Bill Casey

[Public Service, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tone of that answer very much but the fact of the matter is, this is on a website that people all over the world can read and it says that in Canada we divide our society between non-whites and whites. It is unacceptable. It is awful that we even have to talk about it.

Again, I ask the government to act quickly to remove all references to whites and non-whites from every publication.

[Public Service, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, unbelievably, the Government of Canada is advertising five jobs in Nova Scotia. In these job descriptions it says “Non-whites must clearly self-identify”. At no time does it ever say that whites must self-identify.

It is obvious that non-whites and whites are being treated differently by the government. No matter what the excuse, racial discrimination should not be allowed and non-whites should never have to self-identify as being not white.

Will the government remove all these offensive references from every publication relating to whites and non-whites now?

[Middle East, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with Hamas promising an earthquake and Israel's reactions, violence in the Middle East continues.

The road map presented by the Unites States is being severely tested and the countries of the world must now join together to reinforce this strategy before it is destroyed by extremists who just do not want peace no matter what.

Part of the road map calls for monitors and the U.S. and Europeans have already committed. Yesterday senior Palestinians called on Canada to join in providing monitors to ensure that the road map has the best possible chance to succeed.

Now is the chance for Canada to re-establish ourselves at the very least as a junior partner in an attempt to find peace in the Middle East.

I support the call for Canada to supply monitors, and I urge the government to move quickly and announce the participation of Canadians in this role.

[Antarctic Environmental Protection Act, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in support of the bill. If any country in the world should be interested and concerned about the welfare and the conditions in the Antarctic it should be Canada, and we are pleased to support the bill.

It also raises all kinds of questions that go further, questions that could be tied to Kyoto or, as the previous speaker just mentioned, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization which has so much to do with our fisheries reserves, our resources, the economy and the welfare of the two sides of our country, the Atlantic and the Pacific. In this case we are talking about the Atlantic because it is the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, but there are parallels here to talk about.

We feel the government has not done nearly enough to protect the fishery and it has not played a leadership role. It has done nothing to think outside the box to address the fisheries concerns, which are really environmental and conservation concerns, such as what we are talking about today with the Antarctic environment.

Canada must and should take a leadership role in these issues. I think the world looks to Canada and they are really surprised that we do not take a leadership role in issues such as this. I urge the government, when it is considering issues in the Antarctic, to also consider issues in the Atlantic and try to think of ways that have not been addressed to deal with the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean.

Two to three weeks ago, professors from Dalhousie University came out with a startling study that said that 90% of the large fish in the oceans have been scooped up. That is a scary statistic. One just has to look at what has happened over the years because no one has addressed this issue. No one has really stood up to the fishing industry around the world and said that the rules must change. Canada should be the one to do that. Canada should not just be a part of something. It should not go along with NAFO. We should play a leadership role.

The ministers over there should understand that Canada is the one that should play the leadership role but we are not. We are just going along with everybody else. The government should think outside the box and take startling and strong steps to protect our fishery and to change the rules around the world. This study, which said that 90% of the large fish are gone, predicts that the deterioration of the fish stocks will continue dramatically in the future until there are simply no fish.

It is issues like this that we have to be concerned about and that is why we support the proposal of Bill C-42 on the environment in the Antarctic. However there are other issues with which we must deal but the government has being lax on them. We know it and the whole world knows it. The whole world knows that Canada is just going along with everybody else on this when we should be taking strong steps and demonstrating our concerns about the situation in our oceans and protecting and conserving the fish resources.

We are pleased to support Bill C-42 on the environment of the Antarctic but we urge the government to go further on issues. Even on Kyoto, the government brought in Kyoto with no implementation plan. Bill C-42 is part of a plan to have a plan but at least it is a start. We hope the government will move further on this and also on Kyoto.

The member for St. John's West, who is with me here today, has raised the issue time and time again that Canada should play a leadership role in the conservation of the fishery on the Atlantic coast and yet nothing ever changes. Nothing happens. We just go along. It is time Canada stood up, took a stand and fought back.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great idea for building on that. Maybe the member could find a way to get that $26 million that was taken out of the other program so the people in Cumberland—Colchester could stop paying the toll charge to go over the highway that was supposed to be 100% paid for.

That is a little thorn in my side and always will be because I believe my riding was cheated on that issue. However I do agree with him, that it is the type of funding that works well. It works well because the federal government has a say, the province has a say and, in many cases, the municipalities have a say. I believe that is the best value, the best bang for the buck.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the other very distinguished member for St. John's West would ask those questions because I remember when the Nova Scotia hospital tax was brought in, not the cottage hospital tax but the Nova Scotia hospital tax, and everybody agreed with it. Nobody could disagree with a hospital tax.

