Rick Casson

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the most basic function of any self-government agreement is finality between the first nation and the Government of Canada. The Tlicho agreement now being put forward by the government fails in this most basic duty. In the case of Nisga’a, the agreement was a final agreement with a release of a definition of the section 35 rights recognized.

Why has the government not protected the interests of Canadians by negotiating a final agreement?

[Income Tax Act, October 27th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-241, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to re-introduce this bill in the House today. It was before the House in the last Parliament.

The bill is an amendment to the Income Tax Act. It would amend the Income Tax Act to allow volunteer emergency responders to deduct $3,000 from their taxable income from any source in light of their service to Canada. The amendment, as important as it is, would only go a fraction of the way needed to fully recognize the contribution these brave men and women involved in volunteer emergency services deserve from their fellow Canadians.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, yes, we do want to see the military increased. I do understand in the throne speech and subsequent documents that the government has talked about increasing regular forces and increasing peacekeeping capabilities, but it has talked about that in the past.

My reference was to the three words that were used in the sentence, “We have to earn our way in the world”. I agree with that, we do have to earn our way in the world as a country. It goes on to say,“but ours will never be the biggest military force, so it must be smart, strategic and focused”.

Instead of me offering an explanation on our platform, our rationale and the dollars behind increasing the military to 80,000, the government should explain what it means by those three words and how those three words will turn into a better, stronger and more well-equipped military?

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that was very apparent during and after the September 11 crisis was the total inability of different agencies and different forces to communicate. Whether it is within a country or between countries, certainly in the Norad sense, we need to be able to do that and do it in a very meaningful way. Whether it is the program to which the parliamentary secretary referred or whether it needs to be more or different, it needs to happen and it needs to happen in a major way.

It was illustrated to us how difficult it was for the different non-military agencies, the ones which control air traffic and control movement on the oceans and in the ports, to communicate with each other. It caused major confusion. It slowed down the ability to respond to these attacks and to potential problems that could arise.

Absolutely, communications has to be the best that we could possibly acquire. We can think back to an occasion when our air force planes could not communicate with the other allied defence airplanes and different operations without the enemy being able to listen in. So there are all kinds of areas in communications that are so important. As we know, in any business or any walk of life, communications is absolutely critical, but in a military context it is absolutely the difference between life and death.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Oxford.

I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills for the motion that he has brought forward on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada. On this supply day our party has picked the topic of debate and put forward a motion that will be voted on.

It is important to recognize in the House that we have somebody, out of the 308 members of Parliament, who has the expertise that is needed to bring meaningful debate and actual facts to the House of Commons on the state of our military. I welcome that member for his contribution not only to our party but to the debate in this country on the state of our military.

I would like to go back to September 11 a couple of years ago. I believe it was a wake-up call that went around the world. From that day on, the world changed. I also believe on that day that people in the military around the world, whether it was the Department of National Defence in Canada, the minister, or the chief of staff suddenly realized that we as a nation have cut our military to the point where we may not be able to defend ourselves against that kind of action.

This is not a traditional war or confrontation situation. This is terrorism. These people do not attack in normal ways. We must be able to defend the citizens of our country. First and foremost, the duty of a government is the safety and protection of its citizens. I believe on that day the alarm bells started to go off, particularly in Canada, to say that all of the cuts to the military over the last number of years have put us in a position where we fear that we cannot protect our citizens.

This motion today is a great opportunity for all members to rise and talk about what we would like to see done. That is where I would like to focus my comments.

Some of the parties in the House of Commons do not support the military to the degree that we would like to see it supported. I do not think anybody does to the degree that my party would. We want to see our regular forces increased; we want to see our reserves increased. We want to see a substantial increase in the funding that would go toward capital replacement.

I have had two occasions to be involved with the military on visits in North America. On one occasion I went to Norad headquarters in Colorado Springs and actually went inside Cheyenne Mountain where the operations took place on September 11. A Canadian was in command.

