Bill Casey

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I often think that in the Liberal caucus there must be a great big picture of Brian Mulroney. They must all come in and worship at the altar of Brian Mulroney every day because he is the one that brought in free trade which has allowed our economy to expand. It was Brian Mulroney's government that brought in free trade which the Liberals opposed vehemently all night and all day for a long time in this House. However as soon as they were in, not only did they embrace it but they enhanced it and expanded it.

It is the same with the GST. The Liberals opposed the GST hour after hour in this House. They vilified Brian Mulroney and his government for bringing in the GST but as soon as they were in, what did they do? They embraced it again and in our part of the country they enhanced it. They talked the provinces into turning the provincial sales tax into GST as well. Not only did the Liberals follow what Brian Mulroney and the Conservative government did but they enhanced it.

The low inflation policy was started by the Conservative government. That is a policy which was carried over. We started that and I am really proud of it.

There is no question that the success we are having today, and I am sure the Liberals know it, started with the foundation that was built by the Conservative Party from 1989 to 1993. The Liberals can say everything they like but actions speak louder than words. Their actions are screaming “We love Brian Mulroney's policy on free trade. We love Brian Mulroney's policy on GST. We love Brian Mulroney's policy on low inflation because we endorsed it, we enhanced it, we embraced it and we love it”.

[Supply, October 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak on this issue.

I have a unique perspective from most members in this House in that I served here for five years from 1988 to 1993. I was defeated in 1993 and was resurrected again in 1997. It is kind of like a time machine. I was out for four years but all of a sudden I have been thrown right back in.

I have a perspective where I can see the effect of the changes perhaps more dramatically than others. Others who have served here have seen the incremental changes resulting from the government policies over the years. I see a dramatic change. I see a very dramatic change in almost every social program, every issue that deals with people who need the most help, every area that needs the most help.

It has impressed me a great deal that even in our jobs as members of Parliament we are much more active and much busier trying to help people through the system. When I was here before, people who had reasonable requests received reasonable reception and it took a reasonable time to get through the system. Now it seems to take forever to get through anything, whether it is employment insurance, job training, health care, education, or any aspect.

It is interesting that a few minutes ago the hon. minister for foreign trade said in his speech that we made these cuts and we made these changes with the support of Canadians. He said that Atlantic Canada was one of the cheap beneficiaries of these policy changes. We ran out of time but I wanted to ask him if Canadians supported him, how could he possibly interpret what happened in Nova Scotia as support.

In May there were 11 MPs in Nova Scotia and every single one was a Liberal. In the 1997 election every single Liberal member of Parliament was defeated. I do not know how that is interpreted as support but I am sure the hon. minister could come up with an interpretation that 100% defeat is support. I am not sure how to do it but I am sure he can do it. As he spoke I thought he must have the map turned upside down because certainly the people in Atlantic Canada sent a strong message that we do not support the cuts to all the social programs and all the things that help the people most in need.

All social aspects were hit. My area has one of the highest unemployment rates in Nova Scotia. Our unemployment rate falls between 15% and 40%. There is no program. There is no strategy. There is no job training of any consistency to help people. This coincides with and certainly supports the NDP motion in that regard.

It is not only unemployment but there are cuts to health care. Our health care system is in chaos. Doctors are leaving faster than we can replace them. We have band-aid solutions. We kind of bribe doctors to come in and set up in our area but it is just a band-aid solution and the problem again is cuts to our social fabric and the social programs. It seems to me to be totally contradictory to the Liberal philosophy of helping people which was always there but seems to have completely disappeared.

In education the government has come up with this new idea of public-private partnerships to build and replace schools that are now dilapidated and deteriorated beyond repair and really need to be replaced. They have started a few of these public-private projects to try to save money to keep the province and the feds from borrowing money because the transfers to the province were reduced. All of a sudden they are packing up. They are not working. There are all kinds of problems with them. They have bypassed the tendering system. There is patronage and favouritism. There is false economy wherein the government may save borrowing a few million dollars but the obligation to the people of Nova Scotia is incredible.