However within a very few years it went up pretty fast. All of a sudden it was not the hospital tax any more, it was the sales tax. That is what happens when we start with dedicated taxes. They grow, expand and we do not know where they will go. It restricts the ability of government to make decisions as situations change and circumstances evolve.

With respect to the hon. for LaSalle—Émard, I wish he had spoken up when his colleague in his own cabinet took, I think, $26 million out of the highway commitment to build a highway to replace the most dangerous highway in Nova Scotia, his colleague who sat right in the next seat to him, and gave it to his own riding. The member for LaSalle—Émard should have spoken up then and there and stopped that outrageous event.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member for St. John's East for sharing his time with me.

I was sitting here listening to his comments and I thought he was talking about a cottage hospital tax. I was wondering if that was a hospital for cottages. Then I realized what he was talking about. Again, it shows us the differences in our provinces and right across the country and how things have changed. We did not have a cottage hospital tax in Nova Scotia. It was interesting to learn about that and I intend to ask the member more about that after I finish my comments.

I agree with the member for St. John's East. Infrastructure funding does need stable funding. We need a program where we can count on investments on an ongoing basis.

The government takes great pride in standing up in the House and taking credit for eliminating the deficit. The fact of the matter is the government did it in two ways. It downloaded the deficit to other levels of government, plus it created a deficit in infrastructure. By not renewing the infrastructure, which must be done regularly, it created a deficit there very much as real as a deficit in the bank account. This now has to be caught up and the money spent all at once or in the future, rather than the time that the government was cutting its spending.

I agree with the member for St. John's East, soon to be a minister, when he says that we oppose the motion which would basically cut federal taxes but increase provincial taxes. To me it is very simple. This is a matter of accountability and management control and by doing the infrastructure route now, where the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government all share in the decision making process and also the funding process, there is much more control, accountability, much more value for the taxpayers and much more input for the people in all areas that are affected if all three levels of government have input into the situation.

However, the proposal would say that all of the money goes to the provinces and the provinces would make all the decisions. The municipalities and the federal government would be out of the loop. That would leave the door open for a lot of abuse, political or otherwise, or just bad decisions. It would leave municipalities with no input whatsoever.

Municipalities are facing some of the gravest challenges in infrastructure. I was thinking about what has happened over the years as a result of this debate. During my first term in the House from 1988-93 there was a program called the federal-provincial highways program. It was a great program where the provinces and the feds agreed on funding for highways.

Many highways were upgraded, approved and built in Atlantic Canada, highways which saved lives, made us competitive, allowed us to get our products to market and made us competitive and part of Canada. However that whole program was done away with by the Liberals. It was sorely needed and still is sorely needed.

Very little money has been spent on highways in Atlantic Canada. Again, it is a deficit. It is probably the same in the rest of the country but I know I can speak firsthand about Atlantic Canada.

My second thought has to do with how the system is better served by an infrastructure program that has federal, municipal and provincial governments on side. In my own riding there is a highway that is very dangerous. This highway has had more fatalities than any other highway in Atlantic Canada. It runs through the Wentworth Valley which happens to be in my riding.

The federal Conservative government signed a federal-provincial agreement with the Conservative government in Nova Scotia. The agreement said that 50% of the total costs would be paid by the federal government and 50% would be paid by the provincial government. It would then be 100% paid for.

Then there were two elections. Both the federal and the provincial governments changed and the Liberals came in. Two ministers, one federal and one provincial, took half of the money from that program,which was designated specifically to pay for the upgrading of that dangerous highway, and moved it to their own ridings 200 kilometres away. It had nothing to do with the national highway program under which this money was made available.

This was in black and white and still is. The commitment was there to pay 100% for that highway and these ministers deducted half of the money and took it to their own riding in Cape Breton. These ministers both shared the same riding and wanted a highway along the seashore. They took this money from my highway, which was known as death valley, and put it in their own riding. I believe that is an example of abuse.

However, if the municipality had been a party to this agreement, it never would have happened. The reason we support the infrastructure program is that it has municipal, federal and provincial input and this sort of abuse cannot happen.

However to replace the highway money that was committed by the federal and provincial governments, they established tolls. We are paying tolls today because that agreement was abused. We will be paying tolls for a long time because millions of dollars were taken out of that agreement and moved to another highway which did not qualify under the federal-provincial agreement whatsoever.

