House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was program.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as Liberal MP for Cape Breton—Canso (Nova Scotia)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 74% of the vote.

Statements in the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess this is what we see from the government. I take my 10 minutes here in the House and I talk about EI reform and ask what the government is going to do for students, but the member throws a little bit of smoke over it and asks about that big, bad Senate. The government says that the Senate is tying everything up.

I could say that the Senate reflects the government. The government put nothing in the Speech from the Throne for students or for post-secondary schooling. There is no hope at all for students in this country and then the member tries to gloss over it with a question about the Senate. I am embarrassed to even respond to that question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the debate in the response to the Speech from the Throne.

I commend our leader on the position he has taken in not voting down the government on the throne speech. I think it is wise, because there really was nothing in the speech overall. It was pretty much innocuous. If we were to change 25 words it could be a past Liberal Speech from the Throne.

For the most part, throne speeches try to be positive. They try to set out a bit of a template. This one sort of did it from about 35,000 feet. Nonetheless, I think where we are going to run into trouble is where we drill down into the specific issues, where we look at the details of some of the actions and some of the legislation being put forward by the government.

It is always contended that the devil is in the details and I think that is what we are going to find. As long as this Parliament lasts, as long as the session goes forward, I think what we will find is that the people on this side will stand and fight on an issue by issue basis. That has been our contention, to make Parliament work and to make it work for Canadians, but when we see that the better needs and the best needs of Canadians are being compromised, that is when we will call the government to task.

There are certainly a number of issues like this in the throne speech. When I look at the statement that the government is going to review aspects of the EI system, I personally am greatly concerned. I think a number of Canadians somewhat suspect actions taken by the government in the way it has addressed employment insurance. As the government brings this forward, we are certainly going to try to represent what is best in regard to the needs of workers.

I should state from the outset that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Davenport.

Let us think back to the last time that a Conservative government had control of EI. We can look back to the late 1980s. We know that the EI fund of that time had been exhausted. It was from there, from the Auditor General's report, when we did have a stand-alone EI system, that once that program had been decimated through the late 1980s because of high unemployment rates and the draw on that fund at the time, the Auditor General said we had to take that program and put it back into the general accounts. That is what was done.

We know that through the mid-1990s the unemployment rate came down. More Canadians got back to work. There was less of a draw on the EI fund. There were changes made to the unemployment insurance act back in the mid-1990s. Over time, the premium rates paid by workers and employees went down. The economy took hold and grew. As a country we began to prosper and more money was paid into the fund.

I shared some time with my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst on an all party committee in the last Parliament. We put forward some recommendations on changes to EI. Some very worthwhile things came out of those consultations and that committee. Certainly the dropping of the divisor rule and going to the best 14 weeks are things that I think better serve the workers in this country.

We saw the response of the Conservatives at that time. They wanted no part of that. They wanted an in-out, stand-alone system, like an insurance policy. Canadians have come to expect more from that system. A great piece of EI legislation came forward in the last session. As a matter of fact, it was put forward by my colleague from Sydney—Victoria. It would extend sick benefits to those who are undergoing cancer treatment or perhaps are debilitated from heart and stroke illnesses. These are devastating illnesses to experience. They sometimes yield catastrophic outcomes for a family.

I thought the legislation made sense, but we saw that the government had no use for it. The government saw no purpose in it and voted against it, which was very disappointing. I am sure it was disappointing not just to the other three parties in this House, but to working Canadians, because all they are trying to do is provide for their families.

I think it is telling about the Conservative government as well when we read through the throne speech but do not see the words “student”, “university” or “post-secondary”. Those words are nowhere to be found in the Speech from the Throne. Our young students can draw no kind of hope or optimism from this throne speech.

Certainly we saw the government show a total disregard for the students of this country when it decimated and gutted the student employment program last year. It was the opposition parties in the House that fought to have at least a bit more money put back into that program. Community groups from coast to coast supported that program and had offered summer employment opportunities to students for many years. It was a great program, well served, and was subscribed to by many businesses and not for profit groups from coast to coast. Yet it was decimated by the Conservative government.

This showed a total lack of caring and understanding by the government about the needs of students in this country and a lack of understanding of the needs of not for profit groups in this country. Giving extra money to students is necessary to help them pay their way through university, but for many of these students this program is their first opportunity for a summer job to build skills and to start developing a resumé. I do not think there is anything better that we can give our youth. That was torn away from them by the government last spring.

While on the topic of universities, I note that I come from the province of Nova Scotia, which has a great reputation for having some of the top post-secondary institutions in this country, such as St. Francis Xavier, St. Mary's and Dalhousie. The post-secondary institutions in Nova Scotia are at the forefront of a lot of research. These post-secondary institutions have pretty much been pillaged by the Conservative government. That is what concerns me about the throne speech.

