Rick Casson

[Criminal Code, November 17th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code to provide for the forfeiture of property relating to child pornography crimes.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to rise today to retable my private member's bill on behalf of the people of Lethbridge and indeed all the children of Canada. I thank those in the House for supporting it and also those in southern Alberta who have sent me notes and cards of appreciation.

My bill is an amendment to the criminal code that will allow the courts to convict a person of an offence under the child pornography provisions of the criminal code to order the forfeiture of anything used in the commission of an offence under this provision.

In the last parliament, this bill received widespread support and garnered praise from many different sectors. It has been mentioned on a continent-wide syndicated radio program. It has been endorsed by the Canadian Police Association and has the support of the Ontario Provincial Police child pornography unit, Project P.

I am hopeful that as I continue to canvass my colleagues in the House that this support may be recognized and reflected.

Before closing, I would like to recognize the heroic efforts of all those law enforcement officers who fight the spread of child pornography and who have been instrumental in developing this bill. I especially recognize Detective Inspector Bob Matthews of the Ontario Provincial Police, Project P, the child pornography unit.

These are turbulent times for those fighting child pornography. So to all those who continue this fight, keep up the good work. We are with you.

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

[Municipal Grants Act, November 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments knowing that his background in municipal government is similar to mine. I was involved in municipal government for 18 years on council in the town I live in of Picture Butte.

The recognition of municipal government and the importance it has in the running of the country has not been recognized fully by the federal government. It is certainly not recognized fully in this legislation.

The payment in lieu of tax system that was put in place leaves a lot of authority and discretion to the minister. That sometimes places municipalities in a very untenable position when it comes to budgeting and working out taxes for their own people.

What more importance does he see municipal governments being given by the federal government? Municipal governments are a creation of the provinces, but in order to bring them into the equation and the discussion, the federal government has to recognize the importance of municipal governments at some time. I would like my colleague to comment further on that aspect of his delivery.

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Prince Albert.

We are here today to debate a motion presented by the Conservative Party. The motion is quite wordy, as we might expect. The first part of the motion states that this government has failed to provide leadership, a long term vision and workable solutions for Canada's fishery and agriculture sectors. The motion could have stopped at “Canada” because the government has failed to provide the leadership and long term vision for all of Canada.

I will address my remarks to the crisis facing our agriculture producers. The mismanagement we have seen on both coasts in the fishery industry, the terrible turmoil that has been created by the Marshall decision and by some of the policies put in place by the government have certainly spilled over. Its lack of determination and will to go on to the world stage to fight the subsidies of the European Union and the protectionism of the Americans has created a huge problem in our agriculture sector right across the country.

There seems to be a genuine lack of understanding on the part of the government concerning this situation. It took us a long time, as the official opposition pounded away at the government, to get it to realize there was a problem and to bring that issue to the House. We did that through the form of a debate a year ago and it continues to be a huge problem.

The premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba came to Ottawa a week or so ago. They do not do that very often. They came to explain to the government that there is a huge crisis on the prairies in agriculture. When they got here they were presented with some new facts from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada saying that its new numbers indicate there is no crisis. Numbers are numbers.

Even if we use these numbers, the projections for the year 2000 for total net income have declined from the 1994-98 average, which was a $760 million return in Saskatchewan, to a projected number of $267 million for July 2000. That is taking the total net income of a province and chopping it to a third. How can we possibly exist in the agricultural industry, in agricultural provinces such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and others, when our net incomes are being cut to a third of what they were?

Getting past numbers, we are talking about the ability of our family farms to sustain their livelihood, to feed their families and to feed Canadians.

There was an article printed in the Minnedosa Tribune in September that gives an idea of what has happened to the business aspect of our family farms. There were comparisons made between 1974 and 1998 which relate everything back to bushels of grain. In 1974 10 bushels of grain would buy 200 gallons of gas. In 1998 155 bushels of grain would buy 200 gallons of gas. To buy a grain truck in 1974 cost 1,400 bushels. In 1998 16,000 bushels of grain bought the same truck. To buy a combine in 1974 cost 6,500 bushels of grain. In 1998 it cost 96,000 bushels. How are we supposed to maintain an agriculture industry with those kinds of figures?

