Scott Brison

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the ultimate irony of this is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from Newfoundland and Labrador and the Minister of Foreign Affairs from Nova Scotia both said immediately after the budget was presented that there was nothing wrong with it and that there was nothing to fix. Since then, they have been saying they are working very hard to fix it. Therefore, they are effectively saying that they are working extremely hard with other levels of government to fix a problem that did not exist in the first place.

The fact is it can be fixed simply by enabling the provincial governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to continue to have full respect for the original Atlantic accord, which means that any new equalization deal will apply to them, as well as to other provinces, a new, more generous equalization deal, and they will continue to receive 100% of the offshore revenues.

That was the intent, spirit and letter of the Atlantic accord. For a full 16 years Atlantic Canadian provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia would have full access to offshore revenue and to any subsequent equalization deal. That principle was broken by the government. It can be changed simply by the government going back to the original accord and keeping its promise to Canadians.

[Business of Supply, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it would be nice to say it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the motion today, but in fact it is with a sense of sadness that I rise to speak to it because of the fact that I think what the government has done, what the Prime Minister has done, what the member for Central Nova has done to the reputation of this House and to politics in general, denigrates and debases the reputation that all of us have as parliamentarians, as people who are committed to public life to making a difference, and yes, to keeping our promises.

I would like to quote from a memo by John Crosbie, a former Progressive Conservative federal minister, a representative of Newfoundland in the cabinet, who recommended to the Prime Minister:

Like any fair and professional leader, the Prime Minister should re-evaluate the performance of his budget in this particular area, and apply the principles of fairness and consistency in public policy. He should adjust his...budget legislation--

John Crosbie certainly is not a Liberal. He certainly is not a New Democrat. The Conservatives are accusing us of indulging in a partisan debate. John Crosbie believes that the Prime Minister should act fairly, but we know that the Prime Minister does not act fairly. He did not act fairly when he cut programs for literacy. He did not act fairly when he killed the court challenges program. He does not act fairly when he attacks women's organizations.

John Crosbie asked that the Prime Minister act professionally. He is a Prime Minister who on the floor of the House of Commons will accuse members of Parliament who ask legitimate questions about Canada's commitment to international protocols, to the Geneva convention, to reasonable treatment of prisoners of war, of supporting the Taliban. He is certainly not professional.

John Crosbie asked the Prime Minister to be consistent. We certainly know that the Prime Minister is not consistent. He is not consistent when he tells Canadians that he will not be taxing their income trust investments. He is not consistent when his budget makes a ridiculous commitment to eliminating the interest deductibility on foreign investments. He flip-flopped on that a few weeks later.

The Prime Minister is not fair, is not professional, and is not consistent. In fact he is hurting the reputation of all politicians, federal and provincial.

I was part of a cabinet that responded to Premier Hamm's campaign of fairness. The member for Halifax West was a fellow member of that cabinet who led the charge and helped negotiate this accord, and it was a remarkable accord. It was extraordinary for a number of reasons.

First of all, it was not an easy accord to negotiate. It involved the federal Department of Finance and other ministers. It took a lot of discussion, hard work and focus on achieving an agreement that was good for Atlantic Canada and fair to all Canadian provinces. It was a 16 year agreement. It was based on the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia having the ability to receive 100% of their offshore revenue without any impact on that equalization agreement or any further equalization agreements after that.

The government is saying that it only applied to the equalization agreement of the time. That is false. That is one of the reasons it was such a difficult accord to negotiate. It was extraordinary and it did apply to any subsequent equalization agreements. It was based actually on solid ground. The precedent was Alberta.

The Prime Minister in fact in a debate on November 4, 2004 said:

This is an opportunity and it is a one time opportunity. It is a...opportunity to allow [Atlantic Canadian] provinces to kick-start their economic development, to get out of their have not status, to grow this...opportunity into long run growth and revenue that will be paid back to Ottawa over and over again and that will benefit the people of those regions--

He said that it was based on the precedent of Alberta. He said:

This is what happened in the case of my province of Alberta. Alberta discovered oil and gas in the 1940s and 1950s, Alberta was a have-not province. From 1957 and until 1965, Alberta received transfers from the equalization program. Alberta was allowed to keep 100% of its oil royalties and there was no federal clawback.

This is what allowed Alberta to kick-start its economy, to expand and diversify, to build universities, to advance social services and to become one of the powerhouses of the 21st century Canadian...

Those are the words the Prime Minister used to justify his support for the Atlantic accord.

The Albertans in the House today ought to support the Atlantic accord based on those words from their Prime Minister. Albertans need to recognize that before Albertans had the vision, foresight and wisdom to put oil into the ground, they were a have not province as well. However, it actually took the ability for Alberta to have full access to its oil revenues until 1965 for Alberta to diversify its economy and to make the kinds of social investments required to move forward.

