Rick Casson

[Air Transportation Security, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's officials themselves indicated the focus of their investigation would be centred on the possibility of airport workers having ties to organized crime.

With the RCMP now investigating 73 cases, could the minister tell us what parameters the department used when it decided to call in the RCMP? Could he also tell us in what positions the workers involved in these security breaches were working, where they were employed and are they now off the job site?

[Air Transportation Security, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the lack of diligence by the government has, in the words of the Auditor General, created a serious threat to security at our airports.

Let us look at the facts. As early as last March the Auditor General warned that airport employees could have ties to organized crime. Then airport shields and badges went missing. Now 73 cases of suspicious clearances given to airport workers are deemed serious enough to be forwarded to the RCMP.

Why has the minister allowed this dangerous combination of security breaches to occur?

[Canadian Forces, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform continue to make us proud. The Canadian Forces special operations military unit, Joint Task Force Two, has been awarded the United States presidential unit citation for heroism in battle for its service in Afghanistan.

During a ceremony in California on December 7, President Bush presented the citation to the American commander of joint special operations task force south, a multinational force in which our JTF 2 personnel were involved. The citation is given to U.S. and allied nations for extraordinary heroism in action against an armed enemy.

This is only the second time a Canadian unit has been so honoured, the first being the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry for heroism during the Korean war.

Because of the nature of the JTF 2 unit, we may never know who these brave Canadians are. Without knowing individual names, on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, and all Canadians, allow me to extend our thanks, gratitude, and our blessings for safety, to those who fight against terrorism for a secure and safe world.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the numbers that I have been given this morning to create a slaughter capacity of 4,000 head a day on a two-ship plant are $111 million to build the plant, $30 million to get the inventory flowing through it, and another $10 million for start-up.

The people who are proposing this particular plant have done a lot of background work and are ready to go, but they need some direction. They are looking at loans, not grants, from the government, to be repaid when the plant is operational.

This size of plant will be competitive with the ones that presently exist. We are looking at $1 put up by our producers to $4 matched by the government, or somewhere in that range. If that leverage can be used, the money that the producers can put forward on a loan from the government, this would start the construction that we need in this country, hopefully a big plant in the east and another one in the west, to deal with the issue.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, certainly that is part of what is going on. Some of the producers got together. They felt that the government was not representing them properly. They felt that a chapter 11 challenge was the way to go about this. We can have all kinds of debate on whether it is right or wrong, but they have started this. It is an expensive process.

One of the other issues that needs to be addressed is whether a chapter 20 government to government challenge should be started. Some people say no, we have to hold back, but what if we are not using all the levers? When a country the size of Canada is dealing with a country 10 times our size like the U.S., the only protection we have is strong, rules based trade. If the rules that are put in place to protect us are not maximized to the benefit of producers in this country, then we are not doing our job as a country.

I would ask the government to consider possibly helping these guys with their chapter 11 challenge and looking at a chapter 20 government to government challenge. The comment I kept hearing from many of the producers is that they just did not feel their government was representing them or listening to them. Through me as their representative they kept pushing.

Certainly in the House at every opportunity where I am able I have brought forward the issue that this is such a serious thing that the message has to get through to the people who control the chequebooks and the regulations in this country. The message is that we have to really look at all the angles to bring this crisis to an end.

There are people in the industry who have gone to extraordinary lengths. Last summer they loaded up semi-trailer loads of hamburger and delivered them all over the country. They sold it out of the backs of trucks, whether it was in Ontario, B.C., Alberta or Saskatchewan, trying to bring attention to the issues. There has been a lot of effort on behalf of the people involved in the industry to bring attention to the industry. At times, they felt they were out there alone.

I think it is important for us to look at all the tools and all the levers we have to support the industry, whether that is through trade actions or the rules of NAFTA or whatever. We must explore these tools and levers. We must have a look at them to see if they are viable.

Also, it is very important for us to educate United States consumers, to tell them that they are paying far too much for their beef and far too much for their milk because the actions of their government are based not on science but on pure politics.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

I also want to thank the Bloc, the member for Montcalm and the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for bringing forward this opportunity today to debate in the House the ongoing crisis in the cattle industry in Canada.

