Rodger Cuzner

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting over the last few days in question period. Questions have been addressed to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development and some of the comments that have come back reflect on some of the cuts that were made through the mid-1990s. I think all Canadian sacrificed through the mid-1990s.

However, I would like to give my colleague an opportunity to expand on some of the points that he made with regard to those cuts that were made and maybe reach back in Hansard and share some of the words that were put on record by that minister at the time.

[Remembrance Day, November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach Remembrance Day, we remember Canadian veterans and soldiers, and honour all those who gave their lives in sacrifice for this nation.

Let us also commit to doing all we can to truly fulfill and respect the promises made to Canada's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, you might remember that the Prime Minister unequivocally promised, in a letter to Mrs. Joyce Carter, that he would:

--immediately extend the Veterans Independence Program services to widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the veteran passed away or how long they had been receiving the benefit prior to passing away.

So far these are just empty words. Perhaps the government will take the opportunity of this Remembrance Day and truly honour the wishes of Canada's veterans, fulfill the promise to all widows of our brave veterans.

Lest we forget.

[October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, they did offer a “best-of”, but it was a best of either world, not a best of both worlds, which the accord was. The Prime Minister continues to say there is no stacking provision. The accord was an opportunity for Nova Scotians to get out from under the per capita debt, the highest in this country, because they would get the best from the revenues, plus they would get the best of the equalization.

I guess we will drill down, because I know the speaking notes are tight over there. Those guys are better than Wal-Mart when it comes to messaging and marketing what they want to say and the spin they want to put on it. The truth is that Nova Scotians are the ones who are suffering for this.

I will ask a very specific question. Are the revenues generated from the offshore factored into the fiscal capacity of the province which in turn determines the amount of equalization that Nova Scotia receives?

[October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the game of deal or no deal continues to be played out with the people of Nova Scotia and this government. We have seen the photo opportunities in the newspaper when there was a deal made. We are hearing different things in the Senate. Truly, the uncertainty around this whole issue is cause for concern among the people of Nova Scotia.

We saw this play out here with the release of the budget last spring, and we heard the Minister of National Defence say that the new equalization formula in the budget was great for the people of Nova Scotia and if they did not believe him, they could see him in “court” and the government would prove it in court. The people of Nova Scotia did the math and saw that they were going to lose $12 billion.

Even the premier of Nova Scotia at the time encouraged the Conservative members to vote against the budget. Certainly the members on this side from Nova Scotia voted against the budget, because we supported the best interests of the people of Nova Scotia.

We saw the arm-twisting that went on. We heard the promise to the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley that he could vote his conscience and not be expelled from caucus. It was truly unfortunate when he did get heaved.

But the uncertainty continues. The Minister of Finance truly believed that he was honouring the accords. When he spoke in Halifax on June 9, he believed, he said, that the government “is honouring the Atlantic accords fully in its budget”. He said, “Nothing has changed...”. When asked about a deal that apparently the Minister of National Defence was working on, he stated:

Our government is not in the process of making any side deals for a few extra votes. You cannot run a country on side deals.

Yet just a couple of weeks ago, we saw the big photo op with the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister, the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's and the premier of Nova Scotia. We saw the glad-handing that went on with regard to this new deal.

They took the opportunity, in preparation for a supposed election, to announce this big deal, but we are still not sure if there is a deal. We know there was an exchange of letters. I personally requested, on behalf of all members in the House, to have a briefing by the Department of Finance. We still have not received that. Finance officials are talking about having one next Monday when we are in our constituencies, so they are going to fly 15 people to Ottawa, with no need for that, to present a briefing. We have not been able to get a briefing on this. We know there has been an exchange of letters, but we have not seen any deal.

What adds to the confusion is the Minister of National Defence saying that we have a new deal and there is going to be legislation coming forward, and then in the other chamber, the government's leader in the Senate, Senator LeBreton, saying that “I believe people are misinformed if they think this agreement was a new agreement or some side deal, which it was not”. She says there is no side deal.

In this House, there is a deal. There is going to be legislation coming forward. In the other chamber, there is no deal. So I think people can understand why we are concerned back in Nova Scotia as to whether it is a deal or no deal.

I know the parliamentary secretary is prepared to share with us the view of the government. I know he is a good member and I want to save him time. Is there a deal or no deal, yes or no?

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and respect some of the points brought forward in my colleague's presentation. I want him to think back to even the health accord of 2000 where a federal-provincial agreement had been struck to try to increase the capital investment in hospital equipment by each of the provinces.

It was a program that was embraced by the provinces. The number of MRI machines from coast to coast went from about 15 to about 150 over the course of the program and it certainly had a great impact on wait times for MRI services from coast to coast.

The member made reference to regional economic development. There have been some successes in federal-provincial agreements but I want my colleague to comment on just what type of impact legislation like this would have on regional economic development.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, October 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the two minutes I have, I congratulate my colleague from Halifax West for bringing this important private members' business forward. It is something not only for Nova Scotians. We recognize we pay the highest tuitions in the country right now.

We are very proud of our post-secondary institutions. They have continued to lead the way in research in many areas. They continue not only to score well in Maclean's rankings, but they continue to be respected from coast to coast and internationally for the great job that they have done as well. However, because of the cost of tuition, more and more students have to make a decision as to whether they can pursue a post-secondary education, and truly that is unfortunate. By bringing this forward, my colleague is allowing this debate to take place here on the floor.

One thing we do know is that an $80 tax deduction for the purchase of books does not make too much difference when we look at $6,000 to $8,000 in tuition fees at one of these institutions. We have to do more for our students and for young Canadians so we can continue to build our economy and allow those young people to take part in that economy.

The discussion taking place today is a positive one. I look forward to adding more in my subsequent eight minutes at a later date.

[Veterans Affairs, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the committee knows that the promise was made within committee by the minister as well. The Conservatives have refined promise breaking.

In a letter to Mrs. Joyce Carter, a constituent of mine, a veteran's widow, the Prime Minister unequivocally promised that he would “immediately extend the Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second World War and Korean War veterans”. So far the promises have not been kept. We saw no sign in the budget. We see no sign in the throne speech.

When will the Prime Minister break the news about the broken promises to Mrs. Carter?

[Veterans Affairs, October 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne deceptively promises to improve support for our veterans who have contributed so much to defending Canada in the past.

The Prime Minister gave his word to 150,000 veterans exposed to defoliants between 1956 and 1984 in Gagetown. He promised that they would receive immediate and full compensation, yet the package the government offered only applies to those exposed in 1966 and 1967.

Why did the Prime Minister break his promise to our brave veterans?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact as we speak my staff is doing a survey in the riding to identify who was successful and who was not. Those details do not come out from the government. It is not willing to share those types of statistics.

The other group that was jeopardized here--

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when the change in the legislation comes forward and if the government wants to alter the EI system there may be aspects of it that the Liberal Party has advocated for quite some time, which is that additional moneys should be put into training and the approach to training should be different.

We best serve Canadians when we do that on an issue by issue basis, which is why I support our leader for taking the tact that he did. I do not see the wisdom in the NDP's position that they were going to vote against the throne speech two weeks before the speech was tabled.

When those pieces of legislation come forward, I would hope that I can stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleague because we are very similar on a number of issues that pertain to the Employment Insurance Act. Hopefully, together can ensure this system is not decimated by the government.