On the issue of highways, my area has one of the most dangerous highways in Canada. Forty people have died on that highway. It is in drastic need of replacement so the government says “Well, we do not want to replace that dangerous highway. We will propose a toll highway”. Even in a report submitted by a group of lawyers who worked on this project they say “One is immediately struck with the realization that this region of Nova Scotia is not one which should be conducive to a successful toll road. Highway 104 is anticipated to handle only 6,000 vehicles a day in a rural and economically challenged region of the country.” In effect they say that it should not be a toll road, that the government should pay for it.

It then goes on to say that if we can control the tolls totally and put them up whenever we want to, if we can direct traffic, prevent people from taking other roads and force them to take this toll road, we may be able to make this economically depressed region of Nova Scotia work. It says that if we can relax construction standards, make narrower asphalt, no shoulders and all these sorts of things, maybe we can ram it through and maybe it will work. Well, I do not think it is going to work.

I believe it is false economy. In order to save $60 million on that road the government is obligating the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to 30 years of paying tolls that will total $538 million. They are going to cause the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to spend $538 million while pretending that it will save $60 million. It will create an interprovincial trade barrier. It is in every way just false economy to obligate the people to spend $538 million to save $60 million.

In my region all employment is done by small business. There are no large employers, no giant international corporations. It is all done by small business. The overcharge on employment insurance is costing jobs. There is also the fact that there is no money being put into retraining, nor is there any consistent policy which would help to address the tremendous unemployment problem. In certain pockets of my riding as I said before it is as high as 40%.

Basically the small business employers in my riding are being fined by being overcharged on employment insurance premiums. There is still no plan, no consistent retraining programs and no strategy.

As I said before, I was away for four years and now I have come back. The thing that hits me the hardest is what is happening to our Canada pension plan and to the people who need disability benefits. When I left, if a doctor said a person was disabled, within a reasonable length of time if the person qualified for CPP disability, if they had paid the premiums, they could get disability benefits. Now I do not know how disabled a person has to be to get disability insurance. It is incredible. I have a couple of examples which reflect on the impact the policy changes have on the people who need help the most.

Mrs. Marjorie Newman of Oxford Junction, Nova Scotia applied for Canada pension disability benefits in March 1995. Through 1996 and all the way through 1997 she has been stalled and given excuses. There have been all sorts of delays. Now she is told that she will not have a hearing until late 1998. She applied in March 1995. We cannot imagine the stress on this poor woman. We cannot imagine the frustration and the fear which this lady has. This just should not be.

The doctor's report said “Marjorie Newman is totally disabled and unable to work”. Mrs. Newman is clearly disabled and unable to work at any job and it puzzles me how her application for Canada pension disability has been refused. It started in 1995 and now she is looking at late 1998.

Here is another example which I find shocking. I do not understand how people can be expected to pay into the Canada pension plan and then have this happen. This case concerns Archie Black. He lives in a place called Shenimecas in my riding. I have known him all my life. He comes from a long line of dedicated, hard working people. He can no longer work. He wants to work. His doctor said “Mr. Black is completely disabled from any form of employment”.

He applied in September 1994 for Canada pension disability. Through 1995, 1996 and 1997 they kept asking him for more information. We cannot imagine the mental anguish and stress which have been placed on this man. Now he is fearful of losing his home. I do not understand how this can be allowed to happen. A disabled person has to wait three or even four years for an answer as to whether they qualify for Canada pension disability benefits.

It is incredible. All of these things indicate the philosophy of the Liberal government. It does not matter whether it is unemployment, education, health care, the Canada pension plan or even killer highways. The present Liberal approach hits the poorest regions the hardest and it hits the people who need help the most the hardest.

I will support this motion today because it reflects on the overall policy of the government. I agree with deficit reduction, but I do not agree that it should be achieved on the backs of the people who cannot help themselves and who need help the most.

[Canada Marine Act, October 10th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on your appointment to the Chair.

I am certainly pleased to talk on Bill C-9 today. It will have a big impact on my community and in many communities of the province of Nova Scotia and the entire maritime provinces because it deals with ports and harbours. It also deals with the St. Lawrence seaway which does not directly affect us but it certainly does indirectly. There will be a major impact on the federal ferry system, the pilotage programs and harbour police. Many aspects of the way of life in coastal communities either on the west coast or on the east coast will be affected.

