Rona Ambrose

[Justice, November 22nd, 2004]

Quebec parents are not the only ones who are worried about their children. Georges Radwanli, a known procurer, shows absolutely no remorse after his light sentence, and why not, for he is still on the loose. He was trafficking in sex and drugs and now he is going to pretend to do good works for 200 hours.

When is the Minister of Justice going to propose punishments that Canadian families can respect?

[The Senate, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister understand the consequences of raising the expectations and breaking a promise? Will the Prime Minister keep his word or turn his back on the democratic will of Albertans?

[The Senate, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is about keeping one's word and following through on one's commitments. Let us think about the consequences of this broken promise.

The Prime Minister has raised expectations that he refuses to meet. Alberta will spend $3 million of taxpayer money to run this Senate election. Ten Albertans have put forward their names and are spending their hard-earned money to further democracy in the country.

To the Prime Minister, I will ask you again. Does the Prime Minister understand the consequences of--

[The Senate, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he believes in Senate reform. Premier Klein has said publicly that before the federal election the Prime Minister told him he would look favourably upon appointing elected senators from Alberta. The Premier of Alberta and Albertans want him to keep his word.

Did the Prime Minister tell Premier Klein at the grey cup meeting a year ago that he would look favourably--

[The Senate, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that appointing any senator, elected or unelected, does not require a constitutional amendment, nor does it require approval from any province. It is very simple. It requires the same thing that happened 14 years ago when Stan Waters was appointed as Canada's first elected senator.

The Prime Minister is the only person who holds the power to make this happen. The Prime Minister told Premier Klein before the federal election he would look favourably at appointing Alberta's elected senators. Will the Prime Minister keep his word to Premier Klein and use his unilateral power to appoint Alberta's elected senators?

[Telefilm Canada Act, November 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the Telefilm Act is a technical bill, an exercise in housekeeping for this agency.

When Telefilm Canada was created in 1967 its mandate was to foster and promote the development of a feature film industry in Canada. Over the years, as technologies evolved, Telefilm has been assigned new responsibilities, not by mandate or legislative reform, but by convention. These responsibilities are in other film related fields but fields which were not mandated by this agency. I am certainly not suggesting that Telefilm was not equipped to handle these additional responsibilities but simply that it was not mandated to do so and should have been.

The bill would provide the legislative permission to expand its mandate from only feature film into television programming, new media and sound recording. In fact, it has been doing these without a mandate in some cases for over 20 years. The government is again demonstrating a lack of accountability in the heritage ministry.

Telefilm Canada was created 37 years ago and there has been no move to update its legislation since. This suggests to me that for 37 years there may have been little accountability and transparency in the use of tax dollars. This agency has been operating outside its mandate for two decades in some cases. This is not acceptable to the Canadian people.

The legislation is being introduced to bring the act into compliance with the Auditor General's observations and concerns regarding the technical inconsistencies in the current Telefilm Canada Act but the bill is a first step toward fixing the problem. If the government were serious about governing and not only addressing inconsistencies within Telefilm when caught, the legislation would be bringing forward a new vision for Telefilm and not simply correcting the past. The legislation should be part of a greater process of modernization of Telefilm. It should be part of the process of ensuring that Telefilm is relevant for the next 35 years, not simply catching up for the past 35 years.

Bill C-18 is a housekeeping act which, I certainly believe, should lead to a bigger process, a process that we have been demanding in so many of the broadcasting and cultural areas. For example, it took on television in 1983, new media in 1998 and sound recording in 2001.

When a crown corporation has been acting outside of its mandate for over 20 years, it clearly suggests that there needs to be more work done than simply making these activities legal, as the bill would do.

The film industry is a valuable part of the cultural and entertainment business in this country. Canadians would like to be assured that Telefilm is not only acting in a way that is accountable to the Canadian public, but that it has been successful in meeting its mandate.

Are there more feature films being made in Canada today? Is the industry bigger, better and stronger? On this side of the House we would like the answers to these questions. We would like a process to review the role of Telefilm and the film industry support programs within the heritage ministry and a process of consultation and debate in the House on that role.

If these industries are stronger, then great. Have they been able to adapt to the changing environment and business realities of the new entertainment world? If not, can the existing programs be refocused to ensure that support programs in place are effective and responsive to the industry's needs?

The ministry cannot plan to replace a real dialogue on the future of the film industry in this country with only this exercise in housekeeping. Now that Telefilm has been given a mandate that matches its activities, we expect that Telefilm will show measurable outcomes, clear objectives and transparencies, which is expected of all crown corporations.

