Geoff Regan

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague asked this question because it raises the same question about the NDP. How can the NDP members have it both ways? How is it that they could, for example, abstain from the vote on softwood lumber in order to avoid an election? Was that not an important issue for Canada in their point of view? Perhaps they did not think it was a particularly important concern in spite of the fact that it concerned and affected so many communities across the country.

I know lumber mills and employees in my province and many across the country have been affected by that, but they ignore it.

Let us face it, I think Canadians have sent us here to do a job, to make Parliament work for as long as it can, to do our best and to be as reasonable as we can to try to work together.

I think it is true that the government is trying to act as if it has a majority. It has to start recognizing that it has to consult with other parties. It has to cooperate and try to develop a consensus and bring forward bills that can reflect and achieve consensus in the House.

Should we throw all that away? The member wants to have an election and that is very nice, but it strikes me that I do not know why she wants that when I saw in the latest polls that her party is actually down. Of course we have the fact that her party announced its decision before it even read the Speech from the Throne, so guess it is no surprise.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows full well that I am not misleading the House at all on this matter. In fact, there is no written agreement now on the so-called side deal. It is really hard to tell what it is when there is nothing to look at. There is no signed document to examine. The government makes all kinds of claims about it, but even from its own claims it is clear there is less money for Nova Scotia over the next decade. Therefore, I do not know what the member is talking about.

I have to ask him this. When I look at comments in the past, for instance the Canadian Press story on April 2 this year, which referred to the Minister of National Defence, his colleague from Central Nova, he insisted the accord was not in jeopardy. He said, “The accord is still there, still in tact, except the addition that there is a new equalization formula”.

Was the defence minister misleading the House and Nova Scotians then or is he misleading the them now? He cannot have it both ways.

The member wants to claim that the accord was in tact in the budget last year. That is not the evidence. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that and say now the government has fixed the problem when it said there was no problem at the time.

On the budget, the member for Central Nova on March 22 said this in the House, “This fulfills and builds up the government's commitment to respect the offshore accord”. If that were the case, then why did he have to develop a side deal? Was he misleading the House then or is he misleading the House now?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about this newest neo-republican manifesto, or as members across the way call it, the Speech from the Throne. It is interesting that the front cover has a picture of a young boy waving a Canadian flag that is blurred and fading. It seems to me that is an apt analogy for the vague and blurred vision the Conservatives set out in the scant 16 pages that follow.

I was also intrigued, as no doubt many Canadians were, when I saw that the conclusion of this document was entitled “The North Star”. We all know the Prime Minister is viewed as one of the minions of President Bush, but I did not realize until yesterday that their goal was to have us become the north star state as is now apparent. I guess that members of the Conservative caucus must figure that if we are going to adopt the Republican platform holus-bolus, they may as well go all the way.

I will try to ignore the heckling from the harping seals across the way, although I do hope they have received permission from the Prime Minister's Office. Otherwise they will be hauled on the carpet for acting in that way.

Regular Canadians across this country are concerned with the wrong-headed direction that regime is taking us in, by walking away from Kyoto and embarrassing us internationally in the process, by having no strategy whatsoever on child poverty and no real interest. There is a void in the Conservatives' document. When it comes to any hint of a plan to help our struggling manufacturing sector meet the challenges it faces, for instance parity on the dollar. And it is not just manufacturing; there is agriculture and certainly the fisheries as well. When fishermen are selling into the U.S. market, for example, they do much better clearly when our dollar is lower. When the dollar is worth over $1 American, it creates problems and it has a big impact all over the country. There is no process or effort whatsoever from the government to address these issues.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Kitchener—Waterloo. He will be pleased to hear that I am splitting my time with him.

I did hear that my former law classmate, Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, thought this was a green throne speech in the sense that it embraces the concept of recycling. I have to agree with Elizabeth May, because this new agenda is nothing more than a thinly veiled, thinly disguised effort to recycle what are clearly a bunch of old ideas and failed policies the government has trotted out before. How bush league is that?