The money was supposed to be specifically restricted to highways in the national highway system. This was a tourist road in Cape Breton. It had nothing to do with the national highway system. However, one federal Liberal minister and one provincial Liberal minister were able to take the money and transfer it out of the program for which it was originally designed.

For these reasons: because of the accountability, the co-management, the better value, and because it restricts abuse and ensures input from the municipalities, we support the present infrastructure program which does involve the three levels of government.

We would like to see longer term commitments so the municipalities can plan over 10 or 15 years the projects they will deal with, and the provinces can make plans for their projects which need work done. The priorities change as people evolve, as people move and as communities change, but they need to know that money is there so they can deal with them.

We agree with one of the concepts of the motion but we do not agree with the way it would be implemented. The concept that we need stable funding, is the concept that we agree with.

I agree with the very distinguished member for St. John's East. We do have a requirement for infrastructure investment which is now in a deficit. We do need to make it up now but we would prefer to see it done through the three way program of municipal, provincial and federal funding.

[Softwood Lumber, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in early May the United States department of commerce made a softwood lumber proposal that provided a complete exit for the Atlantic Canada softwood lumber industry and for the remanufacturers. Then incredibly on May 22, the Canadian government made a different proposal that rolled these two industries right into the quota system.

How can it be that the U.S. proposal took into consideration the concerns of the Atlantic Canada industry, but our own government sold it down the river by not even trying to keep the hard earned exemption?

[International Trade, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to our question on Friday about the plight of the independent lumber remanufacturers, the Minister for International Trade stated “we continue to demand their exemption from the department of commerce actions”.

This is hard to believe because they did not demand anything in the May 22 offer. There was not one word, not one mention, not one hint about the problems of the remanufacturers.

Exactly how and when will the minister keep Friday's promise to demand an exemption for the remanufacturers?

[Free Trade Agreements, June 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this private member's motion today. Perhaps the member understands my interest in this after what the Progressive Conservative Party went through last week at its convention. A proposal was made indicating that the free trade agreement should be reviewed and it seemed to catch the attention of the media.

I have taken stock here today and I note that there are four parties in the House who are taking this issue even further than we suggested at our convention. We suggested the free trade agreement should be reviewed by a blue ribbon committee, but at least four parties in the House have said it should be renegotiated, far more than the Conservative Party ever considered. I hope the media, who was critical of our position on this issue, is watching this today.

Motion No. 391 points out aspects of the free trade agreement that need to be reviewed. Questions in the last two weeks have focused on international trade with the United States which again points out problems with the NAFTA agreement. Nobody is suggesting that it be thrown out or backed up or redone.

I listened to members from three parties on this issue. I understand the NDP supports this motion which calls for a renegotiation of NAFTA. The Progressive Conservative Party is not going that far. We think it should be reviewed. On the other hand, however, there are examples of why it should be reviewed. Softwood lumber, the potato issue, steel, and durum wheat are good reasons why the agreement should be reviewed.

These are some of the problems with regard to free trade with the United States. This gives me reason to believe that maybe some things could be improved in the agreement. This is a timely debate for me. It was interesting to hear that four parties out of five, and I am not sure about the fifth party, agree with my party that the free trade agreement should at least be reviewed.

The Progressive Conservative Party brought in free trade and the benefits for Canada have been huge. Each province has benefited from free trade. My own province of Nova Scotia has experienced a 211% increase in trade with the U.S. between 1988 and 2002, and it continues to grow. Ontario has experienced an increase of 200%; Manitoba 335%; and Alberta 380% since free trade came in. These are huge increases and they are reflected in an enormous number of new jobs. Imagine what it would be like if we did not have these increases because of free trade.

However, nothing is perfect. As the international trade critic, I know that things are not perfect with the free trade agreement, but hopefully they can be improved. After 10 or 12 years the agreement should be reviewed, and the Progressive Conservative Party fully intends to do that and hopefully come back to the House with some recommendations that will enhance it. Perhaps the government will adopt those recommendations.

Today's proposal deals with one of the most controversial aspects of free trade which is the investment side of it. From my own personal experience and my contacts with people across the country, this aspect raises more concern than anything.

We welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. As I said, the Progressive Conservative Party would make this a part of our overall review of the free trade agreement which will be announced shortly. The troublesome aspect of the investment part, the lack of transparency, and the unfair treatment from country to country will be addressed.

The Progressive Conservative Party endorses this motion as well as an extended review.