Carol Skelton

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act. As a mother living on a family farm and who has lost two sons from that farm, I speak passionately about the Farm Credit Corporation and the institution that it is in western Canada and for farmers.

It provides services that are not available through other more traditional financial institutions. Farmers have come to rely upon the Farm Credit Corporation. The bill would expand the focus of the Farm Credit Corporation past its original purpose of providing financial services only to family farms and the businesses that are directly related to primary production.

The lending role of the Farm Credit Corporation would be expanded to allow the corporation to lend to other businesses that are not necessarily directed or involved in primary agriculture production and do not necessarily have farmers as major shareholders. It raises some serious issues with respect to government getting involved in areas where the private sector already operates.

By extending the lending abilities of the Farm Credit Corporation beyond primary production, the bill would bring the Farm Credit Corporation into direct competition with private lending institutions and would overlap with other government institutions such as the Business Development Bank of Canada.

The problem with the proposal is that it lacks clear definition. It is not stated clearly. It raises more questions than it answers. For example, if the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool needed an infusion of cash, would the provision allow the Farm Credit Corporation to become a major lender to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool? That is of great concern to a lot of people. The Canadian Alliance has always opposed government expansion into areas already competently served by the private sector.

Bill C-25 would formalize the ability of the Farm Credit Corporation to own and lease land. The Farm Credit Corporation has stated that it is not the intent of the amendment. It claims the leasing provisions would be for equipment. However it is not made clear in the legislation.

It is not appropriate for the federal government to be the owner of farmland. Canadian farmers are supposed to own farmland. Allowing the Farm Credit Corporation to permanently hold and lease land could result in the government holding and influencing the market value of farmland. We have seen that lately in our own district.

Allowing the Farm Credit Corporation to permanently hold and lease land may also provide the corporation with an incentive not to pursue every possible means to allow farmers to stay on the land if they are experiencing financial difficulty. In short, the bill could provide Farm Credit Corporation with an incentive to prematurely foreclose on farmers.

Even under the current legislation the Farm Credit Corporation has become a significant landowner. In 2000 the Farm Credit Corporation owned over 360,000 acres in Canada. Ninety-five per cent of that land is held in Saskatchewan, the province that has been the hardest hit by the farm income crisis. That is scary. The last thing Saskatchewan needs is for the federal government, through the Farm Credit Corporation, to start distorting the market value of farmland.

While it is impossible for the Farm Credit Corporation to avoid holding land for short periods of time, the act should explicitly state that the Farm Credit Corporation should divest itself of any holdings as quickly as possible. My party hopes to convince the government to bring forward amendments to the bill to clarify this situation.

Bill C-25 would extend the lending ability of the Farm Credit Corporation into the area of equity financing. It would be done by allowing the Farm Credit Corporation to hold non-fixed assets such as cattle as collateral for loans. This change would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to provide farm financing to primary producers who are not eligible under the current legislation. In many cases it would provide financing that would not be available from private lenders. It is a positive change to legislation of which my colleagues and I are supportive, provided financing is limited to operations involving primary producers.

A point not directly addressed by the legislation is the issue of fairness. In many cases the Farm Credit Corporation treats supply managed sectors differently than it does sectors not governed by supply management. This is something that my party is opposed to. It would be far better for the Farm Credit Corporation to treat equally all producers, regardless of which sector they may be a part.

Once again we have a situation where the Liberals have introduced provisions that we object to for sound reasons coupled with reasons we support. Extending the equity financing capability of the Farm Credit Corporation to non-fixed assets like livestock is certainly a positive move and one which we support. However, if we put that up against extending the ability of the Farm Credit Corporation to lease and hold land and to lend beyond primary producers we have a stalemate.

As a result, the Canadian Alliance has decided to oppose the legislation unless significant amendments are made to clarify the problems I have identified.

[Petitions, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to enter into the records of the House of Commons a petition from my constituents concerning the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom.

The petitioners are asking that Canada restrict travel to the United Kingdom except for business or diplomatic purposes.

[Unknown Soldier, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to welcome and pay tribute to Leah McDonald from Elrose, Saskatchewan. Leah is here with her twin sister Abbie, her mother Joan, and her grandparents Helen and Leonard Kutz. I send greetings to her dad Michael, her sister Lorell and brother Joel back in Elrose.

Leah is a 17 year old, grade 12 honour student who recently won the “Who is the Unknown Soldier Writing Contest” sponsored by Veterans Affairs Canada in the prairie region. The contest was held to inspire students to reflect on Canada's wartime past and present and on the ultimate sacrifice made by tens of thousands of our nation's finest.

