Rick Casson

[Johnny Cash, September 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago we lost an icon in the entertainment industry. The Man in Black, Johnny Cash, has moved on to a better place.

Johnny Cash's career spanned 50 years. He was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 1980. He followed that up with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1992. He is one of only a handful of performers to be so honoured.

His hard living and torturous schedule took their toll, but his marriage to June Carter in 1968 turned his life around.

Johnny Cash worked with Elvis, Jerry Lee and Dylan. He recorded with Willie, Waylon and Kristofferson. He recorded gospel music and music for children. His fans came from all walks of life and all ages.

From Hey Porter and Cry, Cry, Cry in 1954, the hits never stopped coming. Teenage Queen , I Walk the Line , Ring of Fire , Folsom Prison Blues , A Boy Named Sue and, my favourite, Sunday Morning Coming Down , are just a few of his hits.

Although all country music fans will miss him, we know he is “walking the line” in a far better place.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, yes, there is some pressure. I believe that if the beef industry in the United States had not been willing to take boxed beef, that border would not be open for boxed beef. I agree that the pressure that comes from the states is going to have a lot to do with this.

The northern tier packing plants in Pasco, Washington, Greeley, Colorado and Hyrum, Utah need Canadian cattle. Those organizations are putting on a lot of pressure to get the border open. However, we should not be counting on pressure from other countries to get the border open. We should be counting on pressure from within this country to get our border open.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am not here to reinforce the comments of the premier of Alberta or to go against them. I believe that we are in this mess because of one sick cow. I think that when the industry stands back and looks at what has happened because of this one sick cow, maybe some of that thought will come in, but that is not the way to deal with it.

It is unfortunate that those comments were made and that they were taken in the context that they were. When we deal with this issue, the people I have talked to who have been cow calf producers all their lives, for generations, understand the industry and they certainly do not practise that type of thing in this industry. They realize how precarious it is, how important the health standards are to all of us. Nobody in the world produces safer food than those people. It is just hurtful to see what has happened to them and what has happened to the industry because of this. There are 90,000 families in this country that are involved in the industry. It is just hurtful to see what has happened because of that one sick cow.

The fact that Canada, Mexico and the U.S. are working with the OIE to come up with different standards, practices and methods of controlling this disease once one case is found, as has happened in this instance, is the key to the next time. We have to come up with those issues so that the ranchers and the cow calf producers in this country can feel confident that the next time this does happen, they will not be put into this pressure cooker.

The premier of Alberta is entitled to his comments, as we all are, but I certainly do not endorse the philosophy of shoot, shovel and shut up.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is great to rise today and speak to the motion brought forward by the Conservatives.

In the north part of my riding we have over 600,000 head of feeder cattle. When the BSE outbreak occurred back on May 20 the entire number of cattle on feed in Canada at that time was 950,000, and 600,000 of those cattle were in my riding. Therefore, to say that I have been somewhat associated with this issue since it started, I suppose would not be giving it enough credit.

I want to mention a couple of things before I get into the debate on the motion. The first is the confidence that Canadian consumers have in the beef industry in this country. Beef consumption in Canada for July was up 62% over last July. That is incredible. That has never happened before in the world when a country has been faced with a BSE issue. Consumers should be congratulated on staying with the industry.

However the industry also did a pretty good job. I wish to mention two people from my riding who did an incredible job of keeping Canadians on side on this issue. One of them is Rick Paskal. Members might have seen him this past summer in Ontario selling truckloads of 10 pound tubes of ground beef for $1 a pound. I do not know how many tonnes of beef he moved all across the country but it was on his own initiative.

What he was trying to do was to make consumers realize that some of the prices they were paying at the retail level were a little too high. The fact is that the producer was getting so little for his animal that should have been reflected on the price at the retail sector.

Ever since Rick has been in the cattle industry he has been an activist. I have known Rick all my life. He has done a tremendous job. He has been in the United States lobbying for the industry. When the United States challenged the beef industry a few years ago he spent a lot of time down there educating those folks on how our business works. I congratulate him on that.

The other person I want to mention is Ed Fetting. Ed was recently appointed the economic development officer for the city of Lethbridge. He and others got together and came up with an idea for the great Canadian cattle drive. This was not the cattle liner that showed up here last week. This cattle drive brought employers together to allow their staff to buy beef on the payroll deduction plan. They moved hundreds of thousands of pounds of beef through this program. It spread out across the country. I have to hand it to him for doing it. The issue at that time was that we had a glut of beef in Canada that needed to be moved and all these initiatives helped.

The motion we are dealing with today on taking a delegation to the U.S. to lobby should already have been done. The Prime Minister should have been down there and stayed there until the issue was solved. It is unfortunate that he has not done that.

