Bill Casey

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important debate we are having about closure and I do not see a quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[Reinstatement of Government Bills, February 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak.

All the gobbledegook we just heard about the bills that will come back means nothing. We are reinstating the bills is for one reason only, and that is to have an early implementation of the Canada elections changes so there can be a quick election, and none of these bills will be debated.

The member knows it is all about that. The government is not doing this to bring back an array of interesting bills about issues affecting Canadians. It is only doing this for one reason: to accommodate the Liberals' election agenda.

I find it all very confusing. When leading up to this, the new Prime Minister said that he would correct the democratic deficit, that he would give MPs new power, empower all of us, and that he would create this new wonderful world for members of Parliament.

I bet this is a world record for closure for a new government, or it calls itself a new government. No government has probably ever moved closure so fast as this one. That is a true sign of circumventing the democratic system. Why is the government moving closure? So it can bring back the old bill. The Liberals are trying to say that they are a new government, but all they want to do is recycle old bills. They want to bring them back at the same stages they were when the House rose.

I do not know how they can say that they want to be a new government and that they want to have democratic reform, when they really are desperately trying to recycle themselves by coming back with old bills. Rather than bringing in new bills that are of interest to and affect Canadians and serve their needs, they are serving their own needs by bringing back a bill so they can then have an early election. It just seems to be completely contradictory to everything they have said.

Yesterday, I raised the issue in question period that the Prime Minister had said on television that his biggest failure was not resolving western alienation. Yet every day the government advertises for jobs in Ottawa and says clearly that these jobs are just for a few postal codes around Ottawa and nobody from the west is allowed to apply for these jobs. I just checked this on Sunday night. There were 20 jobs advertised by the Government of Canada in the nation's capital of Ottawa. Citizens of Canada cannot apply unless they live in this little circle of postal codes around Ottawa. It is just not fair.

People in your riding, Mr. Speaker, cannot apply for a job in the capital city of their country. People in my riding cannot apply for jobs in the own capital city because they have the wrong postal code. It is just wrong. When I raised this yesterday, I was trying to point out that the Prime Minister said that the biggest failure was western alienation. However, every time these jobs are advertised, the Liberals do not want input from the west. They do not want to hear from the west. They do not want ideas from the west. They sure do not want anybody from the west working in Ottawa because those jobs are reserved for special people in this little circle of postal codes around Ottawa.

Even though the people from Newfoundland are citizens of Canada, they cannot apply for the jobs in their own country. People in Nova Scotia cannot apply. That certainly creates western, eastern and northern alienation. I find it offensive that any country would say that its citizens cannot work in their own capital city because they have a postal code that does not suit the government.

It is even worse than that. The ads say that within a postal code area, preference will be given to Canadian citizens. Theoretically, citizens from Chile, or Slovenia or some other country can work in the capital city as long as they have a postal code from around Ottawa and a work permit. However, somebody from Manitoba or Newfoundland, a citizen of Canada, cannot work the nation's capital. The government absolutely guarantees western and eastern alienation as long as it continues to do this.

I move on because I want to talk about the bill. One thing that has not come up or I have not heard much about is the effect of the bill will create a lot of chaos because the whole thing is being driven by the Liberal election agenda. Apparently the Liberals want to have an election call around the 1st of April. To do that they have to change the rules and distort the Election Commission's recommendations. We hired the Election Commission to make a recommendation. It recommended that the ridings be changed as of August 25, 2004, but the government brought in a bill to implement those changes early just to accommodate its election agenda

At the same time the government has introduced a bill to change the names of 38 ridings, including mine. The name of my riding right now is Cumberland--Colchester. However that name could be anyone of three names in the next election, depending on whether we go by Elections Canada commission rules, or by the early implementation rules, which we will talk about later, or by Bill C-53, which is the name change bill. It is really confusing.

We have two bills now that will affect the name of my riding and 37 other ridings. My riding is currently Cumberland--Colchester. The Election Commission says it should be North Nova. Then the government moved a bill last year to change it back to Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley. There are three completely different names for my riding.

If the government calls an election now, it will be Cumberland--Colchester. If it gets the early implementation bill through, but not the name change bill through, it will be called North Nova. If it gets both bills through, it will be Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley. There are 38 ridings like that, and it is causing massive confusion. Elections Canada cannot adapt fast enough. It will be unable to change its election maps if we have an early election.

Again, all this confusion in 38 ridings and extra expense is because the Liberal government wants to have an early election. It should simply calm down, back off, let the Election Commission recommendations go through, as they are supposed to on August 25, and let Bill C-53 go through so there is only one name change. If the government has its way right now, my riding of Cumberland--Colchester will be called North Nova for a couple of months. Then if the Liberals win the election, it will be changed back again to Cumberland--Colchester--Musquodoboit Valley.

Why put everybody through this confusion, not only Elections Canada but the parties and the citizens? People do not know what the names of their riding are. I cannot even refer to the name of my riding now because the name Elections Canada refers to it now is North Nova, even though that name does not take effect until August 25. Then there is a bill to change it after that.

I know it is confusing, but the fact is there are three possible names for my riding and 37 other ridings. Because the government is in a panic to rush this bill through and force closure in record time, it will create a lot of havoc in those 38 ridings. It does not have to. There is no need for this. It needs to calm down and let Elections Canada follow the rules.

Elections Canada has a set of rules it follows and it should be allowed to follow them. Everybody should have a one year notice of the changes recommended by Elections Canada. That is the rule. We should allow everybody to have a one year period to get ready for the changes, to reprint the pamphlets and brochures, and prepare election signs and everything else.

Certainly Elections Canada has to have maps to show where the polls are and the names of the ridings in all the brochures and it has to have voters' lists for the ridings. If it is printing them now as North Nova and the other bill goes through, which I understand is supposed to move parallel to the early implementation act, then it will have to change them again.

In any case my riding will have three names because the Liberals are in a hurry to have an election and rush it through. It is just an extra expense, it causes a great deal of confusion and it does Canadians not one bit of good. It just accommodates the Liberals in their attempt to have an early election.

The Prime Minister has talked about democratic deficit over and over. Now with this motion, in effect we are here to do away with democracy, and not let members speak on the bill or speak about the status of a number of bills. We are going to whisk that opportunity away. We are going to take the opportunity off the board. We are going to deny everybody here the opportunity to speak if they wish to speak. There will be a few speakers, but we will not have much time between now and the time this comes to a vote.

It is all because the government has brought the hammer down. It has said that it does not want to hear the opinions of anybody nor does it want to have any amendments.

The government has done the same thing to the people in the west. It pretends it wants to hear from them, but it does not want them working in Ottawa. Certainly it does not want anyone from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland working here either. That is what it says in all its job offers.

My point is that all of this is not in the interest of Canadians. It is only in the interest of the Liberals and their election agenda, and we should stop them from doing this. We should vote against the motion, and I will.

[Public Service of Canada, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to think the Public Service Commission runs the country, but really the government is supposed to run it. It is supposed to call the shots and make the rules.

Some of these jobs in Ottawa are available to citizens of other countries. All they need is a work permit and a postal code and they can apply for these 20 jobs in Ottawa, but people who live in Winnipeg, Manitoba cannot apply even if they are Canadian citizens.

What does the government say to the people in Winnipeg, that it will accept an application for a job in Ottawa from a citizen of another country, but every application from Winnipeg, from Canadian citizens, goes right in the garbage?

[Public Service of Canada, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I saw with my own two eyes the Prime Minister on TV say that our biggest failure is not resolving western alienation. Some would argue.

However, I have 20 copies of Government of Canada jobs and every one of them is only available to people in Ontario and Quebec. Every one of them sends a message to the people out west that we do not want their ideas or their contributions and we certainly do not want them working in Ottawa.

Why does the Prime Minister say that his approach to resolving western alienation is a failure and he does everything he can to make sure it continues?

[Public Service, February 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I raised an issue in the House regarding the Government of Canada jobs that were restricted to Ottawa. These jobs were located in Afghanistan but limited to only those people residing in certain postal codes around Ottawa.

The President of the Treasury Board responded to my questions with a non-answer and then phoned me to explain. When I did not agree with his logic, he hung up on me and called me a few names in the media.

A few minutes ago, the President of the Public Service Commission faxed me a letter saying they were wrong after all and that the job descriptions for the four jobs in question were changed this morning. She has offered to meet with me to discuss the other hiring practices that amount to discrimination by postal code, and I am very pleased to accept.

I appreciate this progress, but many offensive situations still exist and we will stay at it.

[Points of Order, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period I asked a question of the President of the Treasury Board about an issue with respect to my riding. I was trying to do my job to correct an inequality situation. Today, just before question period, the President of the Treasury Board called me to try to explain his convoluted answer that he gave me yesterday. In the middle of the conversation, he slammed the phone down and hung up on me because I did not agree with his answer.

This is not helping me do my job. I wish the Speaker would instruct the President of the Treasury Board to not be rude and disrespectful to members and to call me and have a discussion about this issue, which is an equality issue with respect to all of Atlantic Canada. It certainly does not follow in the Prime Minister's new concept of democratic reform. I think an apology is due, and a phone call to restart this conversation. We will finish it and I will have my say, with not just him having his say.

