Peter MacKay

[Federal-Provincial Relations, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker--

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very astute question from the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. What they would have received is less under the old system. According to their own figures, they would have received an increase of approximately $57 million. Under this new option, the so-called modified O'Brien option, they will receive $95 million, so that is the difference.

If no new equalization formula had been struck, which would have been the case under any other government, because they would not have pursued this equalization formula, and had we not taken the initiative to try to re-balance the fiscal framework of the country, this option would not have been available. Nova Scotia would have received $57 million under the old equation. Now it has the option to take that or, under the new fiscal formula, receive $95 million, more money for this year's budget.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, they have to make a decision at some point in time is the short answer to that. That is what happens with decisions. There has to be a choice at some point.

When the choice is made, when they decide which is in their best interest, and they will have before them those figures in their budget documents, they will have to decide if they want to take this more beneficial system or if they want to remain under the Atlantic accord. Those discussions are taking place.

Clearly there is a benefit in both. The province of Nova Scotia, just like Newfoundland and Labrador, will have to calculate those figures. There is an infrastructure advantage. They can look at those figures and decide which is best for the people of Nova Scotia.

I should have added, Mr. Speaker, that I am splitting my time with member for Avalon, who is taking the second part of this speaking time.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yes, at a point in time should it make that decision. That is the option, but it has to decide. It cannot opt in, opt out, opt in, opt out. It has to make a decision.

However, again, the choice is clear. I want to point out, as my hon. friend did, that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is a different situation. In fact, it has garnered a great deal more from the Atlantic accord. Because of the reserves that exist in its offshore, it has been a much larger beneficiary of the agreement with the federal government.

The province of Nova Scotia has yet to realize the full potential. It has Sable I and II. The Deep Panuke project has yet to live up to the billing, but we remain hopeful.

Therefore, that choice exists for Nova Scotia. I suggest it is beneficial to our province, and it is one that will be made. That is also in addition to other deals yet to be worked out around infrastructure spending, the Atlantic gateway initiative and issues related to health, and let us not forget the environment.

There are huge dollars available to Nova Scotia.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate and speak to the motion by the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

I am eager to tell Canadians, constituents back in Central Nova and all Nova Scotians just what this new budget is going to do for them and just what the consequences are of this way the government has taken to restore the fiscal balance that is required in a nation as grand and as diverse as our own.

While the members of the previous government, the Liberal Party opposite, stand in this House and preach from on high about what they would like to do, let us not forget that they were there for 13 years. There was nothing stopping them from addressing this issue of the fiscal balance. Instead, what they actually did, and the record is very clear on this, was gut $25 billion out of the equalization program. They took away money that provinces were using for health care, for infrastructure and for important projects and important investments throughout Canada.

What this government is doing is exercising fiscal fairness. We are exercising the type of federalist flexibility required to bring a country together and to recognize that there are disparities in this country.

I want to point out two very specific things in my remarks.

Number one is that the province of Nova Scotia is getting an increase this year, an increase, even under the old formula, of almost $200 million. In fact, it is getting $2.44 billion from the federal government this year. That number is staggering when we start to think about how that is invested in various things throughout the entire province of Nova Scotia. That figure, in fact, would include a $95 million increase if they were to opt into this new modified O'Brien program for the province, so let us keep that in mind.

With respect to the allegation that somehow we are taking something away from the province of Nova Scotia, nothing could be further from the truth. The Atlantic accord remains fully intact, 100% respected by this government if the province of Nova Scotia opts to stay in that program.

When that program was put forward, members of this party, my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's and my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester, fought long and hard to see that the Atlantic accord was achieved. People have already spoken about the merits of the Atlantic accord, in terms of John Hamm, the premier at that time, working long and hard to bring the government of the day, the Liberal Party opposite, kicking and screaming to the point where finally it had to sign on to the Atlantic accord.

When that happened, we all celebrated. That was a good day for Nova Scotia.