The government is changing the way it supports these institutions in transfers from the federal government to provincial governments. It did put in a bit more money, and I commend the government for doing so, but when it changes the system from an equity based system to a per capita based system, it is the small Atlantic provinces that are going to be hurt. In this change alone, Nova Scotia will receive $28 million less under the new system that was adopted by the Conservative government. Over the 10 year term of this change, Nova Scotians will receive $65 million. The province of Alberta will receive $3.5 billion. The minister's own province is doing okay, but where is the equity? Where is the fairness? Why should Nova Scotia be left behind? That is the unfairness that I see. That is pitting one region against another. We have seen this time and again from the government. There is a true unfairness there.

I can assure the government that we on this side of the House, on an issue by issue basis when that legislation comes forward, will stand and defend the rights of Nova Scotians. We will defend fairness. We will make sure that whatever the Conservatives bring forward will be scrutinized. If it is going to hurt Nova Scotians and if it is going to hurt Canadians, we will stand here and we will defeat it.

Equalization Payments October 19th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to provide us with any details on the side deal with Nova Scotia with regard to the Atlantic accord. So far all we have seen is happy for the camera handshakes, with absolutely zero documentation.

We will have to forgive Atlantic Canadians if they are leery about taking the word of the government and in particular the word of the Minister of National Defence. Bruce MacKinnon, the editorial cartoonist in today's Chronicle-Herald, exposes the naked truth. The cartoon may imply that the minister has nothing to hide, but Nova Scotians want to know: where is he hiding the document?

Points of Order June 13th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from question posed during question period by the leader of the official opposition to the Prime Minister with regard to the VIP program and the written promise by the Prime Minister to extend those benefits to all veterans and widows upon taking the reins of power.

It was obvious from the answer from the Prime Minister that he knows nothing about the issue. He shared nothing on the specific issue. It must be because he forget about this issue.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table the written promise from Prime Minister to Joyce Carter.

Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act June 12th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to join in this debate and speak on behalf of the motion. I commend my colleague for bringing this forward to the House.

Certainly, being from a riding that is essentially a coastal riding, there are a great number of coastal communities throughout Cape Breton—Canso. When we look at lighthouses, they have played such an integral part of what it is that we are as a community. They are not past their function but certainly in some ports of small coastal communities they become much more than that.

I know the technology is past with what is available to mariners, fishermen and shippers now. Many lighthouses have fallen into the realm of redundancy, but still, when we look down a coastline and see the picturesque beauty of a lighthouse standing on a point, certainly it is something that has a great deal of appeal, something in which residents of that particular community take a great deal of pride.

As well, when we have visitors who come to the coastal communities for that experience, certainly lighthouse tours are an essential part and a very important part of attracting people to rural communities. In rural communities tourism is an essential industry that is very important.

In essence, when people tour coastal communities, and I look at my own riding, they go around the Cabot Trail, they drive down through Guysborough to the little community of Canso, and they go around Isle Madame. The scenery is incredible. One can drive up along the west coast of Cape Breton through Grand Étang and Chéticamp. If one gets there on a windy day with the surf crashing against the rocks, there is nothing more spectacular.

People want to do more than just look at the scenery. They want to get out and want an experience. I think that is one thing that we have learned throughout my riding. People want to get out of the car to hike the trails, listen to the music, experience the culture, and meet the people. They want that interactive experience.

Many people really see lighthouses as a key draw, something that people want to get in, walk up, go through the light, read the history of the place, and read some of the marine stories that took place in the locale. Interpretive areas throughout these lighthouses are becoming very popular and essential parts of these coastal communities.

Currently in Canada we have about 583 lighthouses, 3% of which are fully protected under current heritage laws. As I understand the bill before us, the legislation would designate federally owned heritage light stations as heritage sites and ensure that they are maintained according to conservation standards. It would also require that communities near the lighthouses are consulted prior to changing, selling, transferring or demolishing any of the designated stations.

The legislation has been brought forward driven by a number of different senators in the past, but as the bill came forward before the intent was that the legislation would result in the buildings receiving similar protection to train stations which are protected under the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act. We know that under that act rail companies must seek approval from the environment minister, consult extensively before there is any kind of a transfer, sale or any kind of change or alteration to the ownership of that particular train station.

I will refer back to my riding. I have a couple of spectacular lighthouses in my riding. People are very familiar with the national historic property at Louisbourg and the fortress there. One of the best views of Louisbourg can be seen by hiking out to Lighthouse Point just out past Havenside in Louisbourg. It is an incredible lighthouse. From there it is sort of focal point to launch from.

