Rick Casson

[Liberal Government, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, throughout our history, minority governments have proven to be quite precarious and the present one is no different, but what is different is the lengths to which the government will go to hold on to power. “Retain power at all costs” is its rallying cry.

Because it does not have the confidence of this House or of Canadians as a whole, the government finds it necessary to continually abuse the democratic process, a process it pathetically claims to uphold. It waves the lure and privileges of cabinet posts around. It uses billions of taxpayer dollars to buy the support of an entire party, and now it has used dictatorial manoeuvres to eliminate opposition supply days, all in its unrelenting quest to hold on to power.

If this continues, I have deep concern for the future of our great country.

Liberal neglect and mismanagement is holding back eastern Canada. Liberal corruption in Quebec has caused a resurgence in separatism, and Liberal arrogance continues to fuel western alienation.

Before it is too late, let us reverse these alarming trends. Let us stand up for Canada and let us get rid of the Liberal government.

[National Defence, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, recent reports indicate that the Department of National Defence is seeking sole source approval for the purchase of 15 to 20 C-130J transport aircraft at the same time that the U.S. air force is ending its C-130J program.

According to internal U.S. reports, military testers have reported serious deficiencies suffered by the C-130J, problems that could cause severe injury, major loss of equipment or reduction in operational readiness.

Is the minister aware of the technical problems that have plagued this aircraft? Is he still willing to sole source without considering a fair and open competition?

[Justice, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are outraged by the fact that the Liberal government refuses to raise the age of consent. They are extremely uncomfortable with the justice minister's strategy of trivializing the safety of our children by constantly referring to this issue as an issue of puppy love.

Everyone knows the real issue is about protecting our children from adult predators. Raising the age of consent will allow our police departments, our courts and most important, our parents the ability to protect children.

When will the minister stop mocking the issue, do what Canadians want and raise the age of consent?

[Justice, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have obtained a copy of the justice minister's position paper regarding private member's Bill C-313, an act to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. In this document, as hard as it is to believe, the minister argues against raising the age of consent because of potential costs associated with increased prosecution of such cases.

Why does the government have millions of dollars for golden handshakes for patronage hacks, but does not have enough funds to protect our kids from predators?

[Justice, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is statements like that from the government that cloud this issue and put our children at risk.

By refusing to raise the age of consent, the government has turned its back on the weakest of our society, our children. Why does the government continue to ignore the calls for action by parents and police? Why does it refuse to recognize that most countries have a higher standard than Canada?

By raising the age of consent to 16 with a close in age exemption for teenagers, our children can be protected from the adult creeps who prey on them. Just do the right thing. Protect our kids.

[Criminal Code, June 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank everybody who took part from all parties. In the first hour of debate NDP members did not speak at that time, but they were able to be here today.

First, I want to thank the member for Wild Rose and the member for Calgary Northeast for the work they have done on this in years past. When the member for Wild Rose speaks, he speaks with a great deal of passion about this issue. He is a former educator. In his other life he was a school principal. He worked with young people all his life. He understands the problems that young people face as they mature and grow. The fact that they can be preyed upon by adults at the young age of 14 is absolutely unbelievable to him as it is to me. I congratulate him on his good work and continued work in this area.

The member for Calgary Northeast was a former police officer. He too has had experience dealing with maybe some of the lesser types in society, people who prey upon young people. He fully understands these situations can exist. He has seen them. He is very concerned with this as well.

One of the members earlier said that a part of what is so troubling about this is when we talk about close in age sex. That is absolutely not what we are talking about here. We have made that point over and over again. We are trying to protect children from adults who prey upon them. For the life of me I do not understand why members opposite cannot get that idea.

Let us not bring in all the convoluted reasons why we cannot do this, such as a marrying law in one of the provinces. That can all be dealt with when laws are prepared. What we are trying to do, and the ultimate focus of this bill, is to protect children. It is obvious that all other parties in the House are against this. When the bill comes back in the fall, as hard as it is to believe, they will not support a bill which would go quite a ways to protect children.