That was a great deal for Nova Scotia, so what we are saying today is that Nova Scotia can keep that great deal or it can take an even better deal, one that gives Nova Scotia an additional $95 million. So it is door number one, good deal, or door number two, better deal.

We have heard about the requirement of Nova Scotia, about the budget they are about to draft tomorrow and the requirement for more money. That option is there for them. The option is clearly there. And I will go one better. If that is to happen and Nova Scotia decides that it is going to opt for this new proposal, which will give them more money, they have the flexibility to go back. They have the flexibility to use the Atlantic accord. It is a choice they have.

Speaking of choices, the members opposite, in the withering windsock that is the Liberal Party, speak of principles. What we know is that they do have principles, but if people do not like those principles or if polls change, they have other principles. That is the way they have operated for so many years.

We are all aware of the current Liberal leader's position. He denies the existence of a fiscal imbalance. In fact, in January of this year, the newly minted Liberal leader pronounced,“I don't think there is a fiscal imbalance”. He said that each province, every time, each and every way, is arguing that it gets shortchanged by Ottawa and that it would be difficult to make all the provinces smile. Yet that is exactly what the Prime Minister tried to do.

That is exactly what he tried to do. This motion is the calculation of another flip-flop on behalf of a weak Liberal leader who has not been upfront with Atlantic Canadians about his own position. The usual criticisms that come from the opposite side never come with a solution. They never come with “this is how we would do it differently”. They just castigate, criticize and tear down without describing what they would do as an alternative.

The truth of the matter is that Premier Williams in fact got exactly what he asked for. We honoured the Atlantic accord and we did it while restoring fiscal balance to the federation, and we did it by keeping our promise to exclude 100% of natural resources. He is caught between a rock and a better place. That is where the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador finds himself.

Back in May of 2006, the Leader of the Opposition was very much in favour of a principled approach to reforming the equalization program and supported Premier McGuinty's call for fairness campaign, but now, once again, he has flipped. He said, “I think you need to have a clause that says whatever is the formula of equalization payments, a province that received equalization payments cannot see its fiscal capacity going above the fiscal capacity of a province that does not receive equalization payments”.

He is now saying exactly what we are saying: that there has to be fairness. There has to be a recognition that an equalization formula is for everyone.

The member for Kings—Hants knows a lot about flip-flops. He flipped to one side of the House. He flopped back to the other side of the House. He has changed his position on everything from ACOA to tax cuts. Name the position and he has tried it. He has turned himself inside out. He is an Olympic back-flipper. Here is what he had to say: “I find that Atlantic Canadian politicians”, so he is speaking about himself, “by and large, are too parochial”. This was part of his pithy and partisan commentary.

He went on to say:

Someone's angry in Halifax because Moncton got something. Someone is upset in Moncton because Charlottetown got something. In our four provinces, there's a great sense of competitive angst as opposed to vision, and I think the future of the region will be shaped by politicians who can play a role nationally and not just bring home the bacon.

That is what he had to say back then. He is firmly on record on so many other subjects about ACOA. He was an MP, he boasted in 2003, “who had the guts to say ACOA isn't working for Atlantic Canada, and (to urge) getting rid of it and replacing it with dramatic tax reform for Atlantic Canada...”.

He went on to say, “I believe we need to replace failed regional economic development programs and corporate welfare with dramatic corporate-tax reductions, because the market can pick winners and losers better than bureaucrats”.

That was then and this is now. Each and every day we see that hypocrisy knows no bounds.

This particular attempt, plain and simple, is about fairness: it is about giving Nova Scotians an option. It is about giving Premier MacDonald the opportunity to bring forward a budget that speaks to the needs of Nova Scotia just the way our budget does the same.

I want to turn our attention back to the offshore accord itself. Nova Scotia, I repeat, may continue to operate under the previous equalization system until its existing offshore agreement expires. This fulfills and builds upon the government's commitment to respect the offshore accords. It also ensures that the province will continue to receive the full benefit it is entitled to under the previous system, if it so chooses.

