Rick Casson

[The Senate, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in 1989 Albertans proudly chose Stan Waters as their first elected senator in Canadian history. In Edmonton last week Albertans, their provincial government as well as their federal government representatives reaffirmed their overwhelming support for an elected Senate, the first step toward a triple E Senate, elected, equal and effective.

The Prime Minister is on record saying: “I pledge to work for a Senate that is elected. As Prime Minister I can take steps to make it happen”.

Talk is cheap but unfortunately an unaccountable, out of control Senate is not cheap. Canadians can ill afford the status quo of unaccountability and absenteeism.

I urge the Prime Minister to heed the democratic will of the people to end backscratching patronage appointments to the Senate and to make good on his pledge for an elected Senate, or is the pledge for an elected Senate just one more in a long line of broken promises?

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, while I have been listening to the people opposite congratulate themselves and the Minister of Finance, calling this a historic budget, there are a few things that are historic. We have historic high taxes. We have historic high unemployment rates for youth. We have a historic amount of families living on the edge of poverty.

I remind the member that the people who are to be congratulated here are the people of Canada, the long suffering taxpayers of Canada who have balanced this budget. It was not the Minister of Finance or that government, it was the people of Canada. I just want to keep reminding him of that.

They keep bringing up the fact that we would, as an opposition, destroy social programs. I would like this member to explain to me how, by not addressing the debt and the fact that some 30 some cents of every dollar that comes to Ottawa goes to service that debt, the projections in the Liberal budget for the next two years do not reduce that debt by $1. What is that doing to social programs in this country? If that were reduced could we not have more money for social programs? Could we not make it truly a historic budget? I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure everybody would have preferred to have my hon. colleague carry on.

I will start off by recognizing the member for Wetaskiwin who worked so hard for our party on this bill and helped us prepare for today.

Bill C-19 has been a topic of discussion certainly in my constituency. I come from a constituency that is farming intensive, livestock, grain farms, dry land irrigations, especially crops. It has a city with manufacturing and service industries. There is some concern with this bill and some of its the flaws. The unfair balance of it has been pointed out to me by constituents and others. I will address my comments to them.

The member for Elk Island when he spoke of working for a dollar reminded me of the gentleman who was looking for a job and the boss told him he would pay him for what he was worth. He immediately turned and left. When the boss asked him where he was going, he said “I cannot live on that”. But I am sure that was not my friend from Elk Island.

We are trying to build up Canada and to get into more and more trade with the world. Across the prairies we are looking at secondary processing of a lot of products. We have to get those products to market, via the railways, trucking or whatever it takes to do that. In order for us to become a reliable source of many of these products, we have to gain a reputation of being able to meet our commitments. In order to meet our commitments we have to deliver in a timely fashion.

It was a year ago this winter when we saw the grain not being able to get market, the problems that created and the cost that was incurred by farmers across the prairies and in my constituency. It is important that we have a method in place to make sure that what is produced, what is manufactured can get to the markets. We not only have to address the west coast ports, but a lot of things can happen to a product from the time it leaves the plant or the farm gate until it gets to that point. Some of those aspects are missing in this bill. The government should have another look at that and address some of those issues.

On the definition of grain, I had a letter from an organization in the west that deals with dehydrated alfalfa. They pointed out to me that in this bill the grain is the product, and I will read it “the services they normally provide to ensure the tie-up, let-go and loading of grain vessels at licensed terminal and transfer elevators and the movement of the grain vessels in and out of a port”. They are concerned with what that means. Does it mean grain or does it mean other products? They are really concerned that their dehydrated alfalfa products are not included. They would like to see that done.

The whole idea that the government has control over grain was debated last week during the debate on Bill C-4. In that legislation the government markets the farmers' grain for them and not necessarily for the best prices. That was a concern and it continues today with this bill.

The record of tie-ups that have happened in the shipping industry goes on and on. In February 1994 there was a tie-up for two weeks. A year later Parliament had to bring an end to another dispute. Two weeks after that, Parliament passed another bill to end another dispute.