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I have a comment. I wrote down a quote from the member's speech. She said the beef industry has taken a hit. With all due respect, the reaction I have to this is that there is a misunderstanding of the extent of this problem. It is not only the beef industry. It is the hog industry, it is the sheep industry, it is the tractor industry, it is the feed industry, and it is the car dealer industry.

I want to make a point, too, that it is not only Alberta and Quebec. The farmers in Nova Scotia have been devastated by BSE. All farmers have been devastated by BSE. If we want to add to BSE, let us add the effects of hurricane Juan and the flooding that they have had to contend with. It has been blow after blow to the farmers in Nova Scotia. I recently met with the Atlantic Farmers Council president and the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture and they were telling me about families who are about to lose their farms, farms that have been in business for decades and for generations.

Here is my question. When the member for Yellowhead was saying that the border with the United States should be open, the Minister of Agriculture stood up and said he did not think the border should be open. This baffled me, because my understanding is that the government is trying to open the border again, but when the member for Yellowhead said the border should be open, the Minister of Agriculture made a point of standing up and saying no, the government does not want the border open yet, that it is waiting for the science. It is not trying to open the border.

Could the member clarify this for me? We want the border open and we want it open as fast as possible. We do not want to wait. We do not want any reasons or unreasonable excuses.

[Public Service, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is not reasonable when they are looking for soldiers. There is no discrimination there. They will take anybody across Canada.

When it is a job in Ottawa, they restrict it to the minister's own area right around Ottawa. Here are four more jobs and it is the same story. Again there is discrimination by postal code. Only those people with postal codes around Ottawa can apply.

I would like the Minister of National Defence to answer this question. How does the minister face the families of the soldiers when he says that he is sending their kids to risk their lives in Afghanistan, but when they come back they are not wanted in Ottawa?

[Public Service, February 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of National Defence needs to hire soldiers, he does not hesitate to go to Atlantic Canada and hire soldiers and send them to Afghanistan to risk their lives and safety everyday.

However, when they are going to hire someone for a safe job in Ottawa like this one on the Internet today, only applications from certain postal codes in eastern Ontario and western Quebec, including the minister's own riding, will get considered. No applications from Atlantic Canada will be considered.

Why does the minister think it is all right to send Atlantic Canadians to Afghanistan to risk their lives but they are not good enough to work in Ottawa?

[Request for Emergency Debate, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this is an application for an emergency debate concerning the allegations surrounding the arrest, deportation and imprisonment of Mr. Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was held without charge and tortured in a Syrian prison for one year.

There is ample evidence that officials of the Government of Canada were involved in his arrest and in the decision by the United States to deport Mr. Arar to Syria and not to Canada.

In deciding the merits of this application, the Speaker I know is required to take into account several criteria found in Standing Order 52. I would like to address those.

First, it must be a specific and an important matter requiring urgent consideration. I would argue that it is urgent because just days ago leaks came from certain government agencies, unnamed agencies, that actually put Mr. Arar and his family at risk now.

It is also urgent because there is another Canadian in the same prison. We have learned from Mr. Arar's presentation that there is another Canadian in prison by the name of Mr. Abdullah Almalki. He could be being tortured right now as we speak.

Yesterday, Mr. Arar spoke publicly for the first time since his release from prison and his return to Canada. What requires immediate attention by the Parliament of Canada is the suggestion that Canadian officials, or rogue elements in the employ of Canada, were complicit in his deportation to Syria for torture.

There are now indications that information that was leaked by Canadian officials, while Mr. Arar was in prison, points to the fact that Canada was receiving intelligence reports based on confessions that were extracted by the torture of a Canadian citizen. This requires immediate consideration by the members of the House. The responsible ministers of the crown should make full and complete statement on this issue. It cannot be defended by a scrum and sound bites.

Second, consideration should be given to the degree to which the matter comes within the scope of ministerial responsibility.

It is evident that ministers are responsible and answerable for the actions of all agents of the Government of Canada, including officers of the RCMP and CSIS and other intelligence agencies. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is answerable for the actions of Canada's diplomatic and consular services that were involved in this case in New York, Syria and elsewhere. The Prime Minister has told the House that he made representations to the Syrians.

Third, the Speaker is to consider if there are other opportunities to raise this issue. Just a few minutes ago the foreign affairs committee tabled a motion that was passed in committee asking the government to hold an inquiry.

There are no allotted days available to members until the new supply cycle begins in 2004. I believe the Speaker has also noticed that there are certain political activities afoot that could lead to a prorogation of the House. In any event, it is clear that the ministers who were in office during this incident may not be in place much longer. The House needs to hear from them while they are still in office.

The Speaker may note that this case has been the subject of examination in committee. Mr. Arar's statements of yesterday are such that the entire House should be seized with the issue, rather than just a few members who are participants in the committee.

I respectfully request, Mr. Speaker, that you allow this emergency debate because it is an urgent situation.