Rick Casson

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to clarify something he said as he was finishing. He said that the reason this chemical biological warfare issue has not been addressed in the House of Commons was that the ministers did not have any leverage to get money to help fund the research into this.

Certainly in my mind the government should be aware that these dangers do exist in the world. As the government, and as part of the security and well-being of Canadians, whether or not it is a hotly debated topic on the floor of the House of Commons, it is still a realistic concern and a problem in the world, surely it should be addressing that and putting some resources into it.

Perhaps the member could clarify this. In his mind, is it not the duty of the government to protect Canadians regardless of whether it is a hot topic at the moment?

[National Security, September 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, following the hideous events that have taken place in the United States, our closest friend and ally has had to tighten its borders to protect itself from further attacks. With 50 known terrorist cells active in Canada, Americans are protecting themselves from us.

Trade with the United States is vital to our country. Without it our economy would atrophy and our standard of living would plummet. Our trucking industry is deeply concerned. Just in time deliveries are being missed and the overall movement of goods has slowed. Why? It is because Canada is a security risk to its largest trading partner.

Two weeks after the attack we are still waiting for a concrete plan to secure our country. The government must table a strong piece of anti-terrorism legislation. It must restore funding and resources to government agencies that ensure the safety and security of our citizens. It must re-examine and toughen our standards for customs, immigration and transport to ensure that our borders are secure and that we can travel safely and trade freely.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned a couple of aspects of the bill but one aspect that is of particular interest to me is the portion dealing with the ability of the courts to take away the equipment used in the production and distribution of child pornography upon conviction. That was part of a private member's bill that I introduced in the House. In working with the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister at the time, we were able to convince the government that it was an important aspect of the criminal code that was missing and needed to be amended. I appreciate the government putting it in this bill.

However, instead of having a bill to deal with the whole issue of child pornography and the availability of the awful material on the Internet, even though it is an important enough issue to stand on its own, the government has included it in an omnibus bill with issues such as disarming a police officer and cruelty to animals. I believe this is wrong.

We should be able to debate this particular issue of child pornography on its own. It is important enough that we should do that. We have repeatedly asked the House leader to separate the bill so we can deal with the separate areas but that has failed to happen. I may be in the very uncomfortable position, when this bill does come to the House, of having to vote against it, even though the part that I lobbied for and promoted is in the bill, because of the way it is structured. We still maintain that the government should split the bill apart.

Could my colleague give us his comments on why the government is unable to split the bill, which deals with such a wide array of justice issues, so that each individual issue can be dealt with separately?

[Committees of the House, September 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to ask my colleague a question. I want him to lend us his knowledge of this issue along with his knowledge of the finances of this country.

This summer I had the opportunity to go on a resupply mission with CANFORCE 85 and 86 air commander Rick Harper on a C-135 Hercules. That airplane was 35 years old, with 40,000 hours on it. It was twice past its life expectancy. That mission on a weekly basis is vital to keeping the people at Alert Bay and our troops in Thule supplied.

To me it seems bizarre that we would do something like that. I could not get over how tremendously skilled the people were and how faithful they were to their purpose.

I would just like to ask my colleague a question. When he talks about priorities, where in this budget of Canada's would he find the money to replace this C-135 Hercules with a C-17 that would take care of that job and give these people equipment they can work with and feel proud to operate?

[Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people say they will remember where they were on September 11, 2001, but I think what we will remember most is the way we lived our lives before September 11 and how we lived afterward. The dramatic change that will take place is why I believe Canadians are turning to us as leaders, as parliamentarians, as their elected officials, for guidance and for some kind of signal that we are taking this matter seriously and that we want to make change in this country to make their lives safer. The motion that my party put forward today would do that.

The member opposite has just said that we must lead, that we must respond, that citizens are turning to us for advice. I would like to ask the member what is wrong with sending the message in this resolution that we have on the floor today. What is wrong with sending that message to Canadian citizens that the government and the leaders of the country are doing something to make their everyday lives safer? Why will she not support what we have put forward today?

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say it is a pleasure, but it is not a pleasure to rise in the House tonight to be involved in the debate and to pose a question to the member for Mississauga West.

Before I do that, I would like to add to others the condolences and prayers of the citizens of Lethbridge in southern Alberta for the victims of this horrific crime, for their families and friends around the world as well as here in Canada, and to offer their support to the rescue workers who are working so hard to find survivors in that awful mess that once was New York. I was a volunteer firefighter for many years. I have seen some horrific things but I cannot imagine what these people are facing as they go through this disaster.

At the memorial service in Lethbridge on Friday, held in conjunction with the one in Ottawa, during the ceremony the firefighters present were called away to answer a call. I know from experience that when that call comes how focused firefighters become on the task at hand when the call comes in and how they will not stray from getting to where they are needed.

The member gave us a lot of scenarios about the world and how we need to get to the root cause of terrorism. My question for the member is about what he is telling his constituents that he and his government will do to put at ease the minds of children and families in this country. That threat exists. We can go after the root cause and we can try to change culture and society, but in the interim what is he prepared to ask his government to do to make everyone in the country feel safer?

[Lumber Industry, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade held stakeholder meetings this week with the Canadian forest sector. Regional interests were given an opportunity to present their views on the current softwood lumber dispute with the U.S.

Would the minister assure us that his position in favour of free trade in lumber remains the government position?

[Grants And Loans, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, $1.5 billion is a lot of money. Would it not be better for the government and the aerospace industry in Canada to level the sanctions in the four cases we have won against Brazil, instead of guaranteeing loans?

The Prime Minister told us he would fight fire with fire when dealing with unfair trade situations with Brazil. Will he make the right decision when dealing with hard working taxpayer money?

[Grants And Loans, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government is about to guarantee a huge loan of Canadian taxpayer money to an American company just so it can buy Canadian airplanes. The loan is estimated to be worth $1.5 billion. The Minister of Industry has spun this as a one time deal to save jobs.

With the emergency funding tab multiplying every few months, how many exorbitant one time deals will Canadians be on the hook for, for this one private company?

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion one young person lost is one too many if with a little help he or she could have turned the corner and become a productive member of society. We need to do whatever we can to ensure we reach out to as many as we possibly can.

The statistics the parliamentary secretary offered probably are factual, but the fact is that whatever fraction of a per cent it is, one young person is too many.