Bill Casey

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak to Bill C-48. Since the last speaker quoted from the Globe and Mail , I think it is only fair that I quote from the National Post .

One headline reads “Spending spree continues”, and another reads, “Ottawa doling out $1.24 billion per day”. It states:

The money being doled out works out to $1.24-billion a day, including $5.75-billion the Liberals gave to Ontario.... Other provinces are now salivating over the prospects of inking their own version of the Ontario deal....

It is hard to fathom what is going on and how fast the Liberals are spending money. I love the name of the bill. Bill C-48 is an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments. I do not know how it can be restricted to certain because it is almost any payment. They will do anything right now to buy votes. The National Post has it up to 122 different grants and programs, totalling $22 billion in three weeks to buy votes.

I want to point out to citizens that Bill C-48 is an act to put the deal on paper that the NDP made with the Liberals. The projected cost is $4.6 billion, that is $4.6 thousand million so the Liberals can buy a few months and get through the vote on the budget. The NDP votes are now worth $240 million each to get the Liberals through the budget. If that is good management, common sense and good administration I will eat my shirt.

I can just imagine how the bureaucrats in the Department of Finance must be operating. They must have whiplash. No, we do not have tax cuts. Yes, we have tax cuts. No, we do not have tax cuts. How do they keep up with what is going on? We are spending $1 billion here and $100 million there and $22 billion here. I do not know how the people in the Department of Finance can operate. It must be incredible.

The one thing for sure is that if the Liberals can open a drawer and find $4.6 billion to pay for the 19 votes that the NDP gave them, there is too much money in the drawer. That is simple evidence that we are being overtaxed. If they can, with the snap of a finger, find $4.6 billion, something is wrong with the system. The something wrong is that we are overtaxed.

We as members of Parliament have to fight for infrastructure in our ridings to save our institutions, like the Nappan experimental farm which has been in Nappan, Nova Scotia since before Confederation. At a time when farmers need all the help they can get in research and development, new products, training, all kinds of things, the government announces in the budget that it is going to close the Nappan experimental farm. It has unique soils, terrains and products. Now it is talking about closing the Nappan experimental farm because it does not have the money but then it turns around and pays $4.6 billion to buy the 19 votes of the NDP. It is absolutely incredible and makes our job of convincing people more difficult.

Even a little thing like a light bulb in a lighthouse in Wallace Harbour, a lighthouse that saves lives, we had to fight to get the light bulb changed in the lighthouse of all things. However when the Liberals need the 19 NDP votes they do not seem to have a problem finding $4.6 billion in the drawer. When we needed a few thousand dollars for a light bulb for a lighthouse to save lives, it was not available. We had to fight to get it and we did get it, I am very pleased to say.

The Atlantic accord is another issue that should be dealt with. The Atlantic accord is a very important deal for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. The government will not pull it out of Bill C-43 and make it a separate deal. It will do it for tax cuts but not for Atlantic Canada. It is holding Atlantic Canada hostage because it wants to force all kinds of things down the throats of Atlantic Canadians to force them to agree to these things and only then will it agree to the Atlantic accord.

Last year's budget implementation act is going through the Senate today, a year late. I believe it was tabled on March 23, 2004, and it is only going through the Senate today.

This is the same bill where the Atlantic accord is stuck now. It is on pages 57 and 58 of Bill C-43 instead of being a stand alone bill that we could pass in the House to allow Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to move forward. We cannot do that because the Liberals want to hold us hostage and make sure they ram all these other things through without us even considering them.

We cannot do that. It is our job to hold the government accountable. It is our job to ask questions about all these other things, like the foundations that are funded under this program, student loans, employment insurance, income tax. However the government says that we are not allowed to ask questions on those issues. It says that we should just close our eyes, grit our teeth and say yes to the budget so we can have the Atlantic accord. It is not fair and we cannot do it.

The cost of the election is something that comes up from the Liberal side. The Liberals say that they cannot afford an election. They say that it might cost $230 million to $250 million to run an election. With each NDP vote costing $240 million, I do not see how they can say $230 million is too much to charge for an election. Two hundred and thirty million dollars for an election is a lot of money but every NDP vote that they bought cost $240 million, which is more than a whole federal election.

If we are a little upset about Bill C-48, those are some of the reasons.

I wish that the Liberals would bring in the things that we have asked for, and specifically on the Atlantic accord, to pull it out of the bill. The Minister of Finance says that we cannot cherry-pick Bill C-43, that we cannot pull out what we want. However they can pull it out if they need to. They can pull the tax cuts out to satisfy the NDP and then create a whole independent stand alone bill, which is exactly what we have been asking them to do for the Atlantic accord. They can do it for themselves and the NDP but they will not do it for Atlantic Canada.

I hope they will reconsider that and pull the Atlantic accord out of Bill C-43, make it a stand alone bill and we commit to passing it in one day.

