Geoff Regan

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the speech by my hon. member for West Nova. I had the opportunity on Friday to listen to another speech, one by the finance minister of Nova Scotia, Mr. Michael Baker, who has recently had a recurrence of cancer. I am sure hon. members would join me in expressing our wishes for his speedy recovery and successful treatment. Our thoughts go out to his family.

He said one thing in his budget speech, which I have with me. He stated:

Measures in the federal budget will widen, not close, the gap that exists between the richer and poorer provinces in this country.

That is not a Liberal finance minister of a province. He is a Progressive Conservative finance minister.

He goes on to talk about equalization and the accord being cancelled, being torn up. He says:

And new methods of allocating other federal transfers, based on a cash amount per capita, actually favour the more-populous provinces like Alberta and Ontario—the ones that already have a far greater fiscal capacity relative to Nova Scotia.

In view of those comments from finance Minister Baker of Nova Scotia, in view of the brochure that was sent out by Conservative members a few years ago that said there was no greater fraud than a promise not kept and that Nova Scotia would be left with 100% of its offshore oil and gas revenues, no small print, no excuses, no caps, what are my colleague for West Nova's comments on this betrayal?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. I find it rather remarkable that he would stand here and defend what his Prime Minister did last week, what the Minister of Finance did, what Premier Danny Williams, the Progressive Conservative premier of Newfoundland has called a betrayal, what the premier of Nova Scotia has called a betrayal, what commentators throughout Atlantic Canada are condemning.

What is most remarkable is that he himself told CBC News last week, “Would I rather see what we clearly committed done? Absolutely, but...if it can't be delivered, you try to deliver the next best”. That is a long way from the words he used a few years ago.

What I really want to know is whether he is planning to run in the next election. He should tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will follow up on the question that my hon. colleague, the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte asked.

On that technical question, I want to know if that is on what the Minister of Foreign Affairs has based his decision to support this budget. It concerns me because I am looking at one of the budget documents, which says, “Restoring Fiscal Balance for a Stronger Federation”. It states on page 16, “These provinces can permanently opt into the new Equalization system at any point in the future”. It does not talk about opting in and then opting out. It simply says that they “can permanently opt into” that system.

Why is the word “permanently” there? Does it have no meaning whatsoever? If what he is saying is true, should this not say these provinces can opt into or out of the equalization system at any point in the future?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to correct a small error I made this morning when I said the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley had a phobia of the media and was not talking about this. Apparently the media did find him yesterday, and I apologize for that error. I learned, after my speech this morning, that he had talked to the Chronicle Herald yesterday.

It reports this morning that he spoke up in defence of an equalization plan. He said, “ the important thing is that Nova Scotia can choose to keep the accord or opt into the new equalization system”.

That is not what we agreed to when we signed the accord. The members on that side of the House obviously do not understand the accord. It is not about changing equalization; it is about changing the agreement related to offshore royalties. It is about saying that, as agreed originally, these two provinces get to have the primary benefit of their offshore resources. Members over there do not get it. It is like my hon. colleague says, they do not know the difference between the offshore accords and a Honda Accord.

Would my hon. colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who has been very effective on this issue, comment on that?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the budget had done that. I wish the Conservatives had kept their commitments to Nova Scotia and to Newfoundland and Labrador in this budget, but they clearly did not. They promised that they would not cap those revenues, that they would not cap equalization for those two provinces, but they have done so.

My hon. colleague talks about the record and what was said and what was not said. I do not know if he heard my speech. I clearly quoted his own Conservative members from Newfoundland and Labrador who have acknowledged that they have broken their promise. They have acknowledged that they tried to convince the government to keep non-renewable resource revenues out, but they failed. The government's own members have acknowledged it, yet how can they possibly have the temerity to stand here and suggest these things now? It is unbelievable.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member calls me a minister, I am sure he is thinking ahead and not just thinking behind.

It is interesting that the comments we are hearing from the opposition members are not those from members from Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia. The member claims he understands this. I do not think he understands the accords one bit. I was there. I took part in the negotiations. I had the honour of signing on behalf of the Government of Canada. I know what those accords said.

The accords said that these new agreements would apply, that these provisions would apply to any new equalization program, no matter how it changed. What the government has said in the budget is that the province can either have the accords or the new equalization, but not both. It will not apply the accords to the new equalization program. The government broke its commitment.

I am not surprised that members from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador on that side of the House do not have the temerity to come in here and take part in this debate.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

He admits that he lobbied to preserve the Atlantic accord but lost. Now he is being bullied into submission by the Prime Minister and he has given up.

How about the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, now the Minister of Fisheries? Surely he who was so vociferous in opposition would not give up on Newfoundland and Labrador. He told CBC News:

Would I rather see what we clearly committed done? Absolutely. But...if it can't be delivered, you try to deliver the next best.

It cannot be delivered. The decisions are made.

So mighty then, so meek now.

Failure to do what one clearly committed to is not good enough. Breaking one's word is not good enough.

Tearing up signed agreements with two provinces is not good enough.

Why will Conservative members from Nova Scotia at least not have the honesty and the dignity to admit what their Newfoundland colleagues have admitted, which is that they too are afraid of the Prime Minister and they are afraid to stand up for their province? Their actions now do not stand up to their words then.

Here is what the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's said in 2004:

This is about fairness and the future of Nova Scotia...This is about honesty and about keeping promises.

What is he saying now? When ChronicleHerald reporter Steve Maher finally cornered him Tuesday, the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's said, “ if Nova Scotia has to give up the accord, it wouldn't be so bad”. How could he? When did he stop being a Nova Scotia member of Parliament and become a harpocrit?

Here is what the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley said in 2004. He said:

I call on the government to stop the rhetoric, to stop talking about all these things it is talking about and just get down to the point and say, “We made a promise. Now we are going to keep it”.

What is he saying now? We do not know. He has suddenly developed a phobia of the media. We think he might be in the witness protection program. So mighty in words, so meek in action. It is so sad.

What about the biggest flip-flopper of them all? In 2004 the member for Central Nova said, “MPs will be left to explain why they chose to abandon the interests of their province and in doing so betrayed the future prosperity of the people of Nova Scotia”.

Last year when the finance minister said that the deal with Nova Scotia had made a mess of equalization, the member said nothing. The Prime Minister obviously agreed, as we can see from the budget.

The member who has to do a lot of explaining today is the member for Central Nova. He is the one left to explain why he allowed the Prime Minister to abandon the interests of his province.

Premier Williams says, “Conservative members from his province should reconsider their future with the party”. As Premier Williams says, “they have choices”. The same is true of Nova Scotia's Conservative members. They have choices. They can say no. They can stand up for Nova Scotia. They can demand the Prime Minister honour his commitment.

Here is how the now Prime Minister concluded his speech on the topic of the accords in 2004. He said:

What is at stake is the future of Atlantic Canada, an unprecedented and historic opportunity for those provinces to get out of the have not status...What is at issue is very simple. It is the honour of the Prime Minister, and all he has to do is keep his word.

I could not have said it better myself. The Prime Minister should honour his commitment.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as a proud Nova Scotian, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate.

February 14, 2005 was a great day for Nova Scotia. I was proud to be in Halifax that day, signing an accord on behalf of the Government of Canada, an accord that gave Nova Scotia $830 million upfront and a guarantee that it would be protected in future equalization programs.

It marked a new beginning for Nova Scotia.

But this past Monday, budget day, was a dark day for my province. It was a day of deceit, duplicity and betrayal.

Today we are asking why the Prime Minister has not lived up to the promises he made during the last election. Why is he attacking the integrity of the offshore accords?

This debate is about examining what Conservatives say to get elected and what they do when they are in power. It is about how mighty the words of Nova Scotia's Conservative MPs were then and how meek their actions are now.

Here is how the current Prime Minister explained the issue on November 4, 2004:

This is an opportunity and it is a one-time opportunity. It is a short term opportunity to allow these provinces to kick-start their economic development, to get out of have not status....

That is how he described the issue as opposition leader, but now he is showing his true colours. Now he is proving that he cannot be trusted.

Danny Williams thought he could trust him, but now the Progressive Conservative premier of Newfoundland and Labrador says the Prime Minister has betrayed his province. He sees a pattern of breaking commitments. He says:

This is the same prime minister who basically reneged on money for women, for literacy groups, for volunteers, students, minority rights, has not lived up to the Kyoto accord, for aboriginal people.

These are not my words. They are the words of a PC premier. It is a pattern of broken promises.

Rodney MacDonald thought he could trust the Prime Minister, but now Nova Scotia's PC premier says the federal budget forces Nova Scotia into a “fundamentally unfair” choice between cash today and rights to offshore oil and gas tomorrow. “Making that choice would be to roll the dice,” he said.

Conservative members from Newfoundland are admitting the government has effectively broken its word. VOCM Radio reports that the Conservative member for Avalon says he “lobbied to have non-renewable natural resources taken out of the equalization formula”, but the decisions are made.

[The Budget, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians too were betrayed yesterday. The Prime Minister broke his promise to honour the offshore accord.

Yesterday, the province was told the accord will not apply to the revised equalization program, but the deal we signed said that it would apply no matter how the program changed.

Premier MacDonald said, “the...budget forces Nova Scotia into a 'fundamentally unfair' choice between cash today and rights to offshore oil and gas tomorrow.

Does the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency disagree with the premier or will he stand up today for Nova Scotia?

[Committees of the House, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

In accordance with its order of reference under Standing Order 108(2), the committee has considered a motion calling on the government to bring forward legislation to strengthen the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and agreed to it on Monday, February 26, 2007.