Rick Casson

[Trade, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, any agreement with Costa Rica will lay the foundation for future negotiations with other Central American countries and eventually the FTAA.

Will the government live up to a commitment it made to western Canadian beet producers when it was in western Canada last year that it will do nothing to destroy their industry? Will he stand here today and say that the government will not hurt the sugar industry in Canada?

[Trade, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government is currently negotiating a trade deal with Costa Rica on sugar. Canada already has the most open sugar market in the world. Any change to the present rules will be disastrous to Canada's sugar cane refineries, sugar beet processors and sugar beet producers.

Why is the government so hell bent on systematically destroying our agriculture industries one at a time by poorly placed trade policies?

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his address. There is one issue that keeps coming up, which I think he mentioned in his remarks: What do we do with these smugglers of humans in the world?

I question whether some of the things that have been put in this bill to address smuggling of humans will be effective. In order to define a person, the person has to come into our country and we have to be able to detain that person.

Also, what do we do with bogus refugees? How long will that take to come to an end before we can get them out of the country?

Would the hon. member expand on some of his comments concerning people, such as the snakeheads, as they are sometimes called, and the leaders of people smuggling rings? Could he also comment on what we can do to address the issue of bogus refugees and how we can handle them more quickly to get them out of Canada.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that detail but parliamentary reform is something that we have talked an awful lot about since the last election. We are also trying to get more democracy in the House and in our committees.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned that the United States and France are republics but democratically elected people should be responsible to the people who elect them. I believe a process of consultation and open review is the way we should be doing it.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. He says that the government only agrees to agreements that are good for the country. I remind the parliamentary secretary about the Kyoto agreement.

We went through that scenario in the House a couple of years ago. We asked the government day after day through question period what its stance would be when it got to Japan, what it would have on the table and how it would affect Canadians. We asked that question almost everyday for months and we never did get an answer.

When the government went to the meeting to establish guidelines that would affect absolutely all Canadians and how they lived their lives and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the amount agreed to, it did not know the position of Canadians. It agreed while it was there and came back with the agreement. It told Canadians what it had agreed to. It did not have any idea how it would get there, but it was to start a process of consultation with the round tables to decide how it would be done.

I disagree with the parliamentary secretary when he says that the government only agrees to things that will benefit Canada, when it goes to a negotiation and does not know what its position is and does not have the degree of effort it will take from Canadians to reach those goals. I use that as one instance.

Another example is something that we have been working on in western Canada for a year and a half. Our cattle producers were challenged by a group in the United States called R-Calf. Our live cattle going south across the border were being unfairly subsidized. There was a long process. A tariff was placed against our cattle. Bonds had to be placed at the border and a tariff had to be paid on every head of cattle that went across the line.

The whole process ended up costing the industry $5 million. In the end it was found that we were not subsidizing our cattle. The tariff was taken off and the money was refunded.

These agitations go on. North Dakotans are constantly challenging and looking at the wheat board. There are agitations and irritants within the agreements that we presently have. There is a process in place that we can go through, as countries, for grievances and challenges to get them worked out.

Some of the agreements that have been struck have really hurt different sectors of our country, such as the grain and oilseed sector which had its support reduced here when it was not backed up by the same kind of reduced support elsewhere. I do not know if what we have done is reparable. It will take a lot of effort. We keep asking the government when that help and those funds will come through but we have heard nothing yet.

When we talk about the process, I believe I just gave a couple of instances where the process did not worked. If the government had agreed to an agreement and had brought it back to the House to be fully debated, perhaps some amendments and changes could have been put forward that would have helped.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague for Calgary East.

Before I start on the topic today, I would like to thank the people who put on the flag ceremony in Lethbridge today at the legion. I was supposed to be there but I was unable to attend. I want to acknowledge the fact that they did that. They do it every year and I really appreciate them that.

Also, the other day some of the members in the House had the opportunity to be briefed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I want to thank the parliamentary secretary, the member for London—Fanshawe and the staff for the tremendous job they did. We have already used some of the things we learned and we will certainly take up their offer to come back anytime.

