Scott Brison

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 7th, 2007]

I regret the error, Mr. Speaker. The member for LaSalle—Émard's government was, for the first time in the history of Canada, a federal government that recognized the important role that municipal leaders have and the important need for them to have the kind of funding to address those needs.

I want to speak to the whole issue of the Atlantic accord because a large part of this legislation supposedly deals with the Atlantic accord. When we had a briefing session on this, a public servant told me that this new amendment would ensure that the budget respects the Atlantic accord. I read those same words in the budget just a few months ago.

However, if the original budget respected the Atlantic accord, why did the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, principled members of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, have to fight the federal Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister over the last several months to actually get a new amendment that would respect the accord?

If the original budget respected the accord, why did the federal government commit months of work in the Department of Finance to finding a new way to respect the accord? It is not credible. In fact, if we could not trust the Conservatives in the budget when they said that the budget respected the Atlantic accord, why should we trust them now when they say that this document respects the Atlantic accord?

It was only a few years ago when the Prime Minister referred to Atlantic Canada as “having a culture of defeat”. The only culture of defeat that will exist in the next federal election will be in Conservative campaign headquarters across Atlantic Canada, because Atlantic Canadians do not like being misled.

Atlantic Canadians know that if they cannot trust a government to honour a written accord, they cannot trust a prime minister on his verbal commitments. Atlantic Canadians want a fair deal to ensure that we have the opportunity as Atlantic Canadians to build our economy, to diversify our economy and to move forward.

Furthermore, the province of Nova Scotia's own figures show that Nova Scotia will lose $42 million next year and $306 million over the next four years as a result of the government's ripping up the Atlantic accord.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Mississauga—Brampton South.

The government, on a wide range of issues, from failing to honour the Atlantic accord, to a misguided tax policy that will actually build a less competitive, less fair and a less green Canadian economy, is moving in multiple directions and in a way that Canadians do not share in terms of values or of sound economic policy.

Furthermore, the manufacturing sector, the forestry sector and agriculture are facing multiple crises in key sectors across our economy. The government has done nothing to address competitiveness and has done nothing to address the manufacturing sector crisis. For instance, the accelerated capital cost allowance should be offered on a permanent basis to Canadian manufacturers to allow them the time they need to invest in productivity enhancement.

The forestry sector is key to our economy. The government is doing nothing to invest--

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak today to Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill.

First, good governments make good, long term choices. They do not focus their policies on short term polls or on next week's polls. In fact, they focus on the challenges and opportunities in the coming century, which is why the Conservative government has made such a remarkable mistake in moving forward and cutting a consumption tax, the GST.

Cutting 1% on the GST represents a $6.5 billion loss to the federal treasury per year, and 2%, of course, is $13 billion per year, which is a lot of fiscal capacity that could have been used to invest in the priorities of Canadians, to invest in the social infrastructure of Canadians and to address the infrastructure deficit that is so critical in Canada today. It is also a lot of money that could have been used to reduce personal income taxes and help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money, to reduce business taxes, to build a more competitive corporate tax environment and, ultimately, to build a richer, fairer and greener Canada.

Except for perhaps the Prime Minister, I do not think there is an economist in Canada who believes that cutting the GST is a good idea. In fact, if economists were a licensed body, the Prime Minister would probably lose his licence over the decision to cut the GST because it is such a bad economic policy.

Just 1% of the GST, that $6.5 billion per year, in terms of needed infrastructure, would mean approximately $20 million in every federal riding in Canada. Let us consider what that could mean in terms of green infrastructure, water and sewage treatment and recreational infrastructure across Canada, whether we are talking about arenas, pools or libraries, a great infrastructure deficit is going on.

When we look at it, there were two waves of federal government investment in infrastructure. One was the memorial infrastructure with memorial community centres across Canada, built, I believe, after the second world war. Further to that, there were the centennial projects after the great year of 1967, which was the year I was born. My mother was at Expo 67. I was there but I had not been born yet.

Beyond that, the fact that the government has made no investment in those kinds of infrastructure in a significant way ignores the facts. The facts are that Canadians need to live in healthy communities with up to date water and sewage treatment. They need investments in public transit, in green transit infrastructure. We recognize now the imperative of green investment in infrastructure. Canadians also need to live healthier lives and they cannot do that if they do not have recreational infrastructure for their children.

