Rick Casson

[Terrorism, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, any disruption in the flow of energy during the winter in North America could be catastrophic. We all know that. There is a lot of talk from the opposite side but we want to know what the concrete plans are for our energy sector to keep the energy flowing during the winter months in North America.

[Terrorism, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, once again North American infrastructure has come under threat of terrorism.

Last week the American petroleum industry received a threat to its facilities from a group claiming loyalty to Osama bin Laden. Canadian firms are members of the API. With winter setting in, this is extremely worrisome. If it were carried out, it would have life-threatening consequences for Canadians.

Is the minister aware of these threats? What is the government doing to protect the North American energy sector?

[Agriculture, November 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the recent World Trade Organization talks held in Qatar were heralded as a success for Canada and all the countries of the world.

While the agreement promises to eventually phase out all forms of agricultural export subsidies and deal with production distorting domestic support, these changes will take up to 10 years to take effect. Canadian farmers cannot wait a decade for things to improve while they are fighting droughts, floods and blockades of their products at the border.

We in the official opposition call on the government to implement serious change and implement it now. There are things that could be done. We could eliminate the fuel tax for producers to help them out in the current cash crisis, support and promote the official opposition proposal for a rapid response process for dealing with agricultural trade disputes, encourage farmer driven and owned value added processing and give grain farmers the marketing choice they are asking for.

These are just a few of the things the Liberal government must do now, not 10 years from now, to support this vital industry.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

Our country is suffering. If the fear that washed over the continent nearly two months ago was not enough bad news for Canadians, waking up to find they have lost their jobs could very well be the last straw for some.

There are huge problems being faced by our constituents from coast to coast to coast. While my constituency in southern Alberta is struggling through a terrible drought, our cousins over the Rocky Mountains in British Columbia and, indeed, Canadians right across the country are facing a bleak Christmas because of the softwood lumber dispute.

The numbers are staggering. Thousands of people do not have jobs today because of this ongoing, dragged out, unfair dispute. Canadians are looking for something more than a stern talking to from the international trade minister to his American counterpart. They want the minister to give him more than an earful. We must have a concrete plan to deal with this problem. We must get answers, fairness and guarantees from our largest trading partner.

The situation is totally unacceptable. The softwood lumber agreement expired on March 31 and the softwood lumber dispute started the next day. That was seven months ago. Canada has gone for over 200 days without a trade agreement, without guidelines for one of our largest and most lucrative exports. This is not responsible management. It is like being a real estate agent and having no deeds to the houses being sold.

We are in a mess today because the Liberal government in all its wisdom did not think it was an issue important enough to raise or to address before it turned around and bit our citizens in their pocketbooks. Even now when we have so many suffering from these unfair tariffs and duties some felt it was prudent to call these people nervous nellies. I would like to get someone to stand in front of a logger who cannot support his family because he is laid off and call him a nervous nellie. I would like to see the response then.

The minister is finally meeting with former governor Racicot of Montana, but we need more than talk. There have been no dates set and no deadlines given. What are we to tell families when they call our offices and ask what their government is doing to help them now that their job is gone and their family is under severe stress? What do we say as members of parliament? Do we tell them that the government is talking about it? That does not buy groceries. It is just more rhetoric and emptiness. We need action. With so many Canadians suffering, this should be at the top of the list of this government's priorities.

The Prime Minister said that he chatted with the U.S. president about this issue while he was in China. He has stated that if the United States wants our oil and power, it had better take our wood too. However this is just more talk, not concrete action.

The industry is facing revenue losses of more than $1 billion and that is just to date. There is no deadline given to end this hemorrhaging. Even though I will talk just about British Columbia, this is really a countrywide problem. On the British Columbia coast alone, 21 of 35 mills have shut down as a result of the first duty, with the loss of some 12,500 jobs. This latest tariff has put 30,000 more jobs at risk. These are not just jobs. These are people and families. This is an entire industry.

