Bill Casey

[Equalization, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago the government legislated a second equalization formula for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, which includes a locked-in, guaranteed 3.5% annual increase for every year until 2020. However, the throne speech indicates that a cap may be applied to limit equalization increases.

Will the Minister of Finance assure Nova Scotia and Newfoundland that they will receive the full 3.5% guaranteed increase every year, even if the economy as a whole increases only 1% or even zero?

[Committees of the House, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member was not listening to what I said. I said that the fisheries committee held public hearings in all the fishing provinces except Nova Scotia. It did not hold public hearings in Nova Scotia. There are a lot of problems in Nova Scotia, especially along the Northumberland Strait, Pictou--

[Canada Elections Act, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on the last three motions I would give my consent, but on the first one I would not.

The fisheries committee went to all of the fishing provinces in Canada except Nova Scotia. They refused to come and hold public hearings in Nova Scotia. If they will not do that, they should not be allowed to go to Brussels in Belgium.

[Equalization Payments, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, prior to the March 2007 budget, Canada only had one equalization formula for all provinces. Now we have three unequal equalization formulas. Nova Scotia has the choice between the O'Brien formula and a new formula. It expires in 2020. Eight provinces have the O'Brien formula. They expire six years later. Newfoundland has the amended 2005 formula but no O'Brien formula.

At one point, the minister saw merit in having one principle-based equalization formula. Does he have any intention of reverting back to that and having one equalization formula for all provinces, instead of three?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 16th, 2008]

With regard to the pension claw backs alleged to be affecting both Canadian Forces (CF) veterans and retired members of the RCMP: (a) did the government ever make promises to CF personnel in 1965, 1968 or in 1971 that no person would receive less after the amalgamation of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and the Superannuation at age 65 and prior to superannuation reduction; (b) can the government confirm that public service members, who contributed to superannuation, prior to January 1, 1966 enjoy specific protections within the Superannuation Act with regard to their pensions; (c) is the same protection for public service members as discussed in (b), extended to CF veterans and retired members of the RCMP, or have these groups been excluded from this protection; (d) in the years following 1966, were superannuates awarded full and indexed CPP benefits despite having contributed for a very short time; (e) if it can be confirmed that there is not the same protection for CF Members and retired RCMP members that public service members currently enjoy within the Superannuation Act, is the government prepared to make the corrections required to make the law more equal for all three groups; (f) if the government is not prepared to make the corrections, why not; (g) how has the government acted to alleviate the concerns of retired CF Veterans and RCMP members who believe that their pensions have been clawed back because of the integration of the CPP with their pensions in 1966; (h) what steps has the government taken to explain or clarify their pension policies to specifically address the claw back concerns of CF veterans and retired RCMP members; (i) with regards to (f) what groups or veterans associations has the government communicated with in regards to the pension claw back issues, with the goal of addressing the concerns of these groups, from 2000 to the present day; (j) in 1966, when the CF and RCMP Superannuation plans were reportedly coordinated with the CPP, how were members of the CF and RCMP members notified or briefed on the effects or benefits of such a policy change on individual pensions; (k) what recommendations has the government considered, since 2000, to change the CPP-related reduction calculation contained in the three primary federal public sector pension plans, including the CF Superannuation Act and the RCMP Superannuation Act, to address the concerns of CF veterans and retired RCMP members that they are losing an amount of pension income because of current policy; (l) does the government intend to meet with national organizations representing veterans and retired RCMP members in 2008 to work on ways to reduce or alleviate their concerns about the alleged pension claw backs and, if so, when are meetings planned, and for what cities in Canada; and (m) how many messages have been received by the Minister of National Defence from veterans, requesting that he personally become involved in terminating the benefit reduction formula being allegedly applied to the pension annuities of the CF veterans and retired RCMP members?

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the motion.

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I vote in favour of the motion.

[Equalization Payments, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Finance for arriving just in time for my question.

Last year, when the Minister of Finance broke the Atlantic accord, he came up with a two tier replacement arrangement that created a second equalization formula offered to only two provinces. The second equalization formula includes a 3.5% escalator clause for these two provinces.

At the same time the minister stated that the government would resolve Nova Scotia's crown share claim and announce that settlement on March 15.

I respectfully ask the minister to tell the House what year Nova Scotia might first get a benefit from the 3.5% escalator clause equalization formula, and does he have any idea when we can expect the March 15 announcement of the crown share settlement?

[Government Contracts, May 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, speculation in some circles is that the almost one year delay in the signing of the contract to maintain and overhaul Canada's submarine fleet is because one of the west coast partners, the Washington Marine Group, which owns the Victoria Shipyards, has walked away from the deal.

Will the minister indicate if this is true or not, and if it is true, will he now recall the tender as a major Crown project, like it should have been in the first place?

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 6th, 2008]

With regard to the Victoria In-Service Support Contract: (a) if Industrial and Regional Benefits evaluations were carried out by representatives from Industry Canada and the regional development agencies as part of the contracting process, were representatives of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) involved in these evaluations and, if so, when were they written and what are the detailed reasons as to why the Agency did not conduct any analysis on the potential impacts to employment or economic development to the Atlantic Canada region, as stated in the government's answer to written question Q-182; and (b) when were the ACOA evaluations approved and transmitted to Public Works and Government Services Canada?