Bill Casey

[Agriculture, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Farmers Council, the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture and the Nova Scotia Agricultural College made a proposal in January 2005 to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to establish the Atlantic alternative energy centre to determine ways to reduce energy costs and harmful emissions, using agricultural products.

If approved, this group will take the lead in coordinating regional research, which will help farmers in reducing costs and energy consumption while also reducing pollution and greenhouse gases.

The new Conservative government has committed to have every litre of gas and diesel fuel contain 5% alternative fuel. This organized research effort would go a long way toward achieving this goal in Atlantic Canada.

The Minister of Agriculture recently showed great support for the Atlantic Canadian farmers when he made his announcement about the moratorium on CAIS clawbacks. By giving his approval to this application for an alternative energy centre, he will give another great boost to the environment and to the agricultural industry in Atlantic Canada. I urge him to do so.

[Agriculture, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, 872 Nova Scotia farmers received payments under the CAIS program for 2003 and 2004. Then in January, 272 of them started receiving collection letters from the Government of Canada demanding they pay all of the money back. That is a 32% failure rate for this Liberal program.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explain how he is going to straighten out this Liberal mess and what is he going to do for farmers right now?

[The Environment, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, for 13 very long years, the people of Sydney watched the Liberals dither, delay, stall and study the Sydney tar ponds but they did very little. Now that they are in opposition they have suddenly discovered that the tar ponds are a problem.

Would the very distinguished Parliamentary Secretary for Public Works tell this House what the new Conservative government will do to clean up the tar ponds?

[Softwood Lumber, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, for years and years the Liberals failed to make one ounce of progress on the softwood lumber file. It was so frustrating that the provinces ended up sending representatives to Washington themselves. It was embarrassing. The provinces had negotiators in Washington but the federal Liberals were hiding out in Ottawa.

Now that there is a deal, will the government confirm that the Atlantic exemption that recognizes the unique forestry practices of Atlantic Canada has been totally preserved in this new agreement?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Sydney—Victoria. He referred to the report entitled, “Empowering Canadian Farmers in the Marketplace”. On one hand I appreciate him raising it, but he could not have read it. Earlier on in his comments, he referred to Conservative child care plan as not being up to his standards.

The Easter report describes a child care program just like the one we announced. The member supports “Empowering Canadian Farmers”, yet it endorses our child care plan. It allows the children of farmers, like the farmers in his riding, to have child care at home or choose from a number of options. As a farmer himself and a former parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture, I am surprised he has not read the report.

When he commented on the Sydney tar ponds, I thought he must be ashamed of the Liberals' record on the tar ponds. Yes, it was mentioned in two throne speeches, but the Liberals never did a thing about the terrible suffering and disaster caused by those tar ponds.

Would the member stand and admit that the Liberals completely failed to do anything on the Sydney tar ponds and that he has not read the empowering Canadian farm report?

[Question No. 184, November 24th, 2005]

With regard to the government’s position and actions regarding employment insurance (EI) benefits for spouses of employees of the government or private sector employees who have been posted overseas and who are unable to receive unemployment insurance benefits, even though these citizens are still registered in constituencies across Canada: ( a ) how many spouses of Canadian diplomats, Canadian foreign-service employees or private sector employees have filed complaints with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), or Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) with regard to the their inability to receive EI benefits, even though they are still Canadian citizens who are registered in federal constituencies across Canada and still pay taxes to the government; ( b ) does the CRA collect the payment of EI premiums from the spouses of Canada’s diplomats, foreign-service employees and those from the private sector, and, if so, why is it that these individuals cannot receive the EI benefits for which they have paid through their salaries, and earned from Canadian employers either just prior to, or while living overseas; ( c ) is there a conflict between the CRA and HRSDC definitions of residency of a Canadian citizen and, if so, why; ( d ) has any action taken place between officials of CRA, HRSDC, Foreign Affairs Canada or Elections Canada to update or correct conflicts in the definition process for determining an individual’s residency; ( e ) has any action taken place within the CRA to update the NR-73 Determination of Residency Status form and resulting process to correct any determination conflicts with those of other federal departments for Canadians living and working overseas; ( f ) have HRSDC, CRA, Elections Canada or Foreign Affairs Canada ever discussed using a standardized or shared definition for determining who is a “spouse”, in cases of spouses of government (including diplomatic and foreign-service staff) or private sector employees who have been posted overseas and wish to claim employment insurance benefits; ( g ) which nations does Canada have reciprocal treaties/agreements enabling the payment of employment insurance benefits to Canadians outside of Canada, and when were these treaties/agreements established; ( h ) is the government actively negotiating with any other nations with regard to achieving a reciprocal employment insurance agreement; ( i ) has the government sought, or been approached, to establish reciprocal treaties or employment insurance agreements with Canada’s NAFTA partners, with the European Union or any of its member states, the United Kingdom or any another G-8 nation; ( j ) was the subject of reciprocal employment insurance benefits treaties or agreements discussed or proposed during the drafting of Canada’s newest foreign policy review, or in negotiations with the World Trade Organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations, or the Trade and Investment Agreement negotiations; and if so, what concerns or suggestions were raised regarding the implementation of these EI treaties or agreements; ( k ) have any spouses of Canada’s diplomatic corps or foreign-service employees been contacted with regard to ascertaining their opinions or suggestions for improving the present conflict with employment insurance benefit regulations; and ( l ) what progress has Foreign Affairs Canada, HRSDC and CRA achieved towards creating a solution to spousal overseas EI issues?

(Return tabled)

[Supply, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for this move today. It is certainly timely. I want to ask him a question about the current regulations as they apply to departments now.

For instance, recently the government announced it would close four experimental farms in Canada, one is in my riding. I submitted an access to information request to find out what possibly could be the excuse for these closings. I received the information in response to my request, which is the best tool to do my job. Page after page is blanked out. Page 8 is a letterhead with nothing on it. Pages 25, 26 and 27 are deleted. Page 62 is deleted, and so on.

This is an experimental farm. It has nothing to do with national security. It has nothing to do with our competitiveness. It has nothing to do with regard to people who would risk their jobs. Again, the government has just denied me the information to deal with an issue in my riding.

Could the member explain why these would be exempted and could he suggest what he would do if he were in a position to enhance the regulations to make departments provide the information that we need to do our jobs and to hold them accountable? After all, access to information is totally about accountability. In a case like an experimental farm, we should have access to all the information.

[Question No. 184, November 14th, 2005]

With regard to the government’s position and actions regarding employment insurance (EI) benefits for spouses of employees of the government or private sector employees who have been posted overseas and who are unable to receive unemployment insurance benefits, even though these citizens are still registered in constituencies across Canada: ( a ) how many spouses of Canadian diplomats, Canadian foreign-service employees or private sector employees have filed complaints with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), or Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) with regard to the their inability to receive EI benefits, even though they are still Canadian citizens who are registered in federal constituencies across Canada and still pay taxes to the government; ( b ) does the CRA collect the payment of EI premiums from the spouses of Canada’s diplomats, foreign-service employees and those from the private sector, and, if so, why is it that these individuals cannot receive the EI benefits for which they have paid through their salaries, and earned from Canadian employers either just prior to, or while living overseas; ( c ) is there a conflict between the CRA and HRSDC definitions of residency of a Canadian citizen and, if so, why; ( d ) has any action taken place between officials of CRA, HRSDC, Foreign Affairs Canada or Elections Canada to update or correct conflicts in the definition process for determining an individual’s residency; ( e ) has any action taken place within the CRA to update the NR-73 Determination of Residency Status form and resulting process to correct any determination conflicts with those of other federal departments for Canadians living and working overseas; ( f ) have HRSDC, CRA, Elections Canada or Foreign Affairs Canada ever discussed using a standardized or shared definition for determining who is a “spouse”, in cases of spouses of government (including diplomatic and foreign-service staff) or private sector employees who have been posted overseas and wish to claim employment insurance benefits; ( g ) which nations does Canada have reciprocal treaties/agreements enabling the payment of employment insurance benefits to Canadians outside of Canada, and when were these treaties/agreements established; ( h ) is the government actively negotiating with any other nations with regard to achieving a reciprocal employment insurance agreement; ( i ) has the government sought, or been approached, to establish reciprocal treaties or employment insurance agreements with Canada’s NAFTA partners, with the European Union or any of its member states, the United Kingdom or any another G-8 nation; ( j ) was the subject of reciprocal employment insurance benefits treaties or agreements discussed or proposed during the drafting of Canada’s newest foreign policy review, or in negotiations with the World Trade Organization, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations, or the Trade and Investment Agreement negotiations; and if so, what concerns or suggestions were raised regarding the implementation of these EI treaties or agreements; ( k ) have any spouses of Canada’s diplomatic corps or foreign-service employees been contacted with regard to ascertaining their opinions or suggestions for improving the present conflict with employment insurance benefit regulations; and ( l ) what progress has Foreign Affairs Canada, HRSDC and CRA achieved towards creating a solution to spousal overseas EI issues?