The Reform Party is proposing final offer selection arbitration as a method to keep everybody working, to do the same thing that these work disruptions have done but to do it in a way in that everybody can benefit. If we are truly to become a mover and supplier to the world of products that are produced right across Canada, we are going to have to do this. We cannot have these disruptions and our customers finding out that we have the product but we cannot deliver it to them. That just will not work.

We see trade missions going all over the world. The chamber of commerce from the city of Lethbridge was in Chile and elsewhere promoting products. If we are going to have these people show initiative and entrepreneurship to move forward in this world, we have to enable them to get their product delivered.

As I mentioned earlier, we are not only talking about grain here. We are talking about all products. I hope the government will take this to heart and will have another look to realize that some of these things are missing.

The cost of disruptions in shipments has been tried to be quantified many times. We are looking at indirect costs of up to $500 million in grain sales alone in 1994. It is wrong to take $500 million out of the economy of this country. We are not convinced that this bill will address all of those problems and we hope the government will take another look at it.

Another aspect of the bill that has brought a lot of attention today is the access to off site workers' records. We all have a strong opinion that what is ours is ours and nobody should have the right to access information about us unless we allow it. To have this in part of the bill goes against everything Canadians believe in. One has the right to keep one's information to oneself.

With all of these things said and the fact that certification can take place without a majority is undemocratic. There are a lot of things that need to be done. The government has fallen quite short in providing us with a piece of legislation that will work for us.

We hope that the government will take this bill back, have another look at it and bring it back in a better fashion.

[Supply, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. They were well intended and well taken.

This subject has raised a lot of concern back home. It goes back to the general election campaign. People were asking questions about the MAI then and they are still asking the same questions.

Will the government hold public hearings across Canada so that everyday Canadian citizens will have a chance to appear before a committee on all aspects of the MAI? I know the member has provided some ideas. For example people can use the Internet. Some of the people I have talked to have said that they have had trouble finding this information on the Internet. Will the government go across Canada with a full public debate?

Another question that comes up quite often is the concern about preserving our Canadian culture. The minister mentioned that he is looking for a country specific reservation on culture. However there remain issues such as standstill and rollback clauses. If it is just a country specific reservation on culture, is it still allowed to be rolled back? Should we not be looking for a general exemption on culture?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join my colleagues in addressing Bill C-4, particularly Group No. 4 of the amendments.

The Canadian Wheat Board is of great significance in my constituency. In and around Lethbridge and indeed right across the prairies people deal with the wheat board on a daily basis.

The wheat board and this government somewhere along the line have lost touch. The board seems to have forgotten to whom it is accountable and whose interests it was originally destined to serve.

A true producer mandate and true accountability can be returned to the Canadian Wheat Board, if it can be returned, and a great deal of division among producers can be alleviated. They can resume their primary responsibilities to supply Canadians and many other citizens of the world with food to feed their families while making a decent living for their own families.

There are grain farmers who want to see the Canadian Wheat Board dismantled completely because they are so fed up with the lack of accountability to producers and a lack of options. We are almost at an impasse. Either this minister continues to ignore the demands of producers while many grain farmers are inappropriately fined and jailed or he takes this sorry excuse of a bill back to the drawing board, start agreeing to the important amendments presented by my colleagues and start listening to the full scope of recommendations by producers and their western grain marketing panel.

Producers want a fully elected board. Why does the government continue to ignore the wishes of the majority of farmers? The Liberal government wants to continue to interfere with democracy by opting for a voting system that includes five government appointed directors. Why is the government afraid to give in to a completely democratic and fully elected wheat board? The time has come for the government to relinquish its monopoly on grain marketing. A fully effective board of directors is a fully elected board of directors, if the voice of farmers is truly to be heard. With 5 appointed members and 10 elected members, only 30% of those elected can sway the majority on a board set up like this.

