Rodger Cuzner

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her presentation today. The energy coming off the other bench today is something else.

There are all these nuggets that come from the other side in the midst of debate. Yesterday the member for Wascana was in the midst of debate, talking about the cuts to students. We know the community groups have been devastated by the cuts to students. We know that cuts to the summer student job placement program have students hurting.

The member for Peterborough talked about all the good things the government is doing for students. The Conservatives have ripped about half the jobs away that students had last year.

The government House leader indicated that the government had put more money into students this year than it did last year. That is because the government botched the program so badly. It had to face the uproar across the country from coast to coast. Therefore, it had to go back to try to straighten it out and put the fire out. The Conservatives ripped the guts out of community groups and they tore the hearts out of students, and it is costing them money. Maybe they have put more money in the program, but that money has to come from somewhere.

There is an envelope of money in HRDC. I know she has communities within her riding that rely on HRDC programs. Is there a fear that they will be hurt because the government botched the student program so badly that it had to take money from other programs? Is that at risk?

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member could probably seek clarification from some of those Atlantic members if he could find them.

Some of the things the member is saying in his address are not wrong. The government is not changing the accord and we can opt into the equalization. The key point is the choice, and that was never part of the deal. It was the clawback provision that was taken out of the accord. What the government has done is pulled the rug out from under the clawback provision.

If it was such a great deal, I will ask the member to answer me this. Why are the ministers from Atlantic Canada now working so hard to try to ratify? Why are some media outlets saying there is an imminent fix in place that we will hear of soon?

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I went to the Calgary Stampede a couple of years ago and I watched the bull riding competition. After a rider was bucked off, the rodeo clown would come out. He would jump around, wave his arms, and make all kinds of motions to distract the bull. With the bull coming out of the corner there today, we might have to bring one of those rodeo clowns in.

To say that paying down debt is a bad use of taxpayers' money is totally ludicrous. When we were in government and cut the cheque for $800 million, and Premier Hamm at the time put that money on the debt, that loosened up $40 million to $50 million each year to put into hospitals and schools. Is that a bad thing?

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would think that if the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley were waiting for the green light to stand up for his constituents without any repercussions from the caucus chair, I would think that would have been it. Maybe what he should have asked for was a form to write it down right on a napkin and sign it. Oh, no sorry, he does not honour those either. I'm sorry.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let us make one thing clear. I, in no way, was criticizing the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. I was celebrating the courageous stand he took on voting against the budget. He knows it was hurting the people he represents.

What is shameful is the people on the other bench over there did not stand and vote with their constituents, and we should know that.

The member for Central Nova tried to make a few points when a motion was brought forward in the last Parliament by the then opposition. He said that the government members and the member for Halifax West voted against it.

We want to ensure that the people at home watching the debate know that the member himself, as a member of the opposition, voted against the budget that would ensure those accord moneys went to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let us get all the figures on the table and who stood for what. However, I in no way chastised that member. I commend that member and I think what he did was courageous.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate on this very important issue. It is an issue that is important not just to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador but also to the good people of the province of Saskatchewan. Really, as they see what is really at play here, we can say that it is important to all Canadians.

During her speech earlier, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs indicated that what the government wanted to do was go back to a principled application of the equalization formula. It was to be based on principle, and I think it was framed fairly well today in the Globe and Mail, which reflected on the Groucho Marx line about principles: “Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others”.

The principle at play here is that the federal government made a commitment to the people of Nova Scotia and made a commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and signed a contract. The government is walking away from that commitment. It is breaking the deal. That is the principle here.

I think it is important that we get back to what this meant to the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can speak firsthand to the situation in Nova Scotia because I was there in February 2005. After many months of negotiation, the accord was signed by the premier at the time, John Hamm, and his minister, Cecil Clarke, representing the province of Nova Scotia, our fisheries minister at the time, the member for Halifax West, and our Prime Minister. The signing of that accord was monumental.

The people of Nova Scotia said that was the single greatest day in Nova Scotia since oil and gas were discovered off the coast. That is how important this was to the people of Nova Scotia.

It was a promise made by our former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, and he went beyond the promise. He promised Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians full access to their offshore revenues, but he went beyond that and cut an upfront cheque for each province.

