Greg Thompson

[Supply, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I want to draw the minister's attention to an article by Chris Cobb with the headline, “CBC asks for extra $100 million to save regional programming” which appeared in today's Ottawa Citizen . I think most of us are very sympathetic to that. I point to New Brunswick as an example of where we do need the CBC. We need alternatives to what we are getting.

In New Brunswick media concentration is a big issue. Irving Group, one of the strongest and largest corporations in the country, owns all the daily English language newspapers in New Brunswick. It owns several weekly newspapers and periodicals and in addition to that, numerous radio stations. It is media concentration at its worst.

What I am suggesting to the minister is that there is an opportunity for the CBC to be an alternative in New Brunswick. I think people are tired of listening to the Irvings and their editorial comments and the position that they happen to take from time to time in terms of whom they support in national elections. Most Canadians find that very objectionable regardless of whom they support in an election. They have done this time and again.

I would like the minister to comment on that type of media concentration. What would her government's position be on allowing foreign ownership of newspapers in this country, in terms of competition alone? I know that is not just her decision but I do know the Government of Canada would have a position on that. I would like some comments and reflections by the minister if there is time.

[Question No. 1, November 15th, 2004]

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' fisheries licence buyout program in the Fundy region: ( a ) what is the total number of licences purchased for aboriginal communities; ( b ) what is the total dollar figure spent on this program from the departmental budget; ( c ) does this program include funding from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs; ( d ) have any studies been carried out to measure the impact of this program on aboriginal communities and, if so, what were the results; ( e ) have any studies been carried out to measure the impact of this program on non-aboriginal communities and, if so, what were the results; (f) what is the total dollar figure for commissions paid to consultants for facilitating this program; ( g ) has the department established any specific time lines for the duration of this program; and ( h ) has the department anticipated the total cost associated with this program?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the rhetoric is over the top. I think we are being pretty thoughtful in some of the ideas we are putting forward. I am speaking in the same tone as the former premier of New Brunswick. He believes that the agency has to be revamped, that it has to follow another model and that it has to be renewed, and that is what we are suggesting to the minister.

We understand there are problems with the agency but it is time the government recognize that. The government has been in power now going on 12 years. It cannot blame all of the mistakes of ACOA on the past regime. I have often suggested that the former Conservative government made mistakes at ACOA as well, but this is the year 2004. It simply cannot go back to the past and pretend there is nothing wrong with the agency.

We have some very positive suggestions. We know political interference does occur, and there are many examples--

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on October 22, I put a question to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The point I was making in that exchange on that Friday afternoon was the fact that Liberal members of Parliament were suggesting that ACOA was not working properly and that there was patronage and unfairness in that agency.

I know how the minister will respond to that. He will say that the mere fact that the member is complaining about not getting anything indicates that patronage must not exist. However, that member is not inside the Liberal inner circle. I think he speaks with some authority and some accuracy, and he is not alone in his thoughts.

When I made those statements in the House in my preamble to my question to the minister, he thought I was referring to the former president of ACOA, Norman Spector, who happened to be hired under the previous Conservative regime. However, I was not referring to Mr. Spector, although he went on in the same tone that the member for Miramichi did, in that it was commonplace during his tenure that Liberal members of Parliament would call up and force him to do a deal, and ministers would routinely do that.

There is further evidence by others in the public that ACOA needs revamping. I have suggested some of these things publically as well. There is the former premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, and most of us in this place have heard that name. Here is the headline from the Moncton Times & Transcript , of September 30. It states, “McKenna thrashes feds; Former premier says economic prosperity for Atlantic Canada needs changes to immigration, a tax credit, revamped ACOA”. He went on in detail on what he thought should happen. The fact is ACOA has to be depoliticized.

One of the points I made to the minister, and I tried to emphasize this in some of the interviews I provided to the press after some of these exchanges, involved the board of directors at ACOA. Let us put some authority in its hands and let us find a new way to choose that board. It should not just serve at the pleasure of the prime minister or cabinet of the day. Let us have some independence in terms of how that board is selected. Let us select professional people who make decisions outside this partisan arena.

It is fine to stand in the House to criticize the agency and the minister, but in that criticism I am offering very positive suggestions. I suggest that the minister take a look at this proposal. Let us start with the agency and the board. I am not critical of the individuals on the board, but I do not think they should be subservient to the prime minister of Canada and to the minister. Let us give that board some real powers. If we are to start, let us start there and attempt to revamp the agency. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. Let us give that a try and see how it works. I look forward to the minister's response to that very positive suggestion.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, he is the last member who should be preaching to us on ethics and ethical behaviour in terms of principle and commitment. He is the member who, when he was the minister of ACOA, basically wrapped his arms around a pork barrel and took it back to his own riding at the expense of other parts of Newfoundland. He is the last member from whom we have to take lessons.

In fact he was bragging that his vote count would increase simply because he used the old pork barrel back in his riding. That is the Liberal way of doing things. I would expect nothing less from the member because he has a very good track record of behaving in that fashion.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the strategy the Liberals have been told to use is to come into the House, divert the issue away from the Prime Minister and get into the complicated equation of the equalization minutiae, as I mentioned earlier. That is exactly what the members were told to do. They were told to come in and try to divert attention away from the Prime Minister of Canada and the promise that he made.