The government has chosen to cherry pick through the recommendations of the western grain marketing panel, continuing to focus on the recommendations which fit its agenda and ignoring the recommendations which fit producer needs. This Liberal government refuses to relinquish its strong arm tactics in grain marketing. The time is long overdue for government to remove its political interference in the marketing of grain and start giving producers the options they have long requested.

In Bill C-4 the government has once again failed to prove to producers that it is in the grain marketing business for the benefit of producers. The time is long overdue for grain marketing to be treated with common sense, using sound marketing principles, in order to bring maximum returns to producers for their products. Monopolies in other industries are rarely tolerated, so why are western grain producers the exception to the rule? This proves the government and this minister are out of touch with western Canada and its grain producers.

The majority of producer groups opposed to Bill C-4 have been working hard and steadily since the House last debated this legislation. We have all attended meetings over the December-January break and overwhelmingly people want this bill taken back and reworked. They have continued to pressure the minister to take opposition amendments seriously. There are many of these producer groups, Canadian canola growers, Manitoba canola growers, flax growers, oat producers, Alberta winter wheat, western barley growers, and the list goes on an on.

According to a group called the committee to end secrecy at the Canadian Wheat Board, and this should be an interest to all taxpayers of Canada, not just farmers and producers, Canadian taxpayers hold a $7 billion liability through the Canadian Wheat Board and have paid millions of dollars on behalf of foreign grain purchases in order to hold this liability to its current level. Although the Canadian Wheat Board does produce an annual report which provides a limited amount of information, its exemption from the federal Access to Information Act means taxpayers and farmers are unable to independently evaluate its operations and performance. When questioned by producers to validate these claims, we cannot because the information is kept secret.

A detailed synopsis of the $7 billion liability and the transactions that led to this debt is also being requested. The outstanding amount owed is equal to $1000 for every average family in Canada.

The government has not shown producers that it will be responsible to them through a completely producer elected board. Instead it insists on appointing the key members of the board. Speaking to Group No. 4, Motion No. 7, the act should be amended so as to render the board fully elected in order to comply with the wishes of the majority of farmers. Subsequently, if the aforementioned amendment were adopted, section 3.024 would be deleted since it would not be necessary to specify equal powers between elected and non-elected directors.

On Motion No. 8 it is imperative that if the government refuses to support a fully elected board that quorum for board of directors meetings require two elected directors for every one government appointed director.

The necessity of such a motion is self-evident. However, if the government could simply accept the democratic principle behind a fully elected board, we could find a resolution that would better serve the interests of our producers.

In addressing Group No. 4 amendments, Motions Nos. 9, 14, 15 and 17, the importance of the hiring, firing and control of a president must be left in the hands of an elected board. Once again, the issue of democracy should supersede sweeping ministerial powers.

If the government could look at the logistics of such an amendment, its sense of fairness and justice would inevitably lead it to conclude that the wheat board president would be more accountable to producers if he or she were directed by the farmer elected board of directors instead of being held to the whim of a minister who cannot possibly be more in tune with the best interests of producers than producers themselves. To reach any other conclusion is insulting to producers.

Logically speaking, who is the closest in touch with what producers need, an elected board of directors subject to the approval of their peers or a far removed minister in Ottawa who in all honesty has a scope of responsibility that exceeds and often conflicts with the interests of producers? Leave the daily workings of a grain marketing board to those in the business.

Motion No. 10 of today's amendments necessitates support because multi-generation farming operations are the cornerstone of farming communities across this great country. This is an issue of respect and fairness. The votes of producers who rely exclusively on farming for their livelihood and whose livelihood depends on how the Canadian Wheat Board markets its grain must have more weight than producers who do not.

Getting back to the issue of ministerial involvement versus democratic participation, I now refer to Motions Nos. 11 and 12. In the process of electing directors to the wheat board, any possibility of ministerial heavy handedness should be avoided at all costs.

On January 21, 1998 the minister showed his contempt for democracy in this House of Commons by holding a meeting in Regina to discuss the rules for the election of directors to the Canadian Wheat Board board of directors as proposed in Bill C-4. This shows a disregard for Parliament, as the bill is still being debated, which includes amendments that would determine the number of directors to be elected.

A number of the groups invited to the Regina meeting walked out on the minister when he refused to discuss amendments to Bill C-4, and there were farmers outside protesting.

The importance of Motion No. 16 cannot be ignored. Motion No. 16 is the guiding principle of responsibility in business dealings. The Liberal government will be hard pressed to deny the ethical importance of Motions Nos. 16 and 19. Making the wheat board a signatory to the international code of ethics for Canadian businesses and requiring the directors and officers of the CWB to be guided by the duty of care should be applauded by all members of this House.

I am confident that all my colleagues, regardless of political affiliation, will support amendments that call for ethical, social and environmentally responsible business practices. Any member who votes against such righteous amendments will have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents.

To conclude, the Liberal government took the time and went through considerable effort in setting up a panel to make recommendations in producing Bill C-4. Why does it not put to rest the suspicions of producers and the divisive aspects of the Canadian Wheat Board?

Rural families of Canada, families on both sides of this issue, deserve more. They deserve more than this incomplete effort known as Bill C-4. In order to safeguard the interests of Canadian producers, I recommend that all amendments that put democracy ahead of sweeping ministerial powers and hold the wheat board to a code of ethical, social and environmentally responsible business practices be supported.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, there are lots of areas where we could spend. There are lots of areas where we could save money. In one place we could have had $500 billion more if we had not had to pay the penalty on cancelling a bunch of helicopters that we ended up buying anyway. We could have saved $260 million on the bungled Pearson airport deal. We could have saved $3.4 million on Mulroney's airbus payout. These are but some of the places we will look to find this money. There is $1.1 billion in regional development savings. We could look at eliminating that.

We are looking at the Department of Canadian Heritage. We are looking at the department of Indian affairs. We hear in this House every day of the mismanagement that happens there. There is money there that could be realized. We are looking at cutting the employment insurance rates by 21%. These are just a few of the areas we would look at and a few of the places where we believe money could be found.

Every department, every office in this government should be looked at and decided if it is still needed and if there is room in that office for some cuts.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. A couple of the areas that we must address, and I think I mentioned them earlier, are health care and education. We heard today in the House that education tuition is too high. Student debt has increased substantially in this country. We see it daily at home that the students are coming to us and saying that they cannot afford to pay higher tuition. There has to be some help.

We looked at health and we looked at the way education is funded, and these are a couple of places where we would like to spend some money.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, servicing the debt, $48 billion a year, affects every aspect of government. The fact that that kind of money has to go to strictly service the debt and cannot be used for social programs, cannot be used for education, cannot be used for health programs is what is wrong with this country. If we can get the debt paid down and free up some of the interest payments to it and slowly work away at it, we can free up funds to take care of the problems that we discuss in this House every day. Some of the debt is held on short term, high interest rates, so we have got to get rid of that first.

I see people in my constituency office on a daily basis who are struggling to get by, and they are struggling for one reason, the tax load is too high. There are two parents working, one working just to pay the taxes, so that they can try to make a living and try to take care of their children.

This has to be changed. We have to reduce the debt. We have to free up more funds. We have to reduce taxes so families in this country can enjoy the kind of life they deserve.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, having your presentation interrupted by question period is somewhat like having a couple of rounds of WWF during a tennis match, but I will try to carry on.

Large debt burdens also reduce the levels of job creating and investment in plants, machinery and equipment. The massive iceberg of a debt that government seemingly refuses to address has exposed Canadians to higher taxes, making investors nervous.

This government owes it to Canadians to change the course of financial administration in this country and to heed the warning calls that have been sounded.

Young generations of Canadians have recently realized that they cannot trust the government to pay back their CPP contributions when they retire in the next millennium.

The government's financial record is simply atrocious. For years and years government was entrusted with safeguarding and wisely investing the Canada pension plan funds. The track record is very embarrassing. The government now owes almost $4 billion to the CPP and a whopping $114 billion to public sector pension plans.

Again, think of the government as the CEO of our nation. In the private sector, its track record would never be tolerated. Shareholders would be hollering from the rooftops for a change. Canadians need to hold their government to the same degree of competence. Shareholders in a company would not be approving spending increases if the company still carried a multibillion dollar debt load.

To conclude, I come back to my original analogy of the Titanic government approaching the ever increasing iceberg debt. Knowing now how the plotted course of action will hurt our nation's economy, it would be indignant of this government to keep spending full steam ahead, leaving already overburdened Canadians to pick up the pieces and carry the worry of such a huge debt on their backs.

The responsible thing to do is to change our course of action. Ignoring the debt will be as irresponsible as ignoring the warnings of the looming iceberg was to the Titanic .

I urge the government to stop playing Russian roulette with our nation's finances.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to talk fast. It is atrocious to think about the last 30 years of foolish spending sprees by the Liberals and Tories, 30 years of the financial burden of Canadian taxpayers being made heavier.

Perhaps the problems lie with the lack of accountability. When Canadians elect a government they vote under the assumption that government will act in their best interest.

Unfortunately, where our pocket books have been concerned, this has not been the case. Foolish spending has left us buried in debt. Today's opposition motion condemns this and any government that imperils our economic and social security.

Think of this motion as an insurance policy against reckless endangerment of our hard earned tax dollars. Amidst all this government hoopla is the attempt to boast of eliminating a deficit it created, Canadians deserve the assurance that governments be held accountable for such absurd spending practices.

If the CEO of a major corporation does not act in the best interests of a company and its shareholders, the board of directors will turf that CEO as a sign of non-confidence in his performance.

Do the citizens of Canada not deserve the same degree of accountability? Let us face it. The stakes are even higher here. We are talking about the finances not of one company but of an entire nation.

It is ridiculous to applaud a government for eliminating a deficit not only that it is responsible for, but this government did not even reduce the deficit responsibly.

How did it manage to eliminate its deficit? By reducing health and education transfers to the provinces. Thanks to the federal cuts, provinces felt the pinch. Hospitals closed, school programs were cut, payroll taxes were up and the list goes on.

The Liberals have addressed the deficit by raising Canadians' taxes 37 times. Now the Liberals have announced 31 new spending programs that would take spending levels higher than they have ever been, leaving Canadians with the highest income taxes in the industrial world.

All this led to even fewer dollars in the pockets of Canadians. We are supposed to thank this government for getting rid of a deficit? Let me take a moment to use an analogy of the nation's financial situation.

Let us consider the government as the Titanic of financial coffers. Consider now the deficit as the part of the iceberg situated above the water surface. If members know anything of the formation of an iceberg, they know that the portion of the iceberg they see above the water is minuscule to the vast amount that is hidden beneath the water.

If the deficit represents a small portion of the iceberg above the water, what will we call the massive unseen structure? That is our debt.

For the government to lick its chops in anticipation of blowing our surplus, I urge it to remember that the average family's share of the federal debt in Canada is now approaching $80,000, a mortgage every family has.

Our nation's massive debt has approached the $600 billion mark and the government is claiming an economic victory. This is an affront to all Canadians.

The error of foolish Tory and Grit spending must come to an end immediately. There is only one reason why this motion may not pass today. If we could just for one moment put political patronage, broken promises and partisan tactics aside and consider the responsibility each and every one of us in this room has to our constituents, the bottom line remains the same.

We each have a serious obligation to safeguard the economic and social security of Canadians. The time has come for governments to put an end to the last 30 years of Liberal and Tory financial mismanagement.

The legacy of massive overspending deficits, debt and tax increases must end. Any government that claims economic victory is just like the Titanic heading for disaster. Full steam ahead on spending now is a collision course with economic mayhem.

Large debt burdens force interest rates higher and increase the cost of mortgages, carrying car loans, household appliances and credit card balances.