Bill Casey

[Public Service, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk about the policy. We want the funds released, as the President of the Public Service Commission asked for today.

The government has a new twist on this job discrimination. Under the federal student work experience program, there is a program to help full time students with summer jobs. The students are told that the program is only geared for students in the Ottawa area. The justice department is telling applicants that students from the capital region are placed first.

Will the government stop this offensive favouritism policy and open up all student jobs, all summer jobs, to all Canadians in Ottawa?

[Public Service, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, every time we raise questions about the Liberal policy of discrimination by postal code for jobs in Ottawa, where Canadians cannot work here unless they have a certain postal code, the government says that it wants to fix it. This morning the President of the Public Service Commission said that Treasury Board would not release the money to even develop a plan to fix it.

Will the President of the Treasury Board announce today that he is releasing the funds for the study, or explain to Canadians outside of Ottawa why Liberals do not want them working in Ottawa?

[Public Works and Government Services, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the letter but it does confirm that the barriers are there. In fact, the rules state that a company can only tender on an entire province at once. The rules also state that all services must be in place within 120 days, which is just impossible for any company other than the current supplier, so it is not a level playing field.

Will the minister change these specifics to open up the bidding or explain why the government does not want the best deal for Canadian taxpayers' dollars?

[Public Works and Government Services, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government always claims that it wants to encourage competition in the telecommunications business, but when it outlined the terms required to provide telephone service to its own offices in Atlantic Canada, the conditions made it impossible for new entries to compete with the incumbent.

Will the Minister of Public Works just open up the bidding system and give all contenders a level playing field?

[Income Tax Act, May 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the answer from the parliamentary secretary, but I want to point out to him that this is different in Nova Scotia.

In the other areas he mentioned that suffered from the longhorned beetle infestation, it is different because eventually the woodlot in those three other areas will be able to harvest their lumber. In Nova Scotia they are not going to be able to harvest their lumber because it is already down. They could harvest it today, this minute, except for the CFIA regulation which says that because of the longhorned beetle, they cannot harvest it. They cannot move it. They cannot take it to a mill. They cannot do anything with it.

I did not hear a complaint from the woodlot owners until the trees were knocked down because they knew that eventually they could harvest their trees. The trees are down now and must be harvested now but because of the CFIA regulation, they cannot be. It is different from the other situations.

I totally agree that every effort must be made to ensure that the beetle does not move around or expand its area. We totally support that position.

Again I come back to the avian flu issue in British Columbia. Compensation was provided for chicken farmers and therefore, compensation should be provided for the woodlot owners in Nova Scotia.

[Income Tax Act, May 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to again raise an issue that I raised on April 26. Just to give a little background, it revolves around the Nova Scotia brown spruce longhorned beetle situation in the Halifax regional municipality. I read that the Minister of Agriculture was compensating British Columbia farmers because the Canadian Food Inspection Agency made regulations that caused farmers there to lose their entire inventory.

In Nova Scotia, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency made regulations that are causing Nova Scotia woodlot owners to lose their entire inventory because of the brown spruce longhorned beetle.

One is a flu and one is a beetle, but it is the same agency, it is the same situation, it is the same Department of Agriculture, and it is the same impact. The business operators are losing their entire inventory.

For British Columbia, the minister responded by sending them cheques, actual cheques. I think the government has spent several million dollars to compensate the farmers in British Columbia for their lost inventory because of the CFIA regulations.

However, for Nova Scotia the minister replied in the House that the government is working closely with the industry. I do not know why the government discriminates against Nova Scotia. I am not sure what Liberals have against Nova Scotia as opposed to British Columbia, but British Columbia is getting cheques and Nova Scotia is getting the response that the government is working closely with the industry.

With all due respect, the minister asked his officials to have a conference call with me to help me understand this. It was a good conference call. It was explained to me that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency would authorize mills to process this timber in a certain way as long as the mills agree to a stringent set of circumstances to ensure that the beetle did not proliferate or go anywhere else.

This sounded good to me. I appreciated the feedback. I went back to the woodlot owner who had raised the issue with me. He said that the mills will not let the lumber in. They will not take on the responsibility because the regulations are too stringent.

In a coincidence, this morning I received an e-mail from a woodlot owner. I will read a few lines from it:

My experience and that of others is one of total frustration. The [CFIA] says they have worked with the industry to have mills certified and it is now up to the private sector. The mills are not interested because the requirements are too stringent.

So as for the information I received in the conference call, those people may have meant well, and they may have meant that this was a solution, but it is not a practical solution. It is not working.

