Rick Casson

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the risk assessments have been done over and over again. The industry says the risk is manageable. It is willing to take the risk. It is this minister who is standing in the way of that open border.

The government has a clear choice to make. It can do the right thing, and remove the barriers, harmonize the health in cattle and get the border open, or it could keep the border closed and be the grim reaper when it comes to the cattle industry in Canada.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the U.S. beef association are both calling for the harmonization of health standards in cattle. Industry on both sides of the border is in agreement. Harmonized health standards are essential to an open border and normal trade.

Why will the government not listen to industry, accept the science, remove the barriers and get the border open?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to get up to speak on Bill C-13 again. I have been up numerous times on the bill and I do not believe the government has listened very well to some of our concerns. As the debate goes on I am hopeful, as these issues are brought up time and again, that some of it will sink in and that some of the things we are pushing for will come to pass.

One of the most controversial things is the whole issue of embryonic stem cell research. Through my experience with office with emails, letters and phone calls, this is one of the most controversial aspects of the bill. People are very concerned about the use of embryonic cells because there has been very little science put forward to say that there is any benefit to using them or that any big steps have been made to improve human life by this type of research. Most of the benefits have been made through adult stem cell research, which is a totally different issue.

The thing I suppose that people key on is the fact that we are creating a life to be used in research and once one extracts cells from an embryo to use in research, the embryo and that form of life is destroyed. The specific creation of embryos to be used in research is the issue.

What has been said is that any embryos that are created through in vitro fertilization and that are left over may be used in research. It does not take too big of a step to then realize that of course, if there is a marketplace developed and a value put on these embryos, enough will be produced that there will be leftovers and they will be used in research. That is the problem many people have.

We had news today about the UN convention on human cloning and that the government may be changing its mind on the complete ban of human cloning to which it has agreed. It is something we have certainly pushed for all throughout the debate on reproductive technology. It looks now through the UN that there may be a shift in the government's policy.

We need to ensure that Canadians are aware that the government is considering doing something along these lines and this debate needs to take place. Canadians need to have input into the debate. They need to understand fully what the government is doing. Is it saying one thing in Canada, then it is going to the UN and saying something else? This is critical to the support that some people have offered to the bill. I think if it becomes clear that the government is going to change its position on human cloning, there will be a large shift in how people feel about Bill C-13 and many more people will oppose it. We have to be cognizant that the government is looking at a possible shift in that position and ensure that Canadians are aware of it.

Getting back to the stem cell research aspect of Bill C-13, if a body is put in place to oversee the operations of this entire industry and if it us up that body to define and apply the law which will be created if the bill passes, then it is up to us to ensure, and we have seen this in other cases of law, that as law makers we make it absolutely clear what the intention of the bill is.

Words like “all necessary steps” or “all necessary issues” need to be handled. We cannot leave any kind of weasel words in a bill such as this that could be interpreted in a way that was not intended by us as parliamentarians when it was put together.

I think that it is necessary to make sure that some of the clarification is there and that if the embryos that are created for in vitro fertilization are allowed to be used in research, that there has to be very strict rules put on those clinics to make sure that the number of embryos that are created do not suddenly multiple or swell in numbers so that there is an assured supply to researchers and particularly if there is a value put on those and it becomes a marketplace situation where they are bought and sold and bid on in the industry.

I would like to see greater clarity around the provisions on embryonic research described in subclause 40(2). The clause as currently worded states:

A licence authorizing the use of an in vitro embryo for the purpose of research may be issued only if the Agency is satisfied that the use is necessary for the purpose of the proposed research.

What are they going to base their decision on whether it is necessary? More than likely on the request coming from the researcher and based on little else. If the agency is structured properly so there is enough variance of opinion on the board and if it looks at all of the issues and ensures the letter of the law is followed, that would possibly help. However there is no guarantee that that would happen.

Therefore, the word necessary in “satisfied that the use is necessary for purpose of the proposed research” brings us back into the debate on whether we need embryonic stem cells when we could use adult stem cells. From all indications that we have been able to find, adult stem cells have brought forward the most development. There have been some tremendous advances on some of the most terrible diseases that afflict humans. However, that advancement has not been through embryonic research, it has been through adult stem cell research.

We need to apply the three year ban for which our party has been asking, an absolute prohibition on any embryonic research. Emphasis should be put on the adult stem cell research until it is clearly demonstrated that no further advancements can be made using them. That should be the only time we should consider creating life to use in research.

The other issues we have talked about at length.