I know that people in Nova Scotia are disappointed, people like Carmelita Currie, a constituent of mine who took the time last month to handwrite a four page letter. Carmelita does not understand why a government sitting on a $13 billion surplus is still meanspirited enough to cut programs that help people living in poverty; that it is still meanspirited enough to cut programs for people trying to learn to read and who need help with that; that it is still meanspirited enough to cut funding for community environmental volunteers; that it is still meanspirited enough to cut support for our students who continue to face a heavy financial burden.

She wonders why the Conservatives will not use the massive surpluses they inherited, and at one time used to be so critical of, to actually cut health care wait times like they promised. We have seen no real action on that. She wonders why the neo-conservatives felt the need to grow the surpluses even bigger by increasing the lowest income tax rate to 15.5% after the Liberal government had lowered it to 15%, thus harming the least able in our society to face these issues.

Why would a prime minister betray Nova Scotia by not keeping his promise to honour the Atlantic accord? Every Nova Scotian to whom I have spoken was surprised that there is not a single word in the Speech from the Throne about the so-called side deal that was cooked up in some back room and has still to see the light of day.

The one thing that is certain is that Nova Scotians know they cannot trust the Prime Minister. They know he betrayed them by killing the Atlantic accord, a deal that was signed by the former Liberal government and the former Hamm provincial government. What did we get in its place? A handful of magic beans and an assurance that our province will get less funding over at least the next decade. There is no signed text, no supporting documents, no memorandum of understanding, no accountability and no transparency. Some deal, some government, some Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister may be able to intimidate his cowering caucus into conspicuous silence, but the Nova Scotia media has not been fooled and will not be kept from telling the truth on this. Halifax ChronicleHerald columnist Jim Meek correctly noted that it took the new government a year and a bit to tear Hamm's accord to shreds. Mr. Meek went on to point out that in fact, the new pact may not be worth the paper it’s not written on. He explained that even federal finance officials told him they had no background documents to release on the file. It is shameful.

In the Halifax Daily News, columnist David Rodenhiser asked how it could be considered an agreement when there isn't so much as a memorandum of understanding outlining what both sides have agreed to. Any other time governments reach an agreement of this sort involving money or responsibilities, the agreements are written down and all sides sign on the dotted line. Mr. Rodenhiser concluded that the Conservatives' empty promises and their petty, mean, vindictive treatment of the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley do nothing but deepen cynicism in Nova Scotia toward the Prime Minister and his gang of lapdogs.

The defence minister's snarling reply to the same member during yesterday's question period was disgraceful. It is a bit rich for him to claim that my colleague, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, was not working in the interests of Nova Scotians. Imagine. How shameful. The minister even derided the hon. member's strong stand as a personal crusade.

That dog will not hunt. That cynicism will deepen when Nova Scotians and Canadians see that the government's neo-conservative manifesto, the throne speech, is devoid of any of the values and beliefs that really make Canada the greatest country on the planet.

Those people could be forgiven, those Nova Scotians and other Canadians, for looking at the youngster on the cover of the document and thinking that the Prime Minister too is waving farewell to Nova Scotia. Like the flag that the youngster is holding, the Prime Minister's vision for our country is indeed blurred and fading.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, following the Speech from the Throne, it is normal for various ministers to come forward and speak, especially the first minister following the Prime Minister, about measures their own department is taking. The Minister of Human Resources's department, of course, had cuts to literacy funding last year.

This country is facing a grave problem in terms of a skills shortage but we heard not a word about those fundamental and important challenges and about the cuts to literacy that the minister's government made in his department. The minister shows no interest whatsoever in these subjects.

Is the minister's problem that he wants to be the justice minister? Crime is certainly a concern to all of us and we are interested in passing good legislation that makes sense and smart legislation to combat crime but if he wants to be the minister of justice, why does he not resign as Minister of Human Resources?

From where has the minister's party adopted the practice of telling the big whopper? That party has talked a thousand times about 13 years, about the 13th anniversary and about the 1993 election. The Conservatives have been in government for nearly a year. The member knows full well that it was 12 years and two months.

