Rick Casson

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the problem of Liberal mismanagement is nothing new. In fact, back in April 1999 an audit by HRDC was conducted on the funds for the TAGS program. This report highlighted the problems with HRDC grants and contributions. The response to this report was that HRDC was already taking steps to ensure better monitoring.

Why is it that six months later the minister of HRDC said she knew nothing about the mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars?

[Agriculture, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Nick Parsons ended his 4,800 kilometre odyssey today as he eased his 10 tonne Massey-Ferguson combine to a stop in front of the centennial flame on Parliament Hill. What a beautiful sight it was.

For six weeks Nick navigated the Prairie Belle through the small towns and mega-cities of Canada, determined to bring attention to the farm income crisis that has crippled Canadian farmers.

For six weeks he drove, receiving the support of thousands of Canadians along the way. But if it were up to the government, Nick may as well have stayed home. The one man he wanted to talk to, the one man who could make a difference, the Prime Minister, has denied his request for a meeting.

The government has failed producers. Instead of immediately delivering emergency assistance, the Prime Minister makes promises of money that will never make it to the farm gate.

Canadian farmers, like Nick, need more than empty promises. They need a meaningful commitment from the government. Mr. Prime Minister, the message is simple: If you do not support agriculture, quit eating.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. One of the most memorable moments in my time in the House was the day when we voted on compensation for hepatitis C victims. That was probably my first real idea of how much power was in the front row of the government.

We saw backbench government members stand to vote against the motion to compensate all victims. To the credit of one member who was very emotional, she had worked very hard for these people but had to vote against her beliefs and the wishes of her constituents.

I have received quite a few letters, as I am sure have all members of the House, from constituents about this issue. I would like to read a couple of them. This one comes from a constituent in Coalhurst, Alberta. It is addressed to the Liberal members of the Government of Canada, with a copy to me, and states:

This letter is to inform you of my disgust at the Liberals in the Federal Government. Their handling of the tax money of this country is a disgrace.

It is my opinion that there are several people that should be relieved of their positions because of their ineptness...Is there no accountability to the people that have put you in office? Please stop the policy...of using tax dollars as a slush fund for political patronage.

Another letter was to the Prime Minister with a copy to myself. It comes from a constituent in Lethbridge and states:

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

As a taxpayer, I find the reports about the way the HRDC has been handing out our money, very disturbing for two main reasons. The first is the apparent lack of proper management of the vast funds of taxpayers money being handed out—There are many who believe that the minister should resign. The hon. minister should be held accountable for the apparent poor management practices of HRDC. However, she may have done taxpayers a big favour by bringing to the attention of the entire country the casual and lax ways that millions of our tax dollars are spent.

It was the member from Nose Hill who brought it to the attention of the country. The letter states further:

But more importantly this affair, as well as the attempt to give millions to millionaire hockey teams, has clearly pointed out to the taxpaying public that the government is collecting more money than it can spend in useful ways.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Red Deer.

It gives me pleasure to rise today and speak to this Reform Party motion. I congratulate the member for Calgary—Nose Hill for her hard work on this file and for bringing it to the attention of the House.

I will first speak about the need for increased health and social transfers to the provinces. Our health care system is on life support. Every day we hear more stories of patients waiting for days in clogged emergency rooms, nurses at the breaking point and physicians burned out trying to meet the needs of their patients and ever lengthening waiting lists. At the centre of all this is a person who falls ill and pays for the decay in our system with their pain and their suffering.

When the Liberal government assumed power in 1993 it promised to maintain a high level of health care spending for all Canadians. However, the reality is quite different. Since it came to power, the CHS transfer has dropped 28%, ripping a cumulative $21 billion out of transfer payments to the provinces. This slash and burn approach has left a devastated health care system in its wake.

The Canada Health Act, which has five principles that govern health care in Canada, is being violated every day across the country. However, every time someone tries to point out this painfully obvious fact, and I say painfully because people are suffering and even dying because of these failures, they are immediately labelled as an enemy of medicare. Immediately hot button words like two tier and American style are thrown out with no regard to the merit of the argument.

The government likes to wrap itself in the act, claiming to be the white knight of medicare, defending the health of Canadians despite the fact that the act is no longer capable of doing what it was originally intended to do.

The first principle, portability, implies that when citizens travel from one province to the other they will be covered in the same manner as in their home province. This is not true, as each province covers different services.

The second principle, that of public administration, states that the health care system will be publicly funded and administered. The fact is that while the feds and the provinces initially split the bill for health care equally, today the federal government contributes only 11% of the total in health care spending.

The third principle, universality, which means that everybody is covered for health care needs, is simply untrue. Those who cannot pay their premiums are not covered. Those who cannot afford fees for physiotherapy, chiropractic work, prosthesis and other services do without.

The fourth principle, accessibility, which means that an ill person receives care when they need it, is the most important principle of the Canada Health Act that is being violated. Last year 212,000 people were on waiting lists, an increase of 13% from the year before. Compounding this is the fact that people are waiting longer. The government is rationing people's health care and under these circumstances it is the poor and middle class who are getting their health care withheld, for the rich can always go south of the border, or often have connections to jump the queue.

The fifth principle, comprehensiveness, means that necessary services must be covered. However, this is not true considering that home care, many drugs, optical and dental services and many others are not completely covered.

Despite these obvious flaws in our health care system, we have a government that champions the status quo, a position that has taken us into this crisis and one that offers no way out. Throwing more money at a broken system does not help. The extra $2.5 billion that was announced in the 2000 budget, money that will be allocated in the next four years, is like offering a band-aid to a trauma victim. It will not get the job done. What we need is a fundamental shift in how we approach health care in the 21st century. While that shift is being created, we need to maintain what we have and the money that is being put forward is not doing the job.

It is against this backdrop of crumbling federal support for health care that Canadians are learning about the disastrous mismanagement of hundreds of millions of tax dollars in the human resources development department.

On January 19, 2000 an audit was released entitled “Program Integrity: Grants and Contributions” two days after a Reform Party access to information request for the audit was submitted. That audit revealed the following: Of the 459 project files reviewed, 15% did not have an application on file from the sponsor. On the remaining applications the following elements were missing: 72% had no cashflow forecast; 46% had no estimate of the number of participants; 25% had no description of the activities to be supported; 25% provided no description at all of the characteristics of the participants; 11% had no budget proposal; 11% had no description of expected results; and 97% of all files reviewed showed no evidence that anyone had checked to see if the recipient already owed money to HRDC. Eight out of 10 files reviewed did not show evidence of financial monitoring and 87% of project files showed no evidence of supervision.

Here are some examples of where the money went. Videotron Telecom of Montreal is worth $6 billion but received $2.5 million from the transitional jobs fund grant a month after the 1997 election. At the end of its contract, it had not claimed $550,000 of the money so HRDC simply sent them a cheque.

American based RMH Teleservices was enticed to the minister's riding using $1.6 million in HRDC grants over the protests of the neighbouring Liberal ridings. Later, RMH executive vice-president, Michael Sharff, said in an interview that they would have located there without it. He said “I'm sure we would be in Brantford one way or another. That was kind of like icing on the cake”.

The Canadian Aerospace Group in Nipissing, Ontario, received $917,000 of a $1.3 million TJF grant before going bankrupt without building any aircraft. Then the company moved to St. Hubert, Quebec, and was approved for another $1.65 million loan from Quebec's Federal Regional Development Agency, Canada economic development for Quebec regions. No money has been paid yet. The RCMP is investigating. The list goes on.

What is there to show for it? At least 19 police investigations, those we know about, a handful of jobs and a fountain in the Prime Minister's riding. Incidentally that riding received more grant money than the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. Sadly the Prime Minister sees nothing wrong with them, saying that he is only doing his job as a good MP, despite the fact that three of the RCMP investigations are in his riding. I am sure it is no coincidence that many of the beneficiaries of this largesse are also generous contributors to the Liberal Party.

The official opposition believes that Canadians would rather see this money spent on improving the quality of health care than on lining the pockets of the Prime Minister's friends. That is why we are calling on the government to forgo the $1.5 billion increase contained in this year's budget for federal grants and contributions. We believe that this funding is better spent upgrading the quality of health care. We are deeply concerned about the future of health care in Canada. No one wants to see people suffer when they fall ill. No one wants an American style health care system in Canada.

We believe that health care should not be based on financial status. All Canadians should have timely access to essential health care services. When we form the government we will provide greater freedom of choice when it comes to ensuring their well-being and their access to the best medical care and facilities. We believe the needs of patients must come first in the delivery of health services. We will work co-operatively with the provinces so that they have the resources and flexibility to find more effective approaches to the financing, management and delivery of health care, thereby ensuring that the choice of patients in quality of care is maximized.

We can no longer afford to be complacent. We must find the best solutions and implement them. Time is of the essence. The longer we delay, the more people will suffer. Good solutions exist. All we need is the courage to implement them.

[Agriculture, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on February 24 the federal government shortchanged Alberta producers because the agriculture minister did not feel that their politicians had lobbied hard enough.

Yesterday the Alberta government showed it cared more about helping farmers than about playing political games like the Liberal government. In direct contrast to this government, which cares more about cheap photo opportunities than helping farmers, Alberta agriculture minister Ty Lund announced $145 million in new funding for struggling Alberta farmers and demanded Ottawa contribute its fair share.

The federal government must take this opportunity to demonstrate fairness and equality to farmers in all provinces. It can start by responding to Alberta's challenge and contributing its $103 million share.

The Liberals need to realize that farm income problems do not stop at provincial borders. They need to immediately reform farm safety net programs to ensure the long term success of agriculture in this country and eliminate the need for these emergency programs.

It is time the agriculture minister stood up for farmers and quit being a pawn—

[Petitions, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from 476 citizens of my riding of Lethbridge.

The petitioners are concerned about child poverty and they are calling on the government to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the well-being of Canada's children.

[Agriculture, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for the last number of years farmers have been caught in the deathly grip of an income crisis forced on to them by years of federal agriculture mismanagement and compounded by high foreign subsidies and bad weather.

This crisis has shaken the agriculture industry to its very roots. Increasingly, distressed farmers are turning to desperate measures, including hunger strikes, to try and make this government aware of their problems.

When simply ignoring the problem did not work, the Liberals grudgingly announced AIDA, an emergency program that has only delivered a paltry 23% of the promised $1.7 billion. When they realized that AIDA was a failure they tried to apply another $200 million band-aid with no guarantee that any of these funds will ever be delivered. If that was not insult enough, farmers were completely shut out of yesterday's budget.

Farmers need more than band-aids. They need real reform that addresses the root problem of the farm income crisis, and they will not get that reform from this government.

[Agriculture, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the action for struggling agriculture producers was launched by the official opposition late last year after Liberal, NDP and PC members of the standing committee on agriculture refused to support a Reform motion to travel across Canada to areas hit hard by the farm income crisis.

Since then, Reform MPs have held over 60 action meetings in five provinces, meeting with over 3,500 farmers, listening to their concerns and promising to take their messages back to Ottawa.

The message is loud and clear: 71% of farmers say that they want the freedom to make their own marketing decisions; 96% say that taxes and user fees imposed by the government are too high; and, a staggering 94% of farmers say that the government's AIDA program is a failure.

The facts speak for themselves. The government held nine meetings in three provinces. The official opposition has held over 60 meetings in five provinces and counting. Is there any doubt who speaks for farmers in this country.

[Division No. 692, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have to rise today to speak to this bill under the effects of closure but we will do our best.

I rise today to speak on the report stage of Bill C-2, an act which repeals and replaces, inadequately in my view, the Canada Elections Act.

Initially, when I first heard that the government was going to repeal the Canada Elections Act, I was encouraged, for that was something our party has taken a firm position on. In fact, it can be found as a policy in our blue book, where it states under the section entitled Parliamentary Reform, subsection A:

The Reform Party supports repealing sections of the Canada Elections Act which make MPs beholden to their national party executive or leader rather than their constituents.

The Reform Party has taken a strong stand on political reform, believing that for too long Canada's political system has been out of touch with the common voter. We believe it is time to restore the confidence of Canadians in Canada's political system and federal representatives to make sound decisions about their future. We will do this through the introduction of real democratic representation in parliament and accountability for parliamentarians.

I firmly believe that it is time elected representatives be held accountable to the people who elect them and that the duty of elected members to their constituents should supersede their obligations to their political parties.

Sadly, as I learn more about the government's intentions, first in the form of Bill C-83 in the first session of this parliament, and now Bill C-2 in this session, I see that the Liberal government and, indeed, some of the other parties in the House, do not share Reform's commitment to openness and transparency in government.

Before I continue in any detail, I first want to compliment my colleague, the member for Vancouver North. I congratulate him for his tenacity, for his unfailing commitment to the principles of democratic reform that I outlined previously and for his undying belief in the equality of all people, regardless of their political affiliation. This member has almost single-handedly exposed this bill for the farce that it is, and I recognize him for that.

The efforts made by the government to change electoral legislation is inadequate. It has become clear to members of the House and members of the public that the government sent this bill to committee before second reading hoping to keep it hidden from public spotlight and thus isolate it from any meaningful public comment.

This arrogance is evidenced by the fact that no significant amendments were made in the committee in spite of numerous suggestions made by the official opposition, third party and media witnesses and witnesses from other political parties that are not represented in the House today.

It was with relief that I noted that some small parties did have an opportunity to make representation to the committee. Too often these parties, and the Canadians who voted for them, are ignored by the traditional parties and the mainstream national media. In fact, the elections acts in Canada are so biased toward the parties with seats in the federal or provincial legislatures that it is normal for any changes to be slipped through quietly on a Friday afternoon lest any public scrutiny expose those political hijinks for what they are.

This time, however, Canadians are fortunate to have the Reform Party filling the role of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, and we will not let the government pull the wool over the eyes and the rug out from under the feet of the Canadian public. We will remain true to our democratic roots and true to Canadians.