I want to preface my remarks by saying that this does not only deal with cattle; it deals with all the other ruminants in the country and certainly it deals with the people who supply the feed and the services to the industry. It is a far-reaching problem that stretches out from the cattle industry and moves right across the economy, certainly in my riding. Feedlot alley is right in my riding. When this crisis hit, of the 950,000 head of cattle on feed in Canada over 600,000 of them were in my riding, so this is an issue that is very dear to my heart.

The Bloc is calling for specific programs to be implemented to deal with cattle producers who are being hurt, whether they have young cattle or mature cattle, and are suffering from the effects of BSE. It is a good motion.

I respectfully disagree with some of the ideas that the leader of the Bloc came up with as far as separating the country into regions and hiving off certain parts of it. To say that if Quebec was not part of Canada it would not be affected by this is basically not the way it would play out, because even in the U.S., which is still taking our beef, the price of beef to the consumer in that country has gone up considerably. The fact of that close association, regardless of whether Quebec is part of this country or not, would still have an effect on its cattle industry.

I want to get to some specifics later about one particular area I want to key in on, which is the increased slaughter capacity in Canada. I believe that is one of the critical issues we need to face.

I want to get back to a comment made by the foreign affairs minister last week before the President of the United States came to Canada. In that comment, he indicated that there would be a definitive timeline to end this crisis. The President came to Canada and left and that was not given.

The unfortunate part of that, and I think we have all learned this over the last 18 to 20 months, is that any time anybody in authority puts out a false message, it sends a ripple through the industry. The industry is so looking for good news that anything sent its way gets a reaction in the price that is paid for feeder cattle, for fat cattle, for cull animals, or whatever it is.

Therefore, we have to be very cautious about how we put forward these ideas. Certainly, if the foreign affairs minister did not have a serious or definite indication that something would be left behind by the President of the U.S.A., he should not have gone there. I think that is a very unfortunate issue. It just brings about false hope and creates further turmoil in the industry.

The process in the U.S. has started now. I think the minister has commented on it many times. The rule change has gone from the USDA into the OMB and there is a 90 day period. After that, there is a 60 day period, so we are looking at 150 days.

I would like to read out some news headlines that have come out of the U.S. in recent days in regard to cattle. One is from the agriculture digest of the Billings Gazette . The cattle groups sent a letter to Ann Veneman, the secretary of agriculture, asking her to quit using the term “North American beef industry”. They want her to start saying “the United States beef industry”. That may not sound very crucial, but it is, because what the beef producers in the U.S. are telling their secretary of agriculture is to forget about a North America market. They are telling her they want to concentrate on the U.S. market.

Those kinds of signals that get sent out to the public are not good and do not bode well for the border opening quickly after all these rule changes and all the technical processes are put in place.

I have another story from a U.S. organization called R-CALF, which has been put together to fight Canadian cattle coming into the United States in all avenues. This was in a publication called Lean Trimmings : “R-CALF is preparing to fight in court to stop USDA from lifting its 18-month ban on Canadian cattle”. Lean Trimmings continues:

The article states that R-CALF's Chief Executive, Bill Bullard, “said the group will act swiftly as soon as the government moves to allow Canadian cattle across the border”.

The 150 days may very well not be the end of this crisis.

To keep sending that message, I believe, would be very unwise of the government, the minister or the foreign affairs minister. We have to be very practical in this regard.

I believe there is an opportunity presented to Canada to build a stronger, better and bigger industry. It is an opportunity that has to be handled very carefully or it is something that will get away from us.

In regard to today's motion, I think many Canadians do not understand that there are different classes of cattle. We have cattle under 30 months and I think there is an almost worldwide acceptance that cattle under 30 months of age do not have BSE, are not susceptible to it and never will have it. They are a special class. The Japanese might be talking about 21 months. Perhaps the minister could comment on this later.

Younger cattle have been accepted. We are shipping out of this country to the United States in boxes all the young beef that can possibly be slaughtered. That is an issue which probably will be the first to be solved. Live cattle under 30 months also will be part of that.

However, the older animals are ours to deal with in Canada. If they are over 30 months of age they are going to have to be dealt with by us. No other country is going to come to our aid.