A community group is trying to develop a whole trail system from that lighthouse, with the lighthouse being the focal point and then moving on from there. The plan they are putting forward involves a number of different styles of trails that would accommodate those in wheelchairs. The oceanside experience and the marine experience would not be limited to able-bodied people. Those who need assistance would also be able to enjoy it.

DFO just finished an extensive restoration of Mabou Harbour. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has done a fabulous job of redeveloping Margaree Harbour. However, work still needs to be done on the lighthouse but a community group has taken on the challenge. It is looking to secure some funds and develop some partnerships with people within the community and some of the funding agencies to further support the development of this lighthouse project.

There is a great deal of interest within rural communities and coastal communities to ensure these lighthouses are sustained.

Many of these structures stand in some harsh elements, such as coastal winds, storm surges and salt spray, and these elements have a great deal of impact on these structures. In many communities, some of these fabulous old structures and these heritage structures have not been maintained and are really starting to show their wear. If we do not do something soon, these communities will lose an important aspect of their history, which would be criminal.

We see this bill as giving us an opportunity to support these rural communities. We are supportive of this bill because it would certainly expand tourism opportunities within rural communities and we are certainly supportive of that.

What concerns those of us on this side of the House, as well a couple of members on the other side of the House with whom I have spoken, is that we are under the gun here with respect to time. We do not know what is ahead of us as far as time is concerned. A great deal of talk has been going on about continuing on with the parliamentary session and, hopefully, that will happen. I know the government is very keen on getting out of here because it has not had a good couple of weeks. A couple of the members have their cars warming up in the parking lot now wanting to get out of Ottawa. However, there is still a great deal to do here and a large number of issues that Canadians want dealt with, and this is just such an issue.

This issue has been brought forward on a number of different occasions. The bill was initiated in the Canadian Senate and is co-sponsored by my colleague from South Shore. It has a legitimate opportunity of being passed this time should this Parliament live out its natural life. People on this side of the House are looking forward to staying and addressing these important issues and certainly this lighthouse issue.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are an old rock and roller and you may have thought that this legislation was to support Lighthouse, that great Canadian band with Bob McBride who sang the song One Fine Morning, but this is about coastal lighthouses. This is a great piece of legislation. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to support it with a vote and we look forward to doing that when it comes forward in the House.

Veterans Affairs June 12th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, for the record, I asked this same question over a year ago in the House. Nothing was done then and nothing still remains done.

Mrs. Carter is now a year older but she is a year wiser and she is wise to the fact that the Prime Minister holds no credibility. His word is no good.

When will somebody on that government bench show some courage, turn to Mrs. Carter and tell her that the government is finally going to deliver on the written promise that was made by the Prime Minister? Tell her.

Veterans Affairs June 12th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the litany of broken promises by the government to the people of Nova Scotia is broad and deep, but there is one that stands out even more shamefully than the rest. That is the promise made to a constituent of mine, Joyce Carter, who received a written promise from the Prime Minister who said that upon taking office he would extend VIP benefits to all veterans and their widows, not some, not a few, not most, but all veterans and their widows.

Why did the Prime Minister break his promise to Joyce Carter?

Budget Implementation Act, 2007 June 8th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, this has been a great Friday debate. There has certainly been an interesting exchange of views.

I want to go on record and say that the budget put forward by the government is not completely horrible. It is horrible, yes, but not completely. Some aspects of the budget, such as the tax incentive and capital gains provisions for fishermen, who are moving licences, make sense. However, it misses the mark so much and hurts so many of the most vulnerable Canadians that in no way can the official opposition support the budget.

The previous speaker, the member for Peterborough, indicated that governing is about making difficult choices, something that the official opposition did not know about when it was in government. That is just not right.

We talked about the $42 billion deficit. The previous government made the difficult decisions on behalf of all Canadians. It sent home 45,000 federal employees in order to balance the books. It made cuts in every department. Every Canadian felt those cuts. They were tough choices, but in doing so, we balanced the budget and righted the fiscal ship of the country. From 1995 on, we began to experience some real fiscal growth.

The bar has been set by the previous government for what it takes to provide financial leadership for the country. We can look at eight surplus budgets, tax relief in all those budgets going forward for every Canadian, reinvestment in important programs such as infrastructure, health care, education. We saw an attack on the accrued debt . Each year that debt was paid down to loosen up additional operational funds for the federal government.