This summer the member for Medicine Hat, the member for Fraser Valley, our leader and I went to Capitol Hill in Washington to attend a great group of meetings. We met with congressmen and senators from all parties, and with bureaucrats, and we were able to talk to the person at the White House who had this file on his desk.

These people were very knowledgeable. They wanted to talk to us and they assured us that they were doing all they could. However the one thing they pointed out to us time after time was that the lack of communication between Capitol Hill and Parliament Hill was hurting the issue. We heard, not so much from the politicians but from the bureaucrats, that some of the comments that came from the government that went unreproached by the Prime Minister were hurting the issue.

When people tell us that everything is fine and that we are talking back and forth, maybe they are but it is not at the level that it needs to be nor the quality, because those lines of communication are not there.

As I have said, we had some incredibly good meetings and people were very sympathetic. I was very impressed with the people we met. It did not matter from what state or what party, whether they were a senator or a congressman, they were very knowledgeable on the issue. Everyone seemed to be aware of what was happening.

I think the thing that made them want to resolve this issue so quickly was the fact that they knew that with the 49th parallel beginning where it does this could be their problem and not ours.

That brings me to the issue I just raised with the health minister. As a country, we expect the United States to take our beef. We want that border open to live cattle, initially under 30 months because BSE does not exist in animals under that age. It is open an absolute fraction right now. There is a 3,500 mile fence between us and them as far as our cattle are concerned and there is a very small crack. We are trying to run a multibillion dollar business through that small gate and it is not working.

One of the issues that I mentioned was what Rick Paskal has fought for, which is to have access to the U.S. feeder cattle on a year-round basis. Right now they come in on what is called a vector season, from October to April. It is a non-fly season. The two diseases are anaplasmosis and blue tongue. Study after study has been done. When I asked the Minister of Agriculture about this yesterday, he indicated he wants the CFIA to look at it once again. The science is in on this. They do not have to look at it again. There are vets in the CFIA who will back this up and say that whatever health risks there are in these two diseases, they are manageable.

Harmonizing the health standards on both sides of the border is very critical. We have a continental market in beef right now, but if we did that, then the border would almost disappear and the situation we find ourselves in today because of one lousy, stumbling, sick cow that has cost our country and the industry $11 million a day every day since May 20, would not be happening.

The issue of Canada and the U.S. working with the OIE to come up with a different process to use when one of these diseases is found would be great. However, I think the reason the U.S. is so interested in that is the Americans know that this could very well happen to them and they do not want to have the ramifications that we had when it happened to us.

Year-round access is a critical issue. I believe that would send a clear message. I have been asking in the House since 1997 that we recognize the health of the U.S. herd and it has not happened yet. If we sent that one message, the Americans would understand that we are serious about having a level playing field and that we are serious about working with them on harmonizing the health standards. That would go a long way in helping us get the border open.

We heard the parliamentary secretary last week answer a question on this. He said that the problem is solved and the border is open. Until live cattle are going back and forth across that border, I do not want anybody to say that the border is open, because it is not. It is open like a crack in a long, long wall.

Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Peace River and he is on his way.

The other issue besides year-round access that I would like to mention is NAFTA. I have read in sections of NAFTA that if there is no scientific reason for trade to be discontinued, then it must be re-established. Ann Veneman, the U.S. secretary of agriculture, has said time after time that our beef is safe. They are taking boxed beef. They are taking that because they need it. Hopefully soon they will need our feeder cattle and they will open the border to them and at the same time to our cattle under 30 months.

Why has the trade minister not looked at this issue and said that under NAFTA rules, if there is no scientific reason for this trade to be stopped, then get it going? We have not heard that. It is right in the rules and regulations. People across the country who have looked at that and trade lawyers are saying the same thing. We have a legitimate case here to have a look at that. I think that discussions need to take place between us and the Americans. We need to say, “Look, it's right here”. We need to take the next step and enforce the challenge.

We have to do all of these things. It all lumps into working harder and being more aggressive. I firmly believe that as a nation we have not been aggressive enough at the negotiating table on trade issues. This is one clear example.

The beef industry is in trouble. We are going to lose it. We have lost a good portion of it already. I think people have lost confidence in it. Investors and others will say that they just will not take that chance again. We have to be very cautious. We have to work very hard to make sure that this issue is solved. I do not know how much good a delegation led by the Prime Minister would do with the way the relationships are right now, but a delegation of some kind certainly should be taken to the U.S.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the health minister is in the House today to address this issue because one of the issues I would like her to address is a health issue.

Not many people in this country know that Canada does not accept feeder cattle from the U.S. on a year round basis. We are expecting the Americans to take cattle from a BSE class country but we do not take cattle from them on a year round basis.

Two things stop that; anaplasmosis and bluetongue. Both of these diseases are manageable. All the industry, the Canada Cattlemen's Association and everyone, is saying that we need to get this done. That would send a clear message to the United States that Canada is serious about fair and open trade.

Will the minister do all she can to make sure the border is opened to year round access to our producers to American feeder cattle?

[Agriculture, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this summer I was in Washington with my leader fighting for the Canadian cattle industry and one issue was very clear. Until the Canadian border opens to year round access to U.S. feeder cattle, their border will remain closed to ours.

This has been a hang-up to the Canadian cattle industry for 10 years. We know this is the single issue that is keeping that border closed. Will the government listen to Canadian producers, reverse its position, get that border open and get it open now?

[Agriculture, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the parliamentary secretary indicated the BSE issue was solved and said the job is done, the border is open. That is absolutely absurd. We cannot run a multi-billion dollar industry through a two foot gate on a 3,500 mile fence. It just will not work.

We have asked for four months, and I am asking again, what conditions is the United States Department of Agriculture demanding of Canada before the border really opens?

[Supply, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, another rules based system that we support is the rules based trade. We just saw the government at meetings in Cancun, Mexico with the WTO which utterly failed. It was an opportunity that the government had through a rules based system to make some headway and it went nowhere.

We heard about the EU, we heard about the U.S. and we heard about developing countries. Where was Canada? It could have been bridging the gap between some of those countries and doing what it was supposed to do?

I think the diminished position of Canada on the world stage created by the government is causing some of this lack of talk on our behalf.

Last year $1.5 billion was returned to Canada through this double-dipping system tax free. We are not talking about eliminating all of it. We are talking about eliminating the double-dipping that allows this to go on. Two auditor generals have said that something needs to be done. It is ridiculous and it just keeps going on and on.

As we look at this and try to be realistic, it is too bad the Minister of National Revenue avoided a lot of the key issues in what the motion is presenting today and did not address them. It would have been good to hear her do that but she chose not to. I guess that is her choice.

However when will the government get serious about creating an atmosphere in which entrepreneurs, industry and risk takers can flourish? On the one hand we have a tax system that rewards a few at the top of the scale. On the other hand we have a tax system that gets in the way of initiative, productivity and people. They look at their tax returns at the end of the year, whether they are a mom and pop business or a mom and pop home trying to get by, who ask where all their money has gone. They have worked hard all year, done their part but where has their money gone. When they look at it, there are payroll deduction taxes, income taxes, gas taxes and tax and tax. It just gets to a point where it stifles creativity and hard work.

That is the underlying problem. Most people say to us, as politicians, “Just give me a chance”. When they come into our offices, they are not looking for non-repayable grants. They just want a chance to use their initiative, to use the few dollars they have put together to create a business that they know will succeed if just given that small opportunity.

As I indicated, if we could just possibly do that as a country, then we could create this kind of initiative. However it will not happen. It is certainly will not happen over the next seven months until the next election. Hopefully it will happen after that next election with a new government that respects the individual people in the country who work hard, that respects the dollars in their pockets and will not take those dollars away from people when they need the money for themselves.

[Supply, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to speak to this issue because it is very important. My colleague who spoke previously laid out some glaring problems with the tax system in the country. The system is double tracked. There is one set of taxation rules for mom and pop and the people who get up every day and work hard for a living and there is another set of taxation rules for corporations and people who can manipulate all the systems at their disposal to avoid paying tax. The only place that a working person can put some money away to avoid paying tax is into an RRSP and the tax is not forgiven, it is deferred. When that money is taken out the tax is payable.

This summer has been one which I will never forget, nor will many people in our country forget. Out west we have had drought, forest fires, grasshopper infestations and smoke in the air. Some days when getting out of bed one would just wonder what one was doing. BSE affected the country from coast to coast and is still an ongoing issue that the government has not solved. Our border is still closed to beef, to cattle. It goes on and on.

One of the groups affected this summer by the whole BSE issue is the trucking industry. When this thing hit there were 1,000 cattle liners in western Canada working every day moving cattle around. Since this has happened, the vast majority of trucks have been parked. One of the things we asked for immediately after this happened was that the government forgive the tax on fuel for the truckers so they could at least save that amount of money, but no way.

The billions of dollars that the government takes in taxes out of the pockets of hardworking truck drivers and everyone else in the country who drives a vehicle go into general revenue and get lost. The country's roads, highways and infrastructure are falling apart. The people who are paying the tax through gas taxes have to drive on those highways to make their living and it is appalling. It is breaking them. It is costing in maintenance. It is hard on gas mileage. For a government that thinks it is green to the core, it is absolutely unbelievable that it would not do something to improve the infrastructure program so that people who are trying to make a living can do that on the infrastructure that is available.

Let us look at income tax. Why is the government not reducing income tax for people who are trying to make a living and put food on the table? Let us look at our payroll tax. Let us look at almost $50 billion in overtaxation that goes into the general revenue of the government through payroll deductions through the EI program. It has been suggested by the Auditor General that that reserve could be a fraction of what it is and still handle any downturn in the economy, but no.

The government promised to get rid of the GST, but it is rolling in it. Also it put GST on top of the gasoline tax, which is a tax on a tax. It just goes on, and the spending goes on. It is unbelievable that the government can go on.

My colleague mentioned productivity. No wonder productivity is down. Who wants to get up and go to work for half of the year to pay the government its tax bill? How are we going to buy homes and vehicles? How are people who are trying to raise and educate their children going to get by when half of what they earn goes to the government to feed an over-blossomed government that does not deal with the issues at hand?

Perhaps some Canadians may go to a financial adviser who will tell them to borrow some money and invest it so they can deduct the interest payments. That is a great idea. It is a wonderful idea that allows Canadians to invest a bit of money back into the country.

However, a corporation dealing with a Barbados subsidiary can borrow the money and get the tax break on the interest, but it is invested in Barbados, in a low tax jurisdiction. Then the earnings that come back from the investment in Barbados can go into a U.S. subsidiary and come back into Canada tax free. It is not good enough that one can borrow the money and get a deduction on the interest, one can go through this double dipping process, which I think is more like money laundering, and get another benefit. Where are our priorities? Where are the government's priorities?

We have tax treaties with I believe it is 79 countries. I suppose there are some that are reasonable. In 1972 there were 16 and now there are 79. The ones that have been structured specifically for the benefit of people in a position of power are wrong. People who are in a position to make decisions and make laws which come back to benefit them in any way, we all know that this is wrong. It is a conflict of interest and it should not be allowed to happen.

Let us encourage corporations, Canadians, everybody to invest in Canada. If this country had a tax regime that allowed people or businesses to keep a few bucks, they would invest it in their businesses. They would hire another person; they would get somebody working on research and development. Unlike some other parties that would tax corporations into oblivion and put everybody out on the street at soup kitchens, if we had a reasonable tax regime that allowed strong reinvestment back into the country, it would bode well for all.

Let us look at some of the tax treaties to get specific on what we are dealing with today and the motion that the Bloc has brought forward. Bloc members claim that tax treaties should facilitate information sharing and mitigate or eliminate double taxation. If they do that, what they are doing is doubling income on the other side. We have tax treaties with 79 countries.

Dividends received by Canadian corporations from foreign affiliates in treaty countries are exempt from tax at the corporate level to avoid double taxation. When that rule was put in place, it allowed money to come back from these offshore investments into Canada at a lower tax rate. The dividends received by Canadian corporations from foreign affiliates resident in non-treaty countries qualify for a credit with the underlying foreign taxes on income out of which a dividend is paid.

We can see when tax havens are created with these special countries it is creating a huge advantage for the industries or companies that deal with them. When the Canadian parent corporation declares dividends to its owners, they pay personal income taxes on the dividends although at a reduced rate because of the dividend tax credit.

It is set up in such a way that we see this double dipping idea. Money can be borrowed, invested in a country, create income there and bring it back through the back door and pay a lower tax on it. At the same time hardworking Canadians are getting whipped through the EI system. It makes me wonder what priorities the government has.

I have to go back a few years and my colleague alluded to this when he proposed that there could be $100 billion tax cut in Canada. That perked people's ears up. That is a lot of money. How could that be done? We showed how we could do that over a number of years. Lo and behold a few years later because it became such a popular idea, the government across the way thought it could do it as well. But the Liberals were going to do it in a vastly different way.

Taxes have continued to remain high, some of the highest in the world. We would have done it through cutting a little of the wasteful spending and there are quite a few places as is becoming more apparent every day. A lot of money is being spent on things in this country that I do not think taxpayers appreciate very much. It gets into the billions of dollars in some cases.

It gets into advertising contracts that were issued and a percentage of the contract was paid to the person who delivered the cheque. Are there not enough people working in government who could do that without having an outside firm make a percentage of every cheque that is delivered?

People hear about this and then they have to get up every morning and work hard, and in a lot of cases both mom and dad have to work just to get by. The country's cattle industry is on its knees and these things continue to go on. Canadians are fed up with what they are seeing and the only way they are going to have change is to change the government, in the next six or seven months. We are going to give them some options in the next three months which will make it pretty clear who the government should be instead of that bunch over there.

[Petitions, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition holding 492 names. These folks from my riding urge Parliament to immediately begin supporting the United States and the coalition allies in their efforts to free and stabilize Iraq.