Rick Casson

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that was the best speech we have heard from that riding in about three years.

On the weekend there was an article in the National Post . It was quite a lengthy editorial about the things Canada could do to get ahead of the U.S. as far as economic policy is concerned. There were a number of really broad based, thinking outside the box kinds of scenarios.

I would like to ask the member what he thought of a particular scenario. It was suggested that young people starting in the workforce should be able to earn the first $250,000 of their lives taxfree to give them a head start in building their homes, raising their families and educating their kids. What does the member think about a scenario like that?

[Foot And Mouth Disease, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to an issue that must be brought to the attention of Canadians. The seriousness of the issue is something that we all need to address. I support the comments of my colleague in that this is a non-partisan issue that we all have to tackle as best we can.

I come from a town called Picture Butte in southern Alberta. Our motto, which we adopted a few years ago when I was mayor of that town, is that Picture Butte is the livestock feeding capital of Canada. That is a motto that we carry proudly because we have that industry in our area. We are glad to have it there. We work hard to keep it safe and to keep it on the right side of the environment. A lot of people are involved in that industry.

Alberta has 25% or 26% of the national livestock business. We have cattle and calves, over five million animals alone; hogs, 1.7 million; and sheep and lambs, 167,000. Processed animal sales are $3.2 billion; dairy products, $1.5 billion; and feed manufacturing, $533 million. We have cattle and calf receipts at the farm gate of $3.3 billion; $505 million for hogs; sheep and lamb, $14 million; and livestock purchases altogether, $970 million.

If there is an outbreak in Canada of this disease our borders will be shut down immediately. The whole industry would come to a grinding halt. We are not only talking about meat products but dairy products as well.

Exports out of Alberta for beef and veal, $1.4 billion; pork, $177 million; live cattle, $511 million; and hogs, $92 million. This is a huge industry. These figures are a quarter of what goes on in Canada.

If this plague comes to Canada it will lower the standard of living of every Canadian. It is important that we get this information out. This is not a rural issue. This is a Canada-wide issue. It is very critical that all Canadians take part in making sure that Canada remains foot and mouth disease free.

Referring to the employment figures in Alberta, in animal production there are 40,000 people involved; in mixed farming, 8,000; and in the processing end of it, 10,000 people. They would be affected immediately. I am not talking about trucking, handling facilities, auction marts or the customs work. Those people would all be out of a job the day after foot and mouth was discovered in the country.

It is imperative we do all we can to keep it out of Canada. Our party has offered some suggestions to the government. It is good to see that it is moving on them, that there is an advertising campaign to educate every Canadian on what it means if it does come into the country.

Information must go out to travel agents to educate travellers leaving or coming to Canada. In my riding I have sent some information out to all the school boards. I am glad my colleague mentioned that the government should issue a travel advisory so that students who are planning to leave Canada during the Easter break have an option on whether or not to go. Many of them will not go because they appreciate what the industry means to them at home. It would help with their travel plans if some options were available to them and if the government would issue a travel advisory advising them not to leave the country. The airlines would support something like that.

We get calls from people every day that see exceptions at airports. That is something that we have to absolutely make sure does not happen. The luggage of anyone who has meat or brings anything illegal into the country should be taken away and disinfected. We have to make sure that every item is seized. We must have maximum patrols at the airports and maximum inspections of all equipment and people coming into the country. Thousands of tourists come out of the United Kingdom and Europe every week. We have to be absolutely sure that this disease cannot be carried into Canada.

The CFIA has to work hard. All of us have to support the government in releasing the resources necessary to make sure that our borders are protected. Our party will work co-operatively with the government to do that. We have to make sure that the information gets out through whatever means.

I have information from the United States, New Zealand and Australia. They have put information on the web, advising their producers what would happen if it enters their countries. They are advising of the things they are doing to make sure it does not enter their countries. They are also indicating the steps that producers need to take if it does happen to get into their countries. This is the type of information we have to get out to the public.

We need a national strategy involving all departments of government: agriculture, customs and health. All these people need to get together and have a plan in place to keep the disease out of Canada. We have kept it out of Canada for 50 years. It has been in the world for 50 years and has not come to Canada. If we are diligent we can make sure that it does not happen now.

If we have a national strategy with all the people involved, all the resources from all the departments put together, we can do a better job. We can bring the possibility of it coming to Canada down as close to zero as possible.

I hope the government will take our offer of support. I have not mentioned the member for Brandon—Souris. I thank him for bringing the issue forward. It is something we support and an issue we were looking at ourselves. We need to devise a joint plan and national strategy by all departments.

I have had two or three cases back home where groups of students have come to me and said that they do not want to go on their trip. They could not get their money back so they were trying to find some options. The travel advisory is something that needs to be done in a hurry. I do not know which department would need to do it. Hopefully the agriculture minister could talk to his cabinet colleagues and have it issued so that these people would have some options.

I cannot emphasize enough that this is a national issue which will affect every Canadian. Perhaps we could imagine our standard of living dropping immediately by 20% right across the board, no matter where we are or who we are. That is how important and how big the issue is. It would cost $20 billion, and some estimate it would be as high as $26 billion, in the first year alone to eradicate the disease if it did get into Canada. It would take years and years to get over it.

In my riding people are not sleeping. It is a nightmare to even think what would happen if it came, evidenced by some of the pictures we have seen coming from England. We cannot allow that in this country. The cost of keeping it out will be minuscule in comparison to the cost if it does get here.

We must work together and put the money in place. We need to put the resources in place. We must do whatever we need to do to keep that disease away from our borders so that we do not have to see the same visuals that we see coming out of Europe.

[Summit Of The Americas, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to get up and debate this important issue. I will start by going over a little bit of how we got to this point, what this free trade area of the Americas and the summit of the Americas is proposing to do in Quebec City in April. If I have time, I would like to finish off with some of the local issues that I am concerned about that will be coming up, or already have, in this negotiation process.

The idea of a free trade area of the Americas started in 1990 with George Bush, the then president of the United States. At that time it was enterprised from the Americas initiative. It came on the heels of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and in the beginning of the negotiations for what would become the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Subsequently the idea was revived as a free trade of the Americas at the first modern day summit of the Americas held in Miami in 1994. Like the upcoming summit, the heads of state and government of 34 countries of the western hemisphere discussed the advancement of economic prosperity, democracy and security of the Americas.

At the summit in 1994, all countries agreed to conclude an FTAA by 2005. This was a very ambitious schedule but it was one they agreed to try to work toward. Canada and Chile, the most enthusiastic supporters of the FTAA, later proposed that it be moved up to 2003, but there are some concerns that this deadline will not be reached.

I will now speak on the relationship to the summit of the Americas. The FTAA is only one of the items, albeit an important one, that will be on the agenda at the summit of the Americas in Quebec City. The summit is organized through the Organization of American States. It was originally guided by four principles: first, preserve and strengthen the community of democracies of the Americas; second, promote prosperity through economic integration of free trade; third, eradicate poverty and discrimination in our hemisphere; and fourth, guarantee sustainable development and conserve our natural environment for future generations. I would suggest that those are four worthy goals to reach in any agreement.

At the Quebec City summit, issues have been divided into three interconnected baskets. They have described them as strengthening democracy, creating prosperity and realizing human potential. It is the potential of the FTAA that has gained the most attention both from people who support it and those who do not.

I would like to speak about the economic background. How big is the free trade area of the Americas that we are talking about? It would cover 800 million people in the western hemisphere. We have slightly less than 15% of the total world's population, but we produce 35% of the world's measured economic activity.

The combined gross domestic product of all the countries is $11 trillion U.S. The Americas is by far the largest and most productive economic region of the world. It surpasses even the European Union, which is the second leading region, by $3 trillion U.S.

Canada's main trading partner is the United States which takes over 86% of our exports. The countries with which Canada has a free trade agreement, the United States, Mexico and Chile, account for 97% of our hemispheric trade. Even without the FTAA, a full 94% of goods from FTAA countries already enter Canada duty free. It is no big change for Canada because we are almost already there.

What are some of the potential benefits? Canada's economy is highly trade dependent with about one in three jobs depending directly on trade. About 80% of jobs created since 1993 have come from trade. The reasons for all free trade agreements is to increase the size of our economic pie and to improve our prosperity and well-being.

Canadian priorities in the FTAA are threefold: zero tariff rates with our trading partners, the removal of wasteful custom procedures as barriers to trade, and strong investment protection measures through the Americas region. In my riding there is a big port into the U.S. To streamline the procedures to allow the trade to flow back and forth more freely is something the people who use it on a regular basis would really like to see.

A successful FTAA should not have a large structural impact on Canada's economy because we are almost already there. Canada is already a relatively open market. Some 94% of goods from FTAA countries already enter Canada duty free. The big adjustment for Canada came with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which currently covers 86% of our exports.

An important benefit of an FTAA for Canada is to open and secure market access for Canadian exporters through the elimination of tariffs. Some sectors face significant tariffs on paper products, technology products, auto parts and potash.

At a recent committee meeting on international trade one witness representing the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada said that 79% of its members favour this issue and only 6% see the FTAA as a threat to their businesses. These are the people who are in business and who are working to improve markets and market share for their products.

The parliamentary secretary earlier this evening indicated that the government would be listening to all the comments brought forward tonight by all parties. He also indicated that the government would be taking heed of some of the issues and would look into them.

One that I want to raise and I have raised before is the issue regarding sugar refining. I am speaking of raw sugar imports, exports and refined sugar. My riding has the only sugar beets grown in Canada. They are refined in the neighbouring constituency in Taber. A deal has been partially struck with Costa Rica and the concern is that the deal will be used as a pattern to extend it to other Latin American countries that have large sugar producing capacity.

The tariff in Costa Rica on refined sugar is 50% whereas Canada's is 8%. The idea is to reduce both those tariffs to zero but over the same period of time. If both tariffs are reduced to zero within a year of each other, it will place our producers and our refiners at a definite disadvantage.

This is something the government needs to be aware of. If it does offer up sugar, the government should deal with it as an individual commodity and not trade it off against other issues as has been done in the past, because there is potential for growth in this industry in Canada. If we handled this trade situation properly, particularly through the FTAA, then we will have potential to solidify the industry and maybe even grow it to some degree.

Some of the issues that have been talked about earlier have to do with the site and what is happening in Quebec City to prepare for the summit. I support the issue that the laws must be obeyed but people's right to be heard or the right to have peaceful demonstrations should not be interfered with. The full force of the law needs to be brought to bear should anybody step over that line and get out of hand because this is an important issue.

There is far more to be gained by being in on the discussions than being outside the room causing a disturbance. If people are serious about wanting change and having input, they should take part in the discussions. I am hopeful it will all go off without too much trouble.

Foreign subsidies which distort production, as we have seen in our grain and oilseed sector, are something that we need to be aware of. Such things do exist. If the trade agreements can reduce those subsidies to get everybody on a level playing field we would be far better off.

Another issue that is very important is water. We want to make sure that Canada retains sovereignty over its water. I want the government to hear that. We have to make sure that absolute control of that precious resource is maintained.

The other day one witness in committee said that a free trade agreement would bring absolute free and fair trade on all commodities. Then we would have 3,000 pages of exemptions. I am hopeful that this agreement will not go that way and that we will be able to come to a solid agreement.

We support free trade and the process that it is going through. However we would like to see any agreement that is reached come back to the House for debate, for Canadians to have a look at and for parliament to ultimately have a say in.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member who spoke to perhaps expand a little on one of the recommendations the Canadian Alliance was bringing forward, and I certainly want to congratulate my seatmate, the member for Surrey North, for all the work he has done on the issue and for the expertise he brings to the table when we are discussing this matter.

One of the things we in our party want implemented is that we want to let Canadians know who the repeat violent offenders are who get charged under the new act. We feel that Canadians and society in general have a right to know that. We are saying that if it is a serious crime or if it is a repeat crime, we should be publishing the name of the offender.

I would just like the member to expand a bit on that and to perhaps let the House know of some of the instances he is familiar with in his own riding where publishing the names has been something that Canadians have been asking for.

[Health, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the foot and mouth epidemic that has gripped the United Kingdom and parts of Europe continues to spread. This highly contagious disease, although not harmful to humans, has devastated the livestock industries in the affected countries.

Canada has been foot and mouth free for 50 years. It is critical to keep Canada a foot and mouth free zone. If foot and mouth were transported to Canada, our export of almost all livestock would be immediately curtailed. The costs of lost exports and the expenses of disease control are estimated to be in the range of $20 billion in the first year alone.

I implore the government to take all the precautions necessary to protect our dairy, beef, hog and sheep operations, indeed, all our primary and secondary livestock operations, from annihilation. Producer groups and individuals are implementing their own precautions and need to be supported in their efforts by real government action.

A national strategy involving all government ministries is needed to battle this outbreak. Decisive action is needed now.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is the thing we are advocating. We have to come to the plate to support our producers when their lives are being ruined by forces beyond their control. The export policies of the United States and the European Union are distorting the marketplace. The price our producers are receiving for their commodities is no longer market driven, it is driven by poor government policy. Because of the situation that exists, we have to do something in the short term to keep our farm families alive.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I imagine one of the reasons the member opposite was elected and sent to the House by the people he represents was to work hard for them. I applaud him for fighting to keep the industry in his town open. That is why I was sent here. I will stand in the House every day if need be to fight for my constituents.

He inferred that we did not campaign for farmers during the election. I will read what it says in our Alliance policy. This is misquoted time and again by the agriculture minister and it is very unfortunate that he does that. It states:

To ensure a self-reliant and economically viable agriculture sector, we will vigorously seek free entry of Canadian products into foreign markets. We support and will advocate the phased reduction and elimination of all subsidies, support programs and trade restrictions in conjunction with other countries.

That is where the government has gone wrong. It has gone out ahead of other countries and reduced the subsidies for our producers while other countries receive subsidies. This has put our producers in a very bad situation. They will not agree with that.

A component of what the agriculture community needs on a long term basis is a disaster program that responds to the need and gets the money out quickly. We need a long term income stabilization program to put some stability back into the program. We need opportunities to market our product the way we see fit. We need a government with some guts to go to the United States and the European Union and fight down the subsidies that are killing our producers.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to finish this portion of my speech. I was talking earlier about the far-reaching effects of the farm income crisis. We are talking not only about the people who are on the land, the primary producers. We are talking about the communities and the businesses that support the industry and how it reaches into all aspects of our society and all aspects of our communities.

I should like to mention a couple of points besides the immediate influx of cash into the farming community we are talking about today in addition to what the government has already done. This is much needed money which we think should be going out immediately before spring seeding.

The government could do other things in the long term to improve the plight of our agriculture community. Certainly in western Canada one of the things that needs to be done is to maximize marketing opportunities. We need the ability to market our product the best way we see fit and to get rid of the monopoly the Canadian Wheat Board has on certain aspects of our marketing abilities.

This is something that is peculiar to western Canada. Producers in other parts of Canada have the ability to choose who they wish to deal with in selling their grain. Western Canadians do not. Our party has advocated forever that marketing choice should be part of the mix when it comes to curing the ills of the agriculture community.

We also worked an awful lot on the reform of the Grain Transportation Act, the changes to that act when they were before the House last spring. The government had an opportunity at that time to make some meaningful changes and put some market forces back into the costs farmers have to pay to get their product to the coast to be shipped to other countries. It fell very short of what was needed.

I know from personal experience that when grain is taken to the elevator the amount of money taken off the top of the farmer's cheque for transportation and grain handling is huge. We could do something about that tomorrow. We could do something about the wheat board. We could do something about the transportation system. The government chooses not to work on those angles as well.

We talk about increased input costs. Input costs in the last few years have gone right through the roof. Energy costs have skyrocketed. However there is one area the government could act on tomorrow which would leave $100 million in the pockets of producers in Canada: the elimination of the excise tax on farm fuel. This tax collects $100 million that the government could very well leave in the pockets of producers. All these things could be done to add up to a whole that would be better for the community.

We have done some extensive travelling across the country. I remind members opposite who keep insinuating our party has done nothing as far as agriculture is concerned that it was our party which twice asked the agriculture committee to travel into Ontario, the rest of Canada and the maritimes to discuss the crisis in agriculture, and twice we were refused. After the feeble attempt the government made to have the committee travel in western Canada, we took it upon ourselves to travel extensively across Canada to discuss face to face with primary producers the situations they were facing.

One of the things they told us was not to leave them hanging. They said that if it was the policy of the government to destroy the family farm, then let them know. If they knew there was no further support for them, they would not use up all the savings and equity that they have in their land and machinery.

They are asking the government to be up front with them. They are asking the government to be forthwith. Hopefully the government will do that.

In closing, we want to reiterate that on a short term must have basis, we implore the government to top up that support to the farmers by $400 million. That is what we are asking for today.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to speak in support of the opposition motion to get an additional $400 million into the pockets of our farmers this spring before seedings starts. We want to do it in a way that is quick and efficient, not like some of the programs that have been developed in the past by this government. We need to do something that responds quickly to the situation.

I just spoke to a gentleman a couple of minutes ago to ask if it would be all right to read a letter that I received last week when I was at home. It is from a company with which I did business while running my farm operation. Last year this organization won one of the awards given out by the Lethbridge chamber of commerce for businesses that excel in what they do and how they promote their business. I read the letter even though it is a form letter. It states:

I want to begin this letter by saying thank you for giving us an opportunity to serve you and allowing us to work with you. We have dealt with some of you since 1977 and through that time we have come to know you very well and it has been a very rewarding experience.

My son, Tim, made an interesting comment a few years back after he returned to work with us following his legal training in B.C. We were sitting talking about our business and he remarked that one of the things that he liked about agriculture was the kind of people with whom he dealt. I agreed with his feelings.

We have had an opportunity to work with some very fine people. We have found that the small size of our company was continually a limitation on what we hoped to achieve. In recent years it has been very difficult to run a profitable business. I know you face that same struggle. Getting financing continued to grow to be a larger and larger challenge. The competitive environment also became tougher as the grain companies battled for a market share and used ag inputs as part of their marketing levers.

The drought last year was the final straw. It was financially very damaging and even though we improved in every aspect of our business we cannot overcome the impact of the drought and the resultant drop in sales. The prospect of another such year was a factor that convinced us. We no longer were strong enough to survive in this market so on January 6 of this year we began the plan to shut down the fertilizer, pesticide and seed sector of our business, and the related services.

It was with considerable sadness that we realized that the close working relationship we had with you would not continue in the same manner. It was also very painful to have to lay off our crew, 12 full time people and 20 part time people after working with them and watching their skills develop. Some of them had also been with us for a very long time and we had been watching with much interest hoping that some good opportunities would come to them.

This was a small business in southern Alberta that has gone out of business because of the farm crisis. This goes further than farmgate. We are not only talking about primary producers, we are also talking about the entire industry of agriculture when we talk about the seriousness of the situation.

The dramatic increase in input costs is one of the things that caught farmers in a real vice in the last few years. Commodity prices, as we know, are low in the grains and oilseeds sector, and to compound that with the increase in inputs, plus, in our area, a very severe drought that has not relinquished yet, could really send us into a crisis situation this year.

With a combination of all those things, as this gentleman has indicated, it has put a well run family business that had been in place since 1977 out of business. They were award recipients for the way they ran their business. They had to lay off 32 people. That is just a part of what is happening.

In the misplaced and misguided policies of the government, it went ahead of the rest of the world and took away the subsidies or any support that our farmers had. It did that before anybody else did, before any other countries with which we deal. We have now placed our people at a competitive disadvantage. It is not because of the marketplace or low commodity prices, which are all part of this, it is because of misplaced government policy.

Government policy has more to do with the price of goods than the marketplace does. We have done that through very ill-advised policies, whether it is trade, foreign or domestic policies, that affect our farmers. We now have a situation that some feel is irreversible.

We have to do something in the interim while we decide what we will do in the long term for our agricultural community. We have to do some things in the short term and that is what we are talking about today. Let us get this out. Let us put some of the crisis decisions that are being made on farming on hold until we can have a long term plan.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, we have to get past the rhetoric of who did what when and who asked for what.

The other day there was a comment from across the floor that I did not ask an agriculture question until the fifth spot. What is that all about? The fact is that our agricultural community is in trouble and needs some help. Let us get past all the rhetoric.

I just received a letter today from a couple who live on Heritage Road in Georgetown, Ontario. They have asked me if I would ask the Liberal government some questions. The letter reads:

In doing so, please be sure to ask the government, who is having difficulty finding the moneys desperately needed to sustain our food system and ensure food sovereignty the following question: Why did they spend valuable consumer tax dollars on an anti-farmer campaign that ran in Canadian newspapers on March 15th?

It goes on to explain how much money the government proposed to have spent. It ran in all the big city newspapers, although I am not sure what that was all about. The couple wants to know why the government did that? They also want to know how much that cost and why the money was spent on something like that instead of going directly to farm families?