Michael Savage

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that is pretty rich. The member can divert one time, as he tried to do with the member for Cape Breton—Canso who then snookered him. However, to go twice in a row and try to change the subject is something else. The reason is he does not know the difference between the Atlantic accord and a Honda Accord. He does not know what this whole thing is about.

He says that we have a hidden agenda and he thinks he knows what we stand for. I will tell him what we stand for. The Liberal Party stands for aboriginal Canadians. We stand for investing in students, in literacy, in the environment, in child care, in Canadians, not only the Canadians who we expect will vote for us, but all Canadians. That is what a good government does. That is what we did. That is what the Conservatives do not do.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

I did in most cases, Mr. Speaker, but I missed a couple.

The article was headlined, “[The Prime Minister] stoops to conquer” and stated:

Jeering from the sidelines were the budget's unlucky trio of obvious losers: Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan. All are now victims of a calculated insult--the effective federal clawback of resource revenues under the new equalization scheme.

It is not just Liberals and New Democrats who are saying that this is a bad deal for Atlantic Canadians. It is everybody in Atlantic Canada, with the exception of a few Conservative MPs. We have seen hints coming. In the last budget document, the Atlantic accord was questioned. It is stated in this document that:

The February 2005 agreements to provide Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador additional fiscal Equalization...were widely criticized as undermining the principles on which...Equalization...is based.

We saw quotes from the Minister of Finance earlier this year, in fact, from Corner Brook on March 8. Corner Brook is a great part of Newfoundland and Labrador, with great representation. The Minister of Finance told reporters, “I can say, as the Prime Minister has said, that we will respect the Atlantic Accords”.

Another Conservative member from Newfoundland said that the Atlantic accord will not be adjusted. Will not be adjusted? The member said that it is written in stone, it is signed, sealed and delivered, and that this is something that the province need not have any fear of. Clearly that is not the case.

Today we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance suggesting that the Atlantic accords were gerrymandered and that previous fiscal arrangements were disjointed and knee-jerk. I can tell the House that in Atlantic Canada no one thinks the Atlantic accords were disjointed and knee-jerk.

We have some good guys representing the Conservative Party in Nova Scotia. I like most of them. The member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley is a good person. He is a little too far left of his current crew and I think he has been marginalized. He would not tell us that, but I think he feels that way. He does not have any say in this sort of stuff. He got hammered with this.

The member for South Shore—St. Margaret's is married to a cabinet minister in the Rodney MacDonald government, the government that slammed the deals. How did that conversation go Monday night? I have to wonder.

These guys know that they have been betrayed by a government that does not care about Atlantic Canada because we do not have enough seats.

Today, an article in the Globe and Mail has the headline “Budget bashers displaying regional jealousy, says [the Prime Minister]”, suggesting that those who do not like the budget have a regional jealousy, but that is what we are elected to have. We get elected to come here to represent our people. We do not come to Ottawa to bring the message back to the people. We get elected to Ottawa to bring the message here from the people. That is what we are supposed to be doing here. That is our job.

The people of Nova Scotia expect their MPs to represent them here in Ottawa. In the last election, we were bombarded with Conservative ads. Members may recall them. For example, there was a sign and a car going by honking the horn twice, with a beep, beep, meaning “Stand up for Canada”.

That horn is sounding again and the people back home are saying to the MPs from Nova Scotia, “Honk, honk. Stand up for Nova Scotia”. And they should do that.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another comment:

They think we're fools, apparently. But we are only the have-nots. We don't carry our weight, and we don't pay our own way. Most of all, we have only a few federal seats.

In the big picture, we don't count for much.

Here is another headline: “Federal Conservatives shaft province, once again”.

There is a good one today: “Purves turns on federal Tories”. Jane Purves was the chief of staff to Dr. Hamm, who helped negotiate the Atlantic accord, and who, it was announced to much fanfare a week or so ago, was going to run for the Conservatives in Halifax. She has taken a look at the budget and she is thinking twice.

Jane Purves is an honourable woman. She may decide to run for the Conservative Party, but she is having second thoughts and is saying, “ I think that whether it's understandable or not from a national point of view, I think it puts the province in a really difficult position to choose between the offshore accords and a different equalization formula”.

Here is a good one: “Atlantic Tories running for cover”. I cannot mention their names. This article is by Stephen Maher. It states, “There were signs East Coast Tories were not enjoying the situation”. One of them, who I will not mention, “whom some expect to retire rather than face the wrath of Mr. Williams in the coming election, did not comment...”.

Another statement is that a member who is normally among the most vocal MPs on the Hill “was not available for comment”. Another one “did comment, but not until his office first said he was unavailable”. Then, says the writer, “he struggled to defend the new equalization deal”.

It was not a good day for Atlantic Canadian Conservatives.

Here is another: “Harper stoops to conquer--

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a chance to speak to this motion and to try to live up to the performance of my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso.