Once again I ask the Liberal government to treat Nova Scotia the same as British Columbia. It is the same Department of Agriculture. It is the same CFIA. It is the same problem. The business people are losing their inventories for the same reasons. I ask the government to compensate the Nova Scotia business people in exactly the same way that it has compensated British Columbians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, May 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am glad he raised that issue because he mentioned the $42 billion, which is less than the government has overcharged working Canadians for employment insurance. That is just a pittance compared to what Canadians have been overcharged and to how brutally students have been treated with their employment insurance premiums. They really are not insurance premiums. It is just an overcharge and an extra tax that the Liberals want to call a premium.

The deficit had to be beaten, but I would like the minister to think about this. Calculate how much was achieved through the free trade improvements that were negotiated by Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservative Party, how much came through GST and how much business improved its ability to be competitive because of GST, rather than the regressive manufacturer's sales tax that the Liberals invented and imposed upon Canadian businesses so they could not compete.

I think if the minister goes back and figures that out, if he just takes those two policies, GST and free trade, he will find out how we fixed the deficit.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, May 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like him to make a note that my riding is Cumberland--Colchester, for when he passes out those millions of dollars for homelessness.

It is interesting that he should bring that up. When I was here from 1988 to 1993, we had programs that were really beneficial to people who required low cost housing. We had a co-op housing program which was absolutely incredible. We had programs to help people fix up lesser houses. We had programs to help people make their first purchases on houses. Those all disappeared under the minister's government, or the predecessor, his earlier version of the current government. However, I applaud what he is doing for homelessness.

I want to make it clear that every time I ask the minister a question, he gives me a real answer, which is not common over there. Let us call him an extraordinary minister. I appreciate the answers we get. I would like him to give me an answer for my number 699, unforeseen events. Could he tell me what that grant was?

I applaud what he is doing on housing. Cumberland--Colchester is the name of my riding, and we desperately need some of that money. We have tried to access it through several different programs. It is much more difficult now than it was when the Progressive Conservative Party was in power. Next time, when the Conservative Party is in power, it will be much easier again.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, May 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-30.

I compliment the member for Dauphin—Swan River. He raised a lot of issues that tweaked my mind and reminded me of things I would like to talk about.

I sometimes wonder whether there is any point in discussing the budgets, presentations, throne speeches and all the announcements the Liberals make because they change them so fast and they do not keep their word.

Just a few months ago the government announced in a big flurry of activity a $750 million program for passenger rail service in central Canada. It was a big deal. There were lots of headlines and lots of coverage and within months they retracted it. They made it all go away. It is not going to happen now. It was just one of those announcements they made to get a few headlines, to get some support and then it fizzled away within months. It does not take long.

Let us look at some of the other things the Liberals have done. I remember the hep C program. They came out with a program to help fund a narrow window of victims of hepatitis C but when there was opposition to it and a lot of criticism, they changed it. They did not change it enough, but they changed it to include more people. There are still a lot of victims of hep C who do not have access to funding.

In the recent budget the Liberals announced a tax exemption for military officers serving in dangerous areas. They announced it in a big flurry but when there was opposition and criticism, they had to change it. They expanded it. It is the same with a number of things.

There were health care announcements in the recent budget. I could not believe it. In just days after the budget the Liberals were announcing new terms for health care and more money because everybody knows they shortchanged the provinces in the budget.

We cannot go by what they announce. We can only go by what they do and that is precious little. The Liberals do not do a lot.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River mentioned a few things that I want to cover, such as the gas tax on highways. My riding has the only portion of the Trans-Canada Highway that has a toll on it. It costs me $8 to go from one side of my riding to the other. Every other four-lane highway in the province of Nova Scotia is free and every other part of the Trans-Canada Highway is free, but my riding has an extra tax. Nowhere else in Canada has this tax, except my riding of Cumberland—Colchester.

It happened when the Liberals were in power federally and provincially. The funding was put in place to build a four-lane highway. It was put in place by a Progressive Conservative federal government and was signed off by a Progressive Conservative provincial government. It was 100% funding.

What happened? When the Liberals got in, a Liberal minister on the federal side made a deal with the Liberal minister on the provincial side in Nova Scotia. They transferred that money from my riding to a completely separate issue, a different kind of road in Cape Breton. This was under the national highway program. I will never understand how they were able to do that but they took the money out of the national highway program and put it toward a tourist road in their own ridings.

That is the way the Liberals do things. What they say they are going to do matters not much.

The member for Dauphin—Swan River mentioned overtaxation in EI.

