Scott Brison

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, both Progressive Conservative premiers, have been clear that this is a betrayal of their provinces. This is the breaking of a solemn promise by the Prime Minister, the same Prime Minister who destroyed the Kelowna accord, who ripped up agreements with all provinces and territories for early learning and child care, and who on a consistent basis does not seem to believe either in keeping his promises or respecting treaties and accords.

This is an accord between the federal government and the provincial governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. It is an accord that the provinces were counting on. It was going to make a fundamental change in the future of the region. In fact the member for Central Nova said:

This issue is of historic proportions for Atlantic Canada. In the past, we have seen attempts made to put forward what I would describe as “election amnesia”.

It would seem that this is what the Prime Minister is suffering from right now, a bad case of election amnesia, to quote the member for Central Nova.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I was part of a cabinet that negotiated the offshore accord. The member for Halifax West, the minister of fisheries at that time, was integrally involved in the negotiation of that accord.

One of the reasons it was a difficult accord to negotiate through the Department of Finance was that it did exist above and beyond any equalization agreement. It separated the offshore revenue from consideration under the equalization deal. That was part of the accord. That is why it was such an extraordinary achievement for Atlantic Canadians. That is why the hon. member campaigned in the last two elections to extend that accord, to support that accord.

The fact is the member has to answer to his constituents why his government changed its mind, why his Prime Minister decided to turn his back on the people of Nova Scotia and decided to play their interests against the interests of Ontarians, against the interests of other parts of Canada.

A budget is supposed to try to unite Canadians; it is not supposed to divide Canadians. This is the most divisive budget in the history of Canada. This is a budget that hurts Atlantic Canadians. It is a budget that tells have not provinces, “You are going to continue to be in that position for the foreseeable future because we do not believe you deserve to have the opportunity to stand on your feet and to succeed and build your economies with the offshore revenue that we promised in the last election”. That is the Conservative position on this.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberals. It was the Liberals who supported Premier MacDonald's government in its fight for our own resources and that Nova Scotian Conservative MPs will be left to explain to the voters why they chose to abandon the interests of our province and, in doing so, betrayed the future prosperity of the people of Nova Scotia.

This is a brochure that was sent by the Conservative Party throughout Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan in the last election. It starts off by saying “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept”. The brochure is very clear, “That's why we would leave you with 100% of your oil and gas revenues. No small print. No excuses. No caps”. That is what the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia--

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, an economist, Mary Webb of Scotiabank, said that the province had been anticipating a 3% hike in transfers. Not only was that not the increase they had been expecting, it was a reduction. She goes further, expecting that the provincial taxes in Nova Scotia will go up as a result of this budget.

I have no difficulty with the people of Quebec receiving a generous tax benefit. I believe in more competitive taxes. However, I believe the people of Nova Scotia deserve competitive taxes as well. As a result of this budget, they may end up, according to Scotiabank's economist, paying more.

The history of the Atlantic accord is an important one. I think some of the most important and erudite words and perspective on the Atlantic accord was provided by the Prime Minister, when he was leader of the opposition, on November 4, 2004, when he said:

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

He went further in justifying the offshore accord by referring to the situation in his own province 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. [But between] 1957 until 1965, Alberta received transfers from the equalization [system]. 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 [economic] powerhouses of the 21st century....

That, exactly, is the justification for the Atlantic accord, no cap, unconditional support, above and beyond equalization payments, that the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia deserve full benefit from the revenue of their offshore resources.

The member for Central Nova, in the same debate on November 4, 2004, said in this House:

There [has been] a recognition that when an industry is started there is a lag time before those benefits actually begin, as in the province of Alberta, which was permitted to continue to receive equalization. And equalization is just that: it is meant to equalize opportunities, both financial and otherwise, for citizens of that region.

Alberta was permitted to have that industry kick start, to have [its] exploration...take place.... Equalization is about giving our region the [same] ability to reach [its] potential and...future growth.

Further to that, in an oped in November 2004 in the Halifax ChronicleHerald, the member for Central Nova said:

In the interests of Atlantic Canadians, the prime minister must commit to 100 per cent of the royalties, no caps, no time limits.

He went further and said:

The spectacle of these Liberals joining forces with the separatist Bloc Quebecois in order to defeat the Conservative offshore motion adds insult to injury.

I wonder whether he would consider what he is doing now, uniting with the separatists and the Bloc against the interests of Nova Scotians and Newfoundlands, just as egregious.

He also went further and said:

In the next election, the people of Nova Scotia will remember that it was...the Conservatives who supported Premier Hamm's government in its fight for our own resources. Meanwhile, Nova Scotia Liberal MPs will be left to explain to the voters why they chose to abandon the interests of our province and, in doing so, betrayed the future prosperity of the people of Nova Scotia.

