Bill Casey

[Endangered Species Sanctuaries Act, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the last member asked what we would tell our children when they asked us what we did when we were here. I will tell a story that I know I will be very proud of when I am done. I deals with an island, which is exactly what this bill is about. On one hand, I think the government should support the bill. On the other hand, the government did a really good thing in my riding.

There is an island in the Bay of Fundy which is 2.5 kilometres long and about one kilometre wide. It is about 10 kilometres offshore and when the mist rises out of the Bay of Fundy it is absolutely majestic. It is totally pristine. It is the way it was 10,000 years ago. This beautiful island has cliffs 300 feet high. Seals, birds, whales and porpoise are all around it. There are all kinds of stories about this island's past such as natives having used it for ceremonial purposes.

There was a story in the Canadian geographic magazine a few years ago stating that this island was up for sale. The island belonged to the Government of Canada and its only use was as a base for a lighthouse. The lighthouse burned down in 1957 and since then it has been a platform for a light. The coast guard owned this island but it then was transferred to fisheries when the coast guard left. I could not believe the island suddenly came up for sale but the coast guard deemed it surplus.

I approached the Minister of the Environment and we had several long discussions about it. At one point he flew down to see this island. He shared my opinion that it was absolutely an incredibly majestic island. On the southeast side of the island is a high cliff shaped like an amphitheatre. It is absolutely vertical. When the birds fly and chirp, the noise is so loud that it almost too hard to take. Meanwhile, seals pop up everywhere and wonder what is going on. I go to this island every year. Nobody lives on it. It is totally pristine.

The Minster of the Environment agreed to designate it as a wilderness preserve. Ownership had to first be transferred to the Department of the Environment, and I believe that transfer is underway now. The last stage will be to designate as a wilderness preserve.

In the future when one of my kids asks me what I did when I was here, this will be the one issue of which I will be most proud. This would not have happened though had the land not belonged to the Government of Canada. Had it not been deemed surplus, it could not have been transferred. If it had been a privately owned island, this never would have happened. Because it belonged to the Government of Canada, it was turned into a wilderness preserve.

My point on this little sales pitch about the Isle Haute is that this is an example of how important this type of exercise is. Part of the reason is because there are endangered species on this island. There are only 10 nesting places for the peregrine falcon in all the maritime provinces and this island is one of them. Several endangered species of rodents are also on the island as well as a lot of endangered flora and fauna. That is part of the reason why there was the total support to convert this to a wilderness preserve.

Both the minister and the parliamentary secretary worked actively on this file, and I am grateful to them for their attitude and their co-operation. I look forward to the day when we can actually announce that it is a wilderness preserve, and I hope that day is not too far away.

I share the member's feeling about the issue of protecting habitat for wildlife. The island is being protected because it is the habitat of endangered species. However it is so much more than that. It is a treasure. Without that habitat, it probably would not have been saved. It would have probably gone to the highest bidder in the United States, or Germany or somewhere else and would have been restricted probably forever from the people in the area, for tourists or whoever wanted to see a part of Nova Scotia which remained untouched. It is absolutely pristine and perfect.

I compliment the member for moving the motion. If it were votable, we would be voting yes. It has a few little things in it we would like to adjust, but as the last speaker said, we could tweak it around. The bill could go to committee where we could debate it and make a few changes to it. Perhaps it would allow a whole lot of projects like Isle Haute to happen across the country and so much treasured habitat and special property and lands would be saved.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see the need for identity cards. I find it amazing that the Liberals would even suggest this grandiose proposal without putting an estimate of the cost on it. Who would ever buy a house or a car without knowing the cost? I sold cars for 20 years and nobody ever bought a car without first knowing the price. It just does not work that way. Only the Liberals would come up with a plan like this.

This is the same group that invented the gun registry and said that it would cost $2 million. Some people now think it might cost only a billion and some think it will cost a lot more than that. How can the Liberals ask anybody to pass opinion on this issue if they do not put a price on it? If they cannot register firearms that do not move, how will they ever register 30 million people who move around and have transactions and travel everyday? How will they ever track them if they cannot even register firearms?