But the beauty of this is that there is another option. There is an option to opt in to the new formula, a new formula that has been calculated in fairness with all of the provinces and that gives Nova Scotia more. It gives the province of Nova Scotia an additional $95 million, so it is take the deal that is good for Nova Scotia now, take a deal that will provide Nova Scotia with more money, and the option to move if at the end of the year there is a decision that Nova Scotia feels that might be advantageous to it. That is what is being offered.

We are willing to work with the province of Nova Scotia the way we always have and the way we will continue to, to see that the province of Nova Scotia is treated fairly and with the same level of respect it has always been afforded by this government. That is why we have the Canada health transfer, which this year will provide our province, the province of Nova Scotia, with $21.3 billion, our portion being $636 million for the province of Nova Scotia. The same can be said of the Canada social transfer of $270 million for the province.

With respect to our infrastructure, there is an enormous opportunity called the Atlantic gateway. Our portion of that particular set-aside, that $2.2 billion fund that would see Nova Scotia tap into the container traffic that is coming from Asia, coming from the Orient, will give our province a chance to make a major breakthrough. I would suggest that this in fact is bigger than the potential of the offshore if we can capture that traffic and that type of business and economic growth; that again is an opportunity and this government wants to work with the province.

The money is there. The negotiations that will lead to greater money under health care, under infrastructure and under other programs are available to Nova Scotia. We will continue to represent its interests and continue to work with it for the betterment of all people in our province.

[The Environment, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government has indicated forcefully that we oppose the transit of LNG traffic through Head Harbour Passage. The Prime Minister has stated this. The veterans affairs minister has championed this. I have raised this with Secretary Rice. Ambassador Wilson has formally conveyed to the United States strong opposition to LNG tankers passing through Head Harbour Passage because of navigational, environmental and public safety concerns.

We welcome the flip-flop of the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps he will now see the light on a number of other files. He will recognize a government that is getting a job done where he failed and perhaps he will visit another New Brunswick landmark, the Reversing Falls.

[Afghanistan, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, just to inform the hon. member, it was actually the Chief of the Defence Staff who signed the original agreement.

Since that time, we know the Minister of National Defence has travelled to Afghanistan and met with the necessary officials from the human rights commission there. The Minister of National Defence has this clearly in hand. He knows now what the situation was that had to be addressed. He has taken action on that. The government stands four-square behind its Minister of National Defence who is doing a great job on behalf of Canadians.

[Afghanistan, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of National Defence has answered that question. The situation is clear. There is now more protection afforded to those in such situations in Afghanistan.

I am convinced that the Minister of National Defence now has the control and information necessary to monitor the situation.

[Prime Minister of Japan, March 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has enormous sympathy for comfort women who endured great suffering during World War II. The abuse of the comfort women is a deplorable story and these wrongs and their enormously painful era should not be forgotten but should be addressed in a compassionate and progressive way.

They deserve our respect and our dignity. I relayed those sentiments when I spoke to the Japanese foreign minister this week. I sought clarification on the issues of the apology to these women and the regrettable comments of the prime minister of Japan. He confirmed that thee government would stand by the 1993 apology made by chief cabinet secretary, Kono, and previous prime ministers that Japan acknowledges the involvement of military authorities of the day, extends its sincere apologies and remorse to all of those comfort women.

[Foreign Affairs, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that these are issues certainly within the Haitian justice system. There is no question that that is not the standard that we would expect of many countries. It is certainly not a standard here in our own country.

This particular individual, as I mentioned, has received consular visits. The Canadian government has made interventions on his behalf, and on behalf of the family, with the highest levels. We will continue to pressure and work with the Haitian government to see that this case results in a fair trial.

I can assure the hon. member that we will continue to work on behalf of Mr. Charbonneau to see that he is treated fairly.