Bill Casey

[Armenia, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue again. It comes up quite often. In fact, it recently came up at our foreign affairs committee when there was a motion moved that we supported. The motion was to bring the debate on the Armenian genocide to the House of Commons so we could all discuss it. Actually the motion passed at our committee and then, for some reason or other, the Liberal members of the committee voted to not report it to the House.

I want to respond to the parliamentary secretary, for whom I have respect. She just said that we are a nation of tolerance and understanding. However I cannot understand why that motion could not come to the House for debate, in the same way I cannot understand why the Liberals voted last night to not allow the House to vote on whether we would send our military to war or not, in the same way I cannot understand why the Liberals did not allow our foreign affairs committee to invite officials from Iraq and the United States to come and tell us firsthand their position on the potential war in Iraq. I do not understand these things. Only the Liberals understand these things, such as why we can go to war against a people but we cannot talk to them, cannot have a debate with them and cannot ask them questions, but I guess that is the Liberal way.

We have a great deal of sympathy for all the people who died in this horrible event that happened about 88 years ago. We wish it could have come to the House for a full debate by everyone and a vote but that did not happen because of the Liberals.

However it is important that we discuss these issues and it is important that we continue to discuss them in a peaceful way. This is a very volatile issue which raises very strong feelings on behalf of everybody. In Canada, our way of dealing with these issues is in a peaceful way.

I want to take this opportunity to raise another issue I have been thinking about lately. It seems that this past event highlights current events, or a convergence of current events really, and I would like to bring those together.

One issue has to do with the Statistics Canada report that said that Canada needed much more immigration. It stated that we needed immigration to maintain our labour force and maintain our momentum in the economy because, through natural resources, our population would not be able to supply the workers, the imagination and the entrepreneurs.

I think we all agree that immigration adds a tremendous flavour to our country, brings new ideas and allows us to be part of the world. However, at the same time, it also raises issues about how we deal with problems. When immigrants come to Canada and bring all their treasures, their assets, their ideas, their qualities and their abilities, we also want them to bring the issues that are of concern to them, but we want to maintain the way we solve our problems, which is through debate and discussion.

Just in the last few days we were reminded of Air India flight 182, where an issue between two groups of people in another land was imported to Canada. This is not the way we resolve issues in Canada. We welcome immigration absolutely, but if we are going to discuss issues, we must discuss them and leave the violence somewhere else. That is what Canada is all about: non-violent solutions to problems, peacekeeping and trying to solve problems.

It is important for us to make it very clear that we have the right to discuss and debate any issue, and to take any side on any issue, whether it is the Armenian issue, the Palestinian-Israeli issue, the Iraq issue, the Sikh issue with India, or whatever, but violence in Canada, no. Violence must be left elsewhere. That is what Canada is about. People should come to Canada because we have this approach to problem resolution, and it is important that we do that.

A few months ago we had a situation at Concordia University. A former Israeli prime minister was to speak at the university but his speech was prevented because of minor violence. Nevertheless, it was not debate nor discussion and it was not the way we resolve issues here. Everybody should have the right to speak in Canada. Whether we agree with them or not, they should have the right to make their presentations and to be heard and then the other side can make their presentation.

Again, the Canadian way is the non-violent way, the peaceful way and no one gets hurt. We discuss our issues in the same way that we are discussing this issue today. However, because of the changing population in Canada, after 88 years that issue is here on the floor. Our percentage of immigration is increasing which brings new challenges for our country. We should always welcome immigrants. We need them and want them, but we want them to leave their violence at home. If that is their way of resolving issues we do not want them here. We want to discuss and debate issues, which is exactly what we are doing in the House.

Those are the issues I wanted to raise. We in the foreign affairs committee supported the motion to bring this question to the House of Commons. I voted in favour of it and it passed. Unfortunately it will not be voted on here tonight. It should have been. It should have come to the House after the foreign affairs committee passed the motion which, by the way, was put forth by a Liberal. However the Liberals voted it down so we will not vote on this issue. We do have the opportunity to speak to it but it will not go any further than that because the Liberals have denied us that right.