[Privilege, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first, I take great exception to some of the things that have happened with 10 percenters as well. I have had my riding inundated with 10 percenters from other provinces, small islands for instance. However, I want to address something the member for Windsor West said.

He said that the Conservatives orchestrated an attack or a mailing in his riding. The House of Commons postal unit testified at our committee that it was its mistake. It was not the Conservative MP's mistake at all. The House of Commons postal unit said, “We made the mistake. It was our fault. We do not even know where they went”. The unit could not say to what ridings the 10 percenters went or who got them. It could not say how to reach back and correct that. Therefore, today we passed a motion in the committee for the House of Commons to issue an apology to the communities involved with this. I think that was the proper way to deal with it.

It was not an act by a Conservative member of Parliament that caused this problem. It was a mistake by the postal unit of the House of Commons and it and testified to that. The unit has apologized, but it could not say where they went. I do believe it has to be tightened up. For sure the post office has to be able to record where they went in the event that something like this happens again.

I agree with the member. If it happened in my riding, I would want redress too. I would want somebody to apologize for it. I would want the people responsible to apologize. The House of Commons postal unit has done that at our committee. We will ask it to put out a press release to that effect. However, it was not a mistake on behalf of the Conservative member that this mailing went into the member's riding, or not. I wanted to correct the record on that.

[The Budget, May 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yes, Bill C-43 is before the House today but, as a coincidence, last year's budget implementation bill may pass through the Senate today, a year later.

If the Prime Minister can take the tax cuts out of the budget with the snap of a finger, he can do the same thing for the Atlantic accord and save a year for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Will he do that and make the same agreement on that bill?

[Committees of the House, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River a question. Previous to the member speaking, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell stood up to say that he had been back in his riding and the only people who are really pushing for an election now or who want an election are those in the Conservative Party.

However, I noticed something in the two national newspapers today. The National Post has an editorial entitled “Time to put this House out of its misery”. The article goes on to some extent about how it is time that this Parliament came to an end. Of course the Globe and Mail also has one, entitled “Why prolong this paralyzing agony?”, which states:

--an election that cleared the air, one way or another, would at least unfreeze the locked cogs of the public service, and get the legislative process flowing again.

I have also noticed lately that the polls of Canadian citizens are becoming more balanced. Most people now realize that we are in a mess. Parliament is at a standstill. Committees are at a standstill. Ministers' offices are at a standstill. We here in Ottawa really are no longer effective. There is more and more support for an election soon.

Would the hon. House leader comment on this? Does he think there is more support now for an election as people understand the incredible revelations that come out day after day in the Gomery commission about their tax dollars and how those dollars have been wasted? The cost of an election is often quoted at $230 million. The Liberals recently paid $240 million for each NDP vote in order to survive for 10 months. I ask the hon. opposition House leader to comment on that.

[Citizenship Act, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to be outraged and appalled if the parliamentary secretary has agreed to maintain the lighthouse. I appreciate that very much.

I also want to compliment him on his recognition of the value of lighthouses. As a lifelong Maritimer, I cherish every lighthouse in my province. I know the lighthouses in my riding. The parliamentary secretary referred to them as mythical and I think that is probably quite right. We put a great deal of value on these lighthouses.

I want to mention the little community of Port Greville, which recaptured its lighthouse. The Coast Guard had taken the lighthouse away years ago to a Coast Guard training station, but this little community was able to convince the Coast Guard to bring it back to Port Greville and re-establish it at the Age of Sail Museum in Port Greville. This museum is run entirely by volunteers and is a wonderful museum. It reflects our sailing history and all of the mariner and marine activity that we have had for many years.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to clarify his answer. I understood that it would be maintained at its current brightness with the same power. There was a discussion about it and one of the possibilities was a lower level of light. If the parliamentary secretary could clarify that for me, I would be very grateful. I understand from what he said that it would be maintained at its current level. Could he clarify that for me just one more time?

[Citizenship Act, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to explore a little more an issue I brought up on April 22 about a lighthouse in Wallace, Nova Scotia on the Northumberland Strait.

First of all, I would like to describe the harbour at Wallace. It is a long harbour leading in from the Northumberland Strait to the wharf at Wallace. For decades there has been a lighthouse there that has been the guiding light for fishermen, commercial vessels, and recreational vessels to return to the wharf in all kinds of weather.

Recently, the Coast Guard has suggested that it will not replace the light bulb in the lighthouse. It has several suggestions of replacing it with lighted buoys, less bright lights or whatever. We feel that this lighthouse light is essential. It is a matter of life and death in certain circumstances. It should not be compromised for the sake of a few dollars.

The fishermen who are dealing with this situation every day and use this light hear about all kinds of expenditures that are made by the government. They hear them every day on television with regard to ad scam that the Liberals have been operating mostly in the province of Quebec. The fishermen wonder if the government can afford to spend all this money, why can it not afford a light bulb for a lighthouse that could save lives?

I noticed this week that the Liberals announced $1.25 million for a farmers market in Moncton, if I am not mistaken. I am sure it is a worthwhile enterprise. How can a farmers market be compared with a lighthouse that could save lives in the event of foul weather?

The light can be seen from 17 miles away. It can almost be seen from Prince Edward Island. We want Prince Edward Island to see us. For decades the purpose of this light was to help mariners come into the harbour. Cumberland County Councillor Gerald Langille said recently, “Many fishermen are becoming concerned with what we are going to be left with. The powerful light we have is visible when it's most important, in relatively poor weather. When the weather is fine and all our navigation equipment is working, the lighthouse is a mere inconvenience, but when things go bad, it has always been there and it has given us a strong sense of security. Why should it be downgraded at the expense of our safety?

This is such an important issue. This is not a convenience issue. It is not something that maybe will enhance the community or something that is optional. This is a safety issue. It is life and death. It is how the fishermen find their port. It is how the fishermen find their way back to the wharf.

I would like the Liberal government to confirm today that it is going to replace that lighthouse bulb. The lighthouse bulb will last 15 years. It costs $87,000. It is an expensive light bulb and I will grant them that. However, it lasts 15 years.

The question is, how many lives will it save? Anyone who has boated on the Northumberland Strait knows how fast the wind comes come up, how rough the water can be, and how strong the currents are. This lighthouse is absolutely critical.

I ask the parliamentary secretary tonight if he will advise us if the lighthouse will be maintained at its current strength, so that Wallace can maintain its safety and also go ahead with plans to attract more commercial vessels to the harbour. Perhaps Wallace can then build a marina and expand the harbour.

[Wallace Harbour Lighthouse, April 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, for decades the fishermen in Wallace have used the Wallace Harbour lighthouse as the only navigational aid to get into the long harbour leading up to the Wallace wharf.

Now the Coast Guard says it does not have enough money to buy a light bulb for the lighthouse and it is going to change the system and put in a less effective system.

The same fishermen who are worried about this matter watch television every day about the graft and the corruption and the kickbacks of millions and millions of dollars. They cannot understand why the Coast Guard and the Liberals will not buy them a light bulb for their lighthouse.

Will the Liberals announce today that they are going to maintain the Wallace Harbour lighthouse and put a new light bulb in it?

[Supply, April 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise an issue that has bothered me from the very beginning of the debate about sponsorship programs.

Most of the focus is on Quebec, but in Nova Scotia, there were sponsorship programs awarded as well. On three occasions, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said in the House, “The Prime Minister was aware of the sponsorship program. All members of Parliament were aware of the sponsorship program”. He said exactly the same line three times.

I must have failed to check my mail from the public works department because I did not know about the sponsorship program. I felt that I had let my constituents down because I did not know about it.

I did an access to information request to find out what I missed. I asked for all the letters and notes to members of Parliament from the Minister of Public Works and Government Services who administered the program regarding applying for funds from the federal sponsorship program, including the steps, process and criteria that members of Parliament were to take and follow. I asked for everything for all members of Parliament and I specifically asked for mine and for the member for West Nova. However, the access request came back saying no such documents exist.

How were all of us opposition members supposed to know about it if there was no information and no communication? The member for West Nova in Nova Scotia got 13 grants. He was a Liberal. The member for Central Nova got zero. He was a Conservative. The member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore got zero grants. He was NDP. It seems that only the Liberals were able to find this, except for the minister who did access some part of it.

I know the minister will give us a quick answer, a smart one-liner. He is very good at it. However, I want the answer. How did Public Works communicate with members of Parliament in the opposition about this national program which involved hundreds of millions of dollars?

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the hon. member for Central Nova a question about the Northeast Nova drug section. The Northeast Nova drug section serves his area and my area. Also, the Premier of Nova Scotia lives in the same area that is served by this section.

There has been speculation that the RCMP will be cancelling the Northeast Nova drug section. The member for Central Nova has objected to this and has spoken out against it many times, as have I and many others. We totally oppose this because of the risk it would place on the communities in northern Nova Scotia.

I would like the member to give his perspective on this as a former crown prosecutor and someone who has been recently working very closely with the RCMP on several issues. I wonder if he could give us his point of view on the damage that could result from the cancellation of the Northeast Nova drug section.

[RCMP and Law Enforcement in Canada, April 12th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for creating the opportunity for us to talk about this issue because it affects all of us in Canada.

The risks and dangers that RCMP officers face were brought to my attention about eight weeks ago when a man came into my office in Truro, Nova Scotia extremely irate. He was specifically mad at the RCMP. He became more angry during our discussions, and at one point he said, “Don't worry about the RCMP Mr. Government Man because I'm going to shoot them”. He was not being sarcastic nor was he being funny. He is a dangerous man. He sounded similar to the man who did the awful atrocities at Mayerthorpe.

Could the member give us some ideas about what we could do as legislators to give RCMP officers the protection they need from people like this? What could the RCMP do? How can we work with the RCMP to help it in its dangerous job?