One of the really alarming aspects of what presently exists in our law is that an adult can have sex with a child as young as 12 years old, as long as the adult thinks that child is 14. It is almost unbelievable that this would be part of a law and allowed to happen in a country of which we are all so proud. It is an absolute travesty and it needs to be changed.

Time and time again this party has stood in the House and brought these issues forward. Time and time again they have been thrown out, even to the point where a member from the NDP has said that we always try to simplify the law. Should we not try to make a law that will just simply protect children? That is all that we are trying to do. To bring all these other things into it is just smoke and mirrors and it is very unfortunate.

I am proud to be part of a party, the Conservative Party of Canada, that has in its recently adopted policies, a policy that states that we support what we call the age of protection being 16 years of age. I think when Canadians realize some of the situations that can exist presently under the law, which are being defended by the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc, and when they fully understand that adults can legally have sex as young as 12, they will know there is a party willing to stand on principle. When we become government, we will put in a law that will protect children until they are 16 years of age.

[Agriculture, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's BSE crisis is into its third year and the Liberal government continues to be content wandering around the outfield while the U.S. protectionist group R-CALF stands at the plate taking swing after swing at Canada's livestock industry.

R-CALF, already granted a temporary injunction against our live cattle, will be seeking to make that injunction permanent and seeking to add boxed beef. The case will be heard in Billings, Montana on July 27 and the Liberal government will not even be in the ballpark.

With the unwillingness of the tired government to go to bat for our producers and with our food safety protocols under attack, Conservative parliamentarians, in an unprecedented ruling, will be the de facto government in a foreign court. Yes, it will be the official opposition presenting an amicus brief in Billings on behalf of Canada's livestock industry.

While the government is stuck in the seventh inning stretch, content with its peanuts and Cracker Jacks, the Conservative team will be on the mound hopefully delivering the strike-out pitch.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like preface my question for the member by saying that I sat on the defence committee with the hon. member who was the chair of that committee. He ran an unbiased and fair committee and allowed the defence committee, SCONDVA, to do some pretty darn good work. We were able to work without partisanship and we tried to do the best we could as a group for the armed forces, and I congratulate him for that. Subsequent to his leaving, I must say that we have had an incident or two to indicate that might not continue on this committee, which is unfortunate.

The member was one of the people on the government side who chose to leave, and I give him credit for his courage. I wonder what his thoughts were when he saw what happened last Thursday night when members who had stood beside him shoulder to shoulder in opposition to this bill caved in on the one bill, the one opportunity they had to stop this bill, by voting against the bill. I wonder what his thoughts were when he witnessed what happened on Thursday.

[Extension of Sitting Period, June 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. It may not have directly to do with the present debate. I have seen the legislative calendar for the next couple of weeks, which he has issued. There is one bill on that legislative calendar, Bill C-38.

My office is getting calls from people whose homes have been damaged by flood waters. I am getting calls from farmers whose crops are under water, from truck drivers who are losing their businesses and from feedlot operators who cannot get by. I have grain farmers who are starving to death and businesses that are closing, yet the only agenda this government has is Bill C-38.

If the government is seriously worried about doing the business of the country, then it should damn well deal with the business that is bothering this country and get to it.

[Request for Emergency Debate, June 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 52 to ask for leave to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the flooding in southern Alberta and across the southern Prairies and the disaster that has resulted, and the threat to human life, to safety and to property posed by continued flooding.

Although the rain has stopped and the flood waters are starting to recede, many across the eastern slopes of the Prairies, out across the foothills, across Alberta, Saskatchewan and even into Manitoba, have experienced flooding of a magnitude that has not been recorded in hundreds of years.

I know we are already sitting until midnight every night, but I think it would bode well if the House could allot a couple of hours within the next few days to allow members of Parliament the opportunity to bring forward the situations that exist in their ridings. It would also be a good opportunity for the government to bring forward some of the programs and opportunities that are available to people who are affected. It would be time very well spent.

Mr. Speaker, I hope, when you deliberate on this, that you do approve the application that I am making right now for an emergency debate on the flooding across southern Alberta and the southern Prairies.