I want to congratulate my other colleague, the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, for bringing this forward. I particularly want to congratulate my colleague from Halifax West, who was the regional minister in Nova Scotia and who negotiated the Atlantic accord along with Premier Hamm and with the former prime minister of Canada and our former finance minister.

If I may, I would like to preface my comments with a thought. As MPs, most of us come to this place with what I think are the best of intentions. We come here to represent our constituents. We also come here to act in a respectful and honourable manner, but every day at about 2:15 that kind of goes out the window, except on Fridays. Outside of question period, we get along. We travel together. We discuss issues. That is the way it should be.

Every now and then things go beyond question period, and November 4, 2004, was one of those days, when the motion brought forward as an opposition day motion was prefaced by this statement: “That this House deplore the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada at and following the First Ministers' Conference...”. It was a motion designed so that Liberals could not support it, even though at that very moment we were negotiating the Atlantic accord, which came into being about a month later and was enacted a month after that.

On those occasions, we had allegations. We had charges. As Liberal MPs, we were pilloried for no reason except politics. That is shameful, because at that time the prime minister, with the member for Wascana, then the minister of finance, and the member for Halifax West, who was then the minister of fisheries and oceans, and Dr. John Hamm, the premier of Nova Scotia, a good and decent man who represented his province well, were negotiating the Atlantic accord. We had worked on it for a long time.

Whenever I saw the member for Wascana anywhere in the parliamentary precinct, and I am not alone in this, he would tell me they were working on it and it was not easy. I know it was not easy. We knew that other provinces might say it was not fair. But when it came forward and the Atlantic accord was produced, not only was it adopted by the prime minister, the finance minister and the members from the Atlantic caucus, but I am proud to say that my Liberal colleagues from other provinces, where this accord was attacked, stood with us and voted for the Atlantic accord. It was difficult. It was not easy, but it got done.

Today I stand here with my colleagues to talk about this motion that we have put forward. From my friends on this side we have heard about comments made on that day, November 4, that have backfired on Conservative MPs. We have heard the comments of Danny Williams. We have heard from Rodney MacDonald. We have heard from the premier of Saskatchewan.

I am not going to give members a lot of quotes from other politicians. I want to give members some sense of what the media are saying in Nova Scotia, because they are very unbiased. In fact, most of them in Nova Scotia are not particularly friendly to Liberals.

However, here are some headlines we had the day after the budget: One was that the Prime Minister “wants to keep Nova Scotia a have-not” province.

Another one was, “We need a fighter”, and as well, this article by David Rodenhiser states:

Nova Scotians are left asking themselves: Who's standing up for us?

Right now, the answer is no one.

Certainly not our federal cabinet minister...who's defending Ottawa rather than Nova Scotia on this.

Rodenhiser says that not even the premier is defending Nova Scotia and “is content to pursue process rather than take action”. And that was after the premier had taken some action, at least moderate action, to indicate his displeasure.

Here is another headline: “Note to Rodney: [the Prime Minister] played you big time” In the text of this article, “Message to Rodney”, Marilla Stephenson writes:

[The Prime Minister] has played you like a fiddle.

If any theme rang through the Harper budget...it was that the have-nots are to remain...have-nots.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague who spoke did a great job. He was around in November 2004 when we debated the Conservative opposition day motion. Among other things, the member for Central Nova said that in the next election, the people of Nova Scotia would remember that it was the now Prime Minister, then opposition leader, and the Conservatives who supported Premier Hamm's government in its fight for its resources, and that would have gone for Premier Williams as well.

Does he think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will remember what the Conservative government has done in this case?

I go back to something the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said this morning. This was also evident in the government's budget books of last year. She said that the Atlantic accord and other previous fiscal arrangements like it were gerrymandered. The words disjointed and knee-jerk were used. Does my colleague think the Atlantic accord was a gerrymandered, disjointed, knee-jerked document?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question of my colleague on her comments, which I agree with. She probably knows better than most the impact of this budget on Conservatives in Nova Scotia.

I am sure she has seen in the paper today that the vaunted Conservative candidate who was going to run against her in Halifax is having second thoughts. I do not think that she is quaking in her boots at the thought of any Conservative winning in Halifax, but Jane Purves is a good, strong, capable woman. She would be a strong candidate for the Conservatives and she is having second thoughts. I think one of the reasons she is having second thoughts is she sees the absolute lack of understanding the government has for Atlantic Canadians. She stood with Dr. Hamm when he negotiated the offshore accords.

I was very dismayed this morning when I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance talk about previous fiscal arrangements being gerrymandered. She used the terms “disjointed” and “knee-jerk” in terms of the offshore accord and other fiscal arrangements. That is an absolute clear admission that the Conservatives do not understand Nova Scotia, that they do not understand Newfoundland and Labrador.

Does my colleague think that the Atlantic accord was a gerrymandered, disjointed, knee-jerk fiscal arrangement?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have some respect for the parliamentary secretary. I served on the finance committee with her and I appreciate her work, but she betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about Atlantic Canada.

One of the things that has most offended Atlantic Canadians in the last year goes back to last year's budget documents where the government made it clear how it felt about the Atlantic accord. It suggested that the February 2005 arrangements to provide Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador additional fiscal equalization offset payments sought to address the severe fiscal challenges faced by those two provinces as a result of their high public debt, but were widely criticized as undermining the principles in which the equalization program was based.

The member spoke about previous fiscal arrangements like the Atlantic accord as being gerrymandered. There were other terms that got by me before I could write them down. She later used the terms disjointed and knee-jerk arrangements. That offends Atlantic Canadians and it absolutely shows what the government thinks of the Atlantic accord.

Does the member believe that the Atlantic accord, negotiated between the former Prime Minister and the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, was a gerrymandered, disjointed, knee-jerk arrangement?

[February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, these kind of non-responses are an abdication of responsibility entirely in keeping with the government's approach of cancelling programs it disagrees with ideologically, hacking apart programs that provide the social infrastructure of our country, and providing no information to community groups or students about what is going on while it decides how to regift a Liberal program that worked from the beginning.

Here is a chance to step up and be a responsible government. Tell Canadians, tell students, tell not for profit organizations, boys and girls clubs, and mental health groups, tell them what is going on.

When the House reconvenes after this week, it will be the week celebrating the coming of spring. After spring comes summer. There is no information. People do not know where to go or where to turn. There is no information about what is going on. When are we going to find out? When is the government going to step up and tell Canadians what is going on with what is left of the summer career placement program after it hacked out half the money?

[February 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on a question I asked recently of the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development about the meanspirited cuts of $55 million from a program that provided support for student employment and community groups in Canada.

The response given by the minister at the time was:

--it is kind of hilarious that the member would be concerned about a few million dollars in cuts to summer career placement.

That is a troubling response to a serious question about a summer student job program that has created hundreds of thousands of jobs for students to help pay for university and college. Cutting $55 million, over half the budget, is not an act of a generous country. It is the act of a narrow-minded thinking government and is rooted in its view of the world that sees no role for government to help people.

For the government, if people do not have the means to better themselves it must be their fault seems to be the government's view.

We often hear issues related to crime in the House. We all know that the government would rather build more prison spaces than day care spaces. On the issue of crime it has been an exercise in propaganda.

There is not one MP in the House who does not want to do something about crime. In my own riding of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour crime is an issue. We need to take measures to deal with repeat and violent offenders, including young offenders.

The recent report on the McEvoy incident was very clear. The Youth Criminal Justice Act works very well but there are some things that we can improve and need to do that. We do not want to throw 10 year old kids in jail like some members opposite. We need a balance because most young people, as we all know, have a huge potential to improve themselves and they may need a little bit of assistance.

The root cause of a lot of crime is the opportunity gap. We wants to deal with the root cause which is often poverty.

This brings us to programs like as the summer career placements program. The Liberal government invested in young people, in programs like summer jobs, so that those most in need can get an education. We all know that education and the development of skills opens up opportunities and provides hope for people, especially those who may not have the financial means otherwise.

I think the summer career placements program had two flaws in the eyes of the government. First, it was a Liberal program and, second, it worked.

We have had no answer yet as to what the government will do with these cuts nor do we know what the program will look like. We do know the government cut $55 million out of the budget but there have been no details. Last June when I asked the question I heard that corporations were benefiting. In my own riding, and this is not dissimilar, I have the list of people who benefited from that program. There are no corporations on that list. It is all not for profits: boys and girls clubs, youth soccer programs, youth recreation, mental health groups and women's groups. Those are the groups that use the summer program for students and let students do work in the area of interest to them to benefit the community. In fact, in the last two years all the grants in my riding have been for not for profit organizations.

Is this a permanent cut of $55 million or is this a regifted Conservative hoax, another one like EnerGuide, that it will thrust on the Canadian people?

[Sylvia Lawton and Pauline Fitzpatrick, February 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia has lost two strong, compassionate, community-minded women in recent days.

Sylvia Lawton died on February 12 after a lifetime of significant accomplishments. She was a powerful force, a long-time educator, and a political powerhouse who was a leader in the PC Party for many years until its disappearance in 2003.

She will be missed by her whole family, especially Jim, and by all of Dartmouth.

This past weekend saw the passing of Pauline Fitzpatrick. Her life was devoted to her husband Ed and her five children and 11 grandchildren, but her community also benefited from her talents and dedication. She was a talented musician and a nurse, and she supported her family through home and school associations and our local parish of St. Agnes. She was a kind, loving woman whose faith was both evident and pre-eminent throughout her life and provided both her and her family much comfort at the end of her life.

Ed, Anne-Marie, Joe, my dear friend John, Mary Elizabeth and Andrew, as well as the grandchildren and dear friends like Anne-Marie MacDonald, have been touched by her grace, elevated by her courage and blessed by her life of serving others.