Rick Casson

[Speech From The Throne, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I would like the minister to address. I thank him for being here today to address the Speech from the Throne but there are some things that are missing in the speech.

Where is the plan and where is the high level attack that we need as a country to put against the unfair foreign subsidies that are killing our agriculture community? We did not see it in the speech and we did not hear it today.

One thing the minister touched on, which is more to the point, is U.S. protectionism. We have an industry in Canada that exports $2.2 billion worth of beef and cattle a year to the United States and an unjust, baseless tariff that has been placed on cattle going across the border. When the tariff was adjusted the other day from 5.57% to 5.63%, the government considered it a victory. That victory is taking millions of dollars out of the cattle industry in this country every day.

I would like the minister to comment on what he is going to do. The northwest beef producers have been in touch with the government. They have suggested changes that could be made to the health regulations for cattle coming from the United States that would help to solve this problem and that would send a message to the ITC that Canada is willing to work at solving this.

Would the minister comment on exactly what his plans are and when this issue will be solved?

[Petitions, October 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to a rush on petitions today.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition which comes from concerned citizens in my riding of Lethbridge. It contains 35 signatures.

The petitioners call upon parliament to support the immediate initiation and conclusion by 2000 of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

[Agriculture, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we support that as well.

This week, as most Canadians celebrated Thanksgiving Day, Canadian farmers had little to celebrate. Devastated by conditions beyond their control, farmers have been hit by the worst farm income crisis in recent memory and they have been abandoned by this government.

This year thanksgiving did not make it to the farm. What did make it to the farm were record high input costs, record low commodity prices, increasing U.S. protectionism resulting in unjust tariffs against Canadian producers, bankruptcies that are erasing the next generation of family farms, and misguided and inadequate Liberal government contracts.

It is time to reform aid programs to deliver assistance to farmers in need. It is time to give farmers the freedom to market their products as they choose. It is time for a government that will stand up for the farmers at the international trade table.

Canadian farmers need help and they need it now. Farmers, and indeed all Canadians, need and deserve a government that will stand up for them and not this timid, tired government they have now.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight something that was not mentioned in the member's presentation or in the throne speech and that is that there was very little about agriculture and what help needs to be given to that area.

What was mentioned in the throne speech were two things that could very much threaten agriculture and add more burden to our farmers. One was to implement the Kyoto protocol, the proposed carbon tax and the increased input costs that would result for farmers. The other was endangered species protection legislation, something everybody believes we should have, but the approach the new environment minister has taken is a heavy handed approach that will not work and does not include the co-operation of all people.

I would like the member to comment on those two aspects that could seriously further harm the agriculture sector in this country.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go to another part of the member's presentation.

I know how passionately the member feels about being a member of the House of Commons and how much pride he has in being here. I would like him to comment on how feels about the ability to stand in this place today and air this issue on all sides. How important is that to the debate that will take place across the land?

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for his comments and the delivery of his thoughts on this issue. We are coming to the end of the debate. It was interesting to see the support coming forward from almost all sides of the House.

It has also been interesting to see that some people in the House have tried to turn this into something that it is not. This is strictly, as the motion says, to reaffirm the definition of marriage and to debate it in the House to let Canadians know how parliamentarians feel about this.

I have been fortunate. I was married in 1967 and I am still married to the same person. I am fortunate, but possibly she is not so fortunate, but we have managed to stay together all these years.

The commitment that is made to marriage goes beyond trying to seek out a partner to get as many benefits as one can from the government. It is what we are talking about today. It is the basis for strong families.

I would like the member to comment on the aspect of families and society and how the definition of marriage is the basis for all that and what strong families can mean to a better Canada.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

That's wrong.

The fact is that Canadian people are concerned. There is no other issue on which I have received this many phone calls from people in my riding.

It is important to Canadians that this be discussed and that parliament reaffirm that the definition of marriage as it exists is the one we will stand by.

[Supply, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to about 95% of not a bad presentation and then the last 5% got a little crazy, I think.

I have received over 100 phone calls in my constituency office in the last two days in support of this motion and in support of what we are doing today.

People are concerned about this because of the confusion that has been created by recent rulings. It is not clear to people where parliament stands on this issue and for the member to say it is irresponsible for us to bring the issue to this place is not acceptable.

[Petitions, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to table the following petition which comes from the constituents of my beautiful riding of Lethbridge.

The petitioners accuse parliament and the Government of Canada of blindly following a careless and dangerous U.S.-NATO policy of bombing the sovereign nation of Yugoslavia. They call upon parliament and the Government of Canada to disengage from such policy and bring our troops home.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. We keep hearing about a lobby that was put forward by industry, but is it not true that members of the committee received letters from all sides on this issue and not just the one? In fact, people passed along their views from all areas of society. I know that I received those comments. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.