What advantages does the member think his party has gained by telling this enormous untruth over and over again? Most of all, in their cynicism, from what part of the history of the world did the Conservatives adopt this practice of telling this untruth over and over again?

[The Environment, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, all credible scientists, economists and environmentalists unanimously agree: This government's climate change plan will see greenhouse gas emissions increase over the next 50 years. Canadians deserve some answers. It is time for this government to tell the truth.

When will the Prime Minister admit that his ecofraud has not fooled anyone? When will he adopt the clean air act?

[Atlantic Accord, June 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley does not believe the Minister of Finance. The Premier of Saskatchewan and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador do not believe the Minister of Finance. Even the premier of my province does not believe this flim-flam act any more.

If the accord has not changed, how can he explain the 12 paragraphs of amendments in clause 80, 81 and 82 of his budget bill? Why will he not be honest with Canadians and honour the accord?

[Atlantic Accord, June 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first, we had the finance minister declaring peace in our time, even as he betrayed three provinces with his budget. Then we had the foreign affairs minister telling Nova Scotians, “We'll see you in court over the Atlantic accord”.

Now, today, we have the Prime Minister himself threatening Atlantic Canadians with court action. That is his answer to provinces that only ask that he keep his promises and honour a signed contract.

Why should Atlantic Canadians have to go to court to get the Prime Minister to keep his promise?

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague said that the government is maintaining its commitment.

I find it remarkable that members on that side and another one earlier from another province and another part of the country who have no real knowledge of the accord and have not really understood the history of it are making this claim that the government is keeping its promise, maintaining its commitment. We will not find one person in Atlantic Canada who actually believes that today, not even the government's own members.

We saw that this week when the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley voted against the government, when he stood up for Nova Scotians, for Atlantic Canadians. Now he has been booted out of his own caucus.

My hon. colleague quoted a columnist from a daily newspaper. Here is what another columnist, Mr. David Rodenhiser, said in the Halifax Daily News:

We have a government that lies to us, steals from us, and aligns itself with a party bent on tearing the nation apart. These are not proud days for Canada.

When will the government understand that it has not kept its promise? Why will it not listen to the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley who talked about the 12 clauses in the budget that deal with the accord because the Conservatives are changing it? Why are those 12 clauses there if they are in fact keeping their promise? Why are they fiddling with the accords or talking about the accords at all if they are keeping their promise and not touching them? How is that possible?

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government that I was a part of, the previous government, made an agreement with Nova Scotia that was worth $1.1 billion in the first eight years, and more in the years after that, but it went beyond any previous promise in fact, and delivered $830 million of that up front to Nova Scotia.

The member voted against the budget that implemented that deal. He has said in the past that the budget respected the accord. These days, according to the Canadian Press, he is now saying he is working to ensure the accord is honoured. How is it possible that both are true?

Second, he said on May 15, in response to a question from the member for West Nova:

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 as we saw [before].

Why was he misleading this House?

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley for his comments today and for taking part in this debate. I also thank him for his decision this week to vote against the budget, which was a very courageous move. Nova Scotians are very proud of the actions he has taken. I just wish the other Conservative members from Nova Scotia would show the same kind of intestinal fortitude.

I know the member has been carrying around for weeks a copy of the offshore accord and he referred to it at some length in his recent comments. I know he is aware that it talks about the fact that it is to apply to the equalization formula as it exists at the time. It seems to me, as I have heard comments from Conservative members today, that there has been a failure to comprehend that, a failure to comprehend what the accord is actually all about and what it means. The fact that no matter how equalization might change in the future, the accord and its provisions and the payments under it were to apply so that there would not be a clawback of offshore resource royalties from Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think there has been a failure to understand that on the other side but it is time they did. It is time that they lived up to this signed agreement. The member is absolutely right when he says that when the Government of Canada signs a contract it should live up to it. I signed that contract on behalf of the Government of Canada, as he has pointed out to me a few times, and it is time for the government to live up to it.