Let me rephrase that into the current context and, in his own words, I think it would be appropriate to say that he would probably agree that in the next election the people of Nova Scotia will remember that it was Stéphane Dion and the Liberals who supported Premier MacDonald's government in it's--

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, can I say harpocracy?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier Williams said that he was calling on women and literacy groups, minority groups, aboriginals, volunteers and students, people who have been deprived of funding by the Harper regime.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I speak to the opposition day motion and to defend the interests of my province and the interests of Atlantic Canadians.

With a massive surplus, one would expect from a government some pleasant surprises. In fact, Atlantic Canadians received a very unpleasant surprise in this budget.

I think the headlines this week in the Halifax papers said it all. “Conservatives have 'abandoned Atlantic Canada':...” was the headline in the Daily News. “No fiscal fairness for N.S. Province loses equalization battle to vote-rich Ontario, Quebec, Alberta” was a headline in The ChronicleHerald. “Federal Conservatives shaft province, once again”, another heading in the The ChronicleHerald. “Note to Rodney: Stephen--”, that is the Prime Minister, “--played you big time”, also in the The ChronicleHerald.

The finance minister speaks of fiscal imbalance. There are two kinds of fiscal imbalance. One is between a federal government and the provincial government and the other is between provincial governments.

I will be sharing my time with the member for West Nova today and he will expand on this important principle.

I would argue that the fiscal imbalance between provinces has grown as a result of this budget. The finance minister speaks to the importance of us addressing the issue of a welfare wall. In fact, this budget constructs a welfare wall around the people of Atlantic Canada by denying them the opportunity to get their economies in shape and to move forward with a prosperous, vigorous economy for future generations of Atlantic Canadians.

The finance minister, in his budget speech, said:

The long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the provincial and federal governments is over.

Within minutes, the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia, Rodney MacDonald, said that his province was essentially being asked to make a choice, to roll the dice. He continued by saying:

It's almost as if they want to continue giving handouts to Nova Scotians rather than us keeping our offshore accord, and that to me is fundamentally unfair.

He also said:

I'm certainly caught by surprise tonight, and quite frankly, my government's caught by surprise tonight. I've always believed the offshore accord was an economic right of Nova Scotians—not equalization, not a handout.

It's almost as if they want to continue giving handouts to Nova Scotians....

He said Monday he was "blindsided" by the federal budget's attack on the accord.

He further stated:

The federal government has laid down a discriminatory budgetary hammer on the people of Nova Scotia.

It is blatantly unfair. We believe it is money that properly belongs to the people of Nova Scotia.

In altering the formula and treating our accord money as equalization, the federal government has done exactly what it said it would not do, and pushed us backward.

One of the federal Conservative candidates for the nomination in Halifax is Jane Purves. Jane Purves was the chief of staff to Premier Hamm who helped negotiate the accord with the Liberal government. I know the member for Halifax West, a colleague in the federal cabinet, was actively involved in those negotiations and he would remember that Jane Purves and Premier Hamm played important and constructive roles in helping to make this accord happen.

This is what Jane Purves, who intends to seek the nomination for the Conservative Party in Halifax, says about this. She stated:

--I think it puts the province in a really difficult position to choose between the offshore accords and a different equalization formula. I don’t know what they’re going to do.

She further stated:

I was part of that team and that’s what makes it difficult.

I’m not in support of this particular aspect of the budget....

Even the member for Avalon, in a radio interview, said, “We didn't get what most people wanted on equalization”. He admitted his government's failure to stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

Premier Williams has been extremely vocal. He said:

I am calling on all Progressive Conservatives across this country who don't agree with the policies of Stephen Harper--

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was part of a government, in fact part of a cabinet, that made the decision to negotiate and implement the Atlantic accord with the provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

It was difficult because in fact the principle of the Atlantic accord was that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland would receive 100% of the benefits of their natural resource wealth above and beyond equalization. Yes, it was a difficult agreement; yes, it was difficult to attain; and yes, there was push-back in fact from the Department of Finance.

The principle of it was based on the equalization system continuing and this accord acting in addition to the equalization system. That was the principle of it. That is why it was difficult to effect that change.

However, the party that actually put it on the table in the first place, that demanded that there be no caps, was the Conservative Party. It was the one that demanded that our government take action on that file. In fact, we worked with provincial Progressive Conservative governments to do exactly that.

The member is saying that it is somehow a happy choice for provincial governments now to make. It is not a happy choice to have to trade off future prosperity, which is found in a solemn commitment and accord with the federal government, against getting more revenue now. That is not a happy choice.

In fact, the member said that our arguments were dishonest. Is she calling Premier Rodney MacDonald, a Progressive Conservative premier, dishonest? He said:

It's almost as if they want to continue giving handouts to Nova Scotians rather than us keeping our offshore accord, and that to me is fundamentally unfair.

Premier Rodney MacDonald said that he was blindsided by the federal budget's attack on the accord.

Is the member referring to Premier Danny Williams, a Progressive Conservative premier, as being dishonest when she said that he was arguing against her government's decision to axe the accord?

Furthermore, the potential federal Conservative candidate for Halifax, Jayne Purves, who was in fact the chief of staff to Premier Hamm during these negotiations had this to say:

I think it puts the province in a really difficult position...It puts them in an almost impossible position...I was part of that team--

She talked about the negotiating team:

--and that's what makes it difficult. I didn't do it, but I was part of it. It was Dr. Hamm that did it. I'm not in support of this particular aspect of the budget--

That is the potential federal Progressive Conservative candidate in Halifax who was part of the negotiating team for that accord. Is she being dishonest?

[March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has mentioned something we have in common. Neither of us are a member of the government. Technically a member has to be in cabinet to be a member of the government.

She quoted a bank economist to describe the impact of this measure on the tourism industry. She did not quote the hundreds of operators across Canada, the organizations representing them. She did not quote the provincial ministers of tourism, who in a letter signed by the minister of tourism for Nova Scotia all came out against the government's decision to cancel the visitor rebate program.

The fact is, on December 4, ministers of tourism from across Canada met with the Minister of Industry. According to the letter sent to the hon. member's minister on December 26, from the provincial minister of Nova Scotia, every minister of tourism from across Canada is opposed to—

[March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to discuss the visitor rebate program, the government's decision to cancel that rebate program, and the implications for Canada's tourism industry, particularly in Atlantic Canada.

The headline in today's Halifax Chronicle-Herald reads “Restore rebates”, in reference to the decision of the government to cancel the visitor rebate program, a decision announced in September along with cuts to women's and literacy programs.

Nova Scotia's premier initially indicated that he did not think the decision would harm the tourism industry. In recent days, however, he has reversed his position. The editorial in today's Chronicle-Herald states:

Former fiddler Rodney MacDonald has changed his tune on dropping Ottawa's tourism tax program. Here's hoping [the] federal Finance Minister...will rewrite his budget score....

It went on to state:

If Mr. MacDonald can see the error of his ways, surely [the finance minister] can summon the courage to admit his rookie government's mistake. Damage has already been inflicted upon the industry by the plans to axe the rebates.

The Canadian tourism industry is worth about $60 billion and is comprised of more than 200,000 mostly small and medium sized enterprises, creating employment for over 1.5 million Canadians.

Tourism is big business in Canada. It generates big tax revenues for governments.

In recent years, the industry has been hit hard by issues, including border requirement issues, the Canadian dollar, 9/11 and SARS.

In 2006, under the current government's watch, Statistics Canada reported that the number of same-day car trips from the U.S. fell 12.5% to 13.7 million, the lowest level since record-keeping began in 1972.

Cancellation of the visitor rebate program will make the industry less competitive in foreign markets and the net result will be lost tax revenue and lost jobs in Canada.

The federal government should not be directly contributing to the challenges facing the industry at this time.

International visitors on prepaid packages, such as cruise ship excursions, bus tours and conventions, get the rebate up front. It is included in the price. That makes Canada more competitively priced at the point of purchase.

Under the government's plan, companies selling packages in foreign markets will be forced to add 6% to their current selling price.

It is worse for provinces with a harmonized sales tax, such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador, where the elimination of the rebate will mean a price increase of 14%.

We already know that in the past the Prime Minister has not demonstrated a lot of compassion for the plight of Atlantic Canadians.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has in fact accused me in this House of misrepresenting the situation when she said that the visitor rebate program was taken up by only 3% of visitors, that it was not working, and that it was not good value for the money.

In fact, she is misrepresenting the situation.

Tourism operator Dennis Campbell of Ambassatours, one of the largest tour companies in Atlantic Canada, said, “It just doesn't make any sense”. “This is a very real issue,” he said, an important issue, and it “will do significant damage and will result in a significant downturn in our tourism industry and a significant loss of jobs”.

The Tourism Industry Association of Canada stated:

If the measure goes through, it will be a major blow to Canada's competitiveness as a destination and hit the tourism industry hard. It's a revenue grab that will inflate the pricing of Canadian tour packages in foreign markets by an average of 6% while also making visiting Canada more expensive for independent leisure and business travellers.

The parliamentary secretary has not spoken to people in the industry, such as those in the Hotel Association of Canada, in provincial governments, and in tourism industry associations across Canada, all of whom believe that the government is going in the wrong direction on this and that it is a regressive step.

Virtually all the OECD countries with a national consumption tax, including Australia, France, the U.K., Mexico--