Debates of Oct. 30th, 2007

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the question by the member for Cape Breton—Canso regarding the implementation of the agreement with Nova Scotia on the Atlantic accord.

Earlier this month, an agreement was announced between the Prime Minister and Premier MacDonald to resolve Nova Scotia's concerns related to recent changes to the equalization program.

This agreement will ensure that the province will receive at least the full benefits it expected to receive from its accord at the time it was signed in 2005 and builds on measures introduced in budget 2007 which set out a new equalization program that applies equally to all provinces while respecting existing agreements with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Formal letters have been exchanged between the federal finance minister and Nova Scotia's finance minister outlining details regarding our recent agreement on the accord.

This agreement was consistent with our prior commitment that flexibility would be provided to ensure a smooth transition to the new principles-based equalization program.

We are providing Nova Scotia a cumulative best-of guarantee to ease its transition to the new equalization system, guaranteeing Nova Scotia will do at least as well on a cumulative basis as it would have under the formula in place at the time the 2005 accord was signed.

With this guarantee, Nova Scotia no longer has to be concerned about the risk of opting into the new equalization formula too early and forgoing any potential benefits of the previous formula.

How much Nova Scotia will benefit from this agreement will depend on economic variables from economic growth, tax revenues, population, and revenues from natural resources, including oil and gas.

We can, however, guarantee that under this agreement Nova Scotia will receive all the benefits it expected to receive at the time it signed the 2005 accord, and possibly more under the new equalization formula.

Indeed, for 2007-08 alone, the new formula provides a net benefit of $95 million in equalization and offshore offsets to Nova Scotia, which the province can use for priorities like health care, education and infrastructure.

The equalization changes which have been agreed to will require amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and we intend to introduce these changes as soon as possible as part of the second budget 2007 implementation act.

In addition, the agreement with Nova Scotia resolves the long outstanding issue with respect to Crown share adjustment payments. Through an independent panel, we will work to find an approach that is agreeable to both governments, something the previous Liberal government failed to do.

With regard to the concerns of the member opposite, I quote the words of Nova Scotia's own premier:

The [Liberal] opposition, they want to talk about the pieces of paper, and this and that.

We have the agreements in place and we're moving forward with that.

I think it's unfair to the people of our province that members of the opposition...have tried to paint a picture where somehow there is no agreement. I can assure you that there is an agreement.

If Nova Scotia MPs from all parties are not standing up and supporting this, that says to me, No. 1, that they're not in favour of us receiving the full benefits of the offshore accord.

I hope that our MPs, especially some of our Liberal MPs, after hearing some of the comments...are going to stand up and be counted.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

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?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the October 10 announcement allows Nova Scotia to benefit from the new strengthened equalization formula, while guaranteeing the province's benefits under the 2005 accord are fully protected.

This government is proud to have worked with the Government of Nova Scotia to resolve its concerns about its offshore accord. Premier MacDonald has made it clear that he believes this agreement provides important benefits to the residents of Nova Scotia.

Former premier, John Hamm, who negotiated the original accord in 2005, said this of the new agreement: “It fits very nicely with the original accord”.

To quote the Halifax Daily News columnist Charles Moore, “this is a win-win situation. Kudos to Premier MacDonald, the Prime Minister, the member for Central Nova and the member for South Shore--St. Margaret's for putting their shoulders to the wheel and working to arrive at this accommodation”.

Nova Scotia can no more--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to take part in this adjournment debate. On October 18, 2007, I asked the government the following question:

--Elections Canada investigated this $1.2 million Conservative Party laundering scam.

There is no evidence these expenses were incurred by their candidates. Some of their candidates said they did not even know about them. Others said they were pressured to contribute to the national advertising.

Elections Canada says that the Conservative Party used local campaigns to hide the fact that they spent more than they were allowed to and then they had the gall to claim bogus rebates.

Ordinary Canadians may be listening to this and wondering what the importance is of it.

On pages 188 and 189 of Tom Flanagan's book, he states quite clearly in the third paragraph, the second sentence:

Even though there is a cap on national campaign spending, it is easy and legal to exceed it by transferring expenditures to local campaigns that are not able to spend up to their own legal limits.

That may be the case. The problem exists when those moneys that are transferred into local campaigns during an election are used to purchase national advertising, not local advertising for the local candidate, and then allows the candidate to claim a rebate for expenditures that did not directly benefit that candidate.

We may ask ourselves why that is important. One of the Conservative parliamentary secretaries, who is the member for Beauport—Limoilou, listed, in her electoral expenses to Elections Canada 2006, the amount of $37,454.69 for several ad expenses. In fact, her campaign received a transfer from the national of the Conservative Party of $43,174.69. She then, through her official agent, went on and claimed a rebate of that $37,000, a 60% rebate on the $37,454.69. In fact, that amount represented 81.35% of her total campaign expenses.