While the government is responsible for offering a leadership role, it is once again only acting in a reactionary way. What Canadians need from our federal government is a vision and the courage to take hold of the future and ensure Canadian creators have a significant part to play in that future.

The bill is adequate for what it is, which is a first step, but make no mistake, support of the bill does not imply that the challenges have been met. There is much more work to be done.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true. I think that is why back home I have heard so many responses and received so much support from Albertans. They can relate directly to how important their resources sector has been to their economic self-sufficiency. When they heard what happened with Danny Williams and what Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are after, which is control over their own economic destiny, it really went to the heart of Albertans. They have responded very generously with a lot of support--

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. This is part of the Constitution. As the member knows, we have absolute respect for the Constitution. The Conservative Party has always viewed and will continue to view equalization as an essential component of Canada's nation-building efforts. We will continue to honour equalization.

However, as the hon. member knows, we have felt for some time, as have Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and other provinces, that the current formula has some problems and needs to be revisited. That is why we have also supported the idea of striking a panel and revisiting the formula. We support the government's efforts to do that.

Having said that, I will say that we have also said for a number of years--and it was one of our leaders' promises during the election as well, long before the Liberals were talking about it--that we should be excluding natural resources from the equalization formula so that provinces like Newfoundland and Nova Scotia can enjoy 100% of their oil revenues.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when equalization was first brought forward in 1957, non-renewable natural resources were not in the formula so that obviously was of benefit to Alberta at the time. As we know, it collects a great deal in oil revenues.

I think the most important thing was in a recent communiqué from Premier Hamm of Nova Scotia, and I have heard Danny Williams say the same thing: this is something that Alberta has benefited from and it is something for which they feel very strongly that all provinces should have equal treatment, that is, having the opportunity to grow their resource sector and grow their economy. I fully support the initiative of Premier Hamm and Premier Williams in regard to being able to receive equalization but also receive 100% of their resource royalties so they can have control over their own economic future.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for raising this motion and also the member for St. John's East for advocating so forcefully on this issue.

I would like to start by reading excerpts from letters that were sent from Premier Williams to the Prime Minister, because these letters tell a story about a deal gone bad and a promise that was made during an election only to be broken once the votes were in.

Premier Williams thought he had a deal on offshore oil and gas revenues. He thought his province would be allowed to keep 100% of its profits with no restrictions. On June 10, Premier Williams wrote:

The proposal my government made to you and your Minister of Natural Resources provides for 100% of direct provincial revenues generated by the petroleum resources in Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area, to accrue to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador and be sheltered from the clawback provisions of the equalization formula....Our proposal is for the current time limited and declining offset provisions in the Atlantic Accord to be replaced by a new offset provision continuing over the life of the offshore petroleum production which would provide a payment equal to 100% of the amount of annual direct provincial offshore revenues, which are clawed back by the equalization program.

This proposal seems clear. I and most Canadians understand what Premier Williams wants and needs to help make his province economically successful. It seems that the Prime Minister also understood the promise that he had made to Premier Williams, because during a July 10 phone call the Prime Minister obviously also agreed to these terms.

This conversation prompted Premier Williams to write, in another letter on August 5, to the Prime Minister:

This letter is further to our telephone conversation of 10 July 2004, during which we reaffirmed our agreement that Newfoundland and Labrador will retain 100% of the benefit of the offshore petroleum revenues it receives, notwithstanding the treatment of those revenues under the equalization program.

The letter from Premier Williams goes on to urge that the province and the federal government quickly put together an agreement. Mr. Williams makes this suggestion with great optimism in his letter. He goes on to say:

I very much appreciate your commitment to implementing our agreement on a priority basis. I am firmly of the view that our efforts will result in significant and long lasting benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada.

As we can see, Premier Williams believed that he had a deal. He was optimistic about the future of his province and the strengthened role it would play in Canada.

Premier Williams soon realized that this Prime Minister makes promises during an election that he has no intention of keeping. When the election passed, the Prime Minister moved Newfoundland and Labrador to the back burner and hoped that the province's leadership would stay there.

Premier Williams must have begun to suspect something was going wrong, because in another letter dated August 24, 2004, Premier Williams writes to the Prime Minister again. He says:

I am very concerned that we have not begun to implement our agreement. My concern is further amplified by comments made by your Minister of Natural Resources...on a local radio phone-in program yesterday. [The Minister of Natural Resources'] comments demonstrate a misunderstanding of the position my government advanced on this matter and the agreement you and I reached during the federal election campaign.