I will give some examples from my own riding of the kinds of infrastructure I am speaking of. The East Hants Sportsplex in Lantz, Hants county, which was built decades ago, has served the community well during its time. However, Lantz and Elmsdale, that whole area of East Hants, has doubled in population over the last 10 years. Its recreational infrastructures are strained and require significant investment.

When our government was in power, the Liberal government, those were the kinds of investment we made. In my riding, we invested in indoor soccer facilities, libraries, pools and community infrastructure, which can make a difference. Those kinds of infrastructures can make the lives of families better and can ensure we have healthier Canadians. In the long term, it would reduce the cost to the taxpayer by reducing the costs to the health care system over the long term.

We invested in transportation infrastructure, whether we are talking about the twinning of Highway 101 in my riding to the Annapolis Valley or we are talking about investments being made in conjunction with the provincial government at the time.

We invested in infrastructure on a community basis because we were part of a government that recognized the important role that municipal leaders have in building their communities. The fact is that municipal leaders have limited capacity to raise money. They have property taxes, which is a very blunt instrument.

The government of Jean Chrétien and the government of Paul Martin were the first Governments of Canada to recognize--

[Wireless Industry, December 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we know the previous industry minister opposed wireless set asides. We know his senior policy advisor, Martin Masse, opposed wireless set asides. We know that Brian Mulroney's spokesperson, Luc Lavoie, demanded that Masse be fired.

Did the Prime Minister, at any time, discuss the wireless spectrum auction with Brian Mulroney?

[Wireless Industry, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the very next day, the Prime Minister's deputy chief of staff, Mark Cameron, called the industry minister's office on behalf of Ian Brodie to ask that Masse be fired. The minister said no.

Is it not true that the Prime Minister shuffled the former minister out of industry because the minister refused to do what Brian Mulroney and Luc Lavoie wanted him to do?

[Wireless Industry, December 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Martin Masse was the former industry minister's senior policy advisor. Masse was opposed to taxpayer funded wireless set-asides.

In May, Brian Mulroney's spokesperson, Luc Lavoie, took Masse to lunch to try to change his mind. That did not work. Masse refused.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Lavoie then called Ian Brodie, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, to demand that Masse be fired?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 4th, 2007]

Have there been any meetings or discussions, including but not limited to those conducted electronically, between the Deputy Minister and senior officials at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and staff members of the Atlantic Food and Horticulture Research Centre, or between the Deputy Minister and senior officials at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada regarding the Atlantic Food and Horticulture Research Centre, since February 6, 2006 and, if so: (a) who participated in these meetings or discussions; (b) what was discussed; (c) what was the outcome of the discussions; and (d) what plans, if any, were discussed regarding the future operations of the Atlantic Food and Horticulture Research Centre and, if so, (i) what did these plans consist of and (ii) what are the associated timelines?

[Wireless Industry, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we will be happy because we will be sitting on the government side of the House.

The fact is that Canadian auto parts makers are asking for $400 million in emergency loans just to survive. This industry minister has said no.

How could the minister say no to manufacturing, auto and forestry workers, who are losing their jobs, and say yes to a billion dollar taxpayer gift to wealthy Canadian media families? Do you have to hire Brian Mulroney to set up meetings for you just to get some help from the government?

[Wireless Industry, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the previous industry minister was opposed to wireless auction set-asides. Then Brian Mulroney called the minister to set up a meeting for Pierre Karl Péladeau to try to change the minister's mind.

Was the minister shuffled out of industry because he refused to give a billion dollar taxpayer gift to help out Brian Mulroney's company?

[Wireless Industry, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Luc Lavoie is registered to lobby the industry minister on this file on behalf of the same company for which Brian Mulroney serves as director.

Mr. Lavoie is also Mr. Mulroney's official spokesperson. On November 9, the Prime Minister demanded that his ministers end any dealings with Brian Mulroney. Did that prohibition apply to Mr. Lavoie?

[Wireless Industry, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister's decision on wireless spectrum came after months of intense lobbying by industry executives.

In the long run-up to this announcement, were there any meetings, conversations, communications or contacts of any kind with any ministers or federal officials, arranged or facilitated directly or indirectly by Brian Mulroney or any of Brian Mulroney's associates?