On the whole issue of banning cloning, I remember going to a meeting on Parliament Hill with Preston Manning, who was leading the file on this at the time. He brought together some of the greatest minds in Canada and North America to discuss the whole idea of cloning, what good that would bring to the medical profession, the mapping of the human genome and some things that many of us do not completely comprehend or could even possibly scratch the surface to understand. The impression I got from these people was that a great deal of caution needed to be taken when we were dealing with the issue.

It has become an issue that many Canadians have become engaged in, many for moral and ethical reasons and many for the way they have been raised and taught over the years in their homes and in their churches.

We do not think placing a three year moratorium is asking an lot. It would give us a three year window where we could and should put emphasis on adult stem cells, supporting that area of research and seeing how far the advances can go when all our concentration is put in that area. Then if it does not become clear that adult stem cells meet the needs, we could reconsider. I personally believe that is where the advancements have been and where they will continue to be. There would be enough forward movement working with those cells that the necessity to create life to use it in research will not be there.

It is good to rise again to put another comment forward on the bill. I hope members on the government side is listening. I do not believe at this point in time that most of them are, but I hope as the debate goes forward more and more will sink in and they will see the light and vote against Bill C-13.

[Income Tax Act, October 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all members who have spoken to the bill over the last period of time.

The member opposite and the other Liberal member who spoke earlier said that there were 400,000 volunteers in this sector. There are not. I have confirmed this with the volunteer organizations across Canada. In firefighting and emergency responders there are 100,000.

We are not trying to say that one volunteer is more important than another volunteer. Hopefully, because of the comments that the member opposite just made, she will vote in favour of sending this to committee so this whole issue can be looked at, which is what I am asking. The bill needs to go to committee so we can have a look at the issue.

On the other issue of record keeping, it is already being done by the municipalities. Based on the 100,000 volunteers in the emergency responder sector, that is a $4 billion to $5 billion contribution that they make on a voluntary basis to this country for the safety of Canadians. I think a small recognition of that is in order.

I would like to thank a couple of people, John McKee and Ted Brown, who helped me work through this. They were a tremendous asset to me.

The thing that came out in the letters that I received from fire departments and emergency responder groups all across the country was that they needed help attracting and retaining people because it was getting harder and harder to do that. They wanted some recognition.

One of the issues is that a lot of volunteers do not get paid at all, which is why I am asking that they receive a credit or a deduction on the moneys they earn at any income level. It would help in their global income.

When it is -30°, three in the morning and a call comes in, these volunteers jump out of bed to go out and risk their lives to assist their fellow Canadians. This puts them in a special class. However this is certainly not to take away from all the other volunteers. My own wife is involved now with Interfaith Food Bank and Picture Butte in our home town and puts in a lot of hours. A lot of people do. We need those people and certainly we support that.

The volunteer emergency responders, firefighters, EMTs and search and rescue personnel are involved in many other ways in their communities. They do great work. Muscular dystrophy, for example, is one the fire departments have taken on. I know that in our community if there is a $10,000 or $20,000 shortfall for a project, no matter what it is, people can go to the volunteer fire departments and ask them to help raise money. They go out of their way to help and spend countless hours outside of their duties as firefighters to help the community.

Let us get the bill to committee. I want everybody in the House to vote for this to do that so we can look at the issues that have been raised. If there are some concerns, amendments and recommendations let us have a look at that. I am completely willing to be open in that aspect and make it as workable as possible for as many as possible in the country.

We must remember that these are the people who rush in when all others are rushing out. They are a special breed. I know that. I was involved as a volunteer firefighter for 18 years. To be able to serve one's community in this way is special, but it takes hundreds of hours to stay trained, ready and safe. It takes hundreds of hours of investment in each person's time to respond in a way that protects Canadians who are our neighbours and friends.

Hopefully, when this comes to a vote on Wednesday, we will support it in the House to be able to send it to committee so it gets another full and open airing. I believe there is merit in what we are trying to do here today. I believe there is merit and value in our volunteers who contribute to the safety of all Canadians. Without them, we could not have the society that we do.

We must all remember that we are talking about people who, on a voluntary basis, risk their lives for their fellow Canadians. These are the people who rush in when all others are rushing out. They are special and they need some special attention.

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my remarks, the ultimate goal of any of this is to eliminate in its entirety any actions such as those we are discussing. However, being realistic, we must realize that we are going to move a long way to diminishing them.