Subsidies in Europe and protectionism in the United States have increased production so that the value of the crops produced is lower. Had we not had bumper crops for many areas in the farm sector this year things would be compounded severely. Thank goodness we had bumper crops for many areas because they will help us get through this terrible dip. However, it will not be a long term solution.

Another aspect of this, brought to my attention by one of my constituents a while ago, is the amount of money that is generated by selling beer. This goes on quite a bit but I just want to get this on the record. One bushel of malt barley sells for $2.15. That is what I sold my barley for this year. I sold it for feed, but it was $2.15 a bushel. That bushel of malt barley makes 333 bottles. A dozen beers sell for $17.50 a case, so 333 bottles would be 27 cases. That means a $485 return from one bushel of barley. At 50 bushels per acre, $24,000 per acre is being returned. On a quarter section of land, that is almost $4 million that has been created from the barley that the farmers get $2.15 a bushel for.

Let us look at taxes. The NDP member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys has put forward a motion that the GST collected on the sale of beer should be donated or directed toward National Hockey League clubs. The GST generated on the beer produced from one bushel is a little over $20 and he suggested that this money should go to National Hockey League teams and to multimillionaire players.

Would it not be nice if some of that money could be directed back to the farmer? Would it not be nice if we could take the $2.15 a bushel return to the farmer, take some of the GST and give it back to the farmer and tell him he will now get $5 a bushel? Instead, the hon. member suggested that it go to NHL hockey players.

The government has put in place the AIDA program. I have more figures. It is really interesting because some of the AIDA programs are being administered by the provinces and some are being administered by the federal government. The programs that are being administered by the provinces have processed and paid on 58% of the claims, whereas the ones administered by the federal government have only paid on 37% of the claims put in.

It is almost a joke that the programs being administered by the provinces are doing a better job of getting the money out to the farmers than the federal government is. Why that should be is beyond me, but I believe it is because of the bureaucracy. The federal government has trouble handling these situations, whereas the provinces are closer to the people and better able to administer and are doing a far better job at getting the money out to where it belongs.

Another issue I would like to put into this equation is the fuel tax that comes out of the prairies every year and goes into the federal treasury and does not come back.

In fiscal year 1998-99 the federal government collected approximately $4.4 billion in transportation fuel taxes. Federal expenditures on road infrastructure in the same year are estimated at $198 million. That is a nickel back for every dollar it collects in fuel tax to put into the roads. There is another area where the government could do something to improve the roads. Maybe it should not take that money if it will not put it into roads. It should leave it in the pockets of the producers.

A number of things need to be done to address the problems in the agriculture sector. The first thing we need to do is to use the federal safety net programs to support Canadian food producers who are struggling and cannot make ends meet on a short term basis as a result of natural hazards or whatever. We need to have a program in place to get people through those times.

We need to have an AIDA program that works, that gets the money out to the people and gets it to where the hurt is. The government has failed to fulfil its promise to get those funds delivered.

We need to look at the root causes of the income crisis. We need to look at safety net programs that work and are in place to take care of these crises.

We need to look at reducing the European and U.S. subsidies. We need to go to the next round of WTO and NAFTA talks, which is happening this month, to fight for our farmers. We need to beat those subsidies down so that we are in a position to help our producers. We cannot as a country support the level of subsidy that these other countries do, so our method of fighting that has to get tougher at the negotiating table.

[Agriculture, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister told Canadians that there should not be a debate about numbers. At the same time the Prime Minister has chosen to hide behind some very slippery numbers.

The farm crisis is not about numbers. We have to get past that. It is about people. It is about families. It is about parents who cannot afford to take care of their children. It is about losing a way of life that has existed in the country for generations.

Why is the government choosing to stand behind some slippery numbers instead of facing the people they are destroying?

[Petitions, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the following petition from residents of Lethbridge.

