Bill Casey

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and give a perspective on how the BSE situation has affected my little corner of northern Nova Scotia, which comprises Cumberland and Colchester counties.

Often we hear people refer to this as mostly an Alberta issue, but it is not. It has hit the entire country, not just Alberta. It has hit my Province of Nova Scotia. It has hit Ontario, as has been related by the very distinguished member for Perth--Middlesex who has spoken out very vocally on behalf of the farmers of Ontario. When many others have been silent, he has spoken loud and clear. He has made it very clear how serious the issue is for farmers in Ontario.

The first I knew about this whole thing was from a farmer in my riding who called me after shipping a load of live cattle to Pennsylvania. The cattle went through the U.S. border into Pennsylvania, but he was stopped by state troopers and made to take the truck back to Canada. He had to store the live cattle in New Brunswick. He could not even bring them home. It was devastating to him because they are still there and he is still paying for storage of the cattle and to maintain the cattle there.

This has hit farmers right across my riding in northern Nova Scotia, and not just beef farmers, because dairy farmers as well have had a hard time dealing with culled cattle and milk cows that are no longer useful for milk. It has hit everybody.

Recently a farmer came in to my office to tell me that he had a foreclosure notice from the farm loan board. He could not make his payments because he could not sell his cattle. The Government of Canada is proposing to foreclose on this man, this farmer who cannot earn a living anymore because the Government of Canada has been unsuccessful in getting the border reopened. The government will not try things. It is perfectly willing to sit back and let the system unfold without taking any initiative or using any imagination.

We in this party have proposed that an all party delegation go to the United States and send a really strong message that we want something done about this, that we need a change. The government refuses to do that and meanwhile the farmers in my riding are having their bank loans called. The government is calling loans. Farmers cannot sell their beef. At the last auction, I understand, there were only a few head of cattle. It is truly a disaster.

It really reflects the attitude of the government on agriculture and in regard to farmers in the entire country. It is not only BSE. We have had disaster after disaster in the agriculture industry and the government now in power does nothing to help. There is no handout. There is no effort to try to bridge the gap. It does not try to help in any way.

In my riding the farmers have experienced a double disaster. In March there was a terrible flood and a lot of the soil was washed away. There was a tremendous amount of erosion. They have applied for assistance under the disaster financial assistance program. The applications go through the province, but at first the farmers were told that the land would be covered under the DFAA and there would be no problem about it.

I have here a letter from a representative of the farmers, Sandra D. Fisher, in Brookfield, Colchester county, Nova Scotia. I will read just some selected lines to the House. It is a long letter.

She outlined to the minister that a representative from EMO publicly stated in front of all the farmers and the media that he saw no reason why leased agricultural land would not be covered. A simple letter from the titled landowner stating that the land was being used by the applicant for agricultural purposes would be all that was necessary. The farmers did that. Then they were told they had to bring in their financial statements to prove that 51% of their income came from agriculture.

She stated that again the farmers followed the instructions and did that. Then the farmers had to accompany, on several occasions, numerous inspectors, engineers and auditors to prove the actual damage. Then again they were asked for more documentation from the people who own the land stating that any reimbursement received for the land would in fact go toward reconstruction of the said land.

They did that. They went through that process. Most of the people were faced with many unanswerable questions. They could not even answer them.

Then in late summer, contrary to the first statement, they received word that the leased land was not going to be eligible under this program.

No matter how many documents they supplied, no matter what criteria, hoops and hurdles they were given to go through, they could not qualify.

I am still optimistic that they will get some compensation for this. I met with staff officials of the Minister of Defence this morning about this issue and some others. I am optimistic that maybe we can get through some of these hurdles. Certainly it was a good meeting about this, but again we see that this is about farmers not being able to access assistance because of red tape, hurdles and roadblocks put in their way.

It is symptomatic of the way the government deals with agricultural issues. It is certainly very disappointing when the farmers are not asking for a lot on the BSE issue, to come back to that. They are not asking for a lot. They need some help with feed and storage costs and they need help to cover the costs of culled cattle. They need a revenue deficiency program to make sure they do not lose everything they have.

Many of the farmers in my riding have been in business for decades and are successful people. Under normal circumstances they can compete with anybody. They are successful and good at what they do and they can compete, but this is not a normal circumstance. This is a disaster. Where is the government? The government is hiding. It will not come to the table and help to any extent the farmers who are about to lose their livelihoods. This is not only their livelihoods; it is their way of life. It is their lifestyle. Usually it is their home. It is everything to them.