Leah's poem is a touching reflection on Canada's war dead and is a beautiful tribute to the Tomb of the Unknown Solider just down the street in the nation's capital. It is wonderful to see that our youth are continuing our great tradition of honouring those who served and died for Canada.

On behalf of all my colleagues in the House I offer congratulations and, more important, thanks to Leah for her inspiring work and her tribute to Canadians who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House of Commons in the debate on the third reading of Bill C-2 in regard to the government's 1996 reforms to the EI system.

Before I speak to the content of the bill, I just want to take a moment to thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee to tell us what their concerns were. Most of them felt that the legislation is inadequate, that at best it is tinkering.

It would seem that we at least have the government's attention, because for the next number of weeks the standing committee on human resources development will be taking a broader look at labour market issues, with specific attention to be given to the EI system. This is clearly necessary given the depth of concerns raised by all sides during our study of Bill C-2.

Everyone agreed that what was required was a thorough review of the system with a view to how it could be improved. Whether that is what we end up with at the end of the day remains to be seen, but at least we have been given the opportunity to try. All the witnesses are to be congratulated for helping us convince the government to allow greater study of the EI bill.

Before the last election Bill C-2 was known as Bill C-44, which died on the order paper. Bill C-2 is designed largely just to tinker with a few of the changes made to EI in 1996. Some people have suggested it may even have been part of the government's re-election strategy, but perhaps I will say more on that later.

The EI act and the EI system have become so convoluted and confusing that what is really required is an entirely new act. All employers and employees need to be treated fairly and equally and the role and limits of employment insurance in Canada need to be clearly defined by law.

The Liberal misuse of EI is really a betrayal of workers in traditional seasonal employment. Current EI rules do not encourage education, training and skills development. The key to reducing dependence on EI in areas of traditionally seasonal employment depends on this. We absolutely must reform the system to provide heavy emphasis on skills development, education and training in order to break the cycle of dependence on the EI system.

It is incumbent on the government to develop a strategy for workers in traditionally seasonal employment, which to a large extent is a rural Canadian issue. The Canadian Alliance is more than ready to assist in this regard.

One of the provisions of the 1996 legislation that Bill C-2 seeks to remedy is the so-called intensity rule. The intensity rule was introduced to discourage repeat use of EI by gradually reducing benefits from 55% to 50% over time.

The minister has stated that the intensity rule had the unintended consequence of being punitive. Indeed, some industries have seen their entire workforce subject to the maximum reduction of benefits. Workers in some industries, like the fishery, point out that they are not seasonal workers.

The provisions of the clawback system are quite complex and convoluted. By exempting from the clawback individuals who have collected one week or less of EI in the past 10 years, the main point of the clause is to eliminate the graduated schedule of high repayment rates for frequent claimants. With Bill C-2, an individual who has collected two weeks of EI in the past 10 years will be subject to the same 30% clawback as an individual who has collected 200 weeks of benefits.

What of the worker in the high tech sector who finds himself or herself downsized and out the door, only to be gainfully employed again in a few weeks? If this happens twice in an eight year to ten year period, is that person a frequent user?

We already know that we will be taking a look at the larger EI issue in committee in the coming days and weeks. Whether the government takes any notice of our work remains to be seen.

My colleague and I will be advocating some of the things I spoke of earlier. We will be advocating skills development, training and education, and education for young people in communities that traditionally rely on seasonal employment. We must provide those young people with alternatives to seasonal employment or, at the very least, something to fall back on during the off season. We must also provide training and skills development for individuals currently working in areas with traditionally seasonal employment. We must provide these individuals with job skills for the workplace of the 21st century.

Another thing came up during committee testimony. Apprentices should be paid allowances during the two week waiting period while taking courses. Not only would this help employees, but it would help employers too.

Finally, the government must undertake a long term commitment to infrastructure spending. The one area where the Liberals should be spending money is the one area where they have not. A strong transportation infrastructure will allow regions that rely on traditionally seasonal employment to attract more investment and greater opportunities.

The bill as it stands is a smoke screen at best. It touches the edge of the reforms passed in the House in 1996, but fails to recognize what is really required: an overhaul of the system.

The committee recognizes the need to do more and will hopefully come up with a solid set of recommendations for the minister. We can only wait to see if that will translate into legislation that is actually meaningful and productive for the millions of employers and employees in Canada.

[Petitions, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to put forward a petition from constituents in my riding about Richardson's ground squirrels, commonly known as gophers.

