Bill Casey

[Highways, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after 18 months of constant questioning, it appears we have struck a nerve with the New Brunswick highway toll deal.

Immediately after producing a letter last week confirming that Doug Young has contravened his own ministerial directives in order to take advantage of a multimillion dollar toll deal on a New Brunswick highway, the member for Kenora—Rainy River began an organized campaign designed to stop four MPs from asking questions about Doug Young's complicity in this highway deal.

The House of Commons deserves to know who is the driving force behind this campaign. Who initiated the campaign? Has the member for Kenora—Rainy River received instructions from his former boss—

[Points Of Order, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, there was no misunderstanding of the comments made by the member to me in that confrontation. There was no way to interpret them other than as a threat. He tried to intimidate me. He said that I had better remember that Doug Young has lots of friends and they all have long memories. Just today he said that if he meant it to be a threat I would not be here today.

I would like to put on the record what the member just said in defence of the points he made to me. He said if I was intimidating the member I would know it and I would not be here today. That just happened now.

[Privilege, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege arising from an incident that occurred here in this chamber on December 3, just last Thursday.

I rise based on citations 93 and 92 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms which say that any threat or attempt to influence the actions of a member is a breach of privilege, and that that action must relate to the member's parliamentary duties. I assure the Speaker this action did affect my parliamentary duties.

As I sat at my desk preparing questions about the New Brunswick toll highway issue which I was intending to ask in question period just a few moments later, I was confronted by the member of parliament for Kenora—Rainy River. With no introduction, he demanded to know what I “had against Doug Young”. When I asked for clarification, he accused me of calling Doug Young a crook, which I did not do. Then the member warned me to “back off” because “Doug Young has a lot of friends and they have long memories”. I do not know who these friends are. I do not know if somebody else put the member up to this. The member was obviously agitated at the time and therefore I did not argue with the member. I just wanted the confrontation to end.

I proceeded to prepare my questions which actually referred to a letter of Doug Young's. Then the member challenged me to take my comments outside the House, which I assured him I already had. When that did not work, he pointed over to the Liberal benches and said “you better be careful because there are a lot of us over here and we will not forget either”. He left, warning me to remember what he had said.

At the very, very least, this is intimidation designed to prevent me from asking effective questions on matters of concern to my constituents. At worst it is a threat against me as a member of parliament.

There is no place in this House for intimidation or threats. To be intimidated and threatened makes it very difficult to remain focused on the issues. I am sure that was the purpose of the implied threat.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the following motion, “that the matter of possible threats uttered by the member for Kenora—Rainy River should”—

[Transport, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am just quoting what the former federal minister said. It is his condition. It is his policy. He said that the federal contribution must stay in that cost sharing agreement and then he led the consortium that took that share out.

There is not one cent of provincial money in that highway, even though the federal minister, when he was the minister, said it had to be there. He broke the agreement himself. He broke the agreement on behalf of his consortium and I do not understand.

I would like the minister to explain how there could be one policy for Canadians and one policy for Liberal ex-cabinet ministers.

[Transport, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the New Brunswick government wrote a letter to Doug Young, then minister of transport, asking for clarification on government policy about charging tolls on the federally funded highway between Moncton and River Glade.

Doug Young responded by saying “Yes, you can charge tolls on one condition. The federal contribution will still have to be cost shared by the province”. Then Doug Young reversed his position completely and led the consortium that broke that specific deal, that specific condition.

Will the Prime Minister please explain how a minister can establish a specific government position and then go ahead and break it himself?

[Transport, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general goes on to say that although unable to implement the minister's direction, the departmental representatives signed the contract authorizations allowing the province to claim the funding for the project costs on a $50 million project. He did not do the job. He did not tell the minister. He signed the contract anyway which allows Doug Young to collect tolls from Atlantic Canadians by the thousands very day.

Will the minister simply follow the terms of the agreement and make sure all parties comply with the original agreement like the auditor general says?

[Transport, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, further on in the auditor's report, with respect to a $50 million contract, the auditor says the minister directed department officials on the management committee to review the alternative financing arrangements to ensure that it met federal terms and conditions. However, this was not done.

Because this was not done, thousands of people in Atlantic Canada will pay Doug Young tolls every day beginning January 4 on a highway that was already paid for.

Will the minister now use the tools available to make sure that all parties comply with the terms of the agreement as originally signed?

[Highways, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what the auditor general said exactly was that Transport Canada failed to exercise the controls entrenched in the agreement to ensure that federal positions are honoured. It is the same thing we have been talking about for months and months.

I ask the hon. minister if he will take action, stop boondoggling, stop the delays, stop stonewalling, use the tools as described by the auditor general, take action and stop this deal.

[Highways, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's former Minister of Transport, Doug Young, signed an agreement to fund 100% of the cost of a highway in New Brunswick. The auditor general revealed yesterday that the same Doug Young has secretly altered the terms of the deal to allow a private company to charge tolls on that same highway. Doug Young is the president of the same company that is going to charge the tolls.

It does not take an ethics commissioner to know this is a crooked deal. Will the Prime Minister use the tools described by the auditor general to stop this outrageous rotten deal?

[Transport, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Price Waterhouse and the director general of civil aviation have both identified a shortage of aviation inspectors as a serious threat to aviation safety in the future. The director general of civil aviation predicts a negative impact on long term aviation safety. Price Waterhouse confirms transport does indeed face a long term problem. This is not part of union negotiations or anything. These are two very credible independent sources. Both are critical of the number of inspectors available.

What steps is the minister putting in place to correct this potential safety situation?