If this was an isolated case, and I think in many instances some of the things that have happened are pretty unique to that office, but we have seen other aspects in government operations where that is the type of attitude, that the public purse is somehow disconnected from the people who send in those tax dollars. That is something we should never forget.

My lessons came from the municipal level of government. Everything that we did, whether it was a change in the water rate or garbage pickup or whatever, we knew all the people we were affecting. We knew the people who were on fixed incomes who did not have that extra $5 a month. We knew the people who would not be able to do some of the other things that they enjoyed in life because they would have to put more money toward utilities and taxes.

When we went through the process at that level, it was minute. We were not talking about billions of dollars that were farmed out over many departments. We were talking about dollars and cents and what it meant to each and every taxpayer. That laid the ground for having a respect for tax dollars.

Hopefully we can all stand the scrutiny of a full-blown exposure of what we spend. Why should a member of Parliament have any aspect of his operation that the public cannot scrutinize? I understand some of the privacy concerns as far as the people we deal with and that is separate. That is dealing with the problems we face every day for our constituents on a one to one basis, but if it has to do with spending taxpayers' dollars, then certainly we should have to stand and answer those questions when they are posed.

Hopefully over a period of time these issues will be resolved to the satisfaction of Canadian taxpayers.

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is good to have the opportunity to address this issue. The issue certainly has the attention of hard-working Canadians whose tax dollars go into the public purse and who sometimes have grave concerns over what happens with those tax dollars once they are collected.

Most Canadians do not mind paying a reasonable amount of tax. It would be better if we did not have to pay any but most Canadians understand that to fund the things that are important to us, a certain amount of tax is necessary.

However, when taxpayers see any kind of abuse it makes them wonder why they get up every day, go to work and work hard trying to make ends meet to raise their families. When the money that they send off to Ottawa through the tax rolls ends up being squandered it raises some questions.

Certainly as public officials we should accept when we take on this role that what we do should come under scrutiny by the public. If we are being paid through our MOBs or whatever it is to carry on the function of our offices, those are taxpayers' dollars and they have a right to know where the money is going. Certainly we would not have a problem with that. It would give a lot of credibility to us as politicians if some of that was exposed.

If there is something that we are doing wrong we need to know about it. Certainly if we are doing something that is not in the rules so to speak, we need to know those rules. It is our duty to make sure that we understand them fully and if we do not that needs to be pointed out to us or we need to ask the question.

When we look at the Auditor General's report and analyze what happened in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, there is an old saying that a fish starts to rot at the head. I believe in this instance that is exactly what happened. When there was not the leadership needed and the leadership shown in that department and proper instruction given to the people under the commissioner, things started to fall apart and they fell apart in a hurry.

It is important that a person who is put into a position of responsibility or leadership is capable of fulfilling those responsibilities and is truly a leader that will lead in the right way. I suppose many times what separates some people from that role is the fact that they cannot do that.

In this instance a little bit of power went to the person's head and he abused his responsibilities and his power.

I want to get into some of the specifics of what happened. Under the main points, the Auditor General found:

The former Privacy Commissioner abdicated his responsibilities as a deputy head to ensure the proper administration of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

I am sure that somewhere it was explained what the duties and responsibilities were. The Auditor General found that those were not being fulfilled. The Auditor General also found:

An environment of fear and arbitrariness in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner that led to a major breakdown of controls over financial management, human resources management, contracting, and travel and hospitality. The effect of this breakdown was a climate that allowed the abuse of the public treasury for the benefit of the former Commissioner and a few senior executives.

These are very serious accusations. It is very unfortunate. It goes back to the fact that if the person in the lead ignores the rules and starts to do things that are less than above board, it starts to filter down. People who answer to that person soon become influenced by that, even under fear of reprisal.

One of the things that was mentioned was that significant financial and human costs were incurred as a result of a poisoned work environment. It is the human cost, the intangible cost of people who lived in fear of their jobs, people who were doing things that they knew were wrong, but knew that if they came forward there would be reprisals.

Thank goodness for the committee that was able to get to the bottom of this and bring it to light, and for the Auditor General for taking it on as a project.

When the Auditor General got into some of the specifics she found that the former commissioner repeatedly abused his discretion and that he often failed to exercise sound and reasonable judgment.

There is a table in the Auditor General's report that indicates some of the travel that took place. Between May 2001 and September 2002 the commissioner and the senior director general went to London three times. They went to London in March, June and September. There was a total of six days without international business, so there were six down days while they were there. Expenses for those days without government business were $3,500, $6,000, and $1,200. This just went on and on.

It seems to me that after the first time it happened, somebody that was paying attention to the bills or the reimbursement forms that were coming through should have picked up on that and come forward. When we hear of the fear that was held over that entire department, over the staff, then we understand why possibly some of these things were left unexposed.

One of the biggest ones is a trip to Wellington, New Zealand in March 2002. The total days on the trip were 13: four days of travel, three days with international business, and four days without international business. The total expenses were $30,000, but the expenses for the days when there was no government business going on were $6,000. I can understand expenses for four days when one is staying in a hotel and having meals but that amount to me seems quite high. Six thousand dollars for four days, or $1,500 a day, is pretty high living by most people's standards. It sends the wrong message to the taxpayers in this country who are trying to make ends meet and they see this kind of abuse happening.

The Auditor General will go in and check on departments. That fact alone helps to keep people doing the things they should be doing and not doing the things they should not be doing, knowing that there is somebody watching. We should not really have to have that. A lot of times the Auditor General just makes recommendations on process and procedure to departments. If they are acted upon, then the incidents that we have seen in this department would be kept to a minimum. What we are all trying to do is to eliminate them at best but certainly to minimize them at least.

As we went through this process, and I know over the last couple of months this has been a pretty hot topic for Canadians, we sometimes wondered why, when issues like this happen, there does not seem to be the attraction or the outrage by Canadians that there should be. However, in this instance some of the things that happened really hit home. People are talking about them. People are phoning our offices. People are saying that it is just typical. I do not believe it is typical. I believe there are cases and certainly we need to expose them, but we should not be all tarred with that same brush.

One of the main points by the Auditor General states:

In our view, these conditions have seriously impaired the ability of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to function. A great deal of rebuilding is needed to restore its management capabilities. The present situation is cause for concern, given that parliamentarians provided the Office of the Privacy Commissioner with powers in an area of critical importance--assisting Parliament in protecting and preserving the privacy rights of Canadians.

All Canadians have a right to worry about these types of things. They have a right to their own lives. They have a right to a certain amount of privacy. Then they find out that the person who is in charge of protecting those rights has done some of the things that we are discussing here. It is not acceptable. We need to do what is necessary to make sure it does not happen.

The recommendations in the committee report and the recommendations in the Auditor General's report need to be acted upon to restore the faith of the average Canadian taxpayers that their money is being put to good use.

[Agriculture, October 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that border is only open a crack and the minister knows it.

Beth is 68 years old and she is watching a lifetime of hard work, sweat and tears slip away. She went on to say that she has been in contact with the government and she was told there were other things more important on its agenda. BSE was third on the list behind SARS and the definition of marriage. It is unbelievable.

Her question is straightforward. How can the most devastating issue facing our industry be third on the list of the government's priorities?

[Agriculture, October 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to answer my questions regarding BSE so I will try a question from Beth, a constituent of mine. Beth writes “My family operates a cattle hauling business that has been at standstill since BSE hit. Twelve families depend on this business. We have no cash coming in. The aid program that is being offered has not filtered down. What about the spinoff businesses that are collapsing as a result of this? We need help”.

My question on behalf of Beth is, who in the government is prepared to step forward and help businesses like Beth's? Who will do that?

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Southwest.

It is good to take part in the debate today. There will certainly be one ex-municipal politician following another here.

I spent 18 years as a municipal politician. One thing we always had trouble with when these programs came down from on high was sometimes we only needed two-bit dollars. We only had to throw in a quarter out of a dollar to get something financed and we even had trouble doing that. At the municipal level there is nowhere else to download to. That is it, that is where it stops; the municipal level is where the buck stops. There is only so much load that a property tax can hold.

What we are talking about today is a huge amount of money that the government takes from Canadians through a gas tax that was put in place, whether it was legally done or inferred, to improve the country's transportation system.

Canada is a large country. We do lots of trade east and west and north and south. People are on those highways, whether it is for pleasure or every day trying to make a living, and the infrastructure is falling apart. Our bridges and our roads are a terrible mess.

A country such as Canada that has so many resources, that has been blessed with all kinds of natural resources, should be rolling in industry. It would be, if the government would look at some of the taxes it charges and the taxes that scare people away and the taxes that hurt business.

When we look at east-west transportation particularly on the key trade route which is the Trans-Canada Highway, with the amount of trade on that road every day and the amount of licence fees that are collected by the provinces, that money needs to go back into highways and I believe it does in most provinces. However, the federal government collects the gas tax and does not put its fair share back into the infrastructure. This is causing all kinds of problems.

The member for Wild Rose has brought up in the House time after time the issue of the piece of highway that goes through Banff National Park that needs to be twinned and it has not been. It is a death trap. It was good today that the industry minister stood up and said that the government will finally fix that, but that should have been done years ago. It takes a tremendous amount of pressure from a member of Parliament such as the member for Wild Rose to force the government to act.

The Alliance has brought forward the motion today, and it is similar to a motion that was brought before the House before which was voted down. There is no consistency. The previous member talked about the government being so consistent and the Alliance always changing its mind. The government has flip-flopped on this issue.

I want to read what our leader said at the FCM convention this year. The previous speaker was a part of that organization. Our leader said:

What we are proposing instead is that the federal government permanently vacate a portion of the federal gas tax--say 3 to 5¢ a litre--and allow provinces the option of collecting that revenue.

In order to ensure that this money is not used for other purposes, the transfer of these revenues to provinces and on to municipalities would be conditional on signed agreements that these resources would be used for infrastructure.

That was back in June. The Alliance has had that as a policy. Now the would-be prime minister is running around the country saying basically the same thing.

We also have another policy which states that any tax that was put in for a specific reason, if it is no longer needed for that reason, that tax should be eliminated. If the 1.5¢ a litre was put in to reduce the deficit, when the deficit is gone, the tax should be gone and there is no doubt about it.

This summer we had a crisis in this country to do with the BSE issue and the livestock industry. We have asked if the government would consider reducing the tax on fuel that trucks use to haul products. The trucking industry has been smacked very hard by this problem. There has been no action on that. We have asked the government for other concessions to help relieve some of the financial burden for the truckers and there has been nothing.

Today there was an announcement in the House that the Prime Minister was given an environmental award. Having bad roads, bad infrastructure, and bad streets creates environmental damage because vehicles are idling, standing still, or not moving at the rate they should be and that is an environmental hazard.

That is one of the things we must remember when we are looking at improving infrastructure, whether it is public transit or better roads to keep things moving. It all has a bearing on the environment and we need to remember that. When we are looking at some of these issues, there are many spinoff aspects that come with it.

Just to make it a little more personal, motorists paid $6.9 billion in gas taxes and GST on gas in 2001-2002. That is $220 per Canadian for gas tax and GST alone. One of the things that is talked about most at coffee shops across the country is the price of gas. Every time the price of gas changes it is an issue to people. It is one thing they keep their eyes on.

One thing we have to keep reminding people of is that 35% to 40% of the price they are paying at the pumps is tax. If there was no tax every third tankful would virtually be free. These are the kinds of huge dollars we are talking about that are being collected.

Almost $7 billion is collected in fuel taxes by the government, yet it gives back $118 million into infrastructure for highways. That is unbelievable and completely unacceptable.

In order to get around this, our leader presented a proposal in June that 3¢ to 5¢ of the tax on fuel be vacated for the provinces and that agreements be struck so that money would go to the municipalities in an incremental manner so that it was not money they could take from elsewhere. I think that is fair and I believe the provinces would agree to that.

They realize that the deferred maintenance on infrastructure of all kinds in the country is absolutely astronomical. If we were to look at public institutions, transportation systems and bridges, it would add up into the multi-tens of billions of dollars very quickly.

Therefore, if we are going to build new and improved roads and buildings, we must look at what is already in place. When we start talking about the environment and making buildings more environmentally friendly, that all costs money. That is all part of fixing up the infrastructure that is in place.

The government, after voting against a similar motion this spring, will vote in favour this time. That will be interesting. It will vote in favour this time because the would-be Prime Minister, the former finance minister, is going around the country making promises that he has no right to do because he is not a minister of the Crown. The present Prime Minister calls him nothing more than a backbencher and here he is out setting up first ministers' meetings and making promises on what he is going to do with the taxes.

Therefore, it is very important that this motion be brought to light today to show Canadians that what we are proposing is what needs to be done and the fact that an unauthorized member of the House is going around the country offering to do this when he has no right to do so.

[Agriculture, September 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, every day the crisis in Canada's cattle industry deepens, pulling down more and more Canadian families.

The U.S. border is still closed to all trade in cattle and open to only a small fraction of the beef industry. One of the issues stopping progress on getting the U.S. border open to our Canadian cattle is the refusal of this government to open our borders to U.S. cattle.

The industry is calling for action, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is calling for action, and the minister has even promised some action.

What steps has the minister taken to eliminate this hurdle to open trade in cattle?