Decisions by the supreme court, as well as recent pieces of federal legislation, have placed extreme stress on the traditional definition of the family. The petitioners believe that the traditional family is the building block of society and call upon parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the marriage act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

This petition, which contains the names of 29 residents, brings the total number of names that I have received on this issue to over 1,500. It is a significant statement which I hope the government takes into consideration.

[Petitions, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House. The first one concerns child pornography.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to present to the House the following petition which comes from concerned citizens in my riding of Lethbridge.

The signatories are horrified by pornography which depicts children and are astounded by legal determinations that possession of child pornography is not criminal.

They call upon parliament, which has a duty to enact and enforce the criminal code, to take all measures necessary to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that federal law enforcement agencies be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our children.

This petition contains 34 names, mostly from the town of Cardston.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a farmer in my riding sold 161 tonnes of malt barley and received $20,330. That is pathetic to start with. However, he paid $699 for terminal cleaning. He paid $4,546 for freight. He paid $2,026 for handling. He paid $64 for a malt barley levy. He paid $146 for administration. Thirty-seven per cent of his cheque was gone before he got it.

What is the government going to do about reducing input costs and reducing these types of bills that farmers are paying?

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kelowna for his question.

I have the opportunity once in a while to meet with farmers in the morning for a coffee in a local truck stop. There are dryland grain farmers, sugar beet growers, cattle producers, cattle feeders and people with a small land base that get into custom farming. It is a wide range of folks. Of those who completely understand the AIDA program there is not one that does not feel confident that it can help them out. They know they are going to have to go to an accountant. They know they are going to have another $500 or $600 bill.

Simplifying the process would go a long way toward relieving their concerns. Simplifying the process does not require one more dollar, it just requires some common sense.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that way of thinking about the situation is the problem. Let us listen on Thursday and Friday when the premiers and the delegations are here from Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Let us hear what they think needs to be done.

To assume that if restrictive regulations are not in place that eliminate half of the people from applying and that to reduce the regulations will cause abuse, is wrong. People are genuinely hurting. We have to make this program available to them. To approve one application and then to reject the next one for whatever reason is not the answer. To assume abuse is the wrong way to go about it.

Let us find out from the representatives of the farming community exactly what needs to be done. Let us follow their lead. They are the ones that do know.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

It is important that we are debating this motion today. I congratulate the member for Selkirk—Interlake for bringing it forward. The country's agricultural crisis is not being addressed properly. It needs to be discussed and debated. The issues need to be brought forward for all Canadians to consider. It is a simple fact that the agricultural industry in Canada is in crisis. There was no indication in the throne speech from the Prime Minister that he was going to adjust programs to handle this, which has necessitated this motion.

As we debate this today, family farms are being repossessed. Families are being torn from the land they have worked for generations. Families are losing a way of life that is unique to Canada and to their heritage. Their fathers and grandfathers sweated and worked hard for years to develop a way of life. Not only do they lose their farms and their jobs, they lose their homes, their heritage, possibly their pride and their self-esteem.

With all the hard work that went into their farms, things outside their realm are affecting what they do. No matter how hard they work and no matter how sharp they are in their marketing decisions, the fact remains that they cannot sell their product for enough to pay the bills.

Situations have come into the farm communities over which the farmers have had no control. Our farmers now need some help. They need help to compete against the monopolistic wheat board. They need help against European subsidies that drive up production and drive down prices. They need help against U.S. protectionism and subsidies that distort the marketplace. They need help against the natural disasters that have devastated the prairies in this and previous years.

Farmers need help to combat the attacks by people who know nothing about farm life and rural life. Environmentalists have come forward without any thought of what they are doing to our agricultural people, with unfounded allegations that are going to tremendously affect farm life. Farmers need help to fight the input costs that have been driven up, the input costs and taxes that have been created by this government.

The government they have to turn to for help is the same government that has put them in this position. It is a catch 22 situation. Most of their problems have been created by the people they are forced to go to as a last resort.