That amounted to $800 million for the province of Nova Scotia, a significant amount. As for the debt situation that we were in at the time, we carried more debt per capita than any other province. That debt was a ball and chain. It was weighing us down as a province.

Our premier at the time applied the $800 million to the $12 billion debt that the province of Nova Scotia was carrying. I totally supported the premier on that decision. In doing that right thing, he brought down the annual interest in the province of Nova Scotia by between $40 million and $50 million annually. That $40 million or $50 million goes into highways, hospitals and education. It benefits all Nova Scotians. That was the right thing to do. It was honourable of our former prime minister to do to make sure that money was issued upfront.

Just so members understand, what the accord did was make sure that the clawback provisions from equalization were no longer applied. There were no more clawback provisions through equalization because of the offshore revenues. It was meant to be a building block so that Nova Scotia could move from being a have not province to a have province. There is activity in the economy in Nova Scotia, but the accord was in essence the foundation, a building block, and then, with the equalization on top, suddenly the revenues started to make some sense. The province was able to start getting at that debt that we continue to carry and that continues to be a burden on the people of Nova Scotia.

However, what happened when the budget was tabled was that the rug was pulled out from under the feet of Nova Scotians. The foundation was removed with the pulling out of the accord.

The comments that are coming from the government today are about how “they can have one or they can have the other”. That was never the deal. This was both. This was the accord. This was equalization and no provision of clawbacks. Indeed, when we held government, we did increase the amount of equalization through a change in the formula. We increased the amount of equalization to the province of Nova Scotia and there was no impact on the accord. It in no way compromised the accord. This could be done. We know that this is not what happened in this case.

Numbers get bandied about in the House. In order for us to get a true view of it, let me mention that I read a great op-ed article a number of weeks back. It was from Peter O'Brien, the former Atlantic representative on the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. He was never a great friend of the Liberal Party of Canada, by any means, and when there was an issue he would take issue with the government.

However, in regard to his position on this aspect of the budget, the accord, he said that when it was first announced the message coming from the Minister of Finance and the regional minister was, “Hey, this is all good, there is no change, no cap, and no compromising the Atlantic accord”. He took it at face value. In the article, he goes on to talk about two of this country's strongest and most respected economists, Wade Locke, from Memorial University in Newfoundland, and Paul Hobson, from Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

Mr. O'Brien has been in a number of prebudget lockups with these gentlemen. He said that their work is exemplary and he trusts them completely. Mr. O'Brien said that by Wade Locke identifying and going through the process, and showing that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador will lose $11 billion with these changes and the province of Nova Scotia will lose a billion dollars with these changes, he knows that what he was getting from the Minister of Finance and the regional minister was nothing but spin. The truth is that both of those provinces lose with the changes that are made to this accord, and that is truly shameful.

We have heard about this throughout this debate since the budget was tabled. I remember the day it was tabled. We were on our feet on this side of the House questioning the government about the impacts on the accord for both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. We knew there was going to be a net loss to the citizens of those two provinces, but the government said no, that was not the way it was at all. It said that this is great, we do not compromise anything, and they end up coming out ahead.

Then, when there was a unanimous resolution that came from the legislature in Nova Scotia, an all party resolution that called for the government to reinstitute the accord, those guys stood up and said, “Hey, there's no problem, it's all good”.

The government sent its finance minister to meet with the finance minister for Nova Scotia. They had a six hour meeting. That is no reflection of us being slow learners in Nova Scotia. It is because the finance minister for the province of Nova Scotia knew what it had lost under the changes in the government's budget.

Then, of course, yesterday was the big day when this thing all came to a head. We saw what went on with the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. We saw the arm-twisting that went on. We know about the work that was going on behind the steel curtain over there.

The member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley took a principled approach. He chose province over party. He took a principled approach and he did the right thing, because he knows that this deal is not a good deal for the people of Nova Scotia and it is not a good deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What I want to do is call on the government to make sure that it abides by this agreement that was signed between the federal government and those provinces and that it reinstitutes the accords so that the people can share in what is rightfully theirs.

[June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is sort of what happens when the answer is prepared prior to hearing the question and some of the facts that are delivered throughout the question.