Again, the premier writes that the terms of the deal need to be negotiated quickly to avoid any more “confusion”. We know the end result. The Prime Minister had ample opportunity to put to paper the commitment that he made to Premier Williams. Instead he delayed and delayed, obviously with the hopes that he could tie any new arrangement to the equalization meeting on October 26.

The Prime Minister's actions forced Premier Williams to walk away from the equalization meeting on October 26, not because the premier wanted to but because he had to in order to protect the resources of Newfoundland and Labrador.

At its root this motion is about broken promises, but it is also about much more. It is about the livelihood of Canadians in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, who have shown time and time again the determination to achieve economic success. What they need is a willing partner in Ottawa.

The argument coming from the government is that we had better not give these provinces too much, that they had better not get much more than they deserve. We have heard arguments suggesting that a cap is sufficient because the Liberals would have a hard time telling the rest of Canada that Newfoundland and Labrador should receive equalization benefits and at the same time should be allowed to keep its oil and gas royalties.

With all due respect, I think Canadians would understand. I can say this from experience because I have received numerous phone calls from Albertan constituents who support Newfoundland and Nova Scotia on this issue. They understand, as the Conservative Party does, that it is not just about cash that a province has right now. Instead, it is about the base that it is allowed to grow. It is that base that allows the province to sustain itself through economic downturns, and it is that base that allows a province to rev up its economic engine in good times.

Danny Williams is trying to develop and strengthen the province's economy and build the economic base that will underscore future economic development in his province. That is why we are adamant that Newfoundland and Nova Scotia receive 100% of offshore oil and gas revenues with no caps and no restrictions.

Canadians also know that there is a precedent supporting Newfoundland's request, and that is the province of Alberta. At the very beginning of the equalization program in 1957, Alberta was a net beneficiary of equalization. Alberta received equalization until 1965, at which time the province became a have province.

Alberta's history is one that Newfoundlanders can relate to. In the early part of the 20th century, Alberta's legislators campaigned to ensure that Alberta was granted full rights over its natural resources. Ottawa eventually acquiesced, but not without a fight. In the 1940s and 1950s, Alberta began to strike oil. The difference then was that natural resources were not clawed back in equalization, so while Alberta began to build an oil and gas industry, it used those profits to build up its industrial, economic, social and political infrastructure. Alberta was able to become a net contributor to the equalization program, not simply in on again, off again years, but consistently.

We also all know of the pain and the economic ruin that the federal Liberals inflicted on Alberta in the 1970s and 1980s. We also understand that it is because of our political and economic strength in our province of Alberta and the oil and gas sector that Alberta was able to pull through the economic devastation of the national energy program.

Every time Ottawa has pushed, Alberta has pushed back. Premier Williams is doing the same. He has indicated that Newfoundland and Labrador will not put up with the broken promises of the federal government today.

The motion supports those efforts. It says to the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and to all premiers that the Conservative Party is with them. It is a statement to every province that this party understands the pride that underscores the demand for equal treatment from Ottawa and economic self-sufficiency at home. This party will not allow the federal Liberals to continue to deny economic success to Newfoundland and Labrador or to any other province or territory.

But there is something more to the motion, and that is the cruelty of a broken promise. Premier Williams has said that this opportunity is his government's best shot at economic self-sufficiency and this Prime Minister told him that he had a deal, yet the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has realized the same thing that Canadians across the country have realized since the government was elected as a minority: the Prime Minister says one thing during elections and does another when in office.

Premier Williams and Premier Hamm of Nova Scotia have been disappointed, but they have taken a stand. We are behind them 100% of the way.

Premiers William and Hamm are not the only premiers who are concerned about these events. We have news that the premiers of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are now watching the Prime Minister's actions on this file very closely. As the Prime Minister is aware, Canada's north is filled with natural resources and those natural resources are the key to northern economic development. Canada's territories also want greater control over their resources. We also support this initiative.

We understand that every region in the country deserves the opportunity to achieve greater economic self-sufficiency. However, if the Prime Minister is willing to break his promises to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, what is to stop him from refusing to grant Canada's territories their opportunity for economic self-sufficiency?

The state of federal-provincial relations in Canada has been completely compromised by the Prime Minister and his mistreatment of this issue. We believe that stronger provinces are what will make a stronger federation.

I again draw the House's attention to my own province of Alberta, which was once a beneficiary of equalization and is now a contributor. Why does the government not want Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to have the same opportunity? Does the Prime Minister not see that in the long run the entire country will benefit?

I, along with my Conservative colleagues, support Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and urge the government to honour the deal it made with these provinces during the election. It is time to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia keep 100% of their offshore oil and gas revenues.