I also had an opportunity to go from air force base Trenton to Alert Bay on a Hercules resupply mission. It was a three day trip. It took a couple of days to go up and a day and a half to come back. It was an experience that I will never forget. The resupply mission that goes there on a weekly basis, particularly in the wintertime, is the only connection the people on that base have with the rest of the world.

Our men and women in uniform were on a Hercules cargo plane that I was able to get on that had over twice the flying hours recommended for that air frame. It had been re-winged and new motors were installed, but the plane had 40,000 hours that was only supposed to be on duty for 20,000. People are expected to get into those planes every week to take those supplies into that air force base. That is not the only situation. The people on those bases depend entirely on this aging fleet of airplanes to bring in their goods and supplies.

I know full well that the crew on that airplane, from the two loadies in the back up to the pilot, the captain, the navigator and the engineer, were excellent, qualified people. They knew that equipment. Nobody moved until the engineer said that plane was safe. Thank goodness for him.

I learned a few things about how the military operates. I will never forget that crew and how dedicated they were. They did not complain. They knew I was a member of Parliament and they knew they had an opportunity to say some things. They were very open with me but not once did they say they regretted joining the military. They enjoyed that life. However they were disappointed to some degree with the respect they were receiving from some quarters but they did that job week after week and were proud of the job they did.

When we looked at the throne speech it was shocking to see the support the government expected to give to the military. There were three critical words in the speech: the military needs to be smart, strategic and focused. I agree with all those things but it bothers and worries me that they might just be code words for just more of the same, that we do not need to re-invest, that we need to somehow re-conform the military into a smaller, less capable command.

I think we need to keep those words in mind as we go through this next year and the next budget process. It will be our job as the official opposition to hold the government's feet to the fire and ensure that it properly funds the military to the degree that Canadians are expecting. More and more Canadians realize that it is our military personnel who will have to protect us from terrorism.

We just have to think back to yesterday when Ambassador Cellucci from the U.S. indicated that Canada could be, not has been, a launching pad for terrorism to anywhere in North America, including Canada. We have to be very aware of that.

One of the issues that keeps coming up is the funding. Let us get to some facts. The Prime Minister indicated that his defence equipment acquisition is what the military is asking for and that the Liberal government will take care of it. The actual fact is that it has only approved $7 billion, which is only one-quarter of the military's own 15 year request of $27.5 billion. This is based on the 1994 policy and recent operations.

We can compare that to Australia, a country smaller than our own, that has spent $50 billion on equipment replacement over a 10 year period. It just goes to show where we are positioned in the world regarding our military capabilities.

The chairman of the defence committee mentioned decay. What we are indicating is that it continues to decay, not that it has decayed to nothing but that it is in a decline in terms of its capability and equipment.

As our critic mentioned earlier, every time there is a deployment and our equipment is moved around the world or within Canada, it gets more worn out, more run down and more in need of replacement. We are not keeping up to that need.

We can look at the money needed for capital replacement and infrastructure repair. When I was on the air force base at Trenton it looked to me like it had been a magnificent place at one time but that it needed some serious upgrading. They were only simple things. The lawns were in disrepair, the parking lots needed repair and the buildings needed painting.

When I went into the operational buildings there was the look and feel of them being rundown. It was not because of the men and women in our armed forces who work there every day. It was because they did not have the capability, because of budget cuts, to do what was needed.

We also need to look at the numbers. If we are going to do a proper job of defending Canada against terrorism, we need the numbers. Right now our recruitment process is so bunged up it does not work properly. We have people who are lining up to be in the military but they cannot because the system is not capable of doing that.

Those are a number of the areas we need to address before we can properly stand in any forum, whether it is the House of Commons or anywhere, and say that we are doing our utmost to keep Canadians safe.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the official opposition defence critic to comment on the size of National Defence headquarters which employs 11,000 to 12,000 civilian people. This is equivalent to 14 infantry battalions in a military that cannot afford 14 infantry battalions.

As well, could the member take a moment to comment on the relationship between the military personnel and the civilian personnel in headquarters?