Farmers would sooner keep everything inside than say that they need help. They would not ask for help unless it was very badly needed. They have to go to the government that has its hands in their pockets right up to the elbow. We are here to find help from one of the sources that is creating the problem.

The east coast fishery is in turmoil. As mentioned earlier by a government member, the TAGS program on the east coast did not do what it was supposed to do. We can look at the dairy and hog industry in Quebec, or the diverse crops and farming in Ontario. The prairies have been devastated by low commodities. We can look at the B.C. forest and fishing industries, or the dairy industry in the Fraser Valley.

The one thing people do not want to hear is “Hi, I am a Liberal. I am from the Liberal government and I am here to help you”. That sends shock waves and fear through the hearts of all producers.

This country has come to a crossroads when it comes to agriculture. As a country, as a government and as a people we have to decide if we are going to put the measures in place to preserve a way of life that has helped to build such a great nation. We have to decide if the family farm and the family farm way of life is worth preserving and we have to decide now because if we do not, it is gone.

There has not been a crisis such as this one since the Great Depression. I did not live through that, having been born after it, but I listened to my folks talk about it. Terrible stress and duress was put on families and the things that happened then, we do not need again. We need to do things quickly. The problem is many faceted in the agriculture industry. We need to react quickly and respond immediately.

We need to have programs in place that will give some long term stability to the industry. We need to look at all costs. Commodity prices are down and revenues are low, but let us look at the other side of the issue.

The government has put a program in place that obviously is not working. It seems to be reluctant to move further. It is trying to match the amount of dollars it took out of the budget to suit the program instead of looking at the damage being done and then having the program match that.

We need a government that will stand up for farmers and a way of life that Canadians are proud of. We need a government that will go to bat for its people and not create bureaucratic nightmares that do not get the job done.

The official opposition has come up with a plan. Our job is to point out the shortcomings of the government but also to bring forward plans and ideas that will help to solve the situation. Five key areas need to be addressed.

The first one is a short term solution. We have to find some solutions immediately. The AIDA program is not working. It needs to be replaced or reformed. The hurt in the agricultural community is not being addressed by the size of this program. We have to look at all angles. Some of the provinces have come up with ideas. The federal government should look at what is going on in Alberta and what has been developed for the short term.

We also need medium and long term solutions. Every time we get in a crisis we try to develop a program to handle it. Let us develop that program when we are in good times to carry us through the bad times so that farmers do not have to come on bended knee to the government for help. Let us get something in place that will work.

Some changes are needed to the safety net programs. The three year average currently used in AIDA needs to be extended. We have heard that from other members. Negative margins need to be considered in the program. The application process needs to be simplified. For every farmer that is receiving aid, one is being rejected for various reasons. Are those people who are being rejected disappearing or is their hurt gone? No, they are still there and need to be addressed.

Crop insurance programs need to be put in place that would address those situations as they arise. The premiums must be affordable so that farmers can get in early and they are there to help.

We need free and fair trade abroad. We have done a good job in reducing subsidies but other countries we deal with have not. For instance, European subsidies on wheat production are 7.7 times higher than Canada's. U.S. subsidies are 4.5 times higher than Canada's. We have to address that situation. We need a government that will put a team together to say to the Europeans and the Americans that something has to be done about reducing the subsidies to bring up the commodity prices.

Trade laws must be modified. There is a situation very close to my home where groundless anti-dumping complaints have been lodged by the United States. We have to change the rules. We have to go to the bargaining table and stand up for our producers.

Many of my colleagues and I had the opportunity to meet with some northern state U.S. senators over the last year. We need to open up that dialogue. It became quite obvious through these talks that we need to know more about each other and we need to educate them on what we are doing in the House.

The government must actively promote value added processing. We should not sell a grain that has not been processed. We should not be selling our other products unless we can add value. We have to put some emphasis on that as that would bring relief to the prairies and add value to the products.

The government needs to open up the marketing choices that farmers have. They should not be restricted. There should not be a monopoly. They should be able to make the choices they want to make in order to improve their bottom line.