Shawn Murphy

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in this House today to say a few words about the salmon river fishery.

As I have stated before and as other members have stated, I just came back from three days of extensive hearings in Vancouver on the issue. We heard from many aboriginal fishers who were seeing their allocations decreased. We heard from a number of aboriginal fishers along the Fraser River. As I pointed out previously, I believe there are 91 individual bands along that river. We heard from the Pacific salmon panel. We heard from other individuals who had lived this issue their entire lives and seen the salmon come and go and the complexities of the whole salmon industry. Of course, we heard from the Pacific salmon commission chaired by a previous speaker, the Hon. John Fraser.

If I can say anything, it is that this issue is extremely complex and important to the people who live on the Fraser River and the people who fish salmon at the mouth of the Fraser River. It also is extremely important to everyone who lives in British Columbia.

I appreciate the concerns from the members opposite. As the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans does, I share those concerns about the state of the sockeye fishery in that province.

I come from a coastal community myself. I have seen the importance of a strong, sustainable fishery. Whatever discussion is held in this debate today, the primary concern, as we leave this chamber, has to be that the number one issue is the conservation of the resource and the sustainability of the industry for the generation of fishers and aboriginal bands out there now and for generations to come.

We heard in Vancouver that the importance was there for many reasons. It is not only economic, but it almost takes on a mythical issue. The Pacific salmon has a strong cultural significance and a long history in that province.

To give a little background, the commercial fisheries and aquaculture production in British Columbia are valued at nearly $630 million. That is close to one-quarter of the national total. The figure is significant and it speaks to the continuous strength of this sector in British Columbia despite, as we have heard, the challenges experienced in recent years. I do not wish to understate this issue for one second, but those challenges are significant.

The fishing industry in British Columbia is far different than the fishing industry a decade ago. Low market prices of certain species, a shifting abundance, conservation constraints and new harvest restrictions to protect endangered species have all left their mark on this industry. Nowhere have the challenges been greater than with salmon. In fact, when we look at some of the other species, such as halibut, the sablefish and herring, the management has been recently good and well structured.

Most fisheries in British Columbia are performing well, despite living through a decade of what I would refer to as fundamental changes, but salmon does remain the exception.

The challenges faced by this stock were especially felt during last summer's salmon fishery. Conservation challenges for the stock at risk, combined with limited opportunity to harvest more abundant stocks in harsh migratory conditions, took their toll on many stocks. In the face of these challenges, some are left with the impression that DFO is not doing its job, that salmon is not the priority it should be. I am here today to tell members that this is simply not the case.

Pacific salmon management, although complex, is a high priority for the department. The numbers tell the story. Each year DFO's Pacific region spends a total of $150 million for all fisheries management and science activities in Pacific Canada. This includes funding for stock enhancement, enforcement and science for a range of stocks, including crab, halibut, herring, groundfish, clams and other species that are fundamental to the overall success of Pacific fisheries.

Eighty million dollars, or nearly half the total of this budget, is spent on salmon alone. That $80 million is used to assess, evaluate, enhance, protect and manage salmon in the Pacific region. I should point out also that the largest part of that amount is directed to the area which is the most complex, most difficult and most challenging, and that is the Fraser River.

No other activity in the region and no other fishery receives a similar level of effort and resources. The Pacific region spends far less on managing the region's remaining fisheries even though the number of fisheries, depending on how the fishery is categorized, far outnumber the salmon fisheries.

I want this to be loud and clear: clearly the Fraser River salmon fishery is a priority for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There is good reason for this. It has been said that managing the Fraser River fishery is perhaps one of the most complex fisheries management jobs in the world, if not the most complex. After spending three days there, I certainly can appreciate the complexity of this fishery.

Let us talk about what has happened over the past decade. As I have stated previously, there is a commercial fishery at the mouth of the Fraser River and there are 91 bands along the river. What has happened through cases that have been decided by our Supreme Court of Canada is that aboriginals of this country have a right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes.

That right has to be managed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That right is a very difficult and complex job for the department to manage effectively. Many Canadians, and probably some people in the House, suggest that this right should not exist, but I am not one of those Canadians. That is one of the reasons why this issue is certainly challenging. It is not simple.

