Bill Casey

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this issue today. I will be sharing my time with the distinguished member for Brandon--Souris.

We have experienced in the last few weeks and months incredible revelations about lost contracts, lost money, overpayments and even theft, as referred to by the Prime Minister. This is an incredible issue we are dealing with today. In the province of Ontario alone there was an overpayment of $2.8 billion. This is more mismanagement.

The issues that have thrown the House into chaos for the last few weeks are not something new and this is not an isolated issue. This is a good example. It is not a few dollars; it is $2.8 billion that was overpaid to Ontario.

How can an entity, even if it is the federal government, misplace, underestimate or whatever $2.8 billion. It is hard to get our heads around this on how the government could make such a big mistake. It is more mismanagement on behalf of the government who claims it is so competent and such a great manager.

It is more of the same thing that we have heard lately about contracts being issued over and over again for $500,000 and $600,000 but no reports in return and no value for these incredible amounts of money that we could be using for other purposes. Again, it is total evidence of mismanagement and lack of attention on the part of the government to what it is doing.

In the last few days we have discovered that the government is continuing to issue contracts to the same outfits that do not produce reports and charge these incredible amounts of money for things that we do not even have a clue what they are for. It is further evidence of a continual approach of incompetence in government affairs and the management of taxpayers' money.

The government has lost its focus and is unable to focus on the issues that involve our money, our investments and expenditures, and sharing with the provinces. The government is so embroiled with its own internal problems. Those problems are taking priority over everything.

The issue of $3 billion or $4 billion does not matter any more. The government will worry about that later. Those amounts of money do not matter to the government. It does not focus on them. It does not pay any attention to the softwood lumber issue which has devastated jobs across the country and has brought turmoil and confusion to the whole industry. There is confusion regarding the relationship between the United States and Canada. The government has not addressed it because it is busy dealing with its own internal struggles about who will be the boss and call the shots.

If the government demands that this money be returned it should also be required to pay the provinces back, as the previous speaker mentioned, for the overcharge in employment insurance funds. To me this is the fraudulent taking of money. On everybody's paycheques there is a box that says employment insurance premium. It is not an employment insurance premium any more. It is a tax. It is not for employment insurance. It will not serve unemployed people. It will not help retrain people or do anything except be a tax that will go to general revenues. It is taxation under false pretenses. It is fraud. Under any other circumstances, in the private sector or anywhere else, the government could be charged with fraud and obtaining money under false pretenses.

Therefore, if the government were to demand that the provinces pay back the mistake that it made, it should also be required to pay back the employment insurance premiums which it has deliberately taken from people under false pretenses. What is sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander.

The government is demanding money back that has already been spent on health care, social transfers and education. The provinces have already spent money in these areas where the government has cut back dramatically on its transfers to the provinces, not to mention the EI issue. The government has cut back on its transfers to the provinces by $6 billion a year. In 1995 alone there was $6 billion in cutbacks. If the provinces have to pay this money back the federal government should have to pay that $6 billion back to the provinces and so on and so forth for every other year where it cut back and broke agreements on health care and social services contracts with the provinces.

However, the money has already been spent on health, education and social programs. These clawbacks will do nothing except hurt the provinces who are already struggling, like Nova Scotia, with a deficit and a debt that is hard to overcome.

That brings me to another point, that of equalization payments. This was clarified by the Senate all party report released in March 2002 entitled “The Effectiveness of and Possible Improvements to the Present Equalization Policy”. Recommendation No. 7 states:

The government change the Generic Solution so as to increase the share of a province’s entitlements that are protected when its non-renewable natural resource revenues increase.

The provinces in Atlantic Canada have been fighting for months for exactly that. The premiers of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia all support this. The recommendation further states:

It may be that although the Accords have operated in a technically correct way they may not have realized their intent.

They have not, and again this is what the premiers have argued so much and strongly for in the last few months. Recommendation No. 8 states:

The government should undertake an evaluation of the Equalization provisions of the Atlantic Accords to determine if they have met the intent for which they were designed.

The presumption is that they have not. It goes on to state:

It was suggested that equalization payments are inadequate because they do not take into account the different developmental characteristics of each province.

This again involves transfers between the provinces and the federal government. It is a different issue but it involves the same concept and same principle where the government has not kept up to date on its transfer arrangements and formulas. It is cheating the provinces, and will in the future, out of their share of equalization payments in the same way it is now saying it made a mistake and overpaid some provinces $3.3 billion. Somehow it overlooked $3.3 billion. This is so indicative of the mismanagement of the government.

We think this is a good motion. We support it unless the government is prepared to pay back the transfer payments it took from the provinces and pay back the employment insurance premiums it stole from every employee and worker in the country.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will we be presenting petitions today or did we skip that?

[Question No. 156, May 29th, 2002]

With respect to the Department of Health's regulations for the labelling and dating of foods with a shelf-life of over 90 days: ( a ) is there a regulation for the labelling and dating of these foods; ( b ) is there a regulation existing for the placing of a “packaged on” date for these foods, ( c ) if not, is the government considering putting forth regulations to ensure that these foods contain a “packaged on” date; and ( d ) if not, why not?

[Housing Bill of Rights, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer. It is not as good as “yes, we will leave it in Amherst”, but it is not bad. I appreciate the fact that the parliamentary secretary points out, which is that it is not a relocation study but a location study.

I also am glad he pointed out that it is the only regional office not located in a provincial capital but that it is the only one that serves four provinces. Amherst is absolutely geographically in the centre of the four provinces and in the centre of the map of the first nations, who, after all, are the people the office serves.

Previously the minister told me that if the study indicates that it is more economically feasible to maintain the office in its present location, he would leave it there. It is a business study and if the business study shows that it is best to leave it in Amherst, he would leave it there. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could confirm that it is still the same policy. If it costs more money to move it to and operate it at another location, will the government leave the regional office in Amherst?

[Housing Bill of Rights, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to bring back to the House a question I originally raised on February 27. To explain this a little, the Atlantic office of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been in Amherst, Nova Scotia for about 50 years. Every so often it seems that the bureaucrats and officials decide that they would rather have it somewhere else and we go through an exercise in which the employees of Indian affairs and the people in the town of Amherst and the surrounding area go through this agony of wondering what is going to happen and if we are going to move the Atlantic office of Indian affairs or not.

Amherst is a small town of 10,000 people. The office of Indian affairs employs 140 people who all have families. They participate in the community as volunteers and so on. It is really important to this community for the office to stay there.

We went through this in 1990 and in 1997 and now again are going through it in 2002. In 1997, the last time we went through this, I approached the minister of Indian affairs and asked her about the move. She said they would respect the wishes of the natives. The natives held a meeting at the Atlantic policy conference of first nations chiefs. They voted to leave the office in Amherst. When I came back to the House and spoke with the minister, she said if that was what the natives wanted that was what the government would do; it would honour the wishes of the natives.

However, here we are back again just a few years later discussing whether we are going to move it. The bureaucrats now have engaged a private consultant to do a study to find out whether it should be in Fredericton or Halifax or wherever. We believe strongly that the officials would rather have it somewhere else even though Amherst is the best location. It is centrally located for all of the first nations it serves. It is the best place to service the first nations from. It is a day trip for almost all of the 38 first nations it serves. If the office moves somewhere else, it will then be an overnight trip for first nations for services. It is a low cost operation. It has been proven to serve the community well from Amherst. We definitely want it to stay there.

Let me say again that if they decide to move it, the impact on Amherst, and the impact is supposed to be part of the study, will be very dramatic and very negative. We will lose 140 jobs that are in downtown Amherst and provide our small business community with a lot of assistance and support. We will lose volunteers who are not replaceable. Many of the employees at Indian affairs are volunteers in our community. Even organizations like the United Way have indicated that they will suffer if we lose this office. A principal came to me one day and said that we would lose schools and teachers if we were to lose the Indian affairs office, because with the lower student count we could not justify so many teachers.

The minister has told me personally and directly that if in the study it comes out that it will cost more to move the regional office, he will not move it. Again let me say that the natives have voted to leave it in Amherst.

The economics of the situation are that it is more cost effective to leave it in Amherst. It is going to cost perhaps $3 million to $5 million to move it. It is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year more to operate it.

I would ask the minister if he would confirm now, if he is ready to say, will the office of Indian affairs for the Atlantic region stay in Amherst, Nova Scotia?

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor's report on the Gagliano affair is twelve pages long, has four subtitles and twelve sub-subtitles. It obviously took a lot of work and time to prepare. It is hard to believe that the ethics counsellor, over the weekend, on Saturday afternoon, could prepare two of these. Would the government table these two completed reports on the minister of public works and the minister of defence today?

[Government Contracts, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is obviously a lot of concern surrounding the questions about the solicitor general's contact with the RCMP commissioner.

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre asked if this had been referred to the ethics commissioner and it seems to me that would be an appropriate way to deal with this. Has it been referred to the ethics commissioner or will it be?

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canada is exempt from some of those duties because its lumber trade practices are agreeable to the Americans. However when the western provinces lose their market in the U.S. they begin shipping lumber to Atlantic Canada which does not have the market to absorb it all. The supply and demand ratio reaches such a condition that the local producers then have a problem competing with all the lumber coming in because of the lost market in the U.S. which was due to the Liberal government's failure to negotiate a deal with the U.S.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. I live right on the border between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and I see whole logs going from Nova Scotia to New Brunswick all the time. It is a different thing and it is within Canada. However it still is an export of jobs and it is a concern.

Certainly these are Canadian resources and Canadians should have the benefit of them. If there are jobs created, those jobs should be created in Canada.

The hon. member mentioned the impact on communities when industries die. Yes, we have seen more than our share of that in Atlantic Canada. We can speak with some authority on the impact.

[Supply, May 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an interesting debate with the parliamentary secretary. I am pleased to hear that he agreed with some of the things I said. I think that is the first time he has ever agreed with me on anything.

I am glad he agrees that the Conservatives were successful in resolving this issue. I believe that is what he said. Then he went on to blame the Conservatives. At some point in history, maybe 100 years from now, maybe the Liberals will stop blaming the Conservatives for everything they have failed in. The government has failed here where the Conservatives succeeded. The government is still blaming us even after three elections, if we can believe that.

The member said that they made a conscious decision to take this strategy. It is a strategy of zero action, which is not a strategy. The government had five years' warning. It knew this was coming. The government took no steps to get ready. It did not bring the industry together prior to the conclusion of the memorandum. It did nothing to get ready. It said that it would have a strategy of doing nothing that came back and hit it on the side of the head.