[Post-Secondary Education, October 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when fall returns to southern Alberta, students at the University of Lethbridge and Lethbridge Community College return as well. With 7,800 students at the university and over 5,000 at the college, these combined numbers have a huge positive impact on Lethbridge and southern Alberta, increasing the population of the city of Lethbridge by 10% to 15%.

These students contribute to the betterment of southern Alberta in many ways. The financial impact of these two institutions and the respective student bodies is substantial. Our community is also enriched by the incredible community involvement of these two respected and renowned venues of higher learning.

Both institutions are led by quality people. Dr. Donna Allen, president of the college, and Dr. Bill Cade, president of the university, have positioned their institutions well to serve their respective student bodies and the community at large.

To the U of L and LCC, I say keep up the good work, for the students from near and far who walk through those doors are the leaders, the movers and shakers of the not too distant future. We are in good hands.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, of course the hon. member and the minister must realize that the set-aside programs that have been designed, both for calves and for fat cattle, will not work unless at some point in the process we have more capacity or the border opens.

With the way the situation exists on the border opening, with outfits like R-CALF in the United States that are going to challenge legally any ruling that comes from the U.S. department of agriculture, I feel that this thing could drag on for years. So let us look at a made in Canada solution, as was mentioned earlier.

In order to send the message to the Americans that we are serious about creating an industry in this country that is strong and viable, we must have the capacity to run the animals through our slaughter facilities in Canada without using their slaughter facilities. Anything that leaves this country should go out on a hook or in a box, not on the hoof.

Both of the big plants in western Canada are outdated and aged. If we could show that we are actually starting construction of major, modern plants--and I would say one in the west and one in the east--we could show that we have the capacity to do the slaughtering and we could build this industry far better and stronger than it was in the past. Cement in the ground, with construction starting, is absolutely critical to the whole issue of moving forward.

There is the issue of rationalization of the herd. We can sell beef 30 months and younger. If it is slaughtered it will go, but 30 months and older is a whole different situation and we will have to deal with that in this country. Certainly there are markets for it. As a last solution there is herd reduction and herd rationalization. If a use cannot be found for some or all of the beef in those animals, then another option should be looked at. Those options, as I said, should be the last options we consider in this country, but they should not be options that we do not think about. As the size of the herd grows and those older animals keep getting put back into breeding stock, it just compounds the issue.

If I have time for one more comment, I want to mention the trucking industry in the country. Right now the fall calf run has started and it is going pretty well. Prices are fairly decent and producers are taking their animals to town.

There is a 40% reduction in the number of cattle liners that are capable of hauling these animals to market. They cannot get enough trucks to move the cattle they want to move right now and the fall run has not really hit full blown steam. Forty per cent of that industry has left. It has gone elsewhere and is not coming back. That is happening throughout the industry, whether it is trucking or the people who work in the plants, in the industry, in the auction markets or in the feedlots. That expertise is leaving the industry and it is not being replaced.

Once that happens, it is the beginning of a death spiral that we have to do something about. It is imperative that we act quickly and in a manner that restores the confidence in the industry so the whole industry starts to move and from cow-calf operator to consumer the chain is in full movement.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, the ongoing crisis in the cattle industry in Canada due to the BSE related border closure has threatened and continues to threaten the very existence of the historic backbone of our Canadian economy. The United States department of agriculture's proposed rule change process and subsequent court challenges by short-sighted groups in the U.S. who are fighting to keep the border closed could very well keep live Canadian cattle out of the U.S. for some time to come.

Softening of testing requirements by countries like Japan should have a positive effect on Canada's situation, but there are no guarantees. The uncertainty that is causing turmoil in this industry continues. In the short time I have, I would like to offer a few suggestions I have heard from producers on actions needed to preserve our cattle industry.

Number one is slaughter capacity. One action that is supported by all sectors of the industry is an increase in Canadian slaughter capacity. Any beef leaving this country should be in a box, not on the hoof. Investors and development groups seeking to build packing plants have done a lot of legwork and research and some of them are ready to proceed to the groundbreaking stage.