Rip the heart out of a province like B.C., and let us not kid ourselves, softwood lumber is the heart of British Columbia, we will not have a healthy, functioning province. We will have another have not province through no mismanagement or fault of its own. Like I said, this problem is not confined to British Columbia alone. When 40,000 well paying jobs are knocked out of the workforce we can forget the ripple effect: it causes a tidal wave of economic woe flooding over the people and businesses surrounding them.

Let us put this into context and really look at who this is affecting and how it impacts a community. With no market for softwood lumber, it leaves the fallers in the woods with their saws silent. They are now laid off and at home. Camps are empty. Many of these people have young families to support. Truck drivers do not have a product to ship. They too are out of work and will not be buying anything other than the bare essentials. Again, the whole community suffers as a result.

Gas station owners have no trucks to fill or drivers to sell coffee or lunches to. Employees are being laid off. Many of these workers are students and young people who are trying hard to make ends meet. It also has impacts on the heavy duty mechanics and shop owners. The vast majority of the rigs they work on are logging trucks. The bays are now empty and the pits are silent. It has impacts on the parts suppliers for those rigs. With no work being done in the woods there is no need for maintenance.

It also has impacts on the general business owners. When people are out of work they are not likely to purchase anything but the essentials of life, never mind a washing machine, a bed or a television set. When those sales are not made by the business owners, then their employees get laid off and they go into zero spending mode too. It has impacts on the mill workers who do not have a log to cut and on the work experience student without a floor to sweep.

The list goes on and on. We cannot have the cornerstone of the foundation of a country's economy crumble and expect everything to be fine. The government and the Prime Minister need to deal with the problem at a rapid pace because this is an emergency and it could not have hit at a worse time. A recession is already in full force, a gloomy scenario at best.

Let us look at the U.S. lumber lobby's case. U.S. producers have alleged that they have been injured by unfair Canadian competition. They argue that the Canadian provinces set stumpage fees at less than market value and that the system where the provinces own 94% of Canadian timberlands, meaning crown lands, contrasts sharply with the United States where only 42% of the timberlands is publicly owned and where both private and government timber generally is sold competitively at auction.

The U.S. industry does not even produce the quality or quantity that Canadian producers can provide. Home builders and other lumber user groups in the states agree with us. They support the free trade of softwood lumber. The consumer groups in the states support our position.

U.S. producers argue that they have been injured by imports of Canadian softwood lumber. They point to the steady growth in Canadian exports and market share, from less than three billion board feet and 7% of U.S. lumber consumption in 1952 to more than 18 billion board feet annually since 1998 and a market share of more than 33% since 1995. The fact is that the U.S. industry has been unable to satisfy the growth in its own domestic demand. U.S. home builders and other lumber users point out that Canadian lumber is needed to satisfy U.S. demands. The quality of the product speaks for itself.

This is totally unjustified action by the U.S. lumber lobby and those lobbying know it. We have been cleared of any wrongdoing time and again, as has been mentioned many times this evening. The Canadian industry has been challenged three times. No subsidies were found in 1983. In 1986 preliminary subsidy findings led to a memorandum of understanding with a 15% Canadian tax on lumber exported to the United States and 6.5% countervailing duty in 1992. In 1992 the countervailing duty was challenged under the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement and it was terminated in 1994.

A U.S.-Canada softwood lumber agreement was reached in 1996 and we all know who was in power in 1996. It is this government that created this softwood lumber agreement, which expired, as we have said, on March 31.

Will we be found to have played by the rules and will all penalties be lifted and reimbursed? Certainly, but these proceedings take an excruciating amount of time and money and frankly we cannot wait that long. If we do not have action in the meantime, more mills will have long since been shut down before the agreement is finalized.

We empathize with the people and their families who are suffering as a result of these ludicrous duties and tariffs. I hope the minister hears them too and takes them seriously. We owe it to the men and women of the country who are all affected by a major blow to the economy such as this to hammer out a fair, strong, long term solution: a free trade agreement on softwood lumber and nothing else.

I would like to close with a couple of personal comments. Members from all sides of the House went as a group to Washington, D.C. in July and lobbied elected senators on the issue. We met with many of them. Some did not know much about it but some had been told that we were heavily subsidizing the industry. We tried to give them the facts. We met with consumer groups that support our position 100%. These tariffs are driving up the price of a home in the United States by as much as $3,500, some say, so there are consumer groups that support what we are doing in Canada in looking for free trade in softwood lumber.

Mr. Racicot, former governor of Montana, is on the file now and working with the trade minister, which gives us some hope, but we should be looking to our government to end this dispute very quickly. The families and people depending upon the industry need it done.

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting time with my colleague, the member for Medicine Hat.

Besides being probably two of the best looking members of parliament, my colleague for Medicine Hat and I have something else in common. We are probably the sweetest because we have the only homegrown sugar industry in Canada. I preface my remarks with those comments.

I would like to get into some of the details of Bill C-32, the free trade agreement with Costa Rica. The main concern I and many of my colleagues on all sides of the House have with the bill is the sugar aspect. The bill follows the free trade agreement with Chile which was signed in 1997 and the North American free trade agreement inked in 1994.

Our party supports free trade as a means of maintaining a healthy economy by providing jobs for Canadians and improving the standard of living in Canada. We also believe that free trade is good for developing nations and provides stability in those nations as well.

One of the stated purposes of Bill C-32 is to promote regional integration through an instrument that contributes to the establishment of the free trade area of the Americas, known as the FTAA. It could be the first of several of these agreements with the other countries of South and Central America, and that is part of some of the concerns we have. I will get to that later.

We in the official opposition feel it is important to establish good trade relationships with these countries to encourage economic, social and democratic growth. Eighty per cent of what Costa Rica exports to Canada, goods such as fruits, vegetables, coffee and coal, already enters our country free of duty.

Canadian producers are looking to expand their markets for goods in Costa Rica. These are products such as french fries, metal structures, along with fish, paper products, auto parts, plastics, wood and agricultural goods. Many of these items currently face high tariffs when exported to Costa Rica, even though the populace has expressed an interest in them and the products are not economically produced within their own borders. The proposed trade deal would change all that. The proposed trade deal would benefit Costa Ricans by providing them with greater access to the products they cannot currently afford or manufacture on their own.

In the year 2000 Canada exported $86 million in total trade to Costa Rica. In that same year we imported $183 million worth of goods from that country. The bill would ensure that Costa Rica maintains an open access to all our markets while opening Costa Rica's door to Canadian producers and their high quality specialized products. The proposed trade deal would benefit both countries in that way.

The Canadian Alliance promotes free trade and, I want to emphasize this, the joint elimination of tariffs with our trading partners. We have seen in the past, particularly in our grain and oilseed sector, where tariffs and support were reduced in Canada when our trading partners did not reciprocate and this put our producers at a disadvantage. We do not want that to happen particularly in the sugar industry.

In this respect, our party has one particular and significant concern with the bill. If the Costa Rica free trade agreement, as described in Bill C-32, is used as a template for other FTAA negotiations, especially the CA-4 countries, we feel the Canadian sugar industry will suffer and suffer greatly. Canada already has one of the most open sugar markets in the world. Our import tariff on raw sugar stands at zero and our tariff on refined sugar is only 8%, one of the very lowest in the world.

Canadian sugar producers such as Lantic and Rogers provide almost enough refined sugar to meet the domestic needs of all Canadians. U.S. and Latin American tariffs on sugar range from 50% to 160%.

The Canadian domestic sugar industry employs over 2,000 Canadians. This includes the sugar beet industry and growers in my part of the world, in southern Alberta, and the refinery workers across the country.

One threat to Canadian domestic sugar producers comes from the four Central American countries, the CA-4 countries: Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras, because of their refining capacity and the subsidies they receive from their governments.

Twelve per cent of Canada's refined sugar is made from the sugar beets that are grown in my area. This is the only region left in Canada that grows sugar beets for refining in Canada. The rest comes largely from imported cane sugar which is refined and a small amount of refined sugar imported from abroad.

