Rick Casson

[Excise Tax Act, December 5th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-326, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker,this bill would allow for medical practitioners to have their GST zero rated on supplying diagnostic treatments, consultative services, and the expenses that they incur by performing their duties as doctors. It is supported by many and I look forward to it being debated in the House of Commons.

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

[Income Tax Act, December 5th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-325, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service).

Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill would allow for a $3,000 deduction on taxable income for volunteers in the emergency servicesarea who perform over 200 hours of volunteer service, people such as volunteer firefighters, rescue operators, EMS and people in those fields.

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

[Queen's Jubilee Medal, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, November 13, 2002, it will be my honour to present the Queen's Jubilee Medal to 18 very worthy people from across southern Alberta. All these recipients have contributed to the communities and people around them in significant and unique ways.

The recipients are: Richard Papworth, Bernard Nieboer, Erna Goertzen, Robert Lee, Stella Lacey, Henry Lindstedt, Mary Schneider, Gary Bowie, David Carpenter, Keith Robin, Dick Dewert, June Hepple, Irma Dogterom, Flora Matteotti, Carol Steen, Carol Gemer, Colin Weir, and Ralph Thrall Jr.

So often we do not take the time to thank the unselfish people who have worked so hard in their own way to make this country great. On behalf of all Canadians, I wish to congratulate and thank them all.

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a number of issues have been raised in the presentation so far, but one of the things that the minister himself conceded to a few weeks ago was a review of the whole operation and structure of the military. He indicated that needed to be done and he would start to do that.

Will he tell Canadians who will conduct that review. How will they be selected? What will the mandate be? When will the review be launched? When it is completed, will the House be presented with that report and will all Canadians understand what needs to be done within the structure of our military?

[Canadian Wheat Board, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a travesty of justice is taking place, not in some third world country, not in a communist dictatorship, not under some oppressive regime, but right here in Canada.

A group of farmers, the very same people who grow the food we eat, have been sentenced to go to jail for selling the wheat they grow on their own land. This unjust situation exists only in western Canada and could not happen in Quebec, Ontario or the Maritimes.

This is due to the monopoly of the western Canadian Wheat Board, supported by the Liberal government, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Public Works. The claims the government makes to have the best interests of farmers at heart ring hollow as 14 farm families prepare to face the reality of their breadwinners being incarcerated. These farmers should not be going to jail for doing what farmers in the rest of Canada can do legally.

I call on the government to end this insanity, to end this extremely tragic situation, and to bring an end to the monopoly of the western Canadian Wheat Board. After all, are not all Canadians equal?

[Petitions, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have six petitions containing 1,499 signatures. Constituents in my riding have worked very hard over the summer to collect these names. They call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials that promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

During this week when the child pornography issue is being highlighted here in Ottawa and across Canada, this is an ideal time to table these petitions, and I support the petition wholeheartedly.

[Petitions, October 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have two separate petitions here today.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to table the first petition with 30 names on it calling upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illness and diseases of suffering Canadians. These people are concerned about the use of embryonic stem cell research.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 9th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the comments made by the member for Scarborough East and we need to deal with a few things.

If the U.S. is not going to be involved in this treaty, what effect will that have on our economy? What exactly does non-compliance mean? What is the penalty to a country that does not comply with this treaty? Regarding the purchase of credits, would it not be better to take the money that is going to be sent outside of Canada to reduce emissions in foreign countries and spend it in Canada and thereby have a Canada made solution to this issue?

[Petitions, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my honour today to table a petition that was presented to me mostly by the good citizens of the town of Coaldale in my riding. They petition the government to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians. They also point out that they support ethical stem cell research but they encourage it to be done using adult stem cells and not embryonic stem cells.

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the member just split his time with another member of the government, but I guess he has not.

It was interesting to hear some of the comments from the previous speaker about the bills coming back, that the ministers have some prerogative as to at what stage, that they could take them right back to the beginning, that the evidence that was heard would have to be recollected and reheard and that possibly there will be some changes made in some of these bills.

We have tried for the last couple of years to make some changes. Of course we were able to have Bill C-15 split into parts A and B in order to pass the parts we supported. After a lot of negotiation and a lot of work on our behalf that happened. With Bill C-15B there are issues there that we still have problems with, such as the cruelty to animals section and how that would affect animal husbandry practices in the country. We still need to bring those issues to light.

Also, because Bill C-5 does not have a full compensation aspect in it for affected landowners, we cannot accept it. We thought we had some support from the government side of the House on that particular issue, but when it came time for the vote the members on that side of the House who were against it lined up and voted for it so it went forward.

I think the member who spoke before me made a good point about the fact that if we start a bill at the beginning we have to rehear the evidence. That being so, I do not think there is anything wrong with that. In most instances at committee, time is short and witness lists have to be pared back because all who want to appear cannot, and there are all the requests that go forward for people to appear at committee stage who cannot get here to do that. There is the also aspect that some of these bills are so wide-ranging and cumbersome in the legislation they put onto the citizens of Canada that opening them up for debate again is not a concern of mine. The more debate that goes on, the better. It is an opportunity to bring forward witnesses who were not able to appear last time. They could now be heard.

Bill C-5 is one of the two bills that we have some problems with. We opposed it vigorously all through the last stages and actually through the last number of years. I remember when campaigning in 1997 that it was an issue then. It continued to be an issue for the next two Parliaments and finally in this Parliament it was brought forward.

To prorogue the House is to allow the government to start with a throne speech to give a new focus and a new direction for government. Unfortunately that did not happen. As we saw, most of what was in the throne speech had been presented before, and now the government is saying except for what it wants to bring back as it was. If the government is going to have a new direction and a new focus for Canadians, why would it go back to the same old, tired past throne speeches and legislation? Let us do what the throne speech is really intended to do and start afresh.

As for some of the issues in Bill C-5, the species at risk act, certainly there is the compensation issue for affected landowners. It is absolutely critical. For us to accept this legislation in any form, it has to be in there. If it is not, we will continue to fight the battles and try to stop it. We feel this is just going to create such havoc in the environmental field that it will actually be a detriment to saving endangered species instead of helping them, particularly the aspect whereby a person could be charged under the act for unknowingly disturbing the habitat of an endangered species. That is not right. People are going to be very cautious about how they approach this. If they do have endangered species on their property, are not aware of it, disturb the habitat and are somehow reported, the fines and penalties are absolutely huge and will be very hard for people to deal with. We feel that this is another aspect of the compensation issue, the fact that someone can be charged unknowingly. The mens rea aspect needs to be in there. Surely criminal intent should have to be established before the book, or this law, can be thrown at anyone.

There is also the fact that this bill deals with other than crown lands. Most of the provinces have endangered species legislation. They do a good job of policing. I know that particularly in our part of world in southern Alberta there are very many mitigation projects in place through a very wide aspect of industry. The farm industries, the irrigation districts and the resource sectors all make special efforts to leave habitat for species at risk and to leave habitat for all species. It is really good to see that this can happen without legislation and that it happens because these industries and people realize and support that things have to be done to protect endangered species.

We still have some problems with these two bills, Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B. Hopefully, as the member from the government side previously indicated, perhaps something could be done with the Minister of Justice to change that bill so that it would be more acceptable to people who deal with animals in their day-to-day lives, in research, in agriculture, and to those who deal with animals in general. Certainly we do not in any way condone cruelty to animals. It is terrible thing when people go out of their way to purposefully abuse an animal. We do need legislation to protect animals, but we have to make sure that it does not intrude on the animal husbandry practices in existence today.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Yellowhead, and I have a motion I would like to move as I conclude. I move that the amendment be amended by adding the following words: and the 66th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that called for all private members' business to be votable, tabled in the previous session, be deemed presented and adopted in the second session.

Mr. Speaker, before you rule on the admissibility of the subamendment, I point out that the main motion reads:

That, in order to provide for the resumption and continuation of the business of the House begun in the previous Session of Parliament it is ordered--

The issue of private members' business has been mentioned here by many people and its votable status was an important issue in the last session, in the last Parliament and in the Parliament before that. In fact, it has been the subject matter of numerous points of order and questions of privilege. In the last session, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs finally agreed to make all private members' business votable. Just before the House had a chance to adopt the report, the House adjourned and then the government prorogued. It is essential that this report be brought back and adopted. We can consider it as one of the positive issues Motion No. 2A can bring back from the previous session instead of having to focus on all the negative issues the government was in during the middle of the last session, like Bill C-5 and Bill C-15B.

I present this motion.