of the Parliamentary Poet Laureate.

John is a long way from home, Mr. Speaker, but my constituents and I share in your confidence and your enthusiasm for this distinguished appointment.

My colleagues might be interested to hear that John Steffler adopted Corner Brook and Sir Wilfred Grenfell College as his home back in 1974 but his roots are in Toronto.

He is a long time literary contributor to our province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the entire country of Canada. He is an acclaimed and gifted writer.

Mr. Steffler demonstrates that Canada's poet laureate is a shared treasure of all Canadians.

[Petitions, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour of presenting to this House a petition composed of approximately 15 pages of names of residents of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte who call upon the government and the Prime Minister of Canada to honour what is known as the moving forward on an early learning and child care agreement, which was signed between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on May 13, 2005, instead of cancelling this signed commitment. The petitioners remind Parliament that this agreement was a $75 million five year funding agreement on early learning and child care with the Government of Canada. They call upon the government to reinstate it as it was originally described.