We are talking about the Bloc motion today to have the House, this elected body, ratify agreements, particularly dealing with the FTAA conference which is coming up in March. That is something we support.

We feel that these agreements should come here to be ratified. It is done elsewhere in the world. I cannot quite understand the government's hesitancy to not do that. Certainly there is a lot of information available. We know that. However, when going into negotiations on an agreement, not only should our position be known, but what we agree to in those negotiations should be available for Canadians to peruse before it is put into effect. Therefore, we will be supporting the motion that the Bloc has put forward.

Since 1994, the government has signed 470 different treaties and ratified 295 of them. This is something that goes on at a pretty aggressive rate. All kinds of treaties are signed to deal with all aspects of our lives and our society. It is important that we be aware of what the government is working on, what it is dealing in and the positions that it is taking when it goes through these negotiations.

Right now it only needs the approval and the construction by bureaucrats and the approval of cabinet. We feel Canadians should have a last look at what has been agreed to and what the final position is because what we go in with is not always what we come back out with.

There have been instances in the past where I would have liked to have known what went on at the WTO meetings and the GATT meetings on agriculture. I would liked to have known who was traded off against whom and what the position of the government was going into the meeting as to who was dispensable and who was not.

The sugar beet growers in my area are the only group of producers in Canada left that grow sugar in Canada and their future looks a little dim. There has been a concern for years about some of the things that happened at some of those negotiations and how they might have been traded off against other sectors of the industry.

This leaves a little bit too much power, we feel, in the hands of a few and takes it away from the people of Canada through the representation that they have given us in this House.

The NGOs, witnesses and people who the government brings together to put these positions and to do the negotiating are certainly experts in their field. We do not disagree with that. It brings together the people who have the knowledge in their respective areas.

That being said, who selects them? Is there a public process to make sure that the people who are selected are the people we want representing us as a country? It is important to bring back to the House what has been negotiated.

Any trade has to be rules based and fair. We feel that in the agricultural community this has not always been the case. The situation in which we find the grain and oilseed primary producers in agriculture is deplorable. It has to do with unfair subsidies in both the United States and the European Union.

We used to have some support for our farmers, such as the Crow rate and others. When the deal was struck that we would get rid of this subsidy and these supports, as the other countries did, Canada went ahead and cut the support to our primary producers putting them in the situation they are in now. We did that but the other countries did not follow suit. In some cases, particularly in Europe, there have been instances where they have increased the support while we have decreased it.

We put our primary producers in a spot that is almost unbearable. Farms are going under on a daily basis. It is due to the agreement that was struck and what the government did to a particular sector. Those types of agreements could have been brought back here. I am sure the agreement that the government took into those negotiations was not the one it came out with. What it agreed to should have come to the House for all of us to look at, and certainly for the people who it was going to affect, which were the primary producers.

The government indicated that it was something it could not do. It could not bring an agreement back to the House. However, it is done in the United States. Treaties have to be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the elected upper house. That is fair. It gives everybody another chance to look at what is going on. It gives the Americans who are affected a chance for more input. That is what we would like as a country and for the citizens in Canada.

I was given some information concerning France. It states: “Peace treaties, trade treaties, treaties of agreements concerning an international organization, those involving state finances, those amending rules of a legislative nature, those concerning individual states and those calling for the transfer, exchange or annexation of territory, may be ratified or approved only by an act of parliament”.

It is being done elsewhere so to say that it cannot be done here does not quite cut it. We have some suggestions that we would like to offer the government on ways it could improve the process. Consultation in this elected Chamber would be one way to do that.

One of the first things I mentioned was parliamentary ratification. It is a simple process. It should be brought to the House after it has been negotiated. We could then look at it and either agree with it or offer some changes or amendments to make it better.

We also suggest a requirement for an assessment. This is what we have agreed to do on these trade issues but let us look at the impact that that will have on Canadians in general. Let us look at the impact it will have on industry. Let us look at what it will do to families. Let us look at what it will do to services. Let us look at how it will affect other parts. Have we asked the provinces how it will affect their situations? Including the provinces would strengthen the whole idea of federalism. We have talked about the alienation of parts of Canada. This would give the provinces and different regions a feeling that they are a bigger part of some of the decision making.