The three cane sugar refineries are located in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. They employ many Canadians and have been providing our country with the highest quality of refined sugar for years.

The jobs and economic impact of the current sugar market situation are not limited to beet growers and refinery workers however. Canada's low sugar prices have attracted substantial investment in Canada's food and beverage industry. These industries provide thousands of jobs at bakeries, biscuit manufacturers, dairies, fruit and vegetable canneries, confectionery manufacturers and so on.

By generating demand for goods and services, the sugar industry also indirectly supports a number of other economic sectors, including agriculture, natural resources, packaging, industrial machinery and transportation.

The industry has concerns with the sugar aspect of the deal with Costa Rica because of the precedent it would set for upcoming negotiations with other Central American countries. The industry has closed two plants in Canada since 1997 reflecting the competitiveness in the Canadian market and limiting export opportunities. The industry has been forced to be efficient and globally competitive, and it has done that. The industry has changed to meet the new competition in the world. The sugar market is very competitive. We have very little access to the U.S. market, our closest trading partner. I know my colleague will expand on that somewhat. However the industry has changed and shaped itself. I know the investment in the plant in southern Alberta has been in the tens of millions of dollars. The growers themselves have invested in new equipment and new methods. The industry is in tune and has made the changes necessary to stay competitive.

Import competition from Central America and other countries in the hemisphere has grown dramatically in recent years, even with Canada's small tariff. If new regional trade deals lead to the removal of Canada's refined sugar tariff in advance of WTO trade liberalization, the Canadian sugar industry may suffer. It may not even survive if we get out too far ahead of the rest of our trading partners.

Our members on the House of Commons trade committee, who saw that the issue could be a precedent setting trade deal with the other CA-4 countries, worked with people in the industry and people on the government side of the House. It is funny that when we are dealing with a trade agreement we cannot really make amendments. We either agree with trade or we disagree with it.

However we thought if we did not change the text of the trade deal itself, but put in the preamble that there is a concern and that this trade deal should not be used as a pattern for the other CA-4 countries, then that would put most of what we feared could happen to rest. Costa Rica itself does not have the capacity at the moment to greatly harm our industry but the other countries in Central America do. We have assurance from the chairman of the subcommittee on international trade and others that this will be added to the preamble. That will allow us to support the bill and we will.

We must remember that the whole idea of free trade is to benefit both parties. If we are going to ensure that a vital industry in Canada remains viable, then we need to keep that in mind when we open up the other trade deals in the rest of Central America.

I wanted to make that point. We support free trade. We support what it does and how it helps nations around the world. We wanted to make sure that our concern about the sugar aspect of this was brought forward, and it has been. We feel fairly comfortable, if it is followed through as indicated, that those concerns will be put to rest. We look forward to further debate.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble following the logic of the member opposite and that is not unusual. Sometimes during a reasonable debate in the House we have to put up with what is going on across the way as is the case during this debate.

Canadians are worried about this issue. Our constituents are in our offices. They call us because they are nervous and concerned. They want to make sure they are safe and secure in their own country. The first priority of any government is to make sure its citizens are safe and secure.

How can the member explain more than 20,000 people who should not be in Canada living in Canada and doing whatever they do? They have been refused admission to Canada and they are still here. How does the member explain that?

[National Defence, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I admire and support our Canadian men and women in uniform. When the opportunity to join the crew of a CC-130 Hercules on a transport mission to the Arctic presented itself it was a dream come true.

Under the Canadian Forces Parliamentary Program I travelled to Canadian Forces Station Alert, Canada's northernmost permanent installation at the tip of Ellesmere Island in Nunavut. While en route to CFS Alert I became part of the crew of 429 Squadron out of 8 Wing CFB Trenton.