I go back to the line that the member for Central Nova used this morning. What part of 100% do the Liberals not understand? That would be the question. The only thing they understand is making outrageous promises so they can have a seat the House of Commons. That is it. Once they are here, they forget about promises, commitment and fairness. What part of fairness does the member not understand?

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. Canada building should be about sharing the wealth and honouring commitments made. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister of Canada takes this very lightly.

The truth is that members from all parts of Canada, all provinces and territories, are getting up and speaking about this level of fairness because what is good for one part of the country is good for the rest of the country. That is really what it is all about, sharing the wealth, is it not?

The issue back home, back home in the sense of Atlantic Canada, is that we do not enjoy that level of prosperity. This whole debate is about sharing that prosperity. We do not know when there will be the same types of discoveries made in the Bay of Fundy which might, for example, benefit P.E.I., or possibly New Brunswick, or the Northumberland Strait, but the fact is that we would expect the same type of treatment. That is why we are standing in this House in support of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and telling the Government of Canada that, it is just as simple as that. We are asking the government to honour the promise and the commitment it made in the heat of an election campaign.

All I can say is that the Prime Minister's words are pretty empty. I believe the government had no desire to honour that commitment.

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up where the member for South Shore left off.

In my mind the importance of the debate is to remind Canadians of a promise that the Prime Minister of Canada made and had no intention of keeping. When we get lost in the minutia of the equalization formula and the detail, I think we lose focus on what this whole thing is about.

The Prime Minister went to Newfoundland in the heat of an election campaign, with the bottom dropping out of his campaign, both going south in a panic mode, making a promise that he had no intention of keeping. What famous humorist came up with this expression: “We have lies, we have damned lies and then we have statistics”? The fact is that the Liberal Party of Canada wants to refocus the issue. It simply wants to get into the minutia and the details of an agreement.

However, as the member for Central Nova, our deputy leader, mentioned this morning in his remarks, what is it about 100% that the Liberals do not understand. The issue is that the Prime Minister made a promise that the province would keep 100% of the offshore revenues and that the revenues would not be clawed back in the equalization formula. It is that simple. As soon as we deviate from that we are playing into the hands of the Liberal Party of Canada because it has made so many outrageous promises over the years. In fact the leader of the NDP pointed out some of those.

Mr. Speaker, you and I have lived through some of those. I just want to remind the listening public of some of the promises made in the past that the Liberals did not honour. This is just one more, the promise made in the heat of an election in Newfoundland in terms of the offshore revenues.

Everyone will remember the GST. The Liberals said they would eliminate the GST. How many members over there got elected in 1993 because of that outrageous promise? They had no intention of keeping that promise. They did not keep that promise and yet they were elected on it.

That was the same party that said it would tear up the free trade agreement, if hon. members remember that one. That goes back to the 1988 election, the first election in which I was elected. The Liberals were demonizing the Americans at that time and said that they would rip up the free trade agreement if elected. Of course in 1993, along with the GST promise, was the promise that they would renegotiate the NAFTA agreement. They did not change a comma in the NAFTA agreement.

We talk about the success of Alberta, the oil patch in Alberta and how much wealth that has generated. We want the same level of fairness applied to Newfoundland. That is an argument that the member for Central Nova brought forward this morning, so I will not go through that.

I do want to touch on the national energy program. Prime Minister Trudeau at the time saw an opportunity to go out and rob Alberta of its revenues. The national energy program was all about bringing all that wealth into Ottawa so the Liberals could redistribute it at will. It took a Conservative government to unravel that program. The fact is that I think it will take a Conservative government to unravel the promise that the Prime Minister made.

The Prime Minister is used to getting up in the House and making outrageous promises or of pretending he knew nothing about nothing. It sounds like Tony Soprano to me, “I know nothing about nothing”. That is exactly what the Prime Minister does in this place, day in and day out. It is like the ignorance he enjoyed in the House in regard to Canada Steamship Lines and how much revenue was generated by contracts from the Government of Canada, which he said was just a few hundred thousand dollars. It turned out to be several hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue generated by his company under contract to the Government of Canada when he was finance minister.

The Prime Minister cannot be believed, and the election last June pretty well proves that. What the motion is all about today is forcing the Prime Minister of Canada to honour the commitment he made this past June in the middle of an election.

We are saying that the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia should be allowed to keep 100% of their provincial offshore oil and gas revenues. It is that simple. We simply want the Prime Minister of Canada to honour a promise made in an election simply for the purpose of gaining public support and winning enough seats to come back here as Prime Minister of Canada.

I guess the strategy worked as a clever political strategy but I believe that time has caught up with the Prime Minister and with the Liberal Party of Canada. As I have mentioned, the Liberals have a history of doing this.

Let us do the right thing. Let us support the motion that is before the House today, let us keep the heat on the Government of Canada and let us give Atlantic Canada its fair share of the prosperity that the rest of Canada enjoys.

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I respect what your research has told you. I will withdraw the word “hypocritical”.

I will simply say that the member has gone back on his word in terms of the treatment of the hepatitis C victims. I will withdraw the word “hypocritical” but he basically has deceived the people in terms of--

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I will ask for a ruling from the Chair on the word hypocritical because it is my belief that the word is not unparliamentary. However, if it is, I will certainly withdraw it.