The bill talks about the impact it will have on the ports and harbours and the pilotage people. It does not talk about the impact it will have on municipalities. It does not talk about the tremendous impact it will have on the provinces and the people. It will have an incredible impact on the people who are affected by the downsizing programs.

The thought crossed my mind as I was reading the bill that it is very much along the line of the present government policy of downsizing which seems to be pervasive throughout government programs. In some cases it seems to be innocuous and maybe even sensible, but the fact of the matter is that whenever national standards are taken away and the responsibility is given to the provinces and then down to the municipalities, we lose consistency and control over how the ports are managed. There will be inconsistencies from port to port from province to province and all over the country when this bill passes. I know it will cause a lot of grief.

Right now we have national policies which are inconsistent. Provincial policies change very rapidly. Provincial policies can change in an instant, whereas national policies only change over a period of time. They are much slower to change. The people involved who are affected by these quick decisions by the provinces will be hurt a great deal more than if the control of the port stayed with the federal government.

The pervasive downsizing approach by the government was eloquently repeated yesterday by the premier of the province of Nova Scotia, a former member of this House, who said, “We have suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts in recent years. Just give us a chance to get our bearings. It seems that the cutbacks are promoting cutbacks. Let us lay off for a little while until we get on our feet before you come back at us again”. That is what this is doing. This is coming back at the smaller communities and the smaller ports. Even though the premier of the province of Nova Scotia was a former member, he recognizes that.

A really good example of the negative impact of downloading and losing the consistency of national policies is the port police policy that the hon. member for Saint John so eloquently talked about a little while ago. The port police in Canada are highly specialized and highly trained police. They are specialized in the fields of drugs, immigration, firearms and contraband, all things that are really important to Canadians. If we lose an effective police force on the ports, the whole country will pay a huge price for it.

Under Bill C-9 all the ports police are being disbanded and municipal police or whatever are going to take over this responsibility. It is not even clear who is going to take this over. The government is disbanding the ports police and there is no plan.

Again we run into the inconsistency problem that I mentioned before where one port is doing one thing, another is doing something else and other ports have no plan at all. Basically if we do go to inconsistent port police we will have training that is inconsistent, quality that is inconsistent and the application of the rules and the law that is inconsistent.

We feel that the ports that have poor policing systems will be identified by the criminal elements in our country. They will become the ports of choice for criminal operations. We think that is going to happen because we are losing our national standards for our ports police. We are going to have every port with its own police application and approach. That is another big impact from downloading.

I am again going to quote Nova Scotia Premier MacLellan. He said yesterday, “Nova Scotians have been devastated by what Ottawa did. We have to get our financial house in order, there is no question about that, but excessive financial brutality is something else again. We just cannot do that. It is not the way to treat people”. That is what is happening.

Let us move on to a few other aspects of C-9. Probably the most important issue is the classification of ports. The government is dividing all ports into three classes: major commercial ports that are financially viable; regional ports that are to be divested over six years—I almost used devastated and that could be interchanged with divested because I believe they will be—; and the other class of ports is remote ports.

These again are separate from the fisheries and oceans small craft harbours where the same thing is happening. Those wharves are all being divested or becoming port authorities. It is going to have a tremendous impact on the communities.

Somebody in the closet in Ottawa who is writing this legislation does not have any idea of the impact this will have on communities like Wallace, Pugwash, Barachois and Parrsboro that I am sure Madam Speaker is very familiar with. Communities like Advocate and Shelburne in Nova Scotia where a military base just closed. Now they are having their port taken away from them or they are disowning the port I should say because the port is not viable by itself and they are going to lose.

The first classification of ports is major ports. They will become Canadian port authorities. They will probably be all right because they have already been designated as viable. The regional ports have a very uncertain future and this is where we are going to focus our attention. The third is the remote ports which will continue to be supported by the federal government.

Our focus will be on the regional ports such as the ports I listed a minute ago. These ports have not had the opportunity to be heard. They do not even have any idea what is going to happen to them. They do not even have any idea that this is happening. We want to make sure that the regional ports do know what is happening. We will make sure, to the best of our ability, that they are informed and given the opportunity to speak and tell us what the impact will be on their communities.

