Rick Casson

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's input into the youth criminal justice act has been noted and appreciated. His expertise in justice issues is appreciated by all members in the House.

Any method we could use, whether it is a transfer through courts or whatever, to bring these young people some much needed help is important. That is the problem. We are not seeking to lock 10 to 12 year olds up. We are trying to do is to help these young people. A lot of our young people are not in a family situation that most of us would recognize. They do not have a mother and father in a responsible relationship and the right instruction to go out and be good citizens. They need that, and a lot them are crying out for it.

As a nation, we should be able to take these young people and get them on the right track before they go too far wrong. To not do that is a crime. We are turning our backs on some large numbers of young people. If we had the ability and the legal right to reach out, help them and bring them back, we could make a lot of difference to a lot of young people. Unfortunately, this legislation does not allow us to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the bill today. It takes me back to the first year I campaigned for this job in 1997. When I went door to door, one of the topics at the time was the Young Offenders Act and the changes that people wanted to see.

I remember one business that I went into. The gentleman was completely distraught over the fact that he could not get any justice for the problems he had been having with young offenders. It is interesting to note that many years later Bill C-7 still does not address the issues that so many Canadians are concerned about.

I compliment my colleague from Surrey North who has made it his life's work to bring in proper youth justice in Canada. Some of the amendments he put forward would have made great additions to the bill. Every amendment we put forward would have strengthened the bill, made it more receptive to the needs of Canadians and would have made our streets safer. These were the underlying factors for putting forward our amendments to the new youth justice act. We wanted our streets to be safer so people could feel more comfortable in their homes and in their daily lives. The member for Surrey North put a lot of effort into those issue. He knows from personal experience what can happen when young offenders go wrong.

One of the things our party proposed and probably one of the most contentious was the lowering of the age range from 12 to 18 to 10 to 16. People said that we would be locking up 10 year olds but that was not what we were talking about. We were talking about helping young people in trouble, and heading in the wrong direction, to get back on track and become better citizens in order to contribute to society in a way that all Canadians should.

Our party wanted a clear definition of a violent offence. We wanted a schedule of offences so there would be no necessity to play legal word games in the courts and no need for millions of dollars to be spent in legal costs for arguments and appeals. We should have a list of what a violent offence means. We should include the offence of murder plus all the listed offences in schedule I and II of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. These are the offences Canadians want to see listed as violent offences. Those were in the amendments we brought forward.

We proposed the deletion of the term presumptive offence within the legislation. We preferred the term violent offence to determine when a young person ought to receive adult punishment. We proposed the deletion of the term serious violent offence because we felt that all violent offences were serious and that it should be left up to the courts to decide the punishment in those circumstances. However violent offences must be handled in a specific manner to protect our citizens and our communities.

We proposed an overriding principle making the legislation the protection of the public. We heard time and again that the government placed more emphasis on the interests of the offender than on the protection of citizens. The protection of our communities should not take second place to anything.

We proposed the limitation of extrajudicial measures to first time non-violent offenders and only if those extrajudicial measures were adequate to hold a young person accountable. Accountability is a part of the act that really needs to be highlighted. Young people and their parents have to be held accountable. If we did that it would put some real meaning into the legislation.

We proposed a requirement for the attorney general to inform victims of their specific rights. We felt that was important. We proposed that the principles of denunciation and deterrence be included within the legislation. A big aspect of any youth justice act should be methods of deterrence.

We proposed that an adult sentence be imposed on young persons who commit violent offences after their 14th birthday. The range of adult sentencing would still be left up to the courts, and that would include youth style punishments, but 14 and 15 year olds who commit violent offences would be held accountable for potential adult sentencing. Some people felt that proposal was fairly harsh but we were talking about serious, violent and repeat offenders. We must deal with those people in such a way that our communities will be safe and our public will be protected.

We proposed that young persons who commit violent offences be identified for the protection of the public. People wanted to know who those young offenders were and what they had done. They felt they had the right to know if somebody who was capable of a violent offence was living in their community.

We proposed that a young person who received a life sentence through adult court should receive parole eligibility between 10 and 15 years at the discretion of a judge. This was an increase from the present range of 5 to 10 years, to put a little more bite into the legislation.