Clearly, both the Prime Minister and the member for Central Nova, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and, frankly, the patron saint of hypocrisy when it comes to this agreement and on many other issues we know he has taken positions on over the years, have let all Canadians down, particularly Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The Prime Minister has spoken in the past of a culture of defeat in Atlantic Canada. I believe there will be a culture of defeat on election night in the next federal election in Conservative headquarters right across the Atlantic Canadian region. Atlantic Canadians do not want to be misled. Atlantic Canadians do not want to be lied to. Atlantic Canadians want to be able to trust in their government, to believe what they are being told is true. If the Prime Minister cannot even convince members of his own caucus, members like the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, that he is telling the truth, how can he convince Atlantic Canadians that he is telling the truth?

That is a Prime Minister who has demonstrated time and time again that he would do anything or say anything to get elected, to get people's vote. There is not a promise that he will make during an election that he will not break after being elected.

In a minority Parliament, which Canadians have chosen, we have an opportunity to respect their choice to make this Parliament work, to advance public policy that is important for all Canadians, to work together in the interest of Canadians and to give Canadians the type of government in which they can believe. It is very tough for us to do this when we have a governing party, the Conservative Party, a Prime Minister and a Minister of Foreign Affairs whose signatures are not worth the paper on which they are written.

That is a Prime Minister who tends not to like accords. He, in fact, is working this week at the G-8 to try to destabilize the industrial world's commitment to the Kyoto accord. He has ripped up the Atlantic accord. One of the editorials in today's Halifax Daily News says that the Prime Minister hates accords so much it must be difficult for him to dry by a Honda dealership”.

The fact is the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have learned the hard way, that they cannot trust the Prime Minister.

Income trust investors who lost $25 billion almost overnight as a result of the Prime Minister's breaking of his promise have learned that they cannot trust him to keep his word.

On of the editorials in today's Chronicle Herald said:

—in their gut, folks do understand that the Harper government has broken faith with Atlantic Canada by failing to deliver all that had been promised.

It went further and said:

If the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley can't even vote for these Conservatives, how can you?

I think that is the question Atlantic Canadians across Atlantic Canada will be asking themselves in the next election.

Atlantic Canadians are extremely proud to be strong Canadians and to fight for values and interests around the world. They fought in global conflicts in World War I, World War II and the Korean conflict. They made a difference in helping to build a more peaceful, democratic and stable world. They are fighting now in Afghanistan and making a difference, and we are proud of them. Atlantic Canadians are tremendously proud of the difference they make in Canada and around the world. They deserve the respect of the Prime Minister not to break promises made to them.

[Food and Drugs Act, June 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to this important legislation introduced by the hon. member for St. Paul's, who was absolutely the very best minister of public health in the history of Canada, and few would debate that.

I served in cabinet with the hon. member and she brought to the cabinet table a tremendous understanding of health and wellness issues. In fact, I remember her from time to time saying as a minister that we in Canada do not necessarily have a health care system, we have a sick care system.

We look after people only when they are sick. We do not do enough on wellness and preventative medicine, and helping keep people well. She brought a great sense of knowledge, practicality, and at the same time, vision to her role as minister of public health. I am very pleased to support her bill today.

The whole issue of bulk import of drugs into the United States is an extremely important one. In the U.S., the cost of drugs to Americans is a tremendously politically charged issue. It is one that is at the very centre of the health care debate in the U.S.

We all know the challenges that our own health care system here in Canada faces, but the U.S. health care system is under even more pressure because of the inefficiencies and ineffective nature of the private insurance system and some of the other challenges facing the U.S. system.

American legislators are debating, and have debated, the whole idea of allowing bulk import of drugs from Canada through Internet pharmacies. In fact, what they are doing is trying to achieve what we have achieved here in Canada in terms of our regulatory framework around drug pricing.

The more efficient approach for them to take, and the less intrusive approach in terms of the impact on our public policy and our citizens, would be for them to simply regulate their drugs with a similar approach to our approach here in Canada, which effectively assures Canadians good access to important and lifesaving pharmaceuticals at a more reasonable price.

Instead of that, the legislators like to say that they will not regulate drug prices in the United States of America, but instead of regulating them there they outsource the regulation to Canada. That sounds perfectly innocent to Canadians. It does not sound like a big deal until we consider what the impact will be on our own drug supplies here in Canada.

The goal of the drug pricing regime we have in Canada is to ensure that Canadians have access to the pharmaceuticals they need at a reasonable price. It was never intended to, and never designed to, provide Americans with drug prices at a low cost.

American politicians are saying they are against price regulations. It is kind of an ideological perspective, not unlike our colleagues opposite sometimes on certain issues if I may say that respectfully, and similarly wrong as well. The fact is what they are doing by outsourcing their drug pricing regime to Canada is actually jeopardizing the access for Canadians to the drugs they need at reasonable prices.

The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Why would multi-national pharmaceutical companies that invest billions of dollars into research and development continue to supply Canada to the same extent that they have in the past if in fact the products they were shipping to Canada were being used to effectively cannibalize the market in the U.S. and reduce their profits?

It stands to reason that in a market-based economy they will make a decision to the benefit of their shareholders that will effectively prevent Canadians from having access to the drugs that they need at the price they want.