[Goods and Services Tax, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, Revenue Canada cancelled the GST enforcement service. This fraud squad, which was established by the Conservatives to avoid GST fraud, actually recovered millions and millions of dollars, that is, until the Liberals cancelled it.

What was the government thinking of when it cancelled the GST enforcement service?

[Softwood Lumber, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if only he could do that job he would he a hero but he has not been able to do it.

Anyway, the record is straight. There is not equal treatment across the country.

However the export tax design draft dated February 4, yesterday's date, says “A key feature of the export tax design would be to discourage production during times of low lumber prices. To do this the export tax should increase as prices fall”.

Will the minister confirm that his proposal for a fluctuating tax rate will be determined by a U.S. publication and that Revenue Canada will be collecting this Canadian tax as calculated using the U.S. information?

[Softwood Lumber, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, yesterday the parliamentary secretary answered a question but, in his excitement about answering a question for the first time, I think he made an error that needs to be corrected.

With respect to the department's proposed export tax, he said “we are going to make sure that all provinces are treated equally”. That statement is wrong and it could jeopardize the Atlantic Canada exemption costing millions of dollars to the Atlantic Canadian industry.

Will the minister retract the statement that all provinces will be treated equally under the softwood export tax and correct the record?

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, if I could answer that question I could answer why he reversed his position on free trade and why he reversed his position on the GST. However I cannot answer any of those questions. All I know is what he said on January 22, 1991. He said:

We on this side of the House believe that this resolution should have been brought to a vote before January 15, as was done in the U.S. Congress.

He was complaining about the timing of the vote, not the fact that he did not have one because the Conservatives gave him a vote.

On the member's question about the UN, I believe that what we are doing here puts the UN at risk if we do not do the right thing. At that time Liberal Lloyd Axworthy said “If all of a sudden we are beginning to deploy troops...beyond the clear definition provided by the UN, then we may also be in danger of undermining the opportunity of the UN to act”, and we must comply with the United Nations on this thing.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that our position is that we are against a violent solution if there is a diplomatic one available. We are not at all satisfied that every effort has been made to find a diplomatic solution.

To answer the question, I asked that question this morning of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I asked what his position was and how he would vote? He said the House leader would come into the House and give the position of the government. Here is what the government House leader said on January 17, 1991, and it would be interesting to see if he says the same thing today. He said then:

...I think I had a right and my constituents had a right to have that fundamental question posed and to have all of us speak on the question that should have been before Parliament.

I hope he comes in the House and says the same thing now, and I hope the government votes in support of this motion, as we will.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, again, I do not understand that argument. I heard it this morning. I did not understand it then and I do not understand it now.

We, as a Canadian people, will be asked to attack another people. It is not only Saddam Hussein, who everybody agrees should be eliminated out of the picture, moved away, or taken away and the regime changed, or whatever. Nobody argues with that.

My argument is the Canadian people may attack a people who have never attacked us. If we are prepared to attack another people, it does not matter who it is, we should be prepared to listen to them. I do not understand why Canada will not listen to people. I just do not understand that change in foreign policy, that we will bomb but not listen. No matter who it is we should listen.

That came up at Concordia University. Everybody should be allowed to be heard and have the opportunity to be listened to in Canada. To say, “We are not going to listen to people, but we may attack them” is wrong.

As far as the venue of the United Nations goes, I support the United Nations 100%. The problem is the government will not say whether it supports the United Nations or not.

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the hon. member for Wild Rose who said that government members are avoiding the question like the plague.

Mr. Speaker, you and I will remember back in 1990 when the Liberals did not avoid the question. They were very adamant. In fact the foreign affairs minister's predecessor, Lloyd Axworthy, a prominent Liberal, stated at that time:

...to deny the opportunity for this Parliament to be heard or to represent the Canadian people, to have the question posed, is a dereliction of duty by the government.

That is what the Liberals were saying then when they did not avoid the argument that they are avoiding today.