(Return tabled)

[Question No. 190, November 4th, 2005]

With regard to the pilot projects and other activities undertaken by the Public Service Commission of Canada in an effort to create a national area of selection for all federal Public Service jobs: ( a ) what is the current status in designating all federal Public Service jobs as being part of the national area of selection, following the national area of selection designation for senior and executive level positions of the federal Public Service; ( b ) at what time will the Commission be in a position to include all junior, and mid-level federal Public Service positions in the national area of selection; ( c ) what is the Commission’s time frame to have 100% of the federal Public Service job postings included within the national area of selection; ( d ) what percentage of federal Public Service employment positions, as of September 1, 2005 are open to job-seekers within a designated national area of selection; ( e ) what are the specific reasons the Commission has not yet realized a national area of selection for all job-seekers in Canada wishing to work for the Government; ( f ) what are the total expenditures to date by the Commission towards the creation of the national area of selection; ( g ) is there a multi-year estimate for expenditures required to create the national area of selection; and ( h ) what is the status in the on-going development of policies and guidelines for the government-wide use of e-recruitment software?

[Parliament of Canada Act, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, a minute ago I wanted to rise on a point of order because I was really concerned about the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore advertising his own bill. I did not know if that was a point of order or not, so I did not rise, but he did get a good plug in for his bill and we certainly will be watching for it very carefully.

In the member's discussion he kind of painted the NDP as the epitome of democracy. At the same time he mentioned the hon. member for Churchill who, I agree, is a wonderful member of Parliament. She is very effective, always does her homework and is very knowledgeable. However that epitome of democracy would not allow her to vote the way she wanted to on a recent bill. I am not exactly sure what happened but eventually she ended up being an independent member of Parliament rather than being a member of the NDP.

If the NDP had allowed a free vote on that issue, I think she would still be a member of the NDP. Therefore I do not think the member can stand and say that the NDP is perfect.

I have been here since 1988 and I have seen Progressive Conservative members go across the floor to the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives go to the Bloc. I have seen Liberals go to the Bloc, Bloc members go to the Liberals, Alliance members go to the Liberals and Liberals go to the Conservatives so I can understand why the member is so frustrated and why he felt the need to bring forth this bill.

Every time there is a change like this it means people back home are wondering what happened to the person they elected. Let us take the example of my first election. The whole election was based on free trade. The Progressive Conservative Party was in favour of free trade and the Liberals of course were against it and they were going to tear it up. Theoretically, if someone changed parties, the people who voted for free trade might find their member now voting against free trade. Therefore it is really a legitimate complaint that the very distinguished member for Elgin—Middlesex—London raises with this bill and the motive is correct.

However I agree with some of the other points that have been made. I even agree with the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore when he raises the issue. I do think there is a flaw in the wording of the bill and it should be fixed.

The bill simply says “if a member of the House leaves the political party to which the member belonged”, but it does not say why. If just says, “under his choice”, but it does give tremendous power to leaders.

I have had eight leaders and every one of us from time to time disagree with our leader but if we happen to run into a particularly nasty leader who might be particularly vindictive that leader could evict us from the party and we could be out on the street. As has been raised by other members, that is one little flaw that should be addressed.

The member mentioned that the member for Mississauga—Erindale was evicted from the Liberal Party but she still sits in the House and represents the people she was elected to represent. However if the leader of the Liberal Party were a particularly vindictive and nasty person, which I am not saying he is, he could evict a lot of members under the bill and they would be sent home. Even though thousands of people had elected the member to come here, one person could send that member home.

The bill raises a lot of issues. Who do we represent? Every time a bill comes to the House we have to decide how to vote. We have to weigh what our constituents want, what we feel in our heart and what the party wants. It is not a simple decision. People often try to make it simple but it is not simple. Some of these are very deep moral issues that we must decide on. Some have no affect on us sometimes but some have a big impact and we have to weigh every aspect when we vote because we represent the people who elect us.

As I have said, I have had eight leaders. I have had four prime ministers. Many times I have seen members of Parliament off side or off message with their leader, including perhaps the member for Churchill. We need the ability to be off message with our party, otherwise there would be no freedom for an exchange of ideas. Nor would we be able to bring forth the concerns and beliefs of our constituents. It is important we have that right without the threat of being evicted and then losing our seats. Otherwise it really is not a democracy.

I support the motive of the bill. I admire the member who brought the bill forward. However, one line I home in on does not say the member of the House of Commons would leave the political party. If there were a description, it would be better. Perhaps if it does go to committee, that could be corrected. Otherwise it would give total power to the leaders. I would not want to be under that because from time to time I am off message.