We also proposed an increased maximum sentence for violent offences other than murder. Bill C-7 would bring a custody period followed by a supervisory period with supervisory time to be one-half of the custody time.

We put forward all these proposals as amendments to the legislation. They were researched and had the benefit of the firsthand knowledge of the member for Surrey North. Not one of them was accepted.

We ended up with a bill that appears to be the same as Bill C-68 and then its subsequent Bill C-3 and now Bill C-7. There is no change. There is no more bite in the bill and no more protection for Canadians than there was in the bill introduced as Bill C-68. After months of review and hearing experts from all aspects of youth justice, the only changes made include many of the technical amendments proposed by the government to correct errors in Bill C-3.

The government has not been open to change on any aspect of the legislation. There were hearings where witnesses came forward with many good ideas and with firsthand experience. People involved in the youth justice system brought forward excellent ideas that were not accepted. All the opposition parties, except the Bloc, presented substantive amendments to Bill C-3. None of them received debate in parliament. None of them appear to have been considered by the government.

The provinces will be tasked to administer this legal nightmare but the federal government does not seem to care. The government has not been open to serious discussion over the proposals in its youth justice law. There needed to be more willingness on behalf of the government to listen to Canadians, the experts and the other parties in the House of Commons to improve the law.

The government has promised $206 million over the first three years for the implementation of the bill, but it would not even come close to meeting the responsibility of providing 50% of the funding for youth justice. The government has allowed federal funding to slip to about 20%.

This does not only apply to the bill. We have seen that in other areas of government responsibility where it has historically committed funding to a certain level to help the provinces administer the laws that are created here. The funding has decreased from 50% to 20%.

The provinces have to carry that financial burden and to take that extra cost into their own budgets to administer a law that many of them are not happy with because it does not go far enough.

An initial review of Bill C-7 indicates that the government has made it even weaker likely to appease the Quebec government and the Bloc Quebecois. That was one thing we saw. It said that if the Canadian Alliance thought it was too soft and the Bloc thought it was too severe it had to go right down the middle of the road. We do not agree with that at all.

The age range of application will remain at 12 to 18. Many people thought 10 to 12 year olds that were starting to get into trouble needed some help. They needed someone there to pull them back, to help them out and to put them back on the right road. That has not happened and these young people are still out there without direction.

The restrictions on naming violent offenders have not been put into the legislation. It is up to the courts to do that. That was something of critical importance to Canadians.

After the entire process of bringing the bill forward three times this will be its last debate before it is voted on this evening. We still do not have what Canadians have asked for. A lot more could have been done with the overall philosophy that the protection of Canadians as a whole should be the meat of the bill. If the government had kept that in mind, it would have had a bill that Canadians would have appreciated and supported.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member. I know she has close ties to the aboriginal community and environmental issues. She mentioned the Sydney tar ponds. I had an opportunity to view that disgraceful mess and I would sure like to see something started there to clean it up and get the people living nearby who have been exposed to it away from it.

Is the member aware of anything the government has done in the last few years to clean up some of the messes that were left in northern Canada by military bases, air force bases, the DEW line and things like that? I know that some were pretty bad. Could she comment on what has happened in that area?

[Jessica Koopmans, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, a heart-wrenching event has taken place and we need everyone's help. Five year old Jessica Koopmans went missing from her front yard in north Lethbridge last Friday, May 4 at approximately 5 p.m.

The Lethbridge City Police, assisted by RCMP officers from as far away as Calgary and Edmonton, have been working day and night to find Jessica. Hundreds and hundreds of volunteers from communities throughout southern Alberta have helped in the search and support is pouring in for the distraught family.

Jessica is five years old. She is four feet tall and weighs 40 pounds. She was last seen wearing a white tank top, blue jean shorts and pink sandals. She has shoulder length brown hair, blue eyes and freckles. Further information and a picture of Jessica can be seen at www.jessicakoopmans.com.

I am calling on my colleagues in the House of Commons and on all Canadians to pray for Jessica. If anyone receives any information or if anyone sees Jessica, please contact the Lethbridge city police at 403-328-4444.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take time to pose a question to my colleague.