The template and opportunity was there for the government to fall in line and continue to provide good fiscal management for the people of Canada, but it missed the mark. If the government's budget was a road map to prosperity for Canadians, it would be comparable to the people at Rand McNally doing a road map from Ottawa to Toronto and ending up in Boise, Idaho.

The government has missed the mark completely, especially when we factor in the fact that it inherited was the single best set of books ever been transferred to an incoming government. There was a $13 billion surplus. How does anybody mess that up? How could anybody possibly mess that up? However, it did and it hurt a great number of people. That is why I feel obliged to go on record today and identify the some of shortcomings in the budget.

I will speak about a group that I really do not believe has had a voice, certainly off the government bench. It is not talked about much. It is a community that means so much to us as Canadians, and that is the sporting community. If anybody was shortchanged in this budget, it is the sporting community.

The government loves to beat its chest. It made two promises. One promise was a personal tax deduction of $500 to anybody who registered their son or daughter in a sporting activity. What that really equates to, once the deduction is made, is probably between $80 and $90 a year.

I know, Mr. Speaker, you are the father of elite athletes. If you sit down at the kitchen table, I think the conversation goes a bit deeper than saying, “the Tories are offering me $80 and I cannot miss that opportunity”. We know it is good to involve our children in sports and that is what will motivate us. The $80 is a joke. It has no impact at all.

I have three boys myself who play competitive sport. Am I going to use it? Yes, I am, but they are going to play anyway.

The tax deduction has no impact to motivate parents to enrol their kids in sport. We know that if we can keep our youth active, if we can keep them involved, it is positive in so many aspects, physically, mentally, emotionally and socially. It reaches into all aspects of those young lives and it is a positive thing, but the tax deduction does not do it.

The other promise that the Conservatives made was that 1% of their health care budget should go toward sport and physical activity. Where is that? Nowhere. There is no sign of it whatsoever. The sporting groups were let down. The sporting groups thought that they might have an opportunity with this promise.

This is what I got from the group called Sport Matters Group. It is from Ian Bird, senior leader for the Sport Matters Group. The Sport Matters Group is a collective of provincial and federal sport leaders that work toward improving the future of sport in the country. Ian Bird said:

Budget making is the central opportunity for governments to fulfill their commitments to Canadians....There had been clear indications from successive Ministers for Sport that today’s budget papers would how the government would invest in its own promise. We’re still waiting.

And they still will be waiting.

What we have seen is a shell game going on within the government in how it approaches sport. Had the government invested that 1%, it would equate to about $540 million annually that would go toward sport.

The template is there. The sports community knows what has to be done. We need a long term athletic development model, taking an active approach to investing in youth from the playground to the podium, working with the provinces and giving the provinces the resources they need, human and financial resources, so they can help deliver on these very important programs. They cannot do that if they do not have the money.

We understand fully as Canadians how important it is that we have heroes. Before there was a Sidney Crosby, there was a Mario Lemieux and a Wayne Gretzky, who was Sidney Crosby's hero. Before there was a Katrina Lemay-Doan or a Marc Gagnon, we knew that Gaétan Boucher was the greatest speed skater to come from Canada. It was his efforts and his gold medal performances in the Olympics that motivated these young skaters. We need the ability to create those heroes to further motivate our younger people to engage in sport.

The Conservatives took that away. Money was accelerated for the own the podium program. Was there any new money? Absolutely not a dollar. The Conservatives pulled the rug out from under the road to excellence program, which would provide funds to our summer athletes going to Beijing in 2008. The Conservatives turned their backs on our summer athletes by taking away those funds.

The Liberal Party talked about in our platform a specific envelope of money that we could invest in very specific sport facilities. I spoke on Wednesday night in Moncton at the Maritime Recreation Facility Conference. These are good people who work their tail off day in and day out to try to provide opportunities for our youth and for our populous to engage in sport. They work trying to keep costs down, keeping registration fees at a reasonable amount. However, the costs continue to rise and accumulate.

Infrastructure, refits and retrofits are expensive. We talked about an envelope of money that we could work with through the provinces so that investment could be made and the costs could come down. The buildings would operate in a more efficient manner, helping the environment and the operators on an annual basis.

The sporting community put this forward. It advocated very much for this type of opportunity to work with the federal government. There is no sign of this initiative whatsoever in this budget from the government.

It is not that the Conservatives just turned their backs on the initiatives that were being put forward by the sporting community, but they also did not deliver on the promises they made to the sporting community. It is shameful.

I would be remiss if I did not address a number of other things in my speech. Literacy, of course, is something that I think has impacts right across this country. Almost 45% of adult Canadians still have a challenge in reading, writing and communicating. If we give an adult the opportunity to engage in the economy, and to engage in the community and in education, we know that every increase of 1.5% in literacy increases the productivity of this country by 2.5%. That is a pretty significant return on our investment.

However, here is what we saw from this government with regard to the $13 billion surplus fund. The government said that of course what it had to do was cut literacy and make it tougher for the people who find it hardest to engage in our economy and our society. Let us make it a little bit tougher on them, said the government. The government carved money out of the literacy fund.

This should not have surprised anybody when the current Minister of the Environment is on record as saying that it is a waste of time teaching adults to read and write. If that is where the essence of it comes from, we are in a sad state here. Certainly this party on this side is concerned about the most vulnerable in our society and where they are going to arrive if we continue to see the reign of that government.

As well, we know that this has been discussed on a number of occasions over the last while. The previous speaker stood up and beat his chest about what they are doing for students. One of the single greatest things we can for our young people is offer them an opportunity to hold a summer job. It contributes to that student's life in so many ways. Many times, a summer job is the first work opportunity they have. They have the opportunity to put together a few dollars to go back and re-engage in the fall in their education.

We witnessed a debacle here over the last number of weeks with this government in regard to the money that was carved out of the summer student employment grants. Not only did that devastate community groups, but it as well just ripped the soul out of job opportunities for students across this country.

There is a question that has to be asked on the issue of the budget because there is a finite envelope of money in the HRSDC and Service Canada funding. The Conservatives have had to go back to try to clean up the mess because the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development has been inundated. I know that the opposition certainly has been pounding him on a regular basis to fix the mess he has made.

I think it was his predecessor that set the template, and the trap was sprung on the current minister, but he is wearing it and it is his job to fix it. He has to go back and fix it. The company line over there is that the government always goes with this second round of funding. Yeah, right, tell me that one now, I say. The Conservatives are going back to try to fix the mess. Any community groups that had a grant last year and have a current valid application on file are going to receive funding. They should receive funding. They should have received funding in the first place.

The government is going back to fix the mess, but it is going to cost this government a great deal of money. Where is that money going to come from?

I remember the Minister of Fisheries when he was in opposition. He was a pretty noble member. He would talk about all the fish plant employees when they would lose their jobs. He would beat the government, asking what it was going to do for those out of work fish plant employees and what it was going to do for the communities most affected. We have not heard a word from him since then.

Is HRSDC going to have to steal the money out of the money that should be going toward helping people like those in Canso, like those in the outports of Newfoundland who have seen their fish plants closed, those people who need that help and those retraining moneys now? There is only one envelope of money and these are the people who are going to suffer as a result of this budget and the actions in this budget.

We have talked about rural communities. It is unbelievable to see how the rural communities got dealt out of this budget. Let us talk about CAP sites. I am sure that all members in this House have received interventions from their constituents about CAP site closures. Now the Conservatives have come back to say that they will keep the sites open one for more year, one more time, but then, we know, there is a drop-dead date. These communities get a one year reprieve on the CAP Sites. CAP sites are essential in rural communities and this opposition will fight to continue to have CAP site funding provided for those essential services.

Regarding access to broadband, through Industry Canada we had an excellent program, the BRAND program, that allowed Canadians no matter where they lived in this country the opportunity for communities to partner with various agencies and stakeholders to bring broadband to these communities. It was a tremendously successful program.

Infrastructure is not just about water, sewer and roads. Access to high speed broadband is essential. If we want to grow those rural communities, the government should be investing in it, but we have seen no movement at all and no investment at all, and it is the rural communities that are going to suffer.

If I could have another 10 minutes on the accord, I would love to wrap up a Friday on that one, but my time is getting close to expiring. As I have said, this budget brings a great deal of pain to the people I represent, and certainly I come here each week to Ottawa to represent the views of my riding and its situation. In no good conscience could I stand and support this budget.

The Budget June 8th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly no consolation for my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

The one thing about screwing up time and time again is that people get upset when the government screws up and does not admit it, and then tries to sell them that it is doing them this great favour.

The people of Nova Scotia are not stupid. They know up is not down and they are not buying what the minister is trying to sell. The minister has done nothing but hurt Nova Scotians since he assumed his responsibility. When will he finally do something that will benefit Nova Scotians and resign?

The Budget June 8th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Foreign Affairs has conveniently forgotten his inconvenient words of a couple of weeks ago, allow me the opportunity to remind the House. He said:

We will not throw a member out of caucus for voting his conscience. There will be no whipping, flipping, hiring or firing on budget votes....

Is this 180 degree flip more an example of the lack of influence that the minister has at the cabinet table or did he actually think that his former caucus colleague would surrender his principles, as the minister did?