I have always called for a well trained and well equipped military. My time on board a 35 year old Hercules with over 40,000 flying hours has reinforced that support. The dedicated crew of Captain Rick Harper, Major Norm Patterson, Captain Michel Goulet, Captain Jennifer Kooren, Sergeant Steve Stewart, Master Corporal Kel Brown and Master Corporal Mike MacNeil all performed wonderfully with their aging equipment.

In light of today's war on terrorism our men and women in uniform must have better equipment to work with.

[Agriculture, September 27th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue. I thank the House for recognizing the importance of the crisis in agriculture and allowing this debate to take place. The member for Selkirk--Interlake, the critic for the Canadian Alliance, wanted to bring the issue forward the day the House resumed but of course we were consumed with other issues and wisely he chose to postpone it. As important as the issue is, we realized that other issues had priority.

Now that we are here I would like to quote some numbers from a survey which the Canadian Alliance undertook through Praxicus. One thousand people were randomly selected across Canada. Only six per cent, when asked if they believed there was a crisis facing farmers, said that there was not a crisis. The rest knew and believed that there is a crisis in agriculture. That is important for the government to recognize.

When they were asked why they thought the farms were in a crisis, 84% said it was poor weather conditions that hurt crop production and high subsidies by EU and the U.S. Canadians have an idea of what the problems are and 78% of Canadians think we should support our producers until we can bring down those EU and U.S. subsidies.

I am quickly going to run through some things we see as problems that exist because of the drought. The historically low grain prices and the EU subsidies have always been there. This is something we need to address but I want to get into some of the things we feel have highlighted the situation this year. Then, as an opposition party should, I will offer some solutions and avenues the government can take to solve problem.

Last year was the eighth driest year in southern Alberta. My riding in southern Alberta has gone through the second consecutive year of the most severe drought we have ever seen. The runoff from the mountains is low. There were record low rainfalls. The water holes have dried up. The prairie grass is gone. Cattle breeders and ranchers have faced the worst situation they have ever had and are selling off their herds. This year was the fifth driest on record in Saskatchewan. The water level is at a 30 year low. In the Great Lakes region it was 26% less than normal. New Brunswick usually gets 102 millimetres and it got 17.

Let us look at the impact on the livestock industry. Producers are searching for water. The PFRA ran out of money early in the year and could not help as many people as it had wished. It is hurting the cattle ranchers in B.C., the prairies, Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes. Shallow wells 30 metres deep are showing stress and need to be deepened. The PFRA says that 95% of the surface water in southern Alberta has been depleted. Some pastures may not bounce back for three years. Some say it will take as much as 10 years to bring back full productivity to prairie grasses. In New Brunswick, ranchers and dairy farmers estimate forage crops will be down 30%. It goes on and on.

The impact on the grain and oilseeds sector is particularly hard because of the historic low returns they are experiencing. It is compounded by the drought. I am sure my colleague from Grasslands in Saskatchewan will highlight some of the problems they have had.

I would like to put forward some solutions for the government. We have heard from the minister that the money which has been paid out is all there is going to be. The farmers and producers are saying it is not enough. We would like to offer some other solutions. We feel that due to the neglect of the government, our farmers need an immediate emergency cash infusion. Because of the drought we have to put it into their hands immediately.

The second idea I have came from the grain growers across Canada. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food should strike a special measures committee as provided for under section 12 of the Farm Income Protection Act to analyze the exceptional circumstances facing the grain and oilseeds sector.

I have talked about this idea with the minister and he has indicated a willingness to work with us on it. Ranchers who must liquidate their herds because of the drought can defer tax on the sale of some of their breeding stock for one year. We would like to see that changed so that the income deferral can take place until the grass is able to hold the cattle again, which as we said may take up to 10 years.

We must improve our existing safety net programs. We hear a lot about that. We must ensure they meet the needs of farmers.

The crop insurance program needs to be improved to ensure that it covers all costs that producers incur in seeding their crops. Regulations surrounding natural disasters must be amended to ensure that farmers can receive compensation for their inputs lost due to natural disasters. If this had been in place, farmers in southeastern Saskatchewan and western Manitoba would have received some assistance back in 1998 for their flood losses.