We should ensure that the people who put us in this elected Chamber are aware of what is going and that they have an opportunity to look at what these treaties will do and how they will affect their lives.

The last aspect is that it would increase the accountability of government. Knowing that anything that is agreed to would have to come back to the House to be ratified, it would put a new focus on what is being agreed to and what is being done. It would give a bit more accountability to the whole process. It would add some credibility to what has been negotiated. It would add some confidence to what is being done. It would allow Canadians one last chance to look at something that could affect their lives.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, this is my first opportunity to rise in the House since the House resumed sitting. I would like to congratulate you on your position and certainly the other Speakers. I also would like to thank the people back home who worked so hard to send me back here.

I suppose that is what we are talking about, the people who worked so hard to send us to represent them in the House of Commons, yet we are now debating Bill C-2 under the restraints of closure.

Before the motion on closure was brought in on the bill this morning, another motion was brought to us, as members of parliament, to accept a committee report without debate. We find that wrong. It does not give us the proper opportunity to represent our constituents' wishes.

People who believe in us have worked hard to send us here. They support our beliefs and principles. We are all here for that reason. However, we may have different ideas and philosophies on how those things should be done. They support what we believe in and they send us here to project and support their beliefs and our beliefs.

It is with a great deal of distress that we continue to have the motions of closure. This is the 69th time since 1993 that the government has used closure. It is wrong because it limits the opportunity of members of parliament, duly elected to represent their constituents, to voice their opinions.

The member for Fraser Valley, the House leader for the opposition, in his question of privilege really brought a lot of these points to bear. We need to change things in the House somewhat so we can better reflect the concerns of the people who elected us. To a certain degree, the actions of closure really put us in a position of not being able to do that.

After we complete debate Bill C-2 in the House today, it will go to committee when the committees are struck. I think Canadians need to know that the committees are all weighted in favour of the government as well.

Regarding the report that was tabled this morning from a committee, the government used its majority on that committee to defeat a motion that would have allowed committee members to elect a chairman of the committee by secret ballot. It is a small thing but it would mean a great deal to put some credibility at the committee level. However, it was voted down by the government's majority.

When we finish with the bill at this stage, it will go to committee. Will the government allow meaningful debate at the committee level? Will it take meaningful suggestions? Will it allow amendments? Will it just use its power again as majority at the committee level to override anything that comes through?

We have seen it before. I sat through the committee process on the discussions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There were many amendments and hours and hours of meetings. In the end the government brought in its members who were used as voting machines. They were completely unaware of what the issues were. They were completely unaware of the debate that had taken place. They were completely unaware of the amendments that they would be voting on. They were nodded at when it was time for them to stand and vote. That is wrong.

People who are making these decisions should at least be aware of the issues. To see members whipped into line, to come to committee and vote on a policy that they have no idea about is wrong.

With regard to these issues of closure, parliamentary reform, the whole idea of committee involvement, and bringing back some responsibility to us as members of the House of Commons, it is not only our party, the official opposition, that is pushing them. It is everyone. People in all roles, on the front bench, on the back bench and on the government side, have passed comments on our ineffectiveness as parliamentarians, on how our ability to cause change has been eroded. It is not a single party issue but an issue for all parties.

The Leader of the Opposition has stated that Canadians are justly proud of our heritage of responsible government, but our parliamentary democracy is not all that it should be. Too much power is exercised by the Prime Minister instead of being shared by our elected representatives. That really gets to the crux of the matter. An excess of party discipline stifles open discussion and debate, and grassroots citizens and community groups feel that their opinions are not being respected or heard.

That gets to the real point of the discussion today. What we are hearing from our constituents is not coming up through us and getting to the House because debate is being limited and committees are being structured in such a way that meaningful change cannot happen.

The member for Toronto—Danforth, a member for whom I have a lot of respect, hosted an event in Toronto last year to support farmers from across the country. I respect him for doing that. To do that in downtown Toronto and to have it come off as such a success was a good thing. It brought some attention to the issue at hand. Not much change has happened since then, but I appreciate what he did there. He has stated that parliament does not work, that it is broken, that it is like a car motor that is working on two cylinders.