I join the chorus of voices here today calling on the government to use some imagination and to try some new ways. Even if it is our idea, the government should have a look at the idea of an all party delegation going down to Washington.

In the softwood lumber case, the government did just the opposite. It allowed every province to get to Washington. Instead of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade leading the battle in Washington on softwood lumber, it let everybody go down individually and try to make their own deal. But in this case we are saying that everybody should go together to Washington and try to convince them of how critical this is to our farmers and how safe our cattle and meat products are now. We should not be sitting back waiting for something good to happen, but that is the style of this government.

I call on the government to consider our proposal, to accept the proposal and try it. What can go wrong? It could try this proposal to meet with the officials in Washington with the strongest possible representation from every part of Canada. The government could just try that. We have nothing to lose and an enormous amount to gain. I think it would send a strong message. It would also send a message that we are reaching out to the United States to try to build a bridge.

I call on the government members too. I call on them to join in the battle, to stand up and fight for the farmers, to speak up for the farmers and convince the government to try something new, to try our proposal. It will not hurt. There is nothing to lose. I call on the members and the government to do these things, to try something new, to use a little imagination, and to not sit back and let this hopefully unfold and resolve itself.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we agree on a lot of things, but the independence of the ethics commissioner issue is also a problem with Bill C-34. Just imagine again the Auditor General, if she were to deal with matters in the same fashion as the ethics commissioner. We would not have the great reports and the objective reports that she comes forth with. It does not matter whether they are against the Conservatives when we were in power or against the Liberals now. Her office is a great institution because it is independent and the ethics commissioner will never be any good until that position is independent.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, he is asking me to think like a Liberal and that is a stretch. The promise the Liberals made in 1993 was simple and I think we should repeat it over and over: “The ethics commissioner will report directly to Parliament.”

At that time the Liberals proposed an ethics commissioner to report directly to Parliament. They never did that and they are still not doing it now. But members have to draw their own conclusions of why they waited 10 years to bring a new and enhanced ethics commissioner bill in, even though to me it does not make any difference as long as the ethics commissioner reports to the Prime Minister and serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. All the decisions are still not going to be objective and will continue to be a conflict of interest.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the last question regarding my suggestion that there might be bias against the party. I only suggest that because of the track record of what has happened.

If members of Parliament were asked or the media or anybody who watched the actions and the decisions of the ethics commissioner, I believe they would say the decisions were biased in favour of the government and they have been ever since the day he was put in that position.

I do not like to suggest that somebody would be partisan or prejudiced in their decisions, but the track record is absolutely there and proven. Anyone who is independent and objective who watches the ethics commissioner will say that the decisions are biased. So why would we not take that one step further and say they will continue to be biased in the future.

However, this could all be eliminated if the ethics commissioner were engaged by Parliament and answered only to Parliament as does the Auditor General. She is not engaged by Parliament but answers to Parliament and does a great job. She does a great job for us.

Regarding cabinet versus MPs, I do not know why the Prime Minister or whoever developed this legislation cast out this big net to deal with MPs because I cannot call the president of the Business Development Bank or anyone else and influence them. I can call and ask them to do something or to have a look at something, but I cannot influence them. I do not hire anyone in a position of power. I do not influence anybody's pay. I do not influence anybody's career but some cabinet ministers do and when they call, it is different than when I call. I do not know why this big net was cast. The only thing I can think of is that this net is to provide a smokescreen to hide the fact that the ethics commissioner is still not going to answer to Parliament.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I should have done a little more homework to find out what the ethics commissioner earns a year, but I imagine it is in excess of $200,000 a year probably. He has a very prestigious position. He can only keep that position if he keeps one person happy, and that is the Prime Minister. He will not keep that job because he does not answer to Parliament. He answers to the Prime Minister. He serves only the Prime Minister.

If he were to come to a conclusion that was against the interest of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister could say he would not renew his contract for whatever reason. It is just human nature that there is a conflict of interest there. He would not look at these accusations objectively because he knows he serves at the pleasure of one person and if he were to offend that one person, he would be gone.

That is why we have seen a consistent array of decisions in defence of inappropriate behaviour, that we all know was inappropriate. The media knows and so do the Canadian people. The ethics commissioner has become a joke because of his decisions when everybody knows that inappropriate behaviour has happened and he condoned it.

There is a conflict of interest because he would answer to one person. A judge cannot work for the accused. That is what would happen here and that is what would happen under Bill C-34. The judge would work for the accused.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak anytime in the House and although I wish we had made more progress in developing Bill C-34 into what it should be, I will speak to it today.

As other members mentioned earlier, Bill C-34 is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity for the Liberals to keep a promise. Someone earlier mentioned the 1993 Liberal red book. I will quote a part of it. It says “The Ethics Counsellor...will report directly to Parliament”.

That is a nice simple statement. It was a promise by the Liberals that if Canadians voted for them they would keep this promise. Ten years later they still have not kept it. In fact, they are entrenching it with Bill C-34, which is an alternative to what they promised Canadians in 1993.

The red book went on to say “The Liberal government will appoint an ethics counsellor who will be available to the Prime Minister to investigate allegations of impropriety by cabinet ministers”.

It is amazing to note that the Liberals kept half of their promise but not the other. The ethics counsellor, unfortunately, does not report directly to Parliament. He in fact reports directly to the Prime Minister. I am not sure how much the ethics counsellor gets paid but I imagine it is in excess of $200,000 a year. He probably has a car, an office, a lot of benefits and an expense account like none of us have. It is a huge job. The Prime Minister has bestowed a great benefit on the ethics counsellor.

When the ethics counsellor has to deal with issues which could possibly smear the Prime Minister indirectly, such as when a minister is being accused of doing something wrong, it is only human nature for the ethics counsellor not to do anything to jeopardize his position and hurt the person who gave him the big job with the big money and the person with the power to renew his contract. It would be just human nature that the ethics counsellor would not do anything to jeopardize his position and hurt the person who employed him, the person who appointed him, the person to whom he answers, and the person under whose pleasure he serves. It is really backwards.

If a minister is accused of wrongdoing and the ethics counsellor is brought in, it is like a judge, or in this case the ethics counsellor, working for the accused. If he determines that the minister failed to do something properly, correctly or ethically, it would be a smear on the Prime Minister who is also the judge's boss. The judge works for the Prime Minister. He serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. He answers only to the Prime Minister. It is a shame the Liberals missed the opportunity to fix that. I feel the whole bill is worthless because they did not do that one thing.

They can extend it to include members of Parliament, like myself, or to senators and others. However it does not matter because in the end the ethics counsellor answers to the Prime Minister. It is exactly the same. In fact, if the ethics counsellor turns out to be partisan, and I think human nature will deem he or she will be, those of us in the opposition who might have an exact same circumstance as a member in the government, may receive a completely different determination from the ethics counsellor. We might be accused of wrongdoing whereas someone on the government side may not because the ethics counsellor reports to the government. He serves at the pleasure of the government. This to me is a scary thing.

We have heard lots of accusations of scandal and corruption, but it has not been members of Parliament who have been accused. Even senators are not accused very often. It is mostly ministers who are in a position to influence the government's spending, to direct funds to certain parties that may be supporters or otherwise, or to make deals that could somehow indirectly benefit property they own or something like that. It is not members of Parliament who are accused of things like that, it is cabinet ministers.

Bill C-34 has been broadened so much to cover so many of us it looks like an enhancement, but it really is not. As long as the judge, in this case the ethics counsellor, answers to the Prime Minister for his job, for his pay and for his benefits, the position will never be impartial. It will never make any sense to me.

One can just imagine what it would be like if the Auditor General answered to the Prime Minister. We would never see these reports that come out that are so well done and so accurate. We are lucky to have her in this job and to have her answering to Parliament. She has come out with scathing reports on HRDC, on public works issues and on the sponsorship program. She reports on the military and on fisheries. Her reports are impartial and I am sure they effect positive change.

On the other hand, the ethics counsellor answers only to the Prime Minister. His reports go to the Prime Minister and we never know what is in them or what is behind them. It is all done behind closed doors, as opposed to the Auditor General who answers to Parliament. It is a wonderful system. We are very fortunate to have the excellent auditors that we have had. The fact that they answer to Parliament makes the Auditor General's Office perhaps the most valuable institution in Ottawa.

However it is just human nature that when our boss wants an answer and our jobs depend on giving a certain answer, we will give that answer in many cases. This is especially true if the job is as lucrative as the job the ethics counsellor has now.

I believe the ethics counsellor is in a conflict of interest. He knows his job will be in jeopardy if he gives the wrong report because he does not answer to Parliament. He answers to the Prime Minister. If he does anything to smear the Prime Minister, the cabinet or the government , his job could be at risk. Therefore he is in a conflict of interest and Bill C-34 entrenches that.

Recently we had the independent ethics commissioner in Ontario, who answers to the legislature in Ontario, write a scathing report about an expense by a minister. The minister had to resign over the expense. That would never happen here.