Often the port, the wharf, is the lifeblood of the community. If you take away the port and let it collapse, and this legislation will eventually force many ports to collapse, the whole community will collapse. I do not think we can stand by and let that happen.

One option that has been put up for the regional ports is to privatize the port facility or sell it. Sell it to whom? What about the community? What about the community that uses it for recreational boating and fisheries and as a centre of its commercial activity? What happens if it is sold to a company that has no interest in the community?

There was a proposal in Bayside, New Brunswick to sell the wharf and the whole port to a U.S. company. It wanted to take control over the entire port. It wanted to open a gravel pit or a quarry. It said that the only way it could do that would be if it totally controlled the whole port of Bayside. What happened to the people in Bayside? What about their concerns?

Had it not been for the MP for Charlotte, that deal probably would have gone ahead and an American sand and gravel company would now own a port in New Brunswick. It would own the whole port that tax dollars paid for, a port that is the centre of activity in the whole area of Bayside.

Again I hearken back to Premier MacLellan's comments about downloading, devastation, brutality. Let us go slow on this regional ports facility deal. We will be monitoring the regional ports facility issue very very closely.

There has not been enough consultation with the regional ports. They do not even know what is happening to them. We may propose that we split the bill. We should do the national ports and remote ports now and the regional ports later as we get other alternatives that will offer opportunities for these communities.

We just cannot wipe out hundreds of communities. There are hundreds of communities on the list that have been presented. Regional and local ports from all parts of the country in every province will be affected. These communities do not realize that they are about to lose the hub of their whole community. They have to know and must have a chance to speak and be heard. We will be bringing that to their attention.

The privatization aspect of this bill is really frightening. An American company can buy a port since there are no restrictions on who can buy and own ports. The bill just states that the ports are going to be divested, that they will be sold to the highest bidder. There are now planned auctions for ports in Nova Scotia. This is an incredible way to treat the people and the citizens of these ports that will be sold.

[Highways, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this week I met with and outlined in detail to the director of investigations at the Federal Bureau of Competition aspects of the Highway 104 agreement that contravened the Competition Act. I also met this week with the auditor general to point out areas that break terms of the federal-provincial SHIP agreement. Both have shown an interest. In the last two weeks I have asked the Minister of Transport and the parliamentary secretary questions regarding untendered contracts, and with all due respect, their answers are incorrect.

Now the Prime Minister has written me a letter dated September 30, and with all due respect, his information is incorrect as well.

It is clear that the top levels of the government do not understand that this deal involves contracts that have gone untendered, funding formulas that have been improperly changed and federal funds that are being used in a way never intended.

The time has come for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport to realize they have a serious problem and they must contact the Nova Scotia government and fix it.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your elevation to your new position.

I say to my constituents that this is the first time I have had a chance to speak at any great length in the House and I really appreciate being returned to the House after a short vacation of three and a half years. I am certainly pleased to be back and I will do my best to represent their interests.

Bill C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board bill, is a difficult issue. It is very complicated and there are a lot of stakeholders and many positions, as my colleague from Brandon—Souris reported a while ago. The government had to take a position on this issue.

There are four options available. It could get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board altogether which 37% of farmers recently voted in favour of, quite an astounding vote to toss the wheat board out completely. This certainly expresses a great deal of frustration and anger for 37% of the people to say throw it away and we will go our own way.

The second choice would be to leave the status quo, and I do not thank anyone agrees that is a realistic possibility. The third option would be change the board and have influence from the primary producers, and this is what Bill C-4 does.

We would have preferred some voluntary participation so that farmers would have a choice. How would the fast food industry react if a small group or majority group of fast food operators said that all fast food operators would operate a certain way without choices? This would not be acceptable. It would be the same with the steel industry and with the fishermen in my part of the country. If a majority of fishermen said they were going to sell their fish and produce to a certain group of people and that the rest of the fishermen would have to comply, it would not be acceptable.

Farmers should have an option. It should be voluntary participation in the Canadian Wheat Board like every other industry. This goes well with the general direction of global economy and privatization.

We are willing to support certain aspects of this bill but we will require amendments. We will be making positive amendments, not nuisance amendments. One area we are concerned about is the inclusion clause. We do not understand it nor do we understand the purpose of it. There is no support from the farmers we have talked to. It seems to be a backward step in the age of global economy and privatization.