[Business of the House, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I was a former car salesman, you can understand how important my credibility is to me. The Minister of Transport, in his answer to one of my questions, suggested that my statement was not credible. I would like to table a document to prove that all cities are not treated equally under his job advertisement.

[National Security, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of intelligence, the Department of Transport ad for intelligence officers indicated a number of permanent positions. The job requires a knowledge of intermodal transportation which mainly includes containers and container ships in ports.

The strange thing is that people who live in any port in Canada cannot apply for the job. A person who lives or works in Vancouver cannot apply for the job. People who live in Toronto, Montreal, Halifax or Saint John cannot apply for the job. Only those people living in the great port of Ottawa can apply for the job.

Does the minister think the only intelligence is in Ottawa? What is wrong with giving people in Vancouver, Toronto or Halifax an opportunity?

[National Security, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transport recently posted an ad on the government website for intelligence analysts. There are now about a dozen departments and agencies adding intelligence officers to their lists, including Revenue Canada, immigration, foreign affairs, industry, environment, justice, transport, Privy Council, Parks Canada, defence, RCMP and CSIS.

Who is in charge of this security hodgepodge and how often do they meet to compare notes?

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. We should not have the ID card. We do not need the ID card. We have a passport that is well respected and honoured around the world. That is all we need for our international travel.

Again it is just an effort by the Liberals to control everything we do. The member across the way has said that it is important that they know where everybody is and what they are doing all the time.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that I do not get it. I do not want to get it and I do not want it. Let me make that clear.

It is interesting that the member stands and questions me on this stuff. A minute ago he questioned the previous speaker on the validity of the privacy commissioner. He said that the privacy commissioner knew nothing about privacy. His party hired him. Why did the government hire him if he was the wrong person for the job? He just said that.

He also repeated what I said about having a passport, a birth certificate and a driver's licence. He said that he did not get it, that this card would replace everything. Is this card going to replace my passport? I do not think so. Are we going to go from country to country with an ID card when everyone else has a passport? Canadians will have a plastic card? I do not think so. I do not think he knows what he is talking about.

The other thing is he just confirmed that the Liberals want to control the information about where we move around. He just said that it is important that they know where people go. Again it is big brother. They want to know where we are, what we are doing and where we are going, and I do not want them to know.

[Supply, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with our House leader, the distinguished member for St. John's West.

We do not see the need for an identity card. We have passports, birth certificates, social insurance numbers, and so on. It seems to be an overall effort by the Liberals to increase their control over every aspect of our lives.

Mr. Speaker, I know you do not have much time, but if you want to have some fun watch the jobs.gc.ca job site. I watch it because it is really interesting. Just in the last little while I have noticed that 12 departments are advertising for intelligence analysts. They are the national defence, CCRA, citizenship and immigration--the department we are talking about today--foreign affairs, environment, industry, justice, RCMP, CSIS, transport, Parks Canada and even the Privy Council.

I do not know why they are doing this or why they need intelligence officers in all these departments, but it is kind of like the identity card. They want to be able to identify us and know where we go. We would have to swipe this card every time we go through a customs office, toll booth or whatever the heck they come up with. It is just control. They are control freaks. They want to control everything we do. They want to keep a handle on us and there is absolutely no reason to do it.

We have passports. As long as passports were controlled and not abused, and if the Liberals would enforce the passports and not allow them to be stolen, forged, duplicated and all those things, our passports would be all we would really need to travel outside the country. Inside the country we have all kinds of other things.

I have a firearms registration card and a driver's licence with my picture on it. I have a birth certificate and a passport. Why do I need another card and what is it for? I do not see the point in it at all. It is just another control issue for the Liberals so that they can find out where everybody is going, what they are doing, what they are spending, and who knows with whom they would share that information. Who knows what country they will share that information with. We will never know because they will never tell us.