The ethics counsellor here would say that he met all the criteria, that he did this or he did that, and it would be all smoothed over and everything would be hunky-dory because he answers to the Prime Minister. He serves the Prime Minister. He is paid by the Prime Minister. He serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. In Ontario the ethics commissioner answers to the legislature. It is fundamentally different.

I had a small case myself and I could not believe that it passed the ethics counsellor's scrutiny. A federal minister in the government personally signed an agreement to pay for a highway in New Brunswick. The other signator on the agreement was another provincial Liberal minister. They both signed this agreement saying that the highway would be 100% paid.

The minister in question, a former minister of transport, was defeated in the election and he went back into the private sector. Immediately the same provincial Liberal minister, who signed the agreement, signed the highway over to the defeated minister. It is amazing to see that the same two signatures are on the agreement, where a provincial minister signs over a highway to be a toll highway to a former federal minister, when the federal minister signed an agreement saying that 100% of the highway would be paid.

I took this to the ethics counsellor and somehow, even though this contradicted the post-employment criteria in every way, he found a way to exonerate the minister involved, even though it did not make any sense to have a minister pay for a project and then end up getting the entire benefit of it in the end. He signed both when the money went out and when the money came in. I could not believe the ethics counsellor found no problem with that even though very strict post-employment criteria were not followed. That is what convinced me that the position of ethics counsellor was pointless.

I can only assume that the ethics counsellor felt that if he criticized the former minister it would be a reflection on his boss. I do not know how he arrived at his finding but it certainly does not make sense. The signatures were on the paper, a federal minister paid for a program and then he got a multi-million dollar benefit from it in the end. I will never understand how that was approved, but it was. I do not believe it would have been approved if the ethics counsellor had been hired by Parliament and answered to Parliament.

Bill C-34 is all smoke and mirrors. It will not change a thing until the ethics counsellor answers to Parliament, not to the Prime Minister. The one thing I do fear is that opposition members will be treated differently than government members. Now that we are all included in this big net that the government has cast over all of us, I think we will be treated differently. If the opposition is accused of something it will not reflect badly on the government. It will probably reflect good on the government.

I believe that we will be treated differently than members of the government if they are accused of exactly the same thing because the boss of the ethics commissioner is still the Prime Minister.

I think it is smoke and mirrors. It is a missed opportunity for the Liberals to keep their promise they made to the Canadian people in 1993. It is a missed opportunity to correct a bad problem. It is a missed opportunity to provide confidence to people, their parliamentarians and their government, but they are not going to have confidence in an ethics commissioner that answers to one person and serves at the pleasure of that one person in Parliament.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I put a question on the order paper a little while ago to try to find out why the government has not paid the provinces in Atlantic Canada that experienced extra costs because of September 11. Instead of getting that answer, I got back a list of money that was paid to airlines. The government budgeted a total of $158 million. It has already paid out over $99 million to the airlines.

If the government could pay $99 million to the airlines, why can it not pay a couple of million dollars to the provinces?

[Atlantic Canada, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the Government of Canada has not responded to the request of the Atlantic Canadian provinces for compensation for the costs incurred during the September 11 terrorist attacks. There was no hesitation when the government directed those planes to the airports in Atlantic Canada to avoid putting the citizens in central Canada at risk.

It is incredible that the government has paid $100 million to air operators but will not pay the provinces. It is clear that the federal emergency measures system is in chaos. When I asked the minister in charge of emergency measures questions about the emergency, he said it is the responsibility of the Privy Council. However when I put a question on the Order Paper, the Minister of Transport answers.

I am told by officials there is no agreement on who pays. Meanwhile, the government continues to stall the provinces despite the fact that they made the greatest contributions during this terrible tragedy.

Métro

[Question No. 223, September 15th, 2003]

With respect to compensation related to the events of September 11th, 2001: ( a ) how much compensation did the government commit to deliver in total and broken down by province; ( b ) of the total amount that has been committed how much has been delivered to the provinces, in total and broken down by province; ( c ) if the funding has not been delivered in full what factors have held up the delivery of the compensation; and ( d ) what is the expected date of the delivery of the compensation in full to each province?

[Disaster Assistance, September 15th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the fire victims in British Columbia should not hold out a lot of hope because the people in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have not been paid yet for their contribution made during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. Nova Scotia has not been paid for the floods of 1999, and the victims of this year's floods in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have been subjected to a series of conditions that just do not make any sense.

When will the minister pay these overdue accounts to the provinces and when will he change the ridiculous rules imposed on the victims?