However, when one looks at the ads that were bought, those ads do not show her name anywhere, do not show the name of her riding and were not posters in her riding or radio campaigns in her riding or television spots that played giving her name, showing her picture or giving the name of her riding.

Elections Canada has clearly stated that--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry but the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons now has the floor.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in response to my hon. colleague's question.

It is quite clear, as we have stated numerous times in this chamber, that we have done absolutely nothing wrong in terms of our election financing. In fact I want to relate back that when I was the general manager of a provincial party in Saskatchewan, I was also on a committee that revised the elections act in Saskatchewan. One of the precedents that we used was the Canada Elections Act. We actually mirrored, I would say, 95% of the rules and regulations contained in the federal elections act in what we wanted to do in revisions to the provincial elections act.

With respect to this issue, there is absolutely nothing wrong, as long as the local candidate who chooses to run a national ad puts a disclaimer at the bottom indicating that it is authorized by the official agent for the candidate, with their name and address, that type of thing. It is quite common. All parties do it and it is legal.

We have done absolutely nothing wrong. Legal opinions, and they are many and varied, have substantiated that. I am sure that the court case that we will initiate so that our candidates can rightfully get the rebates will substantiate our claims.

I want to contrast that which is completely legal with the actions of one of my hon. colleague's members, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country who has resigned his seat under allegations of improprieties with elections financing and election spending.

There are allegations that the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country gave cash payments for services rendered in the last election which is highly illegal. There are serious allegations that the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country purposely did not disclose election expenses on his election return which is an extremely serious allegation and if proven true, could result in either fines or imprisonment, or both.

I have heard members on the other side try to defend their former colleague's actions. The deputy leader said as recently as yesterday that one cannot be tried by the newspaper, yet what do we hear from members opposite on a daily basis? They take only allegations and try to purport that our party and many of our candidates during the last election purposely did something illegal.

Those members have the temerity to suggest that in here, but none of them will go outside this assembly to make the same allegations and name the same people they have defamed inside this assembly. Of course, everyone knows that members have parliamentary privilege and immunity inside this chamber, but they do not outside the chamber. Not one of them has had the courage to walk outside and make the same claims, the same allegations where they do not have parliamentary privilege and immunity. I think that speaks volumes for the legitimacy of their allegations, what they are trying to do here.

This is nothing more than petty partisan politics. They are trying to smear our candidates because they know that they do not have any other issues on which they can appeal to Canadians.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with, as the member over there claims, petty partisan politics. Elections Canada itself has disavowed and disallowed the claims of a significant number of Conservative candidates from the 2006 election, some of whom are sitting in this chamber today. Elections Canada has disallowed their expenses and has refused to issue rebates. In other cases, rebates were issued and Elections Canada is now investigating. That is the second point.

The third point is that when he contrasts, as the member attempted to do, the situation that took place with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, allegations were made of improprieties and possible breaking of the electoral act, how did the member respond? How did the leader of the official opposition respond? He immediately requested the member's resignation. The member gave it. Secondly--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member tries to defend the actions of the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country by saying that he immediately resigned.

I have been in politics a long time and I have heard allegations levied against many candidates from time to time--

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

They asked for an investigation.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, of course the peanut gallery on the other side do not want to hear the answer, but they are going to be forced to.

I have heard many allegations from time to time levied against candidates and sitting members, scurrilous, untrue allegations, but in my experience if an allegation is not true, the member does not resign because the member knows that he or she has done nothing wrong.

We have an instance here where all of a sudden the allegations were levied and a member resigned.

If the member's point, where they should resign based on allegations is true, what can she say then when in December 2005 in the last election campaign when allegations were levied against the former finance minister in the former Liberal government, the member for Wascana--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, this adjournment debate relates to a question raised with the minister on October 24 when I asked:

...the throne speech failed to outline any vision for primary producers in this country. [The minister] virtually ignored the fact that programming agreements with the provinces end on March 31.

Let me repeat that virtually all farm programs related to safety nets depend on those agreements and the government fails to show leadership, either announcing completed agreements or authorizing an extension, but that is not unusual for this new government when it come to farm policy.

Let us review some facts.

During the last election, the Prime Minister promised to eliminate the CAIS program. It never happened. He changed the name and made a few cosmetic changes that were already in the works.

The Prime Minister promised a disaster relief program, but as yet there are no details and no funding.

The Prime Minister promised to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board and in fact directed his minister to spend most of his time pushing that ideological agenda rather than dealing with pressing producer income issues. On that point, the actions of the Prime Minister and his henchmen were found by the Federal Court to be illegal.