The NISA program must be made more accessible to farmers in need. The calculation of NISA eligible costs should also be adjusted to include grain transportation costs. That is an important issue. The grain transportation system in western Canada is not working. When a farmer gets his cheque for selling his grain, a quarter to a third of it comes off the top to get that grain to market. Even if it does not move very far, it is a huge cost to farmers and we need to do something about that.

We can reduce costs imposed on farmers by the federal government. In the last election the Liberals campaigned on removing the excise tax on farm fuel. That could be done tomorrow but there has been no will so far to do it. User fees and taxes on inputs are issues that can be dealt with immediately. We realize fighting the European and U.S. subsidies is a long term goal, but some things can be done immediately to help the bottom line on the farm.

We can encourage farmer driven value added processing. The Canadian Wheat Board in western Canada has a marketing monopoly and is a hindrance to value added industries coming into our area. One in particular is the prairie pasta producers. They have tried to build pasta plants. They would like to get the wheat board out of the system so they can get the grain at a more reasonable price. That has not yet happened but could happen tomorrow with the will of the government.

Give grain farmers a marketing choice. This is something we have been raising here forever and ever. It is unbelievable. Some people do not believe us when we tell them that we do not have our own marketing options. We need that. A farmer should be able to sell his product where and when he wants.

We can reduce farmers' costs by modernizing the grain handling system which I have already touched on.

The Canadian Alliance agriculture policy has been built through continual consultation with farmers. We did a tour a year and a half or two years ago. We went to 70 different meetings. We talked to 3,500 producers face to face. We prepared the ASAP report which we tabled in the House. We gave copies to the agriculture minister. We said that this was what the producers were telling us, and those were the things that needed to be done. So far we have had no action along those lines.

The big one I suppose is the continued erosion of the income our producers face by the unfair European Union and U.S. subsidies. We have to be very aggressive at the negotiating table to beat the production-distorting subsidies down, so that there is not the flood on the market, and so that a farmer can get a good return on his investment in his crops. We have to keep that in mind with the WTO round coming up this fall. We have to pursue that vigorously. We feel that is something that has not been done in proper way.

Those are my comments. Once again I thank the House for this opportunity. As we said, there are other things gripping the nation and the world right now, but if we are going to send our soldiers into war, we had better be able to feed them.

[Agriculture, September 27th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent, and I do not know if this can be done in committee of the whole, for the minister to have a few more minutes to allow him to complete his remarks.

[International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government must be involved in any issue regarding a natural resource or whatever that deals with international law or commitments. Whether it be natural resources such as oil, gas, coal or forestry, the provinces presently have control over how those resources are managed and produced. In my mind, water has to be treated the same way. The provinces have to be full partners in this issue and will have the ultimate say on their internal water resources. We have water that flows into the ocean, into Hudson Bay and into the United States. They are all different and must be treated differently. The International Boundary Waters Treaty which this bill deals with is just part of that solution.

On the issue of the Great Lakes and the joint commission, one of the people who appeared before the foreign affairs committee said that states one or two tiers south of the Great Lakes are eyeing that water with much interest. The states and provinces in that area are very keen on keeping that water under control so that it is not completely drained off. Those lakes are not replenished at the same rate that the water is being extracted, especially in the dry times we have seen over the last number of years.

On the whole issue of bulk water, we can ship water and sell water in bottles and other containers, but even on the Great Lakes, things such as ballast water ships are looked at and considered. It has to be broadened. I am not saying that the provinces in the international boundary waters should have control because the federal government needs to be there. However, because water is a natural resource they have to be full partners in any discussion on the waters within their boundaries.

I do not know if that completely answers the member's question, but we do need co-operation with the provinces. We need to look at all environmental issues and accords. We have to bring everybody into this thing together because if we do not, just as we have seen in Newfoundland and B.C., there will be bulk water exports. We have to make sure that the provinces buy into whatever agreement the federal government comes up with, particularly having to do with international waters.