This whole issue is about contradictions. It is about the right of Parliament to be respected and heard. In 1990 before the first Iraq war Parliament was heard. There was a vote and we did have an opportunity to stand up. No issue is more important than the one we are talking about. I go back to Lloyd Axworthy again, who asked on October 23, 1990:

...can we get assurances from the minister...to have Parliament consulted before any final decisions are made as to these plans relating to our forces in the gulf area?

That question could be asked again today and probably is being asked by Lloyd Axworthy because he is one Liberal who has not changed the rules or has diametrically gone in the opposite direction.

This is a very important issue that we are talking about. It is about our ability to represent our constituents, as the Liberals once very adequately and eloquently defended but have given up on that principle. They have changed the rules altogether.

After the Conservatives agreed to have a vote, the then leader of the opposition, and now the Prime Minister, still complained that it had not occurred earlier. He said:

...we are being called upon to vote on a resolution... We on this side of the House believe that this resolution should have been brought to a vote before January 15, as was done in the U.S. Congress.

He was not happy with the time of the vote, but at least he got one. The same Prime Minister is now saying no vote for this Parliament. A vote then, but no vote now.

We can go on to the current House leader who now says no vote. On January 17, 1991, he stated:

...I think I had a right and my constituents had a right to have that fundamental question posed and to have all of us speak on the question that should have been before Parliament.

What happened to that man? Now he is saying no vote. We have the current Liberal House leader saying no vote. The Prime Minister says no vote. The former Liberal foreign affairs minister says no vote. It is pretty much unanimous now that there will be no vote, but at that time they did demand a vote. Now none of them will support Parliament having a vote.

This morning in the foreign affairs committee the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a man for whom I have great respect, came in and said there is a very important role for Parliament in this debate about Iraq. What is the role if we cannot vote? Then he said he did not think the committee should hear witnesses from the United States or Iraq on this issue, which was a motion I was going to present later on in the committee meeting.

I ask again, if Parliament is supposed to have an important role and we cannot vote, we cannot hear witnesses, and we cannot participate, what is the important role for Canada? I was very disappointed in the way that happened.

We do have an important role. We are being muzzled and denied the right to speak. We are being denied the right to vote. We are being denied the right to hear witnesses in committees. These are important issues.

If the government changes its mind and allows us to vote on this issue, I may be asked to vote on whether we send Canadians to another country to attack another people. I want to know as much as possible about that issue before I make that decision. I want to hear from the parties involved. I want to get every piece of information I can, but the government for some reason says no, we should not know this. We should not have this information. We should just go by what other people tell us and that we should trust the people in the government who are here to help us.

The fact of the matter is we have been denied the access to information. We have been denied opportunities to hear from witnesses who are very much involved. I know there was another motion that was contemplated in our committee this morning, which was to have a vote. That discussion was adjourned and the vote was gone.

The whole strategy here is to keep everyone quiet, not to listen to anyone, and not to let anyone vote or do anything. Then the government turns around and says Parliament has a very important role to play. If we cannot vote and cannot hear witnesses, what is that role?

[Supply, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to have this opportunity. The minister this morning came to our committee and said in his initial statement that Parliament had an important role in the Iraq solution. If Parliament does have an important role, the first thing we should be able to do is to vote on whether we participate or not.

When I was here in 1991 we were debating whether we would have a vote or not and the Liberal position then from his predecessor, Lloyd Axworthy, was very strong. Day after day, his predecessor demanded a vote in the House and he got one. The Conservatives gave a vote in the House, so we voted on our participation in that Iraq war.

When did the government change its policy? When did the foreign policy change on this? His predecessor was just the reverse of the present minister.

[Softwood Lumber, February 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, even though the Minister for International Trade for months and months has said he would never adopt an export tax solution to the softwood lumber issue, this morning we received a copy of his own working papers that he is using in Washington. Line 1 states:

When the agreement comes into force Canada will collect an...export tax on softwood lumber exported to the United States.

If the government is finally adopting an export tax solution, why did it wait for thousands of B.C. jobs to be lost? Why did the government send over $1 billion to the United States that could have been kept here for health care? Why is there no recognition of the unique circumstances of the independent lumber remanufacturers?