Scott Simms

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it seems my name is known quite a bit in this little conversation we have been having.

Let me get this straight. What the Conservatives trumpet, what they talk about, what the minister talks about in this particular budget, what he brags about by saying “no cap”, “offset payments”, “principal beneficiaries of our own resources”, is all that we did and he condemned so much.

The perception was that his government and his leader were going to do much more, $200 million more, by taking non-renewables out of the formula, in addition to the accord. Here is the choice that he has been giving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians: they can either stay with what they have got or get less, which apparently in 2012 is likely, according to this.

He complained about the premiers. The Minister of Finance said that they have a great relationship with the premiers, yet the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that is not the case. They could not agree. They argued too much and therefore, his commitment was scuttled. Therefore, his government, around a cabinet table, had to come up with a compromise. Each region of the country spoke about their region's concerns and when it came to Newfoundland and Labrador, you, sir, did not show up.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on November 2, 2004 the hon. member, who sits across the way, and I had a conversation over this very same debate. I would like to remind her what she had said to this House. She said:

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 [itself up].

When I asked the question again, her comments were:

--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--

In 1957 there was no cap. It was below the line, the average, the fiscal capacity, and Alberta was allowed to punch through it, unhindered. But, now, she is saying that it is okay to impose that on Saskatchewan. It is not a fair deal.

If she was a legislator in Alberta in 1957, a good 12 years before she was born but nonetheless, and saw this deal that they are bringing down, she would be deeply disappointed. I would like to ask her to comment on that.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my hon. colleague who is doing a masterful job at bringing out the points out in the House today, a very adequate job indeed.

Earlier he mentioned the member of Parliament for Avalon. Some interesting comments were made. The Conservatives seem to be vehemently defending the part of the budget that they call equalization, but yet comments heard through the media recall the member for Avalon saying as follows, “I mean, politicians of all political stripes have made promises before...you know...many of them have broken the promises they have made, I mean it's not a new thing to a lot of people”. The fact is that we have a budget here that is of some benefit, but in many, many ways we did not get what most people wanted on equalization, he said.

There we have it.

Therefore, now we are seeing a tightening of the message, and I am sure the hon. member, being from Nova Scotia, is experiencing the same sort of thing from his Conservative colleagues in his province.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

We did it.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am in my seat, thank you very much.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, l would comment by saying this. Perhaps the hon. member was not around on February 14 a few years ago when we signed the deal. The whole principle of this was that we would protect clawbacks in equalization. Therein lies the basic principle. We said we would do this and we did it, as Premier Williams has said, time and time again.

The Conservatives said they would one-up that. “We're going to do you better,” they said, and take out non-renewables without any hindrances, yet there is a major hindrance. They are taking away this money.

As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre said this on January 17:

--[it] would result, of course, in Saskatchewan retaining 100 per cent of its oil and gas revenues...Saskatchewan would be in the neighbourhood of two to two-and-a-half billion dollars wealthier....

This is nowhere near that amount. He called it “very significant” for Saskatchewan, but yet he got nowhere near that amount.

Let me say for the hon. members from Saskatchewan that they should read what was done, and what was signed and delivered, and read their own promise, which was not fulfilled.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, am I speaking in a language that is not being understood? This literature I have is the literature that was sent to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have the commitment here. Maybe I should talk about the commitment that was made to the entire country, not just Newfoundland and Labrador, as was portrayed here. It states: “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”.

Let me read that literature again, as I did in my speech. Maybe it will sink in with the hon. member at this point. These are the words of the hon. member's party:

That's why we would leave you with 100% of your oil and gas revenues. No small print. No excuses. No caps.

In other words, that says “we are going to give them this new deal which caps it or we will leave them with the old deal”. What the Conservatives are saying to us is that they have absolutely deceived us, because the Conservatives were supposed to take 100% of non-renewables out of the equation, with no hindrances and no caps. That is not the promise they made. That was our promise, signed, sealed and delivered.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

My hon. colleague says it was more money. I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that it is zero. The choice is either to take what we have now, which we got from the Liberal government, or take from the Conservative government, which is even less.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

My hon. colleague across the way yells “No, he doesn't”. Yes, he does. He illustrates my example that all they are doing is trying to victimize a man who is only saying that the Conservatives made a written commitment and now they are saying it is over. The $200 million that they pledged in extras is gone, and deceptively.

Let me just illustrate some of the deceptions. Talking about the cap, two years ago the current Prime Minister said that the Ontario clause effectively gutted the commitment made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador during the election campaign. That is an absolute shame.

Shame. That is an absolute shame.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Yes, shame, indeed. Every one of them, especially in Atlantic Canada.

I will say this in the House right now, and I am sure they know it and we know it, hell hath no fury like a Danny Williams scorned.

What they say to me is that maybe the premier does this all the time and that maybe he likes to use theatrics. However, I can tell members that Mr. Williams holds in his hand a commitment. Is he mad? Yes, he is. Does he have a right to be? Yes, he does. This was a blatant deception.