It is important for us to do two things. First, we need to ban the export of pharmaceuticals to the U.S. Our pricing regime was never intended to create some artificial regulatory arbitrage between the two countries which have very clever entrepreneurs. I have a lot of respect for entrepreneurs as I, my dad and my grandfather were all entrepreneurs. However, whenever there is a difference in regulatory regimes there is a potential for some sort of arbitrage, and that, effectively, is what is going on here.

No value is being created by the bulk export. It is not a sustainable industry. It is one that has a nascent profitability but it is one that, while it provides some pure profitability, it does jeopardize the long term access Canadians have to the drugs they need at reasonable prices.

I think we need to make the point very clear with American legislators that they cannot simply continue to avoid the debate on issues like drug regulatory frameworks. We also need to point out to organizations like the American Association of Retired People and others, the equivalent of CARP here in Canada, that what they are pushing for is not even in the long term interest of Americans.

Not only is this dangerous for Canadians in terms of reducing our citizens' capacity to have the drugs they need, but in the long term it actually does jeopardize the security of the pharmaceutical supply chain to Americans.

First, we need to ban the export of drugs to Internet pharmacies to the U.S. and, second, we need to make it very clear to American legislators and perhaps to Americans directly that this type of short term band-aid solution could jeopardize the security of their supply chain for their pharmaceuticals in the long term. Therefore, it is a no win situation for citizens on both sides of the border.

[Do Not Call Registry, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on November 25, 2005, royal assent was given to a bill that passed in the House and the other place. That law mandated the government to create a do not call registry, a registry that would finally permit Canadians to protect their names and numbers from telemarketers.

The minister of industry, who is now the Minister of International Trade, said at that time that it was a fair and cost effective way to deliver on something that the majority of Canadians wanted. Even the Canadian Marketing Association supported that bill.

It was a Liberal government listening to Canadians and acting. Sadly, under the Conservative government, nothing has been done to implement the registry, no political will has been shown and no money has been provided. The Conservatives have let this legislation wither causing countless Canadians to continue to suffer through unwanted and intrusive phone calls. Canadians deserve better.

On behalf of all Canadians, I ask the government to take action, follow the law, respect this House and get a do not call registry implemented now.

[Corporate Takeovers, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can take his economic advice from Terence Corcoran, who is responsible for one job, his own. We will take our economic advice from industry leaders like Laurent Beaudoin, Gord Nixon and Dominic D'Alessandro who are responsible for thousands of Canadian jobs and who believe that his government is failing to protect Canadian economic sovereignty.

The fact is that the Minister of Industry already prejudged any panel's findings when he said that eliminating foreign ownership restrictions would be good for Canada. The fact is that he has already given the green light to giant takeover firms to take over Bell Canada. When will he admit that he is selling Canada out?

[Corporate Takeovers, June 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on May 28, the Prime Minister said “...the budget did promise the government would review...foreign investment legislation”.

Two days later, yesterday, he reversed himself when he said “I don't think players who are involved in takeovers...can expect the government to change rules”.

If the Prime Minister does not intend to change any of the rules, is this just another broken promise, flip-flop from the budget?

[Manufacturing Industry, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister continues to ignore industry leaders like Laurent Beaudoin, Gord Nixon and Dominic D'Alessandro, business leaders who are responsible for thousands of Canadian jobs.

The finance minister, the trade minister and the industry minister have all said that they are concerned about the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector.

If they are so concerned, why did they cancel labour market partnership agreements worth $3.5 billion just when Canadian workers and manufacturers needed that help the most, when they are losing their manufacturing jobs?

[Corporate Takeovers, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Bombardier, with 56,000 employees, is a true Canadian success story. Its CEO, Laurent Beaudoin, issued a strong warning yesterday that the industry minister's laissez-faire approach to foreign takeovers is threatening Canadian jobs: “We can't continue to leave things as they are now, without somehow protecting Canadian interests”.

Why is the industry minister ignoring industry leaders like Laurent Beaudoin while we lose tens of thousands of Canadian manufacturing jobs?

[Corporate Takeovers, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not think we have to change the Investment Canada Act. In fact we do and we should be listening to the experts and the business leaders like Gord Nixon who is saying that it is scary to let the country go 100% foreign owned, or Dominic D'Alessandro who is saying that ownership matters a lot. “I...worry that we may all wake up one day and find that...we have lost control of our [economic] affairs”.

Will the minister listen to these business leaders and appoint an expert panel to review the Investment Canada Act? Will he listen to Canadians who want to keep the Canada in Bell Canada and will he stop listening to the Montreal Economic Institute where he is taking his orders from to just eliminate the foreign ownership rules altogether?

[Corporate Takeovers, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the global economy has changed massively, yet Canada's guidelines for foreign investment just have not changed with it.

Will the government appoint a panel of experts to review the Investment Canada Act, given the spate of foreign takeovers and will the government hold back any decisions on major foreign acquisitions and any changes to foreign ownership rules until that process has been completed?