From my hearing of the testimony, was there overfishing by commercial harvesters at the mouth of the Fraser River? The answer clearly is yes. Was there uncertainty as to the numbers that did pass the Mission counting station by use of an echo sounding device? The answer is yes. Was there serious overfishing by certain bands on the Fraser River? The answer is yes. Was it an extremely bad year for water temperatures and water flows, which would have caused serious mortality as the salmon migrated up the Fraser River? The answer is yes. Could the Department of Fisheries and Oceans perhaps have done a better job overall? The answer is probably yes, despite the efforts that it did make.

We have heard from a panel of eight employees of the department in Vancouver, and these employees are certainly committed to the salmon industry. They are committed to the Province of British Columbia. They are committed to the conservation of this resource. I was very impressed by those people.

I have a very big concern and question about this motion. Is a judicial inquiry the proper method for proceeding in this case? I was not at the meeting this morning, but I am going to agree with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, whose decision was no. All it would do is pit the commercial fishers against the aboriginal citizens who live along the Fraser River.

I will give an example. There was an article in the Vancouver Sun quoting the member for Delta—Richmond East about this. The article stated:

“The DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) allegation that warm water decimated the early Stuart run is clearly a fabrication”, states the report, which blames a “wall of aboriginal nets”....

That is from a report prepared by the member for Delta—Richmond East. That member would like nothing better than to have a judicial inquiry and repeat these allegations: “a wall of aboriginal nets”. I want no part of that at all. It would do nothing. I suggest and submit that we have to manage this issue and we have to do it by looking forward, not looking through a rear-view mirror.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was aware of the problems experienced by the salmon in the Fraser River. There were environmental problems, water temperature problems, and certainly over-harvesting problems, and there may have been problems in the actual count. He was not going to wait around for months to do something. He immediately asked for a very quick post-harvest review, independent and public, chaired by former Chief Justice of the Province of British Columbia Bryan Williams.

That commission is doing its work as we speak. It is expected to report over the next several months. That will be of great assistance. Whether it will answer all the questions, problems and challenges I rather doubt, but it is certainly going to give all interested stakeholders a forum in which to discuss this issue, ask the basic questions on what happened during last year's Fraser run and hopefully give some guidance and foundation for what changes to the management plan can be put in place for next year's run. We can do the calculations: it is only a matter of a couple hundred days before the salmon are back in the river. These issues have to be resolved.

Again, the root of the problem goes back to the changes that have taken place over the past decade and how the resource has been allocated. There are some fundamental differences that have to be resolved by the people in those communities.

Having said that, it is my view that the department has made considerable strides over the past five years in the whole allocation process, the enforcement process and the conservation process. Again, we have the commercial fishers and the aboriginal fishers, but we should not forget in this debate the sector that perhaps contributes most to the British Columbia economy and that is the recreational fishers, which the previous speaker mentioned.

The biggest improvement I see in this regard has been the department's focus on consultation and collaboration. If we listen to some people, and we will probably hear it today, they will say that all we can do is send in the army and have a soldier or a fisheries officer every 20 feet or so and that might solve the problem. It might, and of course that would have to be done 24 hours a day, but I do not suggest that for one minute.

Over the past several years the department has developed new consultative models, new ways to bring all the interests to the same table to share in the decision making process. Of course some people do not want to share in that decision making process. We heard loud and clear from those people last Thursday and Friday in Vancouver. On both sides of the table, they just do not want to share. There were commercial fishers who stated very specifically that they do not agree with this right of food, social and ceremonial purposes. There were aboriginal witnesses who said that they do not; they feel the fish is theirs. That is the problem.

That is the problem that has to be resolved by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The department has been working over the last number of years on a wild salmon policy, and it will be released very shortly, which will describe the objectives, highlight the principles and define the strategies to conserve and manage Pacific salmon into the future.

DFO has taken the time to fully consider recommendations received from several internal and external reviews to incorporate clear guidelines to implement the policy. By bringing together the various threads of salmon management, I am confident that the wild salmon policy will allow the department to work with our partners to conserve this very important resource for everyone's benefit.

The department is equally committed to modernizing our habitat management regime, focusing on the high priority areas, including those for salmon.

The Pearse-McRae report and the complementary first nations panel report are two more examples of how the department is working to change the fishery on this coast. The recommendations stemming from each report are now being considered with first nations and other stakeholders. Both reports point out the need to ensure access to a sustainable and profitable fisheries resource for all--and I underline the word “all”--participants. An implementation strategy will be in place for these recommendations in the very near future.