The information commissioner raises all kinds of concerns about it as far as the privacy goes. He lays out all kinds of opportunities for the data and the privacy of our personal lives to be abused. He projects that it would be used to monitor our activities. Why does the government want to monitor our activities? It does not need to monitor our activities. But again, it wants to have another document, another control by the government, and another opportunity to have a document that is forged, abused and misused, and not looked after at all. Talk about big brother. This is like having a whole family of big brothers overseeing everything we do. It is just unnecessary.

Just because we do not think it is necessary does not mean we should not have it. On the other hand, it is like Jack Nicholson would say, “You can't handle it”. The Liberals could not handle this thing. They have completely botched up the firearms registration that stands still. They cannot move around and do anything on their own. But we are talking about identity cards for 30 million people who move around, do things and if they cannot control a registry system for some stationary firearms, how are they ever going to control identity cards for people? They have completely botched that exercise.

I had a man in my riding who registered one gun. He got five different certificates. Imagine if I were to send in my identity application, I would probably receive five different identities. Would that happen? It is the same people who brought us the firearms registration.

I have a doctor in Springhill who registered five guns and he got three registrations. I suppose a person with a family of five, three out of five is not bad. The whole point is that the Liberals cannot handle it. They could not look after it if they had to, even if we all agreed to let them invent an identity card. They could not possibly do it and they have proven it.

[Armenia, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that was a long answer but it did not come close to answering my question. I ask the parliamentary secretary to simply answer the question, please.

CCRA requires a disabled person to have a doctor's opinion. When CCRA overrules that opinion, will she absolutely commit that it will only be done by another doctor?

[Armenia, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on October 24 I asked a question about the disability tax credit. I seem to get an awful lot of inquiries from people who have been turned down for the disability tax credit after having qualified for years and years.

My question quite simply was that the government demands that disabled people in Canada get a doctor's report and is it a doctor who overrules the report when it is overruled? It seems very sensible to me that if a disabled person is required to get a doctor's report, only a doctor should be able to overrule it. That was my question and I did not even come close to getting an answer.

I asked the question after experiencing people coming in to my office and asking questions. I put in an access to information request. I found out that 106,000 disabled Canadians, who had always qualified for the tax credit were asked to reapply. Out of the 106,000, 58,000 were brushed off the disability tax credit rolls because they did not respond or they were denied. Fifty-four per cent of them were denied the disability tax credit.

I put in a second access to information request and I just got the answer. I wanted to find out if people appealed a disability tax credit refusal, how many were overturned. I was amazed and startled. The access to information report said that the number of objections received that were reassessed was 6,864. The number of objections received that were approved was 6,479. That is a 94% reversal. That means 94% of the decisions of those who were reassessed were changed.

Imagine what would happen if a judge had 94% of his decisions overturned on appeal, or a goal judge had 94% of his decisions overturned. It just seems that the government is playing games with the disabled, but it is not a game.

Yesterday I received a letter from a man. I was really concerned about his welfare. I was concerned that he was threatening suicide because of the frustration with the disability tax credit system and also the disability pension plan. Mostly it was the disability tax credit issue that he was dealing with.

I talked to my staff about how often we hear this. They mentioned a person they knew who had committed suicide because of his frustration in not being approved for the disability tax credit because the government did not believe his doctors. This man, Ralph MacEwan, suffered from chronic paranoid schizophrenia. The doctor said he was totally disabled. The reports were very clear, but the clerks at CCRA refused to accept the doctor's assessment and said Mr. MacEwan was not disabled and was completely able and okay. Out of frustration Ralph MacEwan took his own life in Brampton.

It is amazing how often we run into discussions of this issue. I urge the government to take this issue seriously. When somebody has a physical disability it always ends up in an emotional disability one way or another, either a minor disability or a major disability. It is a very serious concern.

I ask the parliamentary secretary, will medical practitioners make every decision when an application is overruled? When a doctor's report is overruled, will it be done by a medical practitioner and not a clerk?