While the government sits on its hands, rural MPs are getting calls from frantic producers in the beef and hog sectors who see their whole life's work being destroyed before their very eyes. Their life's work is being destroyed, not because of inefficiencies on their part but because of a high Canadian dollar and a highly supported, vertically integrated industry south of our border. The United States government supports its farmers, while our new government fails to take any action.

It is tragic when we see some of the headlines. A headline today read:

Beef business going bust; Alberta may lose up to 40 per cent of cow-calf operations by Christmas.

It is the same across the entire country and the minister sits on his hands.

Atlantic Canada is on the verge of losing its hog industry. Many of the most efficient hog operators are packing it in and hoping to get out with some dignity and the minister still sits on his hands. Why?

We saw a huge surplus today and tax breaks but those tax breaks will not do any good to those producers who are out there, who invested hundreds of thousands of dollars and who are seeing their operations go down the drain while the government sits idle.

The minister may dislike ad hoc programs. However, right now we have the livestock industry across this country facing financial ruin that needs immediate help. Farm crises do not occur on the government's timetable. They happen suddenly and require action.

Previous governments acted on potatoes, on PVYn, on poultry and on ad hoc payments for the grain and oil seeds industry when the safety nets did not do the trick. The current government has demonstrated no intent to respond to this farm crisis.

Will the government not act on this crisis facing our hog and beef sectors? Why will it not, at the very least, give some certainty to safety net programming after March 31?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be a step or two behind the rest of the industry. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, working side by side with provincial and territorial ministers, has not only agreed to a bold new vision for the future of agriculture in Canada, but is well aware of the importance to producers and all stakeholders of a smooth transition.

With a view to developing a new vision for agriculture in the 21st century, governments held extensive consultations over the past year and listened to over 3,000 stakeholders, the majority of whom were primary producers. Based on what was heard, in June 2007 federal-provincial-territorial, ministers of agriculture agreed to “Growing Forward”, a vision designed to address the needs of the primary producer as well as the broad interests of the entire sector.

The intent of “Growing Forward” is to foster an industry that is innovative and competitive, that actively manages risks and that responds to the priorities of Canadians. Federal, provincial and territorial governments are now in the process of negotiating the specific policy outcomes and initiatives to be contained within “Growing Forward”.

While we continue to work with the provinces to develop policy and program details for “Growing Forward”, the Minister of Agriculture and his provincial and territorial colleagues understand the need for continuity. It is for this reason that the ministers agreed late last week to continue current programming while developing new and improved programming to incorporate the bold new vision and principles of “Growing Forward”. It is important that we ensure that the programs under “Growing Forward” work for farmers and the entire industry.

The hon. member is clearly left behind as this government does what it promised to do and actually gets things done. The Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues are delivering on a commitment to replace Canadian agricultural income stabilization with programs that are simpler, more responsive, bankable and predictable.

As part of the “Growing Forward” vision, we are launching a new suite of business risk management programs. The suite of BRM programs includes: AgriInvest, a program where both producers and governments contribute to a producers' savings account that will allow producers to easily predict the government's contribution and have flexibility; AgriStability, a new margin based program that provides support when a producer experiences a decline in farm income of more than 15%; AgriInsurance, an existing program which includes insurance against production losses for specified perils; and AgriRecovery, a disaster relief framework which provides a coordinated process for federal, provincial and territorial governments to respond rapidly when disasters strike, filling gaps not covered by existing programs.

Putting farmers first means moving quickly as possible to implement improved BRM programming. As we move forward, we ensure that the non-BRM programming like the new BRM programming, encapsulates the bold new vision and principles of “Growing Forward”.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has a potential agreement on growing together. Is that not something? I took a look back to the 1979 agreement signed by the minister at the time, Don Mazankowski, and it was called “Growing Together”, much the same old story. We know where “Growing Together” got us. Farmers went out of business, two-thirds of the industry gone, increasing exports and incomes down. It has been the worst income situation for farmers in Canadian history over the last four years.

We want more than words from the minister. The member talks about a bold new vision. Changing the name of CAIS to AgriStability and NISA to AgriInvest will not solve the problem. When will the minister get real?

We want to see not fancy words. We want to see cash and we want to know when the minister will deliver the cash so the hog and beef industry in the country can survive?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ministers will continue to involve the sector every step of the way in the development of new programs under "Growing Forward”.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments are committed to providing notice to farmers and others in the sector, well in advance of any program changes, and we are working toward a smooth transition from existing to new programs. Continuity is the key. We are committed to ensuring momentum generated under the APF is carried forward into the new framework while taking a fresh look at current programming.

I realize this is a great departure from the 13 years of inaction from the past government. The minister recently spoke with his provincial colleagues and they are in agreement with this approach. These means moving as quickly as possible to implement improved BRM programming. It also means ensuring there is a seamless transition in implementing the new BRM programming.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry but the time has expired and the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:45 p.m.)