I find it incredible that the government taxes students in the summers. They have to pay employment insurance premiums but they have no access to employment insurance. They cannot get the benefit but the government taxes them. They are charged the employment insurance premium. I find it so discouraging and so offensive that the Liberals would do that.

That is just a part of the $44 billion to $47 billion overcharge in employment insurance which I consider to be fraud. I look at the paycheques of my constituents and right on them it says “employment insurance premium”. It is not a premium for employment insurance. It is strictly a tax. It is fraud. It is getting money under false pretences because it is not an EI premium. I think that account is up to $44 billion or $46 billion that has been overcharged. That is forty-four thousand million dollars the government has overcharged people for working.

Part of that is what the young people have been overcharged. Students who have to work in the summer have their paycheques reduced because of an employment insurance premium, which really is not a premium because they cannot get the benefit.

Students do not qualify for the benefit because they are not available for work. It is fraud. It does not even make sense that the Liberals do this, but they go on and do it.

In the budget proposals there is no allowance for submarines. It is an issue that I have been involved with. Canada bought four submarines six years ago. Not one of them works yet. Not one of them is deployable. Not one of them is ready to go to work after six years. It takes 18 to 24 months to build a brand new submarine. We have had these for six years. They do not work yet. Why do they not work? Because the government has not made the resources available to make them work.

I visited the dockyards and I was very impressed with the submariners who want to work on the submarines. They are committed to these subs; they believe in these subs. They are sure they can do the job for Canada but they do not have the tools; they do not have the parts; they do not have the production workers; they do not have the production managers. They do not have the will on behalf of the government to give them the tools.

We have four submarine crews that have not had a working submarine for seven years. They want to serve the country. They want to serve Canada. They are sure that if they are given the tools they can make these submarines work and serve their purpose. However they do not have those resources. I do not know why the government has done it but it has sidelined the submarine project. It has not given them the resources. The Liberals have actually taken resources away from them.

We see the sponsorship scandal and all the money that has been wasted that could have been put to good use. It is a shame that we have not taken the money that has been wasted on the scandal and put it into the areas where it is so desperately needed.

Imagine what the money that is taken in on the employment insurance overcharge, the $44 billion, could do for health care. The government makes a big deal about putting $1 billion into health care. The government has announced it 10 to 15 times. The Liberals make a big deal every time they are going to put $1 billion into health care. There is a $44 billion overcharge in employment insurance. Imagine what a fraction of that would do for the health care system. It would solve the problems. Instead, the Liberals continue on with the overcharge approach.

The sponsorship grants are absolutely incredible. I see the minister is here. I would like him to make a note that my all time favourite sponsorship grant is No. 699. It is called unforeseen events for Groupaction marketing of $200,000. I do not have a clue what it is. I do not know whether it is unforeseen events or whether it is an organization called unforeseen events. The list indicates that for unforeseen events there is $200,000. That is the way the Liberals spend our money.

If the minister could find out what that is for me I would be forever in his debt. I know he will because he is very good at getting information. That is my all time favourite. There are 721 on one list of sponsorship grants and there is a bunch more on another list. It is endless.

When I have to fight so hard to get a few dollars for a transition house in my riding or for Maggie's Place or for so many worthy causes that really need a few dollars, it is so disheartening to look at these grants of $2 million, $2.3 million, $1.2 million, $1.3 million, $2.3 million, $2 million, $1.2 million, $1.5 million, $1.6 million, $3 million and on and on. I am just going down the list. We need a few dollars to help a transition house to help battered women and we cannot get it.

In any event I think the Liberals have their priorities completely distorted. They are going in the wrong direction. We can give them some good ideas on how to better invest the money to serve Canadians better.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's answer but I do not agree with him. He said that the hiring practices are based on merit. He said that the merit appointments and jobs are based on merit. That just is not true.

People from my riding, from the riding of Blackstrap, if they are qualified still cannot apply for these jobs, yet unqualified people from certain postal code areas can apply for them. That does not make any sense and it certainly flies in the face of what the parliamentary secretary said, that these jobs were based on merit, because they not. They are based on postal codes.

The other silly thing is that someone from another country who lives within those certain postal codes, for example, a citizen of Slovenia who has a work permit and who meets the criteria can apply for any one of those jobs, but a citizen of Canada in another riding cannot apply for the jobs. It makes no sense.

Again, I ask the parliamentary secretary when will the government give the Public Service Commission the resources and money to put in the technology and equipment to fix this anomaly and aberration, this offensive policy?