I remember the date, November 4, probably because I have had 51 trips around the sun and I celebrate a birthday on November 4. However, there was another significant November 4 and that was in 2004. The current Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the opposition, stood here and articulated the fact that under the old system, before we had managed to fix that system, the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia would be severely penalized under the old system. That was ratified through the accords, signed on, and that is why these accords should be honoured.

This member should know that her own caucus is in the midst of a conflict of conscience. They know that this is going to hurt the people of Nova Scotia. We have seen that the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley is torn by this. He is looking at voting against the budget. This is devastating. Do the right thing and honour the accord.

[June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to raise again this question that I raised earlier with regard to the accord, especially on such an important day as today when we are discussing the budget and the shortcomings in the budget.

Of the many shortcomings, I think of the way that the government turned its back on and withdrew from the Atlantic accord. Because of the impact that has had on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Nova Scotia, I think it is appropriate that I am able to address this in adjournment proceedings this evening.

I recall the day, February 14, 2005, when my colleagues joined with the provincial government and then Premier John Hamm and we signed that momentous accord that some Nova Scotians refer to as the single greatest day for the people of Nova Scotia since the discovery of oil and gas off our coast.

I know that when the parliamentary secretary gets up to answer my question she is going to say in her reply that everything is being abided by and the commitment to the people of Nova Scotia is not being challenged. That is not in fact the truth. That is totally false.

Let us listen to some of our foremost and respected economists, not just in Atlantic Canada but in this country, including Wade Locke from Memorial University , who states that $11 billion will be lost to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Mr. Paul Hobson, a respected economist from Acadia University, who states that $1 billion will be lost by the province of Nova Scotia.

Right across the Atlantic provinces, this is not going unnoticed. Peter O'Brien, a former Atlantic vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and certainly no big friend of the Liberal Party of Canada, outright condemns the new formula that was put forward in the government's last budget.

He said not long ago through an op-ed that when the changes were made he was willing to accept the word of the federal finance minister and Nova Scotia's regional minister, but now he states, “Now, faced with the indisputable analysis from two respected economists, it is obvious that” what has come from this government is “spin”. He said that the government “did not tell us that the budget established a cap on the combined equalization transfers and revenue from the Atlantic accord, which would penalize” these two provinces.

What we have seen from the government throughout this whole play is a bad imitation of Howie Mandel on Deal or No Deal. We have heard the regional minister, the member for Central Nova, say that if the people of Nova Scotia do not want this deal, okay, and the government will see them in court if they do not think they are getting a fair deal.

This is something that the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador already had. This is something that they fought for and received. This is not something additional.

That is why I ask the government to stand by the agreement that was signed between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government and to deliver to the people of Nova Scotia what is theirs.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie touches on several very important points.

I would like to ask him something specific. It has to do with the performance of the government over the last number of weeks and what we have seen with its approach to funding student summer jobs.

We have seen the mess that has been made in restructuring that program with the students who have been hurt and the community groups that have been devastated. The government has tried to keep the company line saying that this was the right thing to do, but it knows that it has jigged up. It has gone back to try to straighten it out and it is going back to try to support some of these very worthy groups. I commend the groups for being vigilant and trying to stay on this message and fight for what they have been doing over the years.

My question for the member is this. Where is this money coming from? There is no new pot of money. Will the government be stealing from other sources, perhaps from programs that could benefit the workers whom he represents? Is this going to be another excuse that, “We had to take the money to straighten out the mess that we made for the students”? Is this going to be another excuse to walk away from the workers who need that money now?

[Fisheries Act, 2007, May 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure anybody following the debate at home today is happy to see the member stand up and represent the viewpoint of the fleet from Mississauga South. However, I think the member's intervention today is probably one of the most important of all the speakers who have voiced their concerns because there is nobody in the chamber who is more respected when it comes to procedure and House affairs than the member. He lives it.

The concerns that he has expressed in his intervention today are very important. I have tried to equate it to something similar to the replacement worker legislation that came forward where substantive amendments were made in committee but were ruled out of order by the chair. Are we looking at potentially the same thing in this instance if the current bill does not go to committee before second reading? Is it only minor changes that will be able to be made on the legislation?