In spite of repealing the current legislation, this new legislation repeats many of the same mistakes of the Canada Elections Act, doing nothing to address serious public concerns involving campaign financing, party registration requirements, the timing of byelections, third party spending issues and patronage appointments within Elections Canada. It should come as no surprise then when one discovers that these flaws were retained because of the advantage they give to the ruling party.

I want to speak to the issue of third party spending, which I believe goes beyond the context of this legislation and addresses the broader issue of free speech.

The government appears to be basing its tenuous position on a controversial decision made by the supreme court in Libman v Quebec which struck down the Quebec referendum act's third party spending limit as too restrictive, but left the door open to legislatures and parliament to determine reasonable spending limits that were not only desirable but constitutional.

However, this decision was not made in the context of a federal election where voters are faced with a multitude of issues, but in the context of a provincial referendum where the answer is either yes or no. This difference is very obvious to members of Canada's legal community, no matter what their politics are.

This issue has been before the courts on several occasions in Alberta and in both cases the court ruled that imposing spending limits on third parties is unconstitutional. A recent court case in British Columbia also addressed the issue of third party spending and decided that there were certain circumstances in which the goal of fairness in elections would support an argument for third party advertising.

If in a future election campaign all of the political parties were to agree on a significant policy point then the lack of third party advertising would mean that the people would be limited to the views of the major political parties and media commentators. The third party spending limits would effectively silence citizens who wish to express contrary views.

The Liberals must know that the bill does not have a chance of withstanding a constitutional challenge but I believe they have an ulterior motive in introducing the bill.

It is not a secret that the previous Liberal and Tory regimes have felt the sting of third party spending. The National Citizens' Coalition has publicly criticized the generous MP pension plan during election times and the Canadian Police Association paid for billboards that pilloried Liberal candidates for being soft on crime.

The government feels that the legislation is a way to level the playing field at election time, saying that if candidates have spending limits, lobby groups should also be limited. What is level about limiting lobby groups to a mere $150,000, of which only $3,000 can be targeted to any single riding, when the total election spending limit for the federal Liberal Party is close to $30 million?

Far from levelling the playing field, the legislation gives a huge advantage to the Liberal government. Not only can the Liberals outspend their nearest political party opponents by a margin of nearly three to one, they can spend tens of millions of federal taxpayers' dollars to pat themselves on the back in the months preceding the election.

Restricting the ability of third parties to counter the barrage of government propaganda is an affront to the democratic traditions upon which this country was built.

Notwithstanding the fact that these limits are a clear attempt to muzzle free speech, there is not even evidence to prove that limiting campaign expenses influences the outcome of elections.

Let us consider the following: In 1993 Canadians were suffering under a bloated and arrogant government, one devoid of any new ideas and fundamentally out of touch with the electorate. This party had the highest spending limit of any political party, spending tens of millions of dollars only to return just two MPs to the House of Commons.

On the other hand, a young and vibrant new political party was offering common sense solutions to many challenging issues. It advocated such things as fiscal responsibility, social responsibility, reform of the federation and democratic accountability. This grassroots movement, funded by the $10 and $20 contributions of grassroots Canadians, sent 52 MPs to Ottawa.

Another example is the Charlottetown accord where the yes side outspent the no side by a margin of 10 to 1 and still lost.

These examples illustrate very clearly that there is absolutely no evidence at all that spending more money than an opponent guarantees a win.

Therefore, I submit that this is nothing but a bald-faced attempt by the governing party to curtail the freedom of expression of private citizens so that their views cannot be advanced forcefully enough to compete with the views of the media moguls and political parties. The government simply does not want to be reminded of its failures, weaknesses and broken promises during an election campaign, and that is enough reason for this bill to be scrapped.

In drafting this bill, the government virtually ignored the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The government also ignored several decisions of various appeal courts and the Supreme Court of Canada. The government is very inconsistent in its approach to court rulings. Given its past reluctance to act against court decisions, by introducing this bill the government is saying that it is okay for the courts to make child pornography legal and to allocate access to fisheries according to race, but do not touch the provisions of the election act that favour the ruling party.

The government refused to hold committee meetings in cities across Canada. The public must know more about this bill.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the member opposite. He brought up a couple of points which I would like him to clarify. Regarding his plea to have all members of the House vote for this legislation, I can assure him that I will not be voting for it.

He mentioned taking direction from the courts. One thing we must remember is that there was some direction given by the House last June when it voted to affirm the definition of marriage. I would like his comments on why that definition is not affirmed in this legislation.

He mentioned many areas that needed clarification. How are we going to apply this law when it is based on sexual activity and when other relationships of dependency are not clarified? How are we going to do that? If this needs to be done, as I believe it does, then why have we not opened up this bill to more broad public input? Would that input not help to solve some of the problems that he indicated still exist with this legislation?