Peter MacKay

[Sponsorship Program, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that.

My supplementary question deals with a 1995 letter from businessman Paul Pednault, who complained of the Minister of Finance's office breaking Treasury Board rules on contracting, and he did so with a degree of expertise on these rules.

Mr. Pednault was a private sector member of the government's own selection committee for ad agencies. He noted that all departments followed Treasury Board rules, except the finance department which picked companies based on political affiliation.

What did the Prime Minister, the man who was going to end political cronyism, do when he found out that his own office was engaging in the activity of political cronyism?

[Natural Resources, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we engaged in what I would describe as a very productive debate, a motion moved by the opposition leader to provide the Prime Minister with the ability to provide Nova Scotia and Newfoundland with 100% of their offshore revenues from their oil and gas. Most members of the House, including members on the government side, spoke favourably of the motion.

Is the Minister of Finance prepared to commit today to live up to the Prime Minister's promise and to communicate this directly with Premiers Hamm and Williams, and sign a deal to do just that?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

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--

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

It is funny how that diplomatic tone has disappeared now.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley is driving his point home as a former used car salesman, but I know he would appreciate the fact, as would my colleagues opposite from the province, that the situation in Nova Scotia is such that we are spending 42% of the provincial revenue to cover health care. I would suspect that there is a similar number in the province of Newfoundland. That does not give us the flexibility to address the issues of infrastructure, education and the many other sources within that province that need attention.

My friend is right when he talks about the need for the best possible deal, and that must be the 100% return on the non-renewable resource, which is our oil and gas resource.

There is an issue we are talking about in terms of going forward, and there is his reference to the Nova Scotia Liberal leader saying we should take the money now and try to negotiate something later, which does not wash. First of all, we have seen what happens when provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador pre-emptively signed a deal that effectively gave away any real means that they might have had to benefit from the Churchill Falls project in a substantial way, in a way that would get that province into a have status.

Nova Scotia is not going to be bullied. We are not going to be divided between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador on this issue. We are going to work collectively for the best possible return.

The issue here is ensuring that the Prime Minister keeps his word and that he is held to account for having made that promise during the election. The issue is obviously the long term prosperity of our province, to allow us to ensure that children who grow up in the province can stay and work and be the full beneficiaries of that natural resource. I would ask my friend to comment on that as well.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the remarks of my colleague from Nova Scotia, I cannot quite square what he said about his government intending to give Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador 100% of its resources and yet his inability to support this motion.

The member will know, coming from Atlantic Canada, that historically there have been some travesties when it comes to our natural resources. Our fisheries first and foremost comes to mind.

The member from Prince Edward Island would agree as well that there are still huge challenges that face our fishers in this day and age as a result of mismanagement by successive governments of all political stripes. Similarly, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador had a terrible travesty with respect to the Churchill Falls agreement which deprived the province of huge revenue streams from a natural resource that should have gone into its economy.

The member would be quick to agree that this has historic long term significance. For that reason I would ask him whether he unequivocally supports the Premier of Nova Scotia in his effort to get the absolute best deal which assures that the 100% revenue stream will go to the province of Nova Scotia, similarly go to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, most important, that those positions are united, that this will not be an effort by his government to divide and conquer as we have seen so often play out in Atlantic Canada on issues such as this.

This will have long term benefits not only for those two provinces. It will flow to Prince Edward Island and hopefully to British Columbia and New Brunswick as well.

Does the member support his premier in an effort to get the best deal possible?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Finance for participating in this because he is one of the primary players in finding a solution. I have a couple of quick questions for him.

First, no one would accuse Premiers Hamm or Williams of being ignorant to the consequences of finalizing the best deal for their provinces. I am curious, as I think many Canadians are, as to why these talks have turned so sour and why there has been no direct effort made to bring these premiers back to Ottawa to address some of the very complicated issues that are associated with it, which the Minister of Finance himself has laid out quite clearly.

I would also at the same time ask him if he would clarify a comment made by the natural resources minister on behalf of the government in regard to this issue, that there in fact is a possibility of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia exceeding the Ontario standard. This seems to be the point that the minister made. He also references, “if market value goes to $1,000 a barrel, you”, being the province, “will get all of the revenues”. Is that the minister's position as well?

[Sponsorship Program, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the only one getting it wrong is the recently anointed shield for the Prime Minister.

In a letter to Mr. Guité, it is made clear that the Minister of Finance imposed his choice of agencies and that this choice was made on the basis of political affiliation. No party affiliation, no contract. We can now see where the connection is with the source of the interference and the Liberal preferences.

Did the Prime Minister also have his favourites?

[Sponsorship Program, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in a 1995 letter, businessman Paul Pednault of Sponsorium International complained to Chuck Guité that Treasury Board rules were being broken in a selection of ad agencies. He said that the Minister of Finance's office was the only one influencing the selection based on political affiliation.

The minister in question is the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister continue to claim he knew nothing about rules being broken in favour of Liberal friendly agencies when it was his own office that was breaking them?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I will ask a very short, specific question of the member opposite.

With respect to this current deal, the understanding is that yes, there is a fiscal capacity element but it is for future production. Upon completion of Hibernia, if there are other gas fields in Newfoundland and Labrador, similarly in Nova Scotia where Deep Panuke comes in, will the clawback then kick in and apply to those new gas production fields off the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia?