Rick Casson

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-5, in Clause 64, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 36 with the following:

“able compensation to any person—including landowners, lessees and other persons affected by or having a legal interests in the property—for losses”

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-5, in Clause 64, be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 36 with the following:

“suffered as a result of the application of”

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-5, in Clause 64, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 36 with the following:

“64.(1) The Minister shall, in accordance”

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-5, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 8 with the following:

“6. The purposes of this Act, to be pursued in a manner consistent with the socio-economic interests of Canadians, are to prevent”

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-5, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 2 with the following:

“landowners should be compensated for any financial or material losses to ensure that the costs of conserving species at risk are shared equitably by all Canadians,”

[Agriculture, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in his previous response the minister was wrong. The studies on health issues have been produced and the minister has seen them. They conclude that any possible health threat is manageable.

It is strictly a lack of will by the minister and foot dragging by the CFIA that have produced this potentially disastrous situation.

Will the minister of agriculture be willing to accept the responsibility for killing our Canadian beef industry?

[Agriculture, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture industry in Canada is facing yet another challenge by the U.S. The implementation of country of origin labelling on our agriculture products in the U.S. will adversely affect Canada's agriculture industry and cripple our beef industry.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food instruct the CFIA to immediately implement the terminal feedlot protocol to indicate that Canada is open for business to head off this potentially disastrous situation?

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

I pay tribute to the hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford, the official opposition House leader, for bringing the motion forward. No one on any side of the House has done more to bring justice to the country and bring issues to the floor of the House that address the safety and security of Canadian citizens.

It is to his credit that the original motion that was passed unanimously some nine months ago was brought forward both then and today. He has been doing a tremendous job on the issue. His many contacts and people across the country with whom he is in contact on a regular basis tell him he is doing the right thing. They tell him to keep the heat on the government when it comes to the issue. The security and safety of our citizens is the primary concern of any government, or it should be. It is certainly the prime concern of the Canadian Alliance Party and our House leader.

Prison reform is another issue he has brought forward time and time again. The solicitor general has not done a good job in terms of what is going on in our prisons. The hon. member for Langley--Abbotsford is constantly bringing the issue to the forefront. Canadians need to be made aware of this and other issues in the country.

The original motion was brought to the House in March, 2001. It called on the government to establish a national sex offender registry by January 30, 2002. The time has passed and nothing has been done. We have brought the motion back to see if we can again get unanimous support for it.

The solicitor general in his comments today indicated the government would not be supporting the motion. In March it was a great idea that needed to be done. Now the government says it will not support it and it does not need to be done. How can that be?

The government has put a few dollars into the existing system to expand it and make it better, but the people who use it say it is not good enough. They say the system does not do what is needed. They say we need to respond quickly to inquiries about sexual offenders and the present CPIC system does not do that.

Last March it was a good idea to create a system. The same people are now saying the system has always existed. Why is that? It is confusing. Why would government members vote to create something and then say we do not need to because it already exists? I am not sure what message that sends to Canadians. The message it is sends to me is that the government does not know for sure what it needs to do.

When an idea comes forward from the opposition and is supported we celebrate. We celebrated the day it happened because we had put forward a motion and received unanimous consent. That does not happen often. It seems the tide has now turned and members of the government have been told to vote against us.

We need to debate the need for the registry to be comprehensive, up to date and, like any good system, accessible and speedy. The reason is that 44% of people abducted by sexual offenders are dead within the first hour, 74% are dead within three hours, and after a full day usually 91% are dead. That is a disturbing statistic. It is important that we can access the information and that it is thorough and quickly accessible. If not, it is worse than useless because we think we can rely on it but cannot.

The Canadian Police Association and the police chiefs have all said the $2 million that was put into the CPIC upgrade is not adequate. They say more needs to be done.

For the life of me I cannot understand why a government that proclaims itself to be the protector of citizens and the rights of individuals would not want to do this. Why would the government not want to have in place the best system there could possibly be, especially to protect young people in Canada?

If we as politicians and leaders cannot act strongly to protect the children of our society, the ones who are most vulnerable, the ones who cannot protect themselves, then I am not sure why we are here. That should be paramount in any of our discussions. We have to act strongly, otherwise anything else we do will be for naught.

Ontario has put together a sex offender registry. Ontario felt that what was being done federally was not good enough so it has created its own. There are 5,000 names on it already. Over 90% of the offenders comply with provincial legislation. The province has them report annually and it knows where they are.

Another strange thing is that after the sentence is finished, and all sex offenders should serve full sentences, the sex offender can ask to be taken off the registry or for the sentence to be erased. That is done in the present system which brings in another fact. We know through research that 50% of child molesters reoffend within 10 to 30 years. For example, after serving a sentence of five years an offender's name is taken off the registry. Half of the people who have that done are still a threat to society. Why on earth would we want their names removed from the registry?

Ontario has a system in place. The province felt that the government was not moving quickly enough. My home province of Alberta is looking at ways to implement a system, as are British Columbia, Saskatchewan, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. Even if these provinces individually go ahead, the whole issue will be on how to tie information together so it is quickly accessible by whichever area of the country needs it. It may go even further than Canada. It could get into the systems used by the Americans and other police forces in the world.

Even if the provinces have their own registries and do a good job, the whole issue is how we ensure that they are connected, so that somebody in Saskatchewan who has a query can get the information on somebody who just came from another province. We do not see that happening.

I could go on at length about why the flip-flop in support, why the motion was supported last March and why it obviously will not be supported today. It will be interesting tonight when we stand to be counted in this place. I hope the members who change their vote from the last time will be accountable to somebody. I hope somebody will ask them why they have done that. I certainly would like to hear the answer.

I back up the claim by the Canadian Police Association and the police chiefs that what has been done to improve CPIC is not doing the job. The government has spent a half a billion dollars registering firearms. That the government will not consider spending a few dollars to create a system that will keep sexual predators at bay is beyond reason.

I commend the member for Langley--Abbotsford for bringing forward the motion and for the work that he does. I know he will continue to work to make the streets safer for the people of this country.

[Agriculture, January 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the beef industry in Canada is facing yet another challenge by the United States. The implementation of country of origin labelling on agriculture products in the U.S. will cripple our Canadian beef industry.

The U.S. National Cattlemen's Beef Association is meeting on February 7. I implore the minister of agriculture to instruct the CFIA to immediately implement the terminal feedlot protocol before this meeting to send a strong signal that Canada is open for business to head off this potentially disastrous situation.

The minister may say that his hands are tied by concerns the CFIA has about the slim chance of disease. That is wrong. Scientific studies have been produced, and the minister has seen them, that concluded any possible health threat is manageable. It is strictly a lack of will by the minister and foot dragging by the CFIA that have produced this action by the U.S. producers.

Will the minister of agriculture be willing to accept the responsibility for killing our Canadian beef industry? I hope that he does not have to and I hope instead he does the right thing.

[National Security, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to leave this place to return to our homes and families for the festive season, let us not forget about those who will be standing on guard for Canadians.

Especially this year after the events of September 11, three months ago today, we need to show and demonstrate our support for men and women in uniform; our police forces, firefighters, military, customs and immigration officers, all those who will be on duty in Canada and around the world so we can enjoy time with our families and friends.

I was a firefighter for 17 years in my other life. I know the spirit and dedication that exists within the hearts of those who serve and protect. I also know the horror of lives lost and injured, of families torn apart and of homes and businesses destroyed. I know the toll that this takes on the lives of those who choose to stand to protect their fellow citizens.

This holiday season when we are enjoying being with our friends and our families and we raise our glasses, let us remember to toast these brave men and women.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill. It is unfortunate we are debating it under pressure and with the dark cloud of closure hanging over us.

Many of us never thought we would have to deal with this issue during this parliament or even during our lifetime, however, it is here and we have to deal with it and give it the best shot we can. Not being able to debate it fully and at length in this place in front of the Canadian public is wrong. To hurry it through and limit the amount of time each and every one of us has to speak to the bill is something which I hope Canadians will remember as being common practice for the government and when the time comes for reckoning, it will still be on their minds.

We do not take the bill lightly. A number of people came out to a recent town hall meeting in my riding of Lethbridge. This legislation was the topic of debate and of utmost concern in their minds. They want this terrorism legislation to be strong, fair and balanced but in the end, it must make Canadians not only feel safe and secure, but make them safe and secure here in Canada so they can go about their lives in a fashion that is appreciated and cherished in a free democracy.

The aftermath of September 11 has reached into every aspect of our lives. As parliamentarians we travel a lot and are certainly aware of that by the things we have to go through now to get on and off a plane or any means of public transportation. This is going to become a reality in our lives. I personally do not mind people going through my bags as long as they go through everyone's bags so that when we do get on a plane, we feel safe and secure.

This issue is the number one concern among Canadians. Many people have concerns with the legislation. Some want to soften it and some want to make it harder. It is important to find the proper balance to make it right. Every opportunity should be given to people to put forward their ideas on what should be done to the bill.

There is the issue of the definition of terrorism. On TV we saw somebody breaking a window at a McDonalds here in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago. Is that terrorism? Is somebody who is demonstrating and carrying a placard letting his or her views be known terrorism? The definition is something that has caused great concern and needs to be looked at.

What is the critical balance we must find? There are opposing views on almost every piece of legislation dealt with in the House. We are always trying to reach the middle. We in the opposition have different views than the government but it is the mix and balance we are looking for. We sometimes have trouble getting our point across. We put forward amendments that we would like to see put into legislation but sometimes they are not. Usually we can come to some kind of agreement. There is a lot in the bill that we support but there is also a lot that we do not support and that is why we have to bring our views forward.

Today I am bringing forward some of the views of my constituents that I heard at the town hall meeting. I have written them down and I have let the ministers responsible know how our people feel. Some of those concerns have been addressed. Having our constituents' voices heard through us, their elected representatives, is what democracy is all about. That is why I am here and why I choose to represent the people of my riding, as did all of our members. Having our voices stifled by closure is not the way to do things.

Most Canadians put their trust in what the government is doing and what we are doing as parliamentarians. They do not pay a lot of attention to what is going on here on a daily basis because they feel that we must be doing the right thing.

Some of the people who pay more attention to what goes on in this place on a day to day basis are really concerned that some of the trust they put in us and the government is being compromised, or that we cannot fully voice our opinion and debate the issues at hand.

Something which we feel is needed in the legislation is a review mechanism. That is one of the items in the Canadian Alliance platform. All policies, programs and legislation need to be reviewed on a regular basis to make sure they are appropriate for what they were initially intended to do. To make sure that the legislation is current, it should be brought up on a regular rotating basis for review.

The amendment we put forward would require the attorney general and solicitor general to look at what this legislation does. How it applies in one year or down the road in two to four years is important. We have to make sure that it gets reviewed on a regular basis.

Also, the investigations that occur under the power of the bill are of concern to many people. To be able to go back after a period of time and look at it to make sure the investigative powers are not being abused is important for Canadians.

We have also called for an independent review of the ministerial certificates issued to prohibit disclosure of information. The amendment mandated that the certificates be reviewed by a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal. That is very important. That aspect of it has laid to rest some of the concerns I have heard about the legislation.

With regard to the protection for certain religious and political groups, in the aftermath of September 11 we saw some instances where an entire group of people was singled out. We cannot have that. The acts on September 11 were perpetrated by terrorists; they were not done by any large group of people. They were criminals and they have to be treated in that way. The people of like beliefs around the world are not part of that group. We have to make sure that certain religious groups and political groups have protection under the legislation. We are glad to see that was addressed.

One of the things we wanted to see in the bill was not put in the bill. It is one of the deficiencies of Bill C-36 and something we will continue to fight for as we go through the albeit somewhat shortened process. We will still put forward our ideas. It is the whole idea that the bill fails to eliminate the possibility of parole for people who perpetrate terrorist acts.

In looking at what happened in the United States, there was mass murder on a unknown scale and it happened in a lightning flash. We need to treat terrorists in a very special way. They should not be eligible for parole after 25 years. Consecutive sentences and keeping people who have the potential for that kind of destruction away from the general population need to be addressed.

The bill does not make it illegal to be a member of a recognized terrorist organization, one that has met the burden of proof set out in the bill to be included in the list of entities. While the minister assures us that it is the activity that is of consequence, we feel that joining a terrorist organization has only one purpose and that is to participate in and facilitate terrorist acts.

We have seen cases in Canada where organizations exist to help raise funds to sponsor terrorist organizations. I for one support the notion that President Bush has put forward in the United States, that if a person is involved actively in terrorist activities, if someone houses, feeds, or raises funds for terrorists or allows them to be involved in someone's area in any way, that puts the person into the same category as the terrorist who blows up buildings.

It is important that we address all of those issues. There are some things in the bill that we appreciate and some that still need to be worked on. We will continue to force that issue here in the House of Commons.