The exclusion clause is positive and it does acknowledge the needs and the desires of some people to have voluntary inclusion in the program. But it is very complex and vary cumbersome to implement the exclusion clause. We would like it made a little more flexible and available to more people.

Ten out of fifteen people on the board of directors are from the industry. Four of the fifteen members and the CEO will be appointed. The previous speaker said he wanted to put farmers in the driver's seat. If we are going to put them in the driver's seat why do we not let them drive and have all of the board members from the industry rather than just ten?

In Ontario the industry drives the system. In the Ontario Wheat Board all members are elected. We do not see why the members of the Canadian Wheat Board are not also elected. The CEO should definitely be elected from the board, by the board of directors, as in any other format.

The indemnification clause bothers us. The board members are allowed to set their own pay, benefits and make all the decisions. It says, however, that they will not be responsible for any errors or omissions. This is unacceptable. They must be responsible if they are responsible for their own pay, benefits and working conditions. In any case this is still a monopoly the way it is set up. There must be accountability. The way Bill C-4 sets it up there is indemnification and there is no responsibility on behalf of the board members. With a monopoly there must be openness. There must be access to information, freedom of information and there must be accountability. We will probably put forward an amendment on that.

Another area which was brought to our attention by industry people is the contingency fund. If farmers are to take the responsibility for the contingency fund and not the federal government, why are there still five federal appointees on the board? Farmers see no place for the federal government's board members if they are to be responsible for the fund. They think all members should be elected.

There is a big hole in Bill C-4 the way I see it as the transportation critic. Transportation is not mentioned in the bill at all and there are no issues with respect to transportation. The second biggest issue in grain handling in this country is transportation. It involves every aspect of the business, rail operators, elevator operators, port operators, pilotage organizations, pool operators and the primary producers, the farmers. Most people we have talked to have indicated that the issue of transportation is equal to all others. It must be addressed.

One aspect that is extremely cumbersome is that the Canadian Wheat Board has total control over the allocation of wheat cars. This makes it almost impossible for the farmers to have access to the cars.

It means that empty ships are waiting in Vancouver harbour and full train cars are sitting in the port of Vancouver but with the wrong product. The wheat board has determined that the wrong product should be shipped to port. It is a mistake. We think this should be completely reviewed and the primary producers should be involved in what grain goes in what train cars and is delivered to what port and when. They must play a role in it.

Another issue is pilotage charges. It has been brought our attention that pilotage charges are expensive. With new technology there is no need for these pilotage charges, especially on the west coast. In the end the grain industry pays for them.

We are pushing for a review of the Canadian Wheat Board issues and on wheat transportation issues in general. We believe the system cannot respond quickly anymore to changing market demands. There is no accountability in the transportation system in the wheat transportation business. There is no penalty for non-performance. Many market opportunities are missed because of full train cars sitting on the wharf, empty ships in the harbour and the wrong grain in the train cars.

This system is designed to fail in the global economy. It clings to the assumptions of a bygone age and it means the system cannot work. We think the system must change and we have a plan. We would like to see the new system have accountability. Farmers are accountable for delivering the right grain in a timely manner. Railways are accountable for moving grain according to agreed on terms. Shippers are accountable for loading the grain at the right time in the right place.

We think market forces should be responsible. We think market forces should determine what grain goes where and when. We think those people who buy grain should determine when it moves, not the people producing it and not the people in the Canadian Wheat Board. The demand should determine what grain goes where. We think there should be just in time delivery so farmers do not have grain sitting in elevators for months at a time or sitting in train cars at the port of Vancouver.

There are many things. We want choice for the grain companies. We want them to have choices for transportation as much as possible. We want transparencies so the rules are clear to all participants in the system. We want a reasonable transportation cost. As much as the Canadian Wheat Board is a monopoly, so is the rail system a monopoly. With deregulation and changes in rail costs coming down, the transportation costs for wheat should be coming down. They are not. We would like to see some control over costs that way.

We have a lot to say on this bill. We want it to proceed but we want it to proceed with the amendments the industry is demanding.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, October 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I call for a quorum count.

[Division No. 5, October 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday I asked a question of the Minister of Transport about untendered contracts on a highway 104 project in Nova Scotia which is being done under a federal-provincial agreement. The minister's reply was basically that it is a provincial issue. I take exception to that. It is not a provincial issue.

Under normal conditions perhaps a highway is a provincial issue, but this deal is anything but normal. It is not normal because the federal and provincial governments have contributed money to set up a business to operate a highway at a profit of $151 million.

It is not normal because the province of Nova Scotia gave up control of the speed limits and fine amounts. It gave up control of who can drive on the highway. It even gave up the right for the financiers, Newcourt Credit, to establish their own police force on this highway. So it is not normal.

It is not normal because this is the only highway in and out of the province of Nova Scotia and it will affect every person in Nova Scotia and also Newfoundland because it is the only highway that serves Newfoundland.

This is a screwball agreement. The reason we have it is because there is no national highway program, which we will get into later. If we continue with projects like this one, we will have a hodgepodge of agreements all across the country if we do not have a national highway funding program.

Today the issue is the untendered contracts. The minister said that it was a provincial issue. I will read from the agreement where the federal government and provincial government put $55 million into it.

Clause 5.1 states that the $55 million agreement will be managed by two members of a management committee, one member appointed by the federal minister and the other appointed by the provincial minister. It goes on to say that all decisions of this management committee will be in writing and shall be acted on only if they are unanimous. So every decision had to be approved by the federal government, it had to be unanimous and it had to be in writing.

Also leading on into the agreement another clause states that all contracts shall be awarded to the qualified and responsible tenderer submitting the lowest evaluated bid.

Considering it is very clear that all the contracts had to be tendered and also it is clear that all decisions had to be agreed to by the federal government, did the federal government agree to issue $113 million of contracts untendered, or did the province circumvent the terms of the agreement and do it by itself? It is either one way or the other.

If the feds did agree, we would like to have a copy of that decision because in the agreement it says that all decisions will be in writing.

There are a few other little things we would like to have from the hon. minister concerning this agreement.

Section 5.3 says that the management committee will be responsible for issuing annual reports to the minister on the progress achieved by this agreement. We would really like to have copies of those progress reports.

Section 5.5 says that decisions of the management committee will be in writing and will be acted on only if they are unanimous. We would like to have copies of all the decisions.

Section 11.2 says that progress reports will be made public frequently. We would like to have all those progress reports. We would like to have copies of the untendered contracts. We would like to know exactly how the $27.5 million of federal money was put into the Atlantic highways improvement program.

Basically we want to know if the federal government agreed to allow $113 million of untendered contracts to go through and, if so, why.

[Port Police, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is on a mission to eliminate the Canada port police. During the last Parliament it sought authority to disband the Canada port police through Bill C-44. However, the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called. Despite this, the government has gone ahead and proceeded with the changes anyway.

These highly specialized forces focus on extremely important security issues for Canada, such as illegal immigration, illicit drug trading, exportation of stolen goods and security for foreign vessels.

Already this policy is resulting in inconsistencies in port policing from harbour to harbour, as ad hoc deals are made replacing the uniform federal system.

The government must provide the funds to ensure consistent, well trained police forces at every port and not allow a hodge-podge of enforcement arrangements all over the country which will make Canada the country of choice for illegal immigration and drugs.

[Infrastructure, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada.

The Highway 104 agreement includes clauses that clearly contravene the Competition Act, which ensures choices and the right to transportation and prohibits limiting facilities for transportation.

I requested the Federal Bureau of Competition to investigate the agreement which eliminates competition and choices and limits competition.

Will the minister assure the House that there will be no political interference in any resulting investigation, even though the federal government is a partner to the tune of $27 million in this agreement?

[Infrastructure, September 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very Liberal question for the Minister of Transport.

Under the terms of the strategic highway improvement program between the federal Liberal government and the provincial Liberal Government of Nova Scotia, all contracts are to be tendered. I quote directly from the agreement: “All contracts will awarded to the tenderer submitting the lowest evaluated bid”.

Why were two contracts worth over a $100 million given to two companies, both untendered? Even worse, both companies have at the top of the list of officers the past president of the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia.