Rick Casson

[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?

[Supply, March 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to a question I asked on February 28 with regard to dealing with trade issues in the sugar industry. As we all know, the upcoming summit of the Americas conference to be held in Quebec City will be important to many Canadians.

As a member of parliament for Lethbridge, Alberta, agriculture is a vital industry to my constituents. The sugar beet industry is a large part of that agricultural industry.

The Alberta sugar beet growers and the Canadian Sugar Institute are very concerned about the upcoming meetings, particularly with regard to agreements with Central American countries. They are worried about the minor tariff that protects Canada's domestic refined sugar industry from outside takeover. They are worried that this tariff may be lifted during bargaining and used as a lever in sealing a deal.

They are concerned that any bilateral agreement with Central American countries would disadvantage our sugar industry. They are concerned that an agreement would provide no meaningful export opportunity for them and would actually expose Canadian producers to trade distorting imports.

Exports of both raw and refined sugar from the C-4 countries totalled 1.7 million tonnes in 1999. Those countries have a huge surplus waiting to pour into our already well served domestic sugar market.

Canada already has the most open sugar market in the world. It should not be pressured into making further concessions while other countries intervene in their own markets and transfer those distortions on to ours.

Canada already imports nearly half the sugar shipped into North America annually. The Canadian sugar industry is already competing with imports of refined sugar from Central America and the imports are growing at a rapid and alarming rate. Any deal that would see the Canadian tariff lifted would worsen the current imbalance in sugar policies, intensifying the competition in the Canadian market while not providing a reciprocal market for Canada in Central America.

Any reduction or elimination of Canada's most favoured nation tariff on refined sugar threatens the viability of Canada's cane sugar refining and sugar beet industry.

The Canadian cane sugar refining and sugar beet processing industry has made recent capital investments in excess of $150 million. In the context of the current international trade environment, the way the trade system is now, if the most favoured nation tariff is removed it would threaten the viability of our industry's investments. I need to stress that merely a fraction of current exports waiting to flood in from Central America would threaten the closure of Canadian refineries.

While paying a visit to my constituency, the Prime Minister's task force on western Canada promised the Alberta Sugar Beet Growers Association that sugar would not be traded off again. Will the government live up to that promise and guarantee sugar beet farmers and all of Canada's sugar industry that their livelihoods will not be put in jeopardy at the upcoming summit?

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the whole quota system gave an advantage to some and not to others. It was not right. I even became aware of it in my riding in southern Alberta. We do not have a lot of forest, but there was a gentleman with a small mill who was shipping lumber across the border. One day he took a load across and was told that he did not have a quota. Probably not being in the mainstream of business but trying to make a few bucks shipping logs across the border, he came to me, which was when I really became aware of what was happening.

The whole issue has to be dealt with openly and has to be rules based fair trade.