Tom Lukiwski

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as is quite typical of the member for Wascana, it is not what he says but what he does not say with respect to the equalization formula and its impact upon Saskatchewan.

Let me set the record straight. First and foremost, let us realize that equalization is a part, albeit perhaps a significant part, of the overall fiscal balance or what was formally known as the fiscal imbalance, a situation that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wascana refused to recognize even existed.

However, it did exist and budget 2007 took great steps to correct that fiscal imbalance and turn it into a fiscal balance situation, to the effect that Saskatchewan was by far the biggest beneficiary of any province in Canada by receiving over $230 per capita because of the new money that was sent Saskatchewan's way as a result of the changes in the equalization and social transfer structure, compared to Quebec which only received an average of $91 per person.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the same question of the hon. member as I did the first speaker. On the one hand the Liberals are saying that this is a betrayal of the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, but on the other hand they are saying we have the option to keep the same deal.

The Prime Minister unequivocally stated yesterday that there are no changes to the Atlantic accord. In other words, there is no cap on the deal that was previously signed. With the changes to the equalization formula, the rest of the provinces have an option, but the Atlantic accord remains fundamentally unchanged. There is no cap.

Will the member at least have the courtesy to stand in his place and say that he does not understand the deal that was cut because clearly he is mistaken? He is trying to portray the fact that his province of Nova Scotia is now burdened by a fiscal cap and that there has been some major change to the Atlantic accord that was signed three years ago, when in fact there is no change. The province retains 100% of its non-renewal natural resources.

Will the minister at least admit that is true or in his opinion it is not? I want to get him on the record.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

He did say there was a cap. Premier Williams said there was a cap, but obviously he is wrong, as is the member opposite. There is no cap.

My question for the hon. member is this. How can he stand in the House and say there is a cap placed upon the Atlantic accord signed by the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia when in fact there is not? Has he not understood the equalization formula?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the point I was making is on that one hand the hon. member says there was a massive deception perpetrated upon the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, but on the other hand he said they have the option of keeping the same deal they signed under the former Liberal administration or opting into a new one. There is no deception. The deal has not changed. There is no cap placed upon the Atlantic accord, the deal that was signed previously.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments, I also want to congratulate members opposite for reading some of the Conservative literature, which they have. I know the staff photographers will have wonderful photos. I am pleased to see that finally at least some of them have seen the light and are reading the story that real Canadians truly understand.

I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's comments, but what I cannot understand is the fact that on one hand he is saying there is a deception and in the same breath he says--

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

No, he doesn't.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response to Petitions, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

[Motions for Papers, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Motions for Papers, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-9, in the name of the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential information, and the documents are tabled immediately.