Let us look at the motion before us, which calls for a judicial inquiry. As I stated previously, the minister has established an independent commission chaired by retired Chief Justice Bryan Williams. It is at work and it will report very shortly. Again, the commission will be independent and impartial and it will certainly be public. Also, its recommendations will be available before the 2005 season. My caution to the department, though, is that I would not wait for the Williams commission report. It is something which I urge them to be at right now.

I am especially pleased that Mr. Williams has agreed to chair the review. He is widely regarded as a skilled negotiator, arbitrator and jurist. His extensive experience will serve him well as he sits down with the various interests involved to examine last year's fishery and put forward recommendations in the best interests of this resource.

The department has a mechanism in place to carry out a study of this year's salmon season. It will be open. It will be public. It will be transparent. Let us be clear: everyone, DFO officers, commercial fishers, independent people, the panel and the commission, should be invited and should testify. I want them to testify.

I want to conclude by saying briefly that not only is the motion before us today unnecessary, but it would slow down the process the government has already put in place. It would not permit stakeholders to participate. It would not provide the important information that is so needed. For these reasons, I urge all members to agree with the recommendation made earlier today by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to reject the motion.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the comments of the member. This is a very serious issue. It is a concern to I believe everyone in British Columbia, and it should be a concern to everyone across Canada. We certainly heard that in the three days we were in British Columbia. This should be made a priority by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

As I said in my previous question, I do not accept the proposition that a judicial inquiry is the proper forum to carry this out. All it will do is give a forum for the commercial fishers to attack the members and leadership of the bands along the Fraser River. It will be public, it will be ugly and it will do absolutely nothing to resolve forever the issues on the Fraser River.

The committee sat for three very long days, to which the previous member will attest. We sat from 9:30 in the morning until about 7:00 every night, and we heard from a lot of witnesses. The committee received a lot of documentation. The committee deliberated on the issue and decided earlier today that the judicial inquiry was not the route to go. The Liberals do not have any majority on the committee. This was a vote of the committee.

After all the work that the House of Commons committee put into the issue, should the minister ignore the direction and wishes of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on this issue?

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech on this issue. I know he is committed to this issue that is of concern to him and his constituents.

In actual fact, the hon. member, myself and a number of other members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans held hearings in Vancouver on Thursday, Friday and Saturday of last week, and heard from a number of witnesses on this issue. There are issues, there is no question about that. Although I share the hon. member's concern, I question the merits of this motion.

We are dealing with an issue that involves allocation. It pits the established commercial salmon harvesters against 91 or 95 aboriginal bands on the Fraser River. My question to the hon. member is in regard to the fundamental difference that has to be resolved. How could a lengthy, expensive judicial inquiry in any way resolve the differences between these two groups? Does the hon. member not agree with me that all we are going to do is pit the commercial fishers against the aboriginal communities along the Fraser River and in actual fact stir the pot more and increase the problem rather than solve it?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to attempt any explanation. I answered the learned member's questions already, but he is going back with all this talk and suggestions about allegations and innuendo that someone has gone back on his word.

I was very disturbed about the platform of the Conservative Party during the last federal election. A lot of people did not understand it. I certainly understood it. I certainly understood the ramifications and repercussions it would have on the people living in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

I will repeat for the record what the member for Central Nova said. I think he hit the nail on the head about the Leader of the Opposition:

Comments Tuesday by Stephen Harper, leader of the Canadian Alliance, reinforce what a narrow, regionally based party the Official Opposition continues to be. We should not be--

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. The Prime Minister has not gone back on his word.

As has been explained in this debate, the rebate, and that may not be the proper term, has been increased from 30% to 100%. It will be reviewed at the end of eight years. I do not think anyone in Canada would have a problem with that. And once the revenues of Newfoundland and Labrador reach the same levels as those of the province of Ontario, I do not think anyone living anywhere in Canada would have any problems with that.

Again I come back to my comments and the questioner did not allude to it. I am very disturbed that the debate is not focusing on the campaign promises made by the Conservative Party in May and June, which would have frozen forever and a day, not eight years, but it would be 88 years, the equalization funding received by the provinces of Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.

It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition is going to Atlantic Canada to talk about this. He is going to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. He is certainly not going to the province of New Brunswick and he is certainly not going to the province of Prince Edward Island to explain to the people who live in those provinces what he was trying to do during the election campaign.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my remarks, I will be splitting my time with the member for Random--Burin--St. George's.

