Robert Thibault

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a great disaster. I am afraid we would head in that direction if the Conservative government ever got a majority. We know the government does not like the regional development authority. We know the Prime Minister does not think the federal government should be doing anything outside of Ottawa and maybe Washington, that the provinces should have full control over everything and that the federal government should be reduced to a very essential international role.

I do not share that opinion. I believe there is a role for the federal government to provide opportunity to all Canadians so everybody across the country has a similar opportunity. What the regional development agencies can do very well is create partnerships among the communities, provincial governments, the federal government, community organizations, local business and do some development. That financial capacity by the federal government in conjunction with these communities and provinces has done a lot of good in the country. In Atlantic Canada good knowledge and partnerships have been created and they should be maintained.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

It was interesting listening to the fisheries minister. It is amazing how people can change their views. He has said in the House and in the media that Premier Danny Williams is wrong, that he is not stating the facts. In a sense he is saying that he is lying, or that he does not understand, that he is not intelligent. I know him to be a very intelligent guy.

The Premier of Nova Scotia is saying exactly what that member said a couple of years ago; that the Atlantic accord has to be above and beyond any other change in programs, any new programs. He said that a decision did not have to be made. He said that premiers do not have to swallow a poisoned pill. The minister now has a different understanding. His mathematics are different.

A change happens in a member when he spends too much time in a Challenger jet. He sees numbers and the facts differently. As a minister, he now understands things in a completely different way than he did when he was a member. He somehow believes that he has a clear insight into the finances of Newfoundland and Labrador from his office in Ottawa, finances that are impossible to see from St. John's, that Premier Williams absolutely cannot understand. He cannot see that less is more.

I will speak about other matters also.

We cannot say that the budget is all bad. Not all the initiatives in the budget are bad. It is theoretically impossible to have the largest spending budget in the history of Canada to not have a few good initiatives in it. I welcome the capital tax exemption for Canadians. The Conservative government had a lot of money with which to work. It had large surpluses that were built up by the Liberal government. It had a lot of potential.

I cannot support the budget because it is a huge lost opportunity, and I regret that. The Prime Minister has not tried to hide the intent of the budget. It is intended to target a group of people in the most populace regions of the most populace provinces who are most likely to change their vote for the Conservatives and force a majority government. That is it. The budget is all about majority building, not nation building.

When we have the ability and the surpluses to build a nation, in my mind and in the minds of all Canadians, we should try to assist those who are most in need. We should try to develop potential when there are problems.

The government had an opportunity to assist Canadians in problem situations. With the proper investments, the government could have helped them out. It could have given them a hand up so they could have full participation in the economy. The government could have helped other regions. What do we see? We see targeted money going to the most populace areas, to the richest provinces. The government is ignoring single seniors and families and children in poverty who are in great need. The government needs to make real investment in innovation and post-secondary education. We do not see that. Money is not targeted for those who need it. It is very simple to send a lot of money to Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta in an attempt to influence those urbanites to vote for the Conservatives. That is all I see.

With respect to the Atlantic accord, Nova Scotia signed an agreement that its natural resources, such as offshore gas, would be used for its benefit and the money would be above and beyond any other funding program in equalization, health, education or infrastructure.

The Premier of Nova Scotia now has to swallow a poisoned pill. If he wants new money in equalization under the new formula, he has to forgo the potential benefits of the Atlantic accord, benefits that would have been there for the next 15 years. He has to sign away the future of Nova Scotia for much needed cash in the short term. This is unfair and it is certainly contrary to the intent of the accord and contrary to the stated intentions of the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. That is unacceptable.

There is no new money for ACOA. We see diminished funding. We see less spending and investments by ACOA. There is a huge opportunity to maintain the principle, but we know the Prime Minister does not like the agency and that it will suffer the death of a thousand cuts over time.

There were some good initiatives for our farmers a couple of weeks ago. There was an opportunity in the budget to assist the regions, to help farmers in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Nova Scotia where we produce less than we consume. We are not part of the problem in overproduction, but our farmers are being starved out of the industry. There is nothing in the budget to help them. The opportunity was there to work with the provincial government, but we do not see that potential.

When we see the attack on the Wheat Board, we know supply management is at risk. Some time ago he called it a glorified communist plot against the free market. I do not remember the exact terms he used, but it is the same type of thinking with which he has been attacking the Wheat Board. When the Prime Minister applies that to supply management, rest assured our supply management sector will be in trouble.

In my part of the country the poultry farmers and producers, egg producers and dairy farmers are the basic building blocks of the community. They are stable and doing quite well, not leaping great riches, but they are supplying jobs and participating in the economy. They need domestic protection to be maintained. A government sponsored price fixing cartel I guess is what he called supply management. We have to be very vigilant and seriously call the government to task on these matters.

I am pleased that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in the House to speak. He was on the committee of fisheries and oceans when a report called for more funding for small craft harbours, which I agreed with as a minister. I was minister of ACOA at the time. I was able to get a $100 million investment over five years into small craft harbours. That expired this year.

In our election platform last year we promised to put in even more money, and that is what is needed. What do we see? We see the government letting it expire. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans hypocritically called for more funding when he was in opposition. Now that he is Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, he is calling for less funding. Not only did he let that $20 million a year lapse by not reintroducing the funding next year, but there is less funding for Small Craft Harbours.

I was amazed and amused, but irritated, yesterday when on a question from the Bloc Québécois, he indicated in the House that he would find some money here and there for the wharf in the Bloc member's riding to get his support for Bill C-45. There are good elements to Bill C-45, but there are some very difficult, scary elements for the fishing industry that he does not seem to want to clarify.

I remember the opposition talking about how it was important to invest in the Digby wharf. We do not see that any more. There have been five years of legal wrangling brought about because the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley made some very serious allegations, allegations and questions that I shared, and they had to be answered. The legal process ended up 14 months ago.

We were told that the fault was the contract written by the Department of Transport. Has the Minister of Transport stepped up to the plate? Do we see anything in the budget to get that facility back in the hands of the community? I believe it should be owned by Small Craft Harbours, like the other fishing harbours, and administered by a local harbour authority with the proper funding assistance. We see none of that.

There is the Digby/St. John ferry service. Last year I was pleased that the federal government, with the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, found a short term two year solution for that ferry service. However, I did not see anything about it in the budget, but I will keep some hope. I understand the bureaucrats within the Department of Transport are working seriously at finding a long term solution. I encourage the minister to take quick action to ensure that we know a good year or year and a half in advance of the termination of the agreement that there will be a long term service there so businesses can make the necessary plans.

The government had a real opportunity to assist working families. What did it give them? In some cases $20 a week. It did nothing for the working poor. We know the federal government does not want to put anything in the second budget or third budget next year. It wants to force an election. It gave away every opportunity it had to help the poor.

If promised next year, there will be another cut in the GST. That is $6 billion. The $6 billion invested in the child tax benefit would bring a million children above the poverty line, and he has given away that potential. We know that next year it will be a very difficult budget. I am afraid we may go back toward deficit financing in the medium to short term with the type of budget introduced this year. We are not helping to build our country or our nation. Nor are we helping those most in need.

I am afraid I cannot support this budget. While I like some initiatives within it, it would be impossible for me to stand in support of a budget that throws away so much opportunity to build a nation.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak about the way the money was being used in Nova Scotia. The premier of Nova Scotia took the advance payments that came under the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore agreement and put them against the debt, the debt created by Premier Buchanan and Greg Kerr and the group, and reduced the fiscal payouts on interest by $40 million a year. That was a very responsible thing to do.

Fiscally, Nova Scotians are having a hard time this year. The difficulty would be $40 million or $50 million worse had that decision not been taken. Nova Scotians also would have liked to have a tax break, but I think the more responsible thing was done by Premier Hamm. I congratulate him on doing that and I implore the federal government, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to restore the full Atlantic accord so that such decisions can be continued in the future.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, rather than take the few remaining minutes that I have to talk about all the questions of fiscal transfers and equalization transfers, I would like to take the member to Halifax this evening, where we would sit with Michael Baker, the minister of finance, who has to write the Nova Scotia budget for tomorrow.

What he has been expecting through the years is that increases in equalization would be above and beyond the money that he is getting from the offshore accord. He learned on Monday that this was no longer the case. It was an either-or decision, in which he could take the old formula but not participate in the new equalization scheme, so there would be no more money, or he could take a few more dollars, which would be a help this year, and it would be welcome money in Nova Scotia, let me assure the member, but he would be putting at risk and jeopardizing the future prosperity of Nova Scotians.

This is a very tough decision for a gentleman who is also going through a very difficult personal time. I wish Minister Baker good health and good luck.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of the motion by the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. It is a great motion that illustrates very well the concerns that we have in Atlantic Canada.

Canadian seniors particularly saw $25 billion to $30 billion being ripped off from their savings by a broken promise on income trusts. Atlantic Canadians are seeing hundreds of millions, if not billions, more being stolen from their provincial treasuries by breaking this promise on the Atlantic accord.

It is a calculated manoeuvre that comes out of a sense of entitlement by the leader of the Conservative Party, an entitlement to be Prime Minister in a government that would have a majority so that he could bring forward an agenda that would be much more right wing than anything we have seen in decades in this country. That is what he is attempting here. If he wanted to build a nation rather than a majority, he would be looking at assisting the weakest so that they could meet their potential and bring the country up in all regions.

He could have looked at lowering taxes for those with a lower income, lowering the taxes that he increased in the last budget. He could have increased the child tax benefit, helping all Canadians of low and modest income. He could have assisted single seniors, who are among the hardest hit in our country, from the rising cost of fuel and other problems that make the basic cost of living go up quite a lot. He could have assisted on child poverty. There are still a million children living in poverty.

Next year he intends in his budget, according to past promises, to reduce the GST again by another per cent, which would be roughly $6 billion. That would bring a million children out of poverty, but there is none of that.

He could have assisted students, but when he sees the plight of the students, it is a little like Marie Antoinette before the French revolution who said, “Let them eat cake”. Now the minister says “Let them buy steaks”.

Some investments and calculations are based on “who we can get to vote for us”. There is a ring around Toronto where people are quite affluent and another ring of people around Montreal, so he goes after those people. As for the rest of the country, it does not matter too much. Alberta will do fine. It gets some money. Provinces such as Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia get zero, not one penny more.

The Prime Minister has often said that Atlantic Canada has a culture of defeatism. He wants to make sure that by doing this, we are completely defeated.

The Atlantic accord was a hard fought victory for Atlantic Canada. A lot of people carried a lot of weight. Dr. Hamm is to be commended on the work he did. The then minister, the member for Halifax West, the members from Newfoundland, all the Atlantic caucus worked with the government. We could not always get what we wanted. It took a long time. It was a battle of many years, but finally we did get it. Premier Williams of Newfoundland joined that battle. He did a lot of work on it.

The situation at that time was that the offshore revenues would go to the federal government. The federal government would return 100% of those revenues to the provincial governments, but a large part of that would be calculated against equalization. The ability of the provinces to use these resources, which are finite in nature and very expensive to extract, was quite limited in improving their overall economy.

Those provinces made the argument successfully that they should get all of those revenues and that they should be able to invest that in their provinces and that it should not be calculated against future considerations, changes in equalization programs or anything else. It should be above and beyond what they would normally get.

In the last budget by the Liberal government there was an increase in equalization and it did not reduce the money for the accord. There was no question of making choices. The money was above and beyond. The provinces had the right to expect that it would be like that in the future.

What do we see this year? We have a province like Nova Scotia with a lot of requirements for highway infrastructure, for investments in education, health care, social services, productivity, research and development, the modern economy. It was hoping that equalization would give it a few dollars more.

They knew that the Prime Minister would be putting a lot of money in the equalization formula to appease those votes he is trying to get in the more populous provinces so they could expect to get that money by election day. “No, Russian roulette is what you are going to have to play, Williams; Russian roulette, MacDonald. You choose now. Take a few dollars more this year and forgo billions of dollars for your province in the future years”.

That is a very difficult situation. It is a very difficult thing for those premiers to do, to look at the natural heritage, that oil and gas that is in the ground that can buy their citizens a better future, and say that has to be traded away against a few dollars now. We know that is what he wants them to do. We saw it in his budget last year where he said in his budget that he did not like the offshore agreement that had been negotiated, so he found a way to get rid of it.

Whom do we have to defend Atlantic Canada? The Minister of Fisheries, who as a Progressive Conservative and as a Conservative was very adamant on fighting for it. He was very adamant that it had to be 100%. Now I hear him say that the premier of Newfoundland is lying. I think he thinks that a few flights in the Challenger jet gives them much better capacity to analyze the fiscal capacity of Newfoundland than anybody else can, but that cannot be done from St. John's. One has to come to Ottawa. One has to sit next to the Prime Minister a few days and then one can do that.

He did not get in the budget what he had promised us. Money for small craft harbours, when he was on the fisheries committee he always talked about more money for small craft harbours. We did not see that. There was a reduction to the tune of some $30 million annually. Custodial management was not mentioned. We have not seen that anywhere and he remains an apologist.

While in opposition, the member for Central Nova was a fierce fighter for the rights of Nova Scotia and now he is a lapdog for the Prime Minister. He watches our money, the money for which the premiers fought so hard, being taken away, being eroded by force. I am forced to make a very difficult decision. I would like to be at Tim Hortons in Pictou if he dares to go back there. I would assume that the coffee and the reception would be very cool. He may need the company of Condoleezza Rice as somebody to sit with him.

I listened to the Minister of Finance when he was reading his budget speech. He said that the long days of bickering between the federal and provincial governments were over. I have not heard a quote like that since I read about Neville Chamberlain talking about peace in our times right before the second world war.

Now the premiers are speaking out. Rodney MacDonald, the premier of Nova Scotia, does not attack the Prime Minister very easily. He was the only cabinet minister in the John Hamm government to get on the leadership team of the Prime Minister when he was seeking the leadership. He has been very loyal to him. He was one of the three co-chairs in Nova Scotia of his campaign. He was very mad about the way they were being played, like a fiddle I think is the way that it was mentioned in a Nova Scotia newspaper.

Jane Purves, chief of staff to the premier of Nova Scotia during the time of John Hamm, a cabinet minister herself, minister of education, knows how difficult it is to make ends meet in the Nova Scotia budget. She was planning to run in Halifax for the Conservatives and today she is not so sure. I was reading those things. I do not know that she wants to go around defending the budget. What she and the premier, and Liberal MPs and MLAs had for many years argued and fought for and finally got, with one stroke of a pen the premier and the minister of finance of Nova Scotia were put in a position where they have to play Russian roulette, a few dollars more this year and maybe billions of dollars less.

If there is no oil and gas industry, it is an easy decision. If there is no expansion, if the second field or future fields do not go on stream, take the money, get the new equalization money. But if it happens in the future, it could be the wrong decision, like premier Buchanan made in his agreements with a Conservative government previously.

I think the minister of finance was Greg Kerr. He ran against me last time and will run again. He will be much more happy because this is his type of management. This is a type of management that, under his tutelage, got Nova Scotia a billion dollars in debt, and it is a small province.

Premier Hamm and a lot of other people worked hard with the former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard to get the Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Canada accord which gives opportunity and hope. The Conservatives want to see defeat for Atlantic Canadians.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member is not supporting the motion put forward by the member from Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would still like to offer a warning. The member and his party intend to support this budget because, in their opinion, it partly addresses the thorny issue of fiscal imbalance. I do not see anything in this budget that bears this out, that ensures that money collected this year will be collected in years to come. There is only a promise from the current government, the Conservative government.

In 2004, the same government said it fully supported the Atlantic accord. Now, it is asking the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to play Russian roulette, and to think about accepting a few more equalization dollars, since all the promises made under the Atlantic accord are not being kept.

I can easily imagine that next year, or any other year in which the Government of Quebec is not holding an election and is not in an election period, the Conservative Minister of Finance would be less generous to the Government of Quebec than he was a few days before a provincial election.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for taking part in this debate.

He talked about the aerospace industry in Quebec. We all admit it is a great industry. The aerospace industry is also present in other regions outside Quebec. Although Nova Scotia's economy is modest, this province also has an aerospace industry. We have IMP, General Dynamics and a company that is part of EADS. For these companies to be able to participate, they need the economic spinoffs. They have been able to grow thanks to important Canadians investments over the last 10 or 15 years. Part of the projects was supposed to go to the regions. Technology Partnerships Canada has greatly helped the aerospace industry in Quebec and in other regions.

I would like to hear the member's comments. Does he recognize that these Canada-wide investments have had important economic spinoffs for Quebec and for the development of companies working in the aerospace sector?

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for his support for the motion and his participation in this debate.

I would like to know whether he is aware of any reason other than pure far right Conservative ideology to explain how, on the same day that a budget surplus of $12 or $13 billion is announced, a $6 million program is cancelled that makes it possible for disadvantaged people in our society to enforce their rights and go to court to have the court decide whether, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they are entitled to services? We are talking about education for francophones outside Quebec, for example, in the Maritimes, in Nova Scotia, where I live.

In my day, we had English-language schools. They were called French, but they were English. The teachers were francophone, but all the books we had to read were in English. The administration was francophone, but the classes were taught in English. After grade 12, when I went to a French-language university, I was at a disadvantage, in terms of language, and that was very difficult.

Statistics in Canada tell us that in the Atlantic provinces, particularly for minority language groups, the literacy rate is very low. On that same day, not only was $6 million for the court challenges program taken away, but funding for literacy was also cut.

In addition, jobs are also being cut for young students who are now in universities and schools and preparing for their future. They are losing their funding, as are women who want to enforce their rights. At the same time, this government says that it supports the Charter of Rights, but it supports it by taking away the oxygen it needs to survive.

I would therefore ask the member whether he knows of a reason to explain this other than far right Conservative ideology.

[Anti-terrorism Act, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his discussion, participation and contribution to the debate. It is always a difficult question when we look at it as reducing somebody's rights to protect the public.

I was part of the debate when the original bill went through. At that time we had a sunset clause so the debate would happen again and we would have an evaluation as to whether it was necessary to reduce the rights of individuals to protect society and to have preventive detention the hearings if we had reasonable grounds.

However, nobody felt too great about reducing rights. Now we have had five years experience and they have not been invoked because it has not been necessary. Officers of the law have made arrests in Toronto and they have used existing and other provisions of our Criminal Code and our legal system to protect Canadians.

Now we come to that discussion again. In light of not having had to use it, does the member feel that it is necessary to keep this or are there systems in place where the law protection organizations can protect us adequately?

[Post-secondary Education, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in an increasingly competitive global economy, our country must bank on the future to maintain Canadians' prosperity and quality of life.

Now more than ever, the government has to promote access to higher education. Our country's future is being played out every day on its college and university campuses. The students attending these institutions today will be supporting the government's social and economic programs in the not-so-distant future. That is why we have to do our part to make sure they have all the tools they need to take on the challenges that lie ahead.

The 21st-century economy requires a 21st-century education system. That is the message the demonstrators outside this House are sending us.

We have understood that message, and we will give our unconditional support to a policy designed to increase the federal government's role in supporting our students financially.