Let us fire up the rest of those cylinders. Let us make this parliament work effectively and strongly. Let us put all the horsepower behind it that we can. Let us give ourselves as members of parliament the right and the ability to voice our opinions.

The Liberal member for Lac-Saint-Louis, formerly a Quebec cabinet minister, is another person I sat with on the environment committee and is somebody for whom I have a great deal of respect. He stated that being on the backbench they are typecast as if they are all stupid and are just supposed to be voting machines.

Recent statements made by the Prime Minister while in China indicate that this is how he feels about his own backbenchers, never mind other members of the House. He feels that they are voting machines, that they will stand and be counted whenever he tells them to.

Progressive Conservative Party members have not been left out of this. They put forward in their last election platform that we must reassert the power of the individual member of parliament to effectively represent the interests of constituents and play a meaningful role in the development of public policy.

We have to bring back into the House and into the hands of the democratically elected members of parliament the ability to effect policy. We cannot leave it entirely in the hands of bureaucrats. I know the bureaucrats have a function, but certainly their function should be to support what members of parliament want and what they are putting forward.

The NDP House leader has been a champion of parliamentary reform. He takes every opportunity to bring up the subject and have it debated. Even today, in response to the question of privilege by the official opposition House leader, he again brought up point after point with regard to what needs to be done to bring back some power to MPs.

Here is a quote from the front row, from the finance minister. He finished a statement by saying that MPs must have the opportunity to truly represent both their conscience and their constituents. I like that statement because it pretty much comes out of one of the policies and principles of this party, which is that we vote as our constituents wish and we vote our conscience.

The idea that we cannot do that is hard for people to believe. Let us look at the alienation in parts of the country where people feel they are not being brought into the mix, into the debate. They feel powerless. There are simple things that could be done to bring back the feeling people need to have, which is that they are part of the process and when they cast their votes it means something.

The fact that the number of people voting in federal elections in Canada is dropping is a crime in itself. Why are people not engaged in the debate? Why do they not feel that their votes count for something? We have seen in the United States how much every vote does count. I think it is a fact that Canadians feel that whatever the average guy on the street says or wants does not make any difference.

Why would anyone elected to serve their constituents not back changes to make the House more relevant? We need free votes in the House of Commons. As members of parliament, we must have the ability to vote as our constituents wish us to. I wish I had more time to speak. There are so many things we could do, but when we are debating Bill C-2, amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, under a motion for closure, it just emphasizes what is wrong with our system.

[Criminal Code, February 7th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (forfeiture of property relating to child pornography crimes).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to reintroduce this bill for the third time. When I introduced it last time I had support from all opposition parties and some support from the government. Hopefully this time the government can be convinced because Canadians across the country, the Canadian Police Association and others have come out in support of it.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code by allowing a court that convicts a person of a child pornography offence to order the forfeiture of anything in relation to which the offence was committed or the possession of which constituted the offence.

We believe it was an oversight in the Criminal Code and section 163.2 needs to be inserted after 163.1, which would allow courts upon conviction to take away the equipment that these people use to produce and distribute child pornography.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member on her maiden speech.

As we look at agriculture and listen to her comments, we see that things are changing rapidly in agriculture. This year alone, some of the input costs have gone through the roof, such as fuel, energy and fertilizer costs. The costs for all of these things are going up and will further adversely affect farm operations.

Could the hon. member, as an active farmer, relate to the House and to Canadians some of the difficulties she and her farm family are facing due to this increase in expenses?

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the member to elaborate a bit more on the agricultural situation. As we know, the grain and oilseed sector in this country is hurting very badly because of low commodity prices. Some believe that those low commodity prices are due to European and U.S. subsidies for farmers. Certainly in Europe something like 56% or 58% of their agricultural dollar is created through subsidies. In the United States, it is about 38%, while in Canada it is somewhere around 9 or 10 cents.

I feel the government has not been aggressive enough as a country at the trade table. I ask the member to elaborate on some of the things that we as a country can do to help lever some of these subsidies down in order to create a better atmosphere for our agricultural community.