These groups, along with their financial backers, need to know exactly what funds are available to them and how these funds can be accessed so construction can start. Without the immediate start of construction to increase capacity, the rest of the government program is meaningless. The set-aside program can only function properly if the animals set aside can go into an orderly marketplace when the set-aside period is over. Beginning construction will send a clear message to both the U.S. government and the U.S.-owned Canadian packers that competition is on the way.

Number two, we need a full court press in the United States. A lobbying effort in the U.S., targeting both elected officials and consumer groups, is absolutely critical and this government should be fully engaged in coordinating these efforts with the resources needed to do the job properly. We need to inform the U.S. consumer that the high prices they are paying for both beef products and dairy products and the loss of jobs due to the closing of slaughter facilities are a direct result of politics and have nothing to do with food safety. Levering and broadening the support for the Canadian industry that already exists in the U.S. is absolutely critical.

Third, NAFTA rules. This government needs to use all the tools at its disposal through our trade agreements to fight this unjust and purely political action. Producers have initiated a chapter 11 challenge on their own and a chapter 20 challenge should be under consideration by this government. Our trading partners use all the legal tools at their disposal and so should we.

Number four is a herd rationalization program. As time passes by and our Canadian herd continues to grow, compounding an already serious problem, rationalization of the size of the herd through a mature animal cull must be considered, albeit as a last resort. Animals over 30 months of age are a problem that we will have to solve separately from our younger animal issues. If we can find a use for some or all of the beef in these older animals, great, but if we cannot, other solutions need to be considered. Using this process to meet our OIE testing requirements is also a definite plus.

Number five is harmonization and recognizing health standards. We must eliminate the issues opponents to an open border are using to argue for restricted access to U.S. markets. Standardization of health protocols is an essential part of eliminating that opposition.

Number six is a rapid response trade dispute resolution mechanism. This is a proposal that our party has raised in the past, one that was included in the Speller report on the state of agriculture. It is a structured cross-border mechanism to look at and head off full-blown trade disputes, a trade arbitration process, so to speak, a process to bring parties together to resolve issues before they get out of hand, with the BSE crisis a case in point.

Number seven is research and risk management. This country should be a leader in the research on animal disease. We have a multi-billion dollar industry in this country and we should protect it with sound science and research. We should have the risk management tools, the information collected by the government, to provide to producers to make decisions.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that this industry, properly handled, can not only survive but can prosper and become stronger and more vigorous. I believe it is possible and necessary to create an atmosphere in agriculture in Canada that will attract our bright young people instead of chasing them away. I only have to think back to yesterday and meeting the wonderful youngsters from the Gem, Alberta 4-H club and their parents to realize there is a potential for a bright future in this industry. It is government's responsibility to secure that future for the next generation.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I have a couple of points and then a couple of questions. I am sure the minister fully understands that the idea of a set aside program is absolute folly if there is not increased capacity or if the border is not open when that set aside program ends.

To that end, I believe the date that the set aside on calves when they can be put into slaughter stream is critical when we look at when some of these calves hit the ground and when they will be ready for market. I understand that there is some debate still going on between the federal government, particularly the province of Alberta, and others about what that date shall be.

I would like the minister to comment on that if he would.

Also, on the aspect of the calves that are put on the set aside, they cannot be marketed. I think the original thought was they could not be slaughtered during that period but they could still be marketed. Will the calves that will be put on to the set aside be able to be marketed, to go to a backgrounder or a feed lot, during that period of time? Will that date where these animals can get into the slaughter stream be flexible?

Just before I finish, yesterday we had the opportunity to meet with a fine bunch of young people from Gem, Alberta, the Gem 4-H Club. I understand they are still in Ottawa. If we turn around and look up we might see some of them.

To me, this is what this debate is about, Mr. Minister. It is the future of our agricultural industry. We should have these young, bright people lining up to get into this industry instead of worrying about its future. I think that is where we want this debate.