In my other life I was the mayor of a town in southern Alberta of 1,700 people. The quality of the water and the concern about supplying safe water was always paramount in our minds. We had to go through different scenarios with different standards being presented. The standards would change and we would have to increase our ability to treat our water.

In subsequent years there was a problem. The mayor at the time, the council, the staff and others worked very hard to correct it. I still live in that town of 1,700, and it is spending over $1 million in upgrading the water treatment plant to meet standards for supplying safe, secure water for the community. That is just one community that is spending spending well over $1 million to upgrade its facility.

The idea of standards that are binding is one thing. We support the motion brought forward today by the Conservatives to have something put in place to deal with that.

I would like to ask my colleague a question about the science needed to test the systems which are in place and the funds required to come up with a water study in Canada which would absolutely place, in some parameters, the condition of our present drinking water systems in Canada. What emphasis does he think should be placed on the science, as well as the standards needed to supply that safe water?

[Criminal Code, May 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I want to add a couple of comments in support of the member for Lakeland who has brought this bill forward. He has brought a couple of good private member's bills forward in the past. The one I particularly liked sought to get expensive tools for mechanics deductible. I applaud him for doing that. This bill is another example of a good bill that has been well researched.

However the problem is that this bill is not votable. After debate today it will be dropped from the order paper and nothing will be done with it. All the work that has gone into preparing this to bring it forward, all the legal angles that have been looked at, goes for naught because it will not be voted on. Any private member's initiative should be. As members of parliament this is one tool we have to bring forward our issues.

The bill refers to Bill C-68 concerning gun laws. I want to make sure people understand that a Canadian Alliance government would repeal this law and replace it with a law that would respect private property rights and target the criminal use of firearms, not the lifestyles of law-abiding citizens.

The idea of a peace officer going into a person's home without cause or without provocation to search the premises without a warrant is something we should not have to discuss. The criminal code does allow for such entry but it should not be allowed on a routine basis.

The most intrusive part of Bill C-68, which people feared and opposed the most, was that a peace officer could enter into their home and take their private property without reason. People brought this issue to our attention time and time again. I am glad this was brought forward for discussion because it should not be a part of Canadian law. We only expect to hear things like that happening in the Soviet Union or some place with a dictatorship or a communist state.

If peace officers do enter our premises and, in the process of their search, damage our property, whether it is the property they are looking for or collateral property, they should provide compensation. The member for Lakeland had examples of where this has happened and where the people suffering the damage had no recourse.

Those two issues, the unwarranted search of private property and the lack of compensation for damage done during a search, needed to be addressed in Bill C-68. Bill C-245 would do that. However, the bill was not made votable so we will not be standing in the House to show our support.

The only way we can show our support for the bill is to say a few comments and get them on the record. We must also say again that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the gun registry system and we see no end in sight to the cost of registering every firearm in Canada. Nobody knows how many there are. To intrude into the lives of private, law-abiding citizens and not specifically target the criminal use of firearms is wrong.

Bill C-68 needs to be repealed and replaced with comprehensive legislation that deals with those issues.

[Agriculture, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity for the government to aggressively attack European Union and United States agricultural subsidy policies has never been better. The Bush administration will soon be bringing forward its new farm bill. The Americans have indicated a willingness to continue the present level of market distorting support.

The European Union is also facing a number of issues. The EU spends half its total annual budget, $50 billion, on farm support. It is under pressure from within to reduce this amount. The proposed enlargement of the EU will put additional pressures on its budgets. The WTO peace clause expires at the end of 2003 and critical elections in Europe will be over by then as well.

Worldwide a billion dollars is spent everyday on some form of agricultural support. It is imperative that the government act now to pressure the European Union and the United States to stop subsidies that continue to critically harm Canadian producers.

[International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, May 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill today. I come from a riding in southern Alberta where one river, the Milk River, flows south and ends up in the Gulf of Mexico, while another river, the Oldman River, flows into the south Saskatchewan river system and ends up in Hudson Bay. My riding is unique in that way. In my riding water is an absolutely precious commodity. If we did not properly manage and protect the water in the area we would be in serious trouble.

We are in the throes now of a drought that has seen in some places a 30% snowpack in the mountains, 70% below normal. Our runoff this spring will be very low. One of our irrigation districts has already told its producers they will be rationed. Those producers will receive half the water through the irrigation system that they would receive in a normal year.

In the irrigated area of southern Alberta 4% of the land produces 20% of the crops. This shows that if water is added to an area that gets as much sunshine as we do then the area can produce almost anything. We grow all the pulse crops. We grow beans, peas, sunflowers, sugar beets, all kinds of crops that demand high heat units. We grow all these things, yet in that part of the Palliser triangle we would not have anything without proper water management.

The irrigation districts in our area take great pride in the fact that they are good managers of our water. There is a gentleman in southern Alberta who has been a friend of mine for a long time. He often comes to speak to me about water issues such as NAFTA, protecting our waters from trade, and interbasin transfers. My riding is one area where it would be possible to take water out of a river basin and put it into another and send it in a different direction.

It is important that we are dealing with this issue. The gentleman's name is Tracy Anderson. I must mention him when I talk about water because to me he is Mr. Water. He has spent his entire life dealing with water management. He knows full well how precious a resource it is. Former Premier Lougheed of Alberta said that by the year 2000 water would be more valuable than oil. He had the foresight to know that in time good, clean pure water such as we have in Canada would become a commodity more precious than oil.

It is interesting that we are proposing amendments to the treaty signed in 1909 between Canada and the U.S. The government is doing so because it failed to exempt water from NAFTA, something it promised Canadians it would do in 1993 but never did.

If water is ever traded as a commodity among Canadians then our NAFTA partners will have a right to the commodity as outlined in the agreement. We cannot say yes to each other without also saying yes to the rest of North America. There are situations in Canada where we could help each other. In drought situations landowners could give up their share of water to a neighbour. However if we start trading water as a commodity it opens up a whole new area of concern.

The International Boundary Waters Treaty Act would do three things. First, it would prohibit interbasin transfers, the removal of waters from the basin in which they are located. Second, it would require a licence from the Minister of Foreign Affairs for any activity in boundary or transboundary waters that would alter the natural level or flow of waters on the U.S. side. The Americans would do the same. Third, it would provide clear sanctions and penalties for violation.

We need such penalties. As the previous hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said, there are Internet sites in Canada offering to sell Canadian water. We must be very careful how we handle this.

We realize the provinces have jurisdiction over water. However the federal government must work in conjunction with the provinces to structure legislation so that there is shared responsibility.

Canadians are becoming more concerned about the control of freshwater. We notice this every time there is a proposal to sell our freshwater to another country because many Canadians come forward.

We have 9% of the world's renewable freshwater supply. That is a huge amount for the size of our country. We need to realize that it is absolutely the most precious resource we have. Without good clean water nothing else can happen.

An outright ban on exports would run contrary to NAFTA because water was not exempted. These amendments are a way around that. Water should be exempted from NAFTA but it was not. We therefore must deal with the issue in a different way.

Let us talk about our neighbour to the south. What will happen if the U.S. has a crisis situation where it runs out of water? If we get to that stage our neighbour will put forward a hard case to come and get our water. We must promote conservation the best we can. We have the water supply. Some of the things done on the other side of the border should perhaps not be done because water there is not as abundant as it is here. Weather and climate permitting, these functions should take place here. If there is a process where water is needed to a great degree, it should also take place here. Water should be treated as a raw material. I suppose any time it can be valued added to, it should be. It should be turned into crops, into vegetables and into food for the world.

We see that in the riding. I was actually raised on five acres of what was called an irrigation camp. My dad worked with the irrigation district. I learned to appreciate at an early age the value of water and what it meant to our neighbours and the farming community in the area.

It is important that we protect our water for future generations and that we ensure it stays under the sovereignty control of Canada. The bill would go a long way in doing that, and we will be supporting it.

I do not think that we can ever forget that water as a tradable good should be exempt under NAFTA. That is something that should be addressed by this government or maybe by a future government. Canadians should be able to help each other in need of water without putting it into the world market.

I will conclude by saying that we will support the bill. It is an important aspect of our environment and of our laws. It does not go far enough, but what it does do we will support.