Debates of May 28th, 2002

Housing Bill of Rights

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his persistence on this matter. It is an important question that he raises.

As a result of a competitive bid process in 1997 and in 2000 Lancaster Aviation won contracts to market and dispose of surplus aviation assets, which included a couple of helicopters worth some $20 million and eight Challenger aircraft worth about $30 million. In addition, there were spare parts associated that had a value of somewhere under $1 million.

Lancaster Aviation markets these in the best location it can and that happens to be in Florida. There it has leased hangar space for the storage of those assets. Indeed, the two helicopters were sold to the U.S. Department of State for $20 million U.S. The eight Challenger aircraft were sold to DDH Aviation of Fort Worth, Texas for $30 million U.S.

There are currently only about $1 million or less of spare parts assets. They are in the custody of Lancaster Aviation but still belong to the Government of Canada.

The member has raised an important point. He has written to the RCMP about this. Lancaster Aviation has rented storage space from an incorporated company whose owner has been convicted of an offence. It is certainly not the practice of the Government of Canada to do business with convicted felons. In this case our current practices do not provide for checking down the road a lessor of property that a contractor may use.

As a consequence, notwithstanding the hon. member's interventions, I have asked departmental officials to review our contracting practices and procedures to determine whether further safeguards are desirable as they relate to either subcontractors or other parties engaged by those with whom we have a contract. We have a $250,000 deposit by Lancaster. The assets are secure. They belong to the Government of Canada. Indeed, the process will go on.

I thank the hon. member for raising this issue, for taking it to the RCMP and asking to ensure that we have made every possible effort to safeguard our assets. We will continue on behalf of the member's interventions to reassess from time to time our practices of contracting.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the Government of Canada refuses to request an investigation of this file, by either asking the FBI or the RCMP in conjunction with the FBI to go to Florida, and do an investigation to find out what happened to the spare parts that I am talking about.

Henry McFlicker is a convicted felon and a convicted money launderer. Would that not raise suspicions when he is sending out advertisements advertising himself as being in a contractual arrangement with a supplier of spare parts from the Government of Canada, and the sole distributor of those parts? It just does not add up.

Why does the government refuse to investigate Henry McFliker? Why will it not tell us exactly what happened to those $15 million in spare parts? Where did they wind up? Are they in the hands of terrorists? Does Henry McFliker still own them? Were they seized when the FBI raided him and he was convicted of money laundering? What happened to those spare parts is the bottom line.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Lancaster Aviation continues to market the remaining assets. As I indicated, there are less than $1 million of spare parts left.

I would also indicate that notwithstanding the member's concern the RCMP has made inquiries and has determined that it has not been asked by the U.S. security intelligence agencies to conduct any investigation into the relationship between Lancaster and Airspares. The RCMP has taken appropriate steps to ensure that there is no matter here which it should be rightfully involved in.

I thank the member for the question. I hope as a consequence of his interventions that our contracting practices and the safeguards that we have put in place will ensure even to a greater extent the safeguarding of the assets of Canada.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to bring back to the House a question I originally raised on February 27. To explain this a little, the Atlantic office of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been in Amherst, Nova Scotia for about 50 years. Every so often it seems that the bureaucrats and officials decide that they would rather have it somewhere else and we go through an exercise in which the employees of Indian affairs and the people in the town of Amherst and the surrounding area go through this agony of wondering what is going to happen and if we are going to move the Atlantic office of Indian affairs or not.

Amherst is a small town of 10,000 people. The office of Indian affairs employs 140 people who all have families. They participate in the community as volunteers and so on. It is really important to this community for the office to stay there.

We went through this in 1990 and in 1997 and now again are going through it in 2002. In 1997, the last time we went through this, I approached the minister of Indian affairs and asked her about the move. She said they would respect the wishes of the natives. The natives held a meeting at the Atlantic policy conference of first nations chiefs. They voted to leave the office in Amherst. When I came back to the House and spoke with the minister, she said if that was what the natives wanted that was what the government would do; it would honour the wishes of the natives.

However, here we are back again just a few years later discussing whether we are going to move it. The bureaucrats now have engaged a private consultant to do a study to find out whether it should be in Fredericton or Halifax or wherever. We believe strongly that the officials would rather have it somewhere else even though Amherst is the best location. It is centrally located for all of the first nations it serves. It is the best place to service the first nations from. It is a day trip for almost all of the 38 first nations it serves. If the office moves somewhere else, it will then be an overnight trip for first nations for services. It is a low cost operation. It has been proven to serve the community well from Amherst. We definitely want it to stay there.

Let me say again that if they decide to move it, the impact on Amherst, and the impact is supposed to be part of the study, will be very dramatic and very negative. We will lose 140 jobs that are in downtown Amherst and provide our small business community with a lot of assistance and support. We will lose volunteers who are not replaceable. Many of the employees at Indian affairs are volunteers in our community. Even organizations like the United Way have indicated that they will suffer if we lose this office. A principal came to me one day and said that we would lose schools and teachers if we were to lose the Indian affairs office, because with the lower student count we could not justify so many teachers.

The minister has told me personally and directly that if in the study it comes out that it will cost more to move the regional office, he will not move it. Again let me say that the natives have voted to leave it in Amherst.

The economics of the situation are that it is more cost effective to leave it in Amherst. It is going to cost perhaps $3 million to $5 million to move it. It is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year more to operate it.

I would ask the minister if he would confirm now, if he is ready to say, will the office of Indian affairs for the Atlantic region stay in Amherst, Nova Scotia?

[John Finlay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning the location study of the INAC Atlantic regional office.

As the member knows and as he has so fairly said, a location study by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Atlantic regional office is currently underway. It is not a relocation study, as various sources have said. I would like to remind hon. members that it is perfectly normal for a department to periodically review the effectiveness and efficiency of its service delivery to clients, which in this case are Atlantic first nations communities.

Over the last number of years, as the member mentioned, the role of the department has evolved increasingly into an advisory role as programs have devolved to first nations. Therefore, this type of assessment is necessary in order to ensure that Atlantic first nations continue to receive the support and services they require and that these needs are balanced with the most effective use of taxpayers' dollars.

In saying that, I am not rebutting any of the points made by my hon. friend across the way. It is just that this is being done by an independent party. Any decisions that may result from the completed study will be based on a solid business case and thorough cost benefit analysis.

However, since the study has not yet been received, no decisions have been made and they will not be until the study is received. As part of normal business practices a location study to review service delivery to clients by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's Atlantic regional office is currently underway and, I repeat, is not a relocation study.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has received correspondence from the hon. member regarding the study and it has been reiterated to him that the location study is about cost benefit analysis and optimum conduct of the Government of Canada's business, not about relocating the office.

Regional staff are provided with regular progress reports on the review and local union representatives have been kept informed by regional management through regular meetings. Atlantic region officials have discussed the review with the mayor of Amherst as well as with the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs executive committee.

The Atlantic regional office has been located in Amherst, Nova Scotia for the past 50 years. Indeed, two district offices, one in Halifax and one in Fredericton, were closed in 1989 and responsibilities were centralized to the Amherst office. It is the only INAC regional office across the country not located in a provincial or territorial capital, but it is the only regional office that deals with more than one province. In fact, it deals with all of the Atlantic provinces.

The relationship between the Government of Canada and first nations has changed significantly. The government's aboriginal agenda requires closer co-ordination among various federal government departments and other levels of government as well as other stakeholders. Therefore, INAC determined it was appropriate and timely to examine whether Amherst was the best location from which to continue to co-ordinate INAC's regional activities for the four Atlantic provinces. A business case analysis by an independent party is the mechanism identified to complete this work.

This activity is a normal business review exercise of INAC's operational efficiency and a review of costs to ensure that its obligation to aboriginal people in the Atlantic region and to all Canadians is made in the most efficient and cost effective manner.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer. It is not as good as “yes, we will leave it in Amherst”, but it is not bad. I appreciate the fact that the parliamentary secretary points out, which is that it is not a relocation study but a location study.

I also am glad he pointed out that it is the only regional office not located in a provincial capital but that it is the only one that serves four provinces. Amherst is absolutely geographically in the centre of the four provinces and in the centre of the map of the first nations, who, after all, are the people the office serves.

Previously the minister told me that if the study indicates that it is more economically feasible to maintain the office in its present location, he would leave it there. It is a business study and if the business study shows that it is best to leave it in Amherst, he would leave it there. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could confirm that it is still the same policy. If it costs more money to move it to and operate it at another location, will the government leave the regional office in Amherst?

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question, as I have already indicated, is yes.

As the member opposite is aware, the focus of the study is to assess the current location of the INAC Atlantic regional office in order to confirm it remains effective in serving the needs of our clients and is an efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

I took the trouble to look on my map before I came back to answer this question tonight because I was at least apprised of the topic. I found that the member's statement was quite correct. It did appear to me that Amherst was right smack in the middle of the four Atlantic provinces. Therefore perhaps we should feel confident that the right decision will be made.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.19 p.m.)