We are having what I consider a very interesting discussion on the motion, and it is a very important issue. I sense that we are somehow hearing a lot more about the politics of the issue rather than the real issue itself.

As everyone in the House is aware, equalization has been part of our economic and political fabric in the country for quite some time now. We are talking about a matter of principle that all Canadians, wherever they live from coast to coast to coast, ought to be treated equally. They ought to receive comparable levels of service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. As everyone knows, we will never to get the system perfect. Also, as things have developed over the last number of years, it seems to be that the greater challenge going forward may be the discrepancies which exist between rural Canada and urban Canada. This is something perhaps that will be subject to another debate in the House of Commons.

From the comments from all parties in the House, the principle of equalization is certainly supported by everyone in the House and across Canada, and it is embodied in our Constitution. There have been problems with the equalization formula over the last number of years. I certainly had a lot of problems with it myself. I am very pleased about the agreement that was reached on equalization by the Prime Minister of Canada, the 10 provincial premiers and the three territory leaders on October 26.

One of the biggest problems was predictability. I had a lot of sympathy with the individual provincial ministers of finance, because they really did not know what their equalization funding would be for that year. I believe most provinces deal with a March 31 year end. They present their budgets late January, February or March of each and every year. They would be given a figure from the federal government and that would be the figure would be included in their provincial budgets. However, every provincial finance minister, present and previous, realized that this figure would change at least once, if not twice or three times during the year. Sometimes, and relatively speaking, these adjustments would be rather dramatic.

It was grossly unfair for a provincial minister of finance to receive a call at 3:30 or 4:00 on a Friday afternoon and be told by officials in Ottawa that his or her province's equalization funding would be reduced dramatically. As everyone in the House and people watching this on CPAC can understand, that caused a lot of problems in provincial finances and how provinces were operating. It may come as some surprise to hear this, but it also caused problems when the same finance ministers received a call on Friday afternoon indicating that they were getting considerably more than what they expected. The principles of caution and prudence would be thrown to the wind, some of the money perhaps would not be spent as wisely as it ought to have been, it would end up in the A-base funding of the province and it may not be there next year. We can see the problems that would be created. That was a problem that needed rectification, and it was rectified.

We also had the cap on equalization which again was a problem. That was remedied a couple of years ago. It was not dealt with in the last agreement that the first ministers made.

Another contentious issue, which has always been on the table and is very much a part of the debate today, was the whole issue of non-renewable resources. It had been the position of a lot of provinces, and we certainly have to agree with this to a certain extent, that a non-renewable resource, whether it be a gold mine, an oil well or a potash mine, was a finite resource. Once that mine was depleted or that oil well is dug dry, there was no future revenue source. At some point in time every mine or oil well would come to an end.

This was different in each and every province. It certainly was not the issue in Alberta because it was not an equalization receiving province. However, it certainly was a major issue in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador because they were dealing with a non-renewable resource, and it has caused problems.

Some of the developments in Newfoundland and Labrador which dealt with Voisey's Bay skewed decisions. The royalties that came from Voisey's Bay immediately provided the province with resource royalty revenue. In the long term the resource royalty revenue was deducted from Newfoundland and Labrador's equalization entitlements and there was really nothing at the end of the day. I think that was the real reason behind the substantial delay in that project going forward.

We are dealing with a relatively contentious issue. I have listened to the debate that has taken place. I believe everyone is on the same page. We all want the province of Newfoundland and Labrador to prosper. We all want the people who live in that province to prosper. Going back years ago, there were situations in the province that were mishandled, such as Churchill Falls. There are still repercussions from that today. There was also the situation with the collapse of the groundfish, which has caused tremendous problems for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador especially, but also for the people who live in Atlantic Canada. It still causes problems.

I sympathize with the comments that have been made today with respect to the oil and gas revenue in Newfoundland and Labrador and in the province of Nova Scotia. It is important that the Government of Canada, in dealing with the provinces, especially those two provinces, get it right and ensure that it is in the best interests of the people who live in those two provinces.

If I had given this speech eight months ago, I would have stated that both provinces deserved a better deal. That is why I supported the agreement that was reached between the Prime Minister and Premier Hamm and the Prime Minister and Premier Williams in June of this year. The funding would be increased dramatically and they would be entitled to receive 100% of their royalty revenues. I was also pleased with the agreement reached on October 26 which dealt with, to a certain extent, the issue of predictability. Whatever an equalization receiving province was told it was entitled to receive early in that year would not be decreased no matter what happened. That provides a lot of certainty to the financial projections of each province.

I was also pleased that the level of funding for equalization would go up from $8.9 billion to $12.5 billion over the next five years, which will add, I believe, $33 million to the equalization funding over the next five years.

The election commitments made by the Conservative Party in May and June of last year concern me. They also trouble the people who live in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba. Its document states:

We will move towards a ten-province standard that excludes non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula...and do so in a manner that ensures no provinces receiving equalization will receive less money during the transition to the new formula than the current formula provides

If one does the calculations, it is extremely troubling. It would freeze those provinces forever and a day on the equalization formula. I am glad that has not happened. If there is anyone out there from Prince Edward Island, anyone out there from New Brunswick and anyone out there from Manitoba, I am glad we followed this formula and not the formula advocated--

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion to send Bill C-13 to committee before second reading. Bill C-13 is nearly identical to Bill C-35 that was tabled in the House last May but died on the order paper. At that time all parties, while naturally reserving their position until they heard from the witnesses in committee, expressed general support for the use of DNA and favoured referring this bill to committee.

Bill C-13 contains proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act, intended to clarify and strengthen the present regime concerning the taking a bodily substances for the purposes of the national DNA data bank.

I expect the committee will be paying close attention to the proposed changes to the list of designated offences. This is appropriate and is to be expected. Indeed, the expansion of the list to include such grave offences as sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, Internet luring of a child and extortion will, I am sure, be welcomed by all members of the House.

However, I intend to focus my remarks today on those legislative amendments in the bill that will address the procedural problems with the legislation. These changes are very important. They are not glamorous, and a lot of people watching this on CPAC may find them boring, but they are welcomed by police and the courts who have to make the legislation work on the ground each and every day.

The bill responds to a series of issues that had been raised primarily by the provinces. As members know provincial crown prosecutors and police deal with this legislation in the courts each and every day. Many of these proposed changes were recommended by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada which includes representatives of the defence bar and some judges, as well as provincial and federal justice officials.

They identified three problems that had to be fixed. First, there was no method to compel the offender to attend in court at a hearing to determine whether a DNA data bank order should be made. The existing legislation contemplates that a DNA order will be made at the same time as sentences is imposed. For various reasons, that is not always possible, but there is a danger that, if the judge imposes sentence but delays consideration of whether or not to make a DNA order, the judge may actually lose jurisdiction over the accused or the offender.

Bill C-13 specifically provides the following:

The court may set a date and time for a subsequent hearing to determine whether to make the order. The court retains jurisdiction over the matter and may compel the attendance at the hearing of any person who may be subject to the order.

Second, a process was sought that would permit a judge to make a second DNA data bank order where the national DNA data bank had declined to process the first one because of a police error in completing the forms that must accompany the bodily substances submitted for analysis.

The present legislation only allows the Crown to seek another order where a DNA sample cannot be derived from the sample of bodily fluids. However, there may have been problems in filling out the forms or in the identification of the accused. It could be that the bar codes were mixed up. It is vitally important that these offenders should have their DNA profiles in the DNA data bank despite these problems.

Bill C-13 will permit an application to be made for re-sampling. As the House can appreciate, these are highly technical, but important amendments.

Finally, a way was sought to require the offender to appear for the purpose of providing a DNA sample. The legislation currently requires that a sample be taken at the time the order is made but in many cases this is not possible. The police cannot have a trained officer attending all the court houses in the land at all times in case a DNA order is made. Accordingly, Bill C-13 allows for the judge to set a time and place for the sample to be taken and it provides for a warrant to arrest the offender if he does not show up.

These are not the only procedural changes made in this legislation. There are new provisions regarding the process when an offender is ordered to provide a DNA sample, but the offender's DNA profile is already in the data bank.

As well, the legislation was originally drafted on the basis that the convicted offenders' bodily substances would be analyzed in the regions and the profiles sent to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police data bank.

In fact, it was subsequently decided to have all analysis done here in Ottawa so that there are several provisions of the Criminal Code and DNA Identification Act that require amendment to clarify that the samples of bodily substances taken in execution of an order are transmitted along with a copy of that order, or authorization, and any other materials required under regulations to the RCMP for forensic DNA analysis, and that the results of this analysis are then to be entered into the convicted offenders' index of the national DNA data bank index.

There is as well an important new procedure which is necessary to address a problem that no one could have envisaged when this legislation was originally passed; namely, the making of DNA orders when there is no authority under law to do so.

Under the Criminal Code judges have only been authorized to make DNA data bank orders against offenders convicted of a designated Criminal Code offence. A DNA data bank order authorizes the police to take samples of bodily substances from a convicted offender for the purposes of the national DNA data bank. After the samples are collected, the police forward them, along with a copy of the judge's order, to the national DNA data bank in Ottawa.

Under procedures already established by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who is responsible for the operation of this data bank, before the samples of bodily substances taken from a convicted offender are subjected to forensic DNA analysis, the DNA order, the original order issued by the judge, is examined to verify that it in fact relates to a designated offence.

Since the DNA data bank legislation came into force almost four years ago, approximately 500 DNA data bank act orders have been made against persons who, according to the information that appeared on the face of the order, do not appear to have been convicted of a designated offence. These are referred as facially defective DNA data bank act orders.

There is a need, and this is corrected in this legislation, to create a procedure to have these defective DNA bank act orders reviewed to determine whether the error, on the face of the document, is either a procedural error or a substantive error. If it is a procedural error, it can then be corrected and the bodily samples analyzed. If it is a substantive error, then the court lacks the authority to make the order and the Commissioner of the RCMP then goes on to destroy the bodily substances obtained under the faulty orders.

I want to say a few words about the procedures set out in the proposed legislation to ensure only those DNA samples that are taken in conformity with the will of Parliament are analyzed.

There would be a duty imposed on the commissioner by virtue of Bill C-13 to review the information transmitted to him, along with the DNA sample taken from a convicted offender, to ensure that the offence referred to in the DNA data bank order is a designated offence.

I understand that this bill has been discussed with the provinces and the provinces all agree. I believe it is incumbent now upon this House to refer the bill to the appropriate committee, the justice committee. At that point in time it will certainly be analyzed by all members of the committee. I urge the passing of this motion.

[Culinary Olympics, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to announce that a team of young chefs from Prince Edward Island has brought back a gold medal for Canada from the Culinary Olympics in Germany this week.

The team members study at the Atlantic Tourism and Hospitality Institute in Charlottetown. They were competing against more than 700 chefs from 31 countries in tests of culinary skills. The team is made up of students Kreg Graham, Rebecca Hutchings, Mark Sheehy, Gerald Sharpe, Tommy Archibald, Kelly Clark, Natalie Fortier, Gillian Gilfoy and team coach Hans Anderegg.

These students come from every region of the country and have been achieving world class results as they compete in culinary events around Canada and in Europe.

Please join me in congratulating the members of team Canada on their gold medal performance and for showcasing Prince Edward Island's culinary institute on the global stage.

[Equalization Payments, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we achieved a major victory in equalization this week.

The Prime Minister met with provincial premiers and after that meeting he announced that the federal government would move ahead with a new framework for the equalization program that will see payments to provinces rise by $28 billion over the next 10 years. Over the first five years of this new deal alone, equalization payments to support Canada's eight equalization receiving provinces will grow by 42%.

By providing predictability, stability and increased funding, the new framework will play an essential role in ensuring that all Canadians, no matter where they live, have access to comparable public services.

This increased funding will assist Canada's less prosperous provinces in meeting their commitments over the 10 year plan to strengthen health care, another landmark deal with the provinces reached by this Liberal government, as well as funding other important social and economic developments.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, obviously my learned friend has missed the point of my argument. There are certain imbalances in the country and they are, by and large, horizontal imbalances. Canada, as everyone is aware, is a very large country and we have different provinces. Things change over time. We have seen this with Alberta.

However, the job, duty and the role of the federal government is to provide a system where every Canadian is basically, and there will always be some inequities, given the opportunity to have essential services and reasonably comparable levels of taxation. That is what the federal government has tried to do.

Persons living in Newfoundland and Labrador or in B.C. are entitled to the old age security. Everything is the same. The equalization program tries to, on a horizontal basis, level out some of these imbalances that do exist. The motion basically says that we should transfer a lot of money from the federal government to the provincial governments so that the provincial governments can do with the money as they see fit.