Rick Casson

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I want to add my congratulations to the members of the Reform Party justice team, particularly the member for Langley—Abbotsford and the member for Surrey North who worked so hard on this issue. I know the member for Langley—Abbotsford has promoted the victims bill of rights for a long time. It is nice to see that it has come but it is unfortunate it has taken so long for the government to act.

The member has talked at length about the victims who have come in contact with him. One issue is the definition of a victim. It is there in this bill and it is defined. I would like the member's comments and thoughts on what the definition of victim should be.

[Nuclear Waste, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that they will be burning this stuff in Canada. The committee has listened to expert witnesses and concerned Canadians. It unanimously rejected the test burn idea, but the government is going ahead with it.

This is the start of a small test of a large problem. Will Canada become the nuclear waste dump of the world?

[Nuclear Waste, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of what the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to say earlier, it has been reported that the cabinet has approved the test burning of plutonium from U.S. warheads in Canada's reactors.

If this is true, the decision directly contravenes an all-party committee that specifically ruled out such a test burn.

What part of no does the minister not understand?

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, March 22nd, 1999]

With respect to the transfer payments as outlined in the 1998-99 Estimates (Part III), could the Minister of Environment provide details as to the recipients, use of, or any further details concerning the monies distributed to date under Grants and Contributions, specifically: (a) the contribution to the Province of British Columbia and environmental non-government organizations (ENGO's)—Wildlife Strategy, Pacific Coast Joint Venture of $325,000; (b) the contribution to Building International Partnership of $1,009,423; and (c) the contributions made under Minister's Authority of $393,500?

Return tabled.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have three questions on the order paper, Question No. 166 and Question No. 167, which have been in for 120 days. Question No. 183 has been in for 100 days today. They deal with asking the government for information on the clean-up of the contaminated DEW line site in northern Canada and also deal with distribution of funds by the environment minister.

I would like these questions answered. I do not know why it has been taking so long.

[Criminal Code, March 18th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-489, an act to amend the Criminal Code (forfeiture).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to introduce my first private member's bill on behalf of the citizens of Lethbridge and indeed of the children of Canada.

My bill is an amendment to the Criminal Code that would allow courts that 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.

This amendment, once passed, would give courts and law enforcement officials one more tool to use in their fight against child pornography.

It is my hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House will join with me in supporting the bill. The bill gives courts the same authority to deal with child pornographers that they have under 55 other federal statutes, giving children protection that is long overdue.

I want to close by recognizing the efforts of our law enforcement officials who fight the spread of child pornography and who have been instrumental in developing the bill. I would especially like to recognize Detective Inspector Robert Matthews of the Ontario Provincial Police, Project P, the OPP Child Pornography Unit, and to all those who continue the fight against child pornography I say keep up the good work.

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

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening with some interest to the member for Vancouver—Kingsway. She mentions how fair the tax system is, how wonderful it is and how it treats everybody in Canada the same, but we have to ask the Liberal member some questions.

Why are Canadians paying $2,020 more in federal taxes today than they did in 1993? Why over the last decade do more families have both parents working? In 57% of all families both parents work now and in 1976 only 34% worked. Why is that if the tax system is so fair?

I would like to take this member back to an October 8, 1998 finance committee hearing in Calgary where Kids First were appearing. The member for Calgary Southeast was there to witness the outrage that these people felt when the member stood and said “Most women can combine career and family life. A lot of times people just take the easy way out”.

Is this member telling Canadians that people who stay at home to take care of their kids are taking the easy way out? Is that what she meant to say?

[Petitions, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present the following petitions which come from concerned citizens in my riding of Lethbridge, Alberta.

The petitioners call upon parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act in order to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into by a single male and a single female. It is my pleasure to support them.

[Endangered Species, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is expected that this spring the environment minister will finally, after many delays, be introducing legislation that will give our endangered species the protection they so desperately need. Before the minister tables this legislation I want to make one thing crystal clear so she does not make the same mistakes that her predecessors made.

Co-operation, not confrontation, is what will ensure the prosperity of our threatened wildlife.

This government must work together with provinces and landowners. It must recognize the responsible stewardship practices of landowners and create an environment where these practices are rewarded. It must respect private property rights and provide fair compensation for those landowners affected by endangered species recovery plans.

Wildlife is not protected by top-down command and control government regulations. Wildlife is protected when the government works with landowners through voluntary incentive-based legislation. It is protected when all members of society work together. It is time for our endangered species to be given the kind of co-operation and protection they deserve.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has to be done before there is any credibility is to take care of expenses. This government has refused to cap its expenses. The finance minister, the tax minister every year, comes up with more places to spend the money. The Liberals do not want a surplus Canadians can look at.

Let us not talk about what we think. Let us talk about the Canadian Bond Rating Service report which notes:

—that budget 1999 includes a greater resource allocation towards expenditure priorities with fewer tax and debt reduction incentives. In fact, the government has made no direct or specific commitment towards debt reduction other than to allocate its residual surplus after spending goals have been met.

There is no plan. The debt will continue.