How do we go about doing that? Last February, the Conservative Party of Canada put forward our action plan on BSE and agriculture. In it, we had a huge amount of money to deal with the overpopulation of the herd in Canada. To me, and it may not be the most politically correct way to go about this, a lot of these animals are not going to find room on anyone's table. They are going to have to be taken out of the stream in order to keep up the value of what is left.

I think we have to look at that, but certainly as a last ditch procedure. When everything else has been considered and nothing else will work, then possibly we have to look at that happening. It has to be on people's minds that it may in effect be the only way to get out of this.

The government has put forward programs to set aside cattle. We have a calf set-aside program to take the younger animals out of the stream and hold them back for a year. We have the fat cattle set-aside, which is a reverse auction bid. The farmer can say, “If the government will give me $1.50 a day to feed my cattle, I will put so many aside”. This is to reduce the numbers, to increase demand and to increase the price.

So far, it seems to be working to a certain degree. However, the only way that it will be of any value is if the slaughter capacity in Canada is increased to eventually take those cattle being held back, so that when they come to market age we can market them or we can slaughter them. If that does not happen, we are going to have numbers of cattle coming forward, which will just drop the price. Any advantage that has been gained through the programs will be lost. The price will absolutely fall right through the floor.

There is another issue we have to keep in mind. Lobbying in the U.S. is an important aspect of what we need to be doing to educate the Americans about the fact that they are paying more for milk and more for their beef, quite a substantial amount more, the reason being that the their government has the border closed to Canadian cattle based on nothing. There is no scientific proof to keep the border closed. It is politics. The American people should get the pressure on the right people and get the border open. We have to be very cognizant of the fact that we need to be educating the people south of the border. I would like to see the government put more effort into that.

We also have to find the markets around the world to take the cattle when we do increase the slaughter capacity. I asked the minister earlier how the $38 million loan loss reserve would increase capacity. The numbers I have are that it is going to take about $190 million to build a 2,000 head per day single shift plant or a 4,000 head per day double shift plant that can compete in the market with the plants that already exist. We are talking those kinds of dollars.

The producers and the people who are ready to go need direction from the government on how to access that money and how to turn that $38 million into $150 million to $190 million so they can get started. We have to get some concrete in the ground. We have start building to send a message to the U.S. that we are serious about finding new markets and going past them. They will have to find their beef somewhere else because we are going to have markets elsewhere. We have an opportunity, but if we do not handle it carefully we are going to lose it.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of specific questions I would like to ask the minister. Has he seen the proposed rule change that the USDA has come up with, which is now in the office of the OMB? If he has not, when will he? Exactly what is in it that will affect the way the industry in Canada operates or will have to operate after the rule changes are implemented?

The minister talked about the low loss reserve as being the government's plan to increase slaughter capacity in Canada. How exactly will the low loss reserve, I believe it is in the $30 million range, help increase capacity in the country when the estimates that have come in for a plant of a size that would have any value for the industry is in the $140 million range? How will that low loss reserve get the capacity on the ground under construction, which we so badly need? What is in the proposed rule change with which the USDA has come up.?

[Canada Labour Code, December 2nd, 2004]

In a dream world.

[Agriculture, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today Canadians had the privilege of hosting the President of the United States. President Bush gave Canadians his time and attention for consultations and meetings and he had the Prime Minister's ear.

Personally, BSE and the border closure is the issue I have worked to solve for the Canadian cattle industry from the beginning of the crisis. Despite having President Bush as his personal guest, the Prime Minister still could not persuade the President to end the ban on live Canadian cattle or establish a firm date when the border will reopen.

Days before the President's arrival, the foreign affairs minister leaked to the media that there would be an announcement of a definitive timeline for a border opening. This was all a hoax. Instead of creating sound solutions to the BSE problem for Canadians, all the government does is create false hopes and shattered dreams.

President Bush has come and gone but due to the Liberal incompetence, the turmoil in the cattle industry, whether beef or dairy, remains.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the minister does not know what he is talking about and he does not have the answers to these serious questions here today.

The Nisga'a agreement states:

This Agreement constitutes the full and final settlement in respect of the aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title, in Canada of the Nisga'a Nation.

Therefore, I ask the minister again, why has he failed in his duty to Canadians to achieve the finality of other agreements with the Tlicho?