In Saskatchewan we have two very popular gophers named Gainer and Leonard that are mascots of the Saskatchewan Roughriders and are not included in this petition.

We are asking Health Canada to reintroduce the strychnine poison which was used for gopher control a few years ago. We ask Health Canada to bring it back so that damage done to property in our province is controlled for our citizens.

[Health, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, despite persistent assurances and massive efforts at containment, foot and mouth disease has spread from the U.K. to France, Ireland and the Netherlands. It is costing billions of dollars and has resulted in the destruction of thousands of animals in the United Kingdom alone.

Here at home we are experiencing an outbreak of chronic wasting disease among elk herds in Saskatchewan.

The minister of agriculture has sent Canadian Food Inspection Agency veterinarians to the United Kingdom to assist with the outbreak there. The problem is that they are having difficulty handling the CWD outbreak we have at home.

Budgetary constraints at the CFIA and Agriculture Canada have made it difficult for officials to contain and deal with the outbreak of CWD in Saskatchewan elk herds. They are struggling just to keep up.

I call upon the minister of agriculture to get his priorities straight and beef up the resources of the CFIA and his own department so we can deal appropriately with this important issue.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating report stage of Bill C-2, the minor reforms to the existing EI legislation that the government brought forward.

We saw a large number of witnesses in committee, all of whom contributed their time and input to give us a better understanding of the potential impact of the legislation. We heard from business and labour, from fishermen from both coasts, from restaurateurs, and from a host of others. Not one of them could bring themselves to support the bill in its entirety.

My colleague and chief critic from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley and I, together with the witnesses, agree that the bill is tinkering at its best. It addresses what the government considers flaws in the 1996 EI reforms, but it fails even at that small task.

Rather than continue what it began in 1996, that is to discourage repeat users of the EI as a wage supplement program, the bill actually takes a step backward. During the testimony in committee most of the witnesses were looking for a more indepth review of the entire employment insurance system. We concur that the bill is not broad enough to cover their concerns.

At report stage we deal with amendments. My colleague has moved an amendment calling for the deletion of clause 9 of the bill and our colleagues from the Bloc have essentially moved the same amendment as well. I hope all hon. members support the amendment. The clause as written would give EI premium rate setting powers to the governor in council for the next two years. Clause 9 is a blatant hijacking of the rights of the employment insurance commission.

The government indicates that it is only giving rate setting powers to the cabinet for two years. If hon. members believe that the cabinet would give the powers back after those two years, I have some land in Shawinigan that they may want to have a look at.

I will explain what the clause means. It is an issue that has widespread opposition from both employers and unions. They may have different objectives with the rates, but they all have problems with the way the government uses EI premiums in general revenue. Employers and unions objected that cabinet was taking control of the EI rate setting process since the Liberal government balanced the EI books on the backs of employers and employees.

The government wants complete control over the billions in the EI surplus. It is one more unhealthy, undemocratic example of the government consolidating control in cabinet. The Canadian business community is in almost unanimous opposition to the bill. It is not that it feels that people in seasonal industries do not need assistance. It feels it should not come from the EI fund to which it provides 60% of the funding.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce thinks Bill C-2 is inconsistent with the development of advanced skills or entrepreneurial spirit and that it does not advance competitiveness. Catherine Swift of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business had this to say about the legislation:

After several years of making some steps in the right direction on EI policy, this is a U-turn that hearkens back to the 1970s—a big spending government promoting dependency on programs, instead of solid economic growth. We thought they had learned something from the mistakes of the past.

We have a flawed bill which seeks only to roll back earlier reforms and enhance the power of cabinet. What are the alternatives?

First and foremost, we must state that seasonal industries are just that, seasonal. Seasonal industries are very important and those involved in them must be supported. Those who are rendered unemployed for other reasons must also be supported.

There needs to be an acknowledgement that the two are not the same. The solution to the seasonal work dilemma must lie in the direction of education and training. Young people in communities which traditionally rely on seasonal employment must be properly equipped with the job skills for the workplace of the 21st century. We must provide training for those currently involved in traditionally seasonal employment as an alternative to EI.

In conclusion, as the first bill introduced in this parliament it is quite a disappointment. Bill C-2 attempts to address flaws in the EI system but succeeds at only minor tweaking. The government was moving in the right direction before but has taken an about-face with the legislation. I encourage all hon. colleagues to join with us in opposition to the bill.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, farming is the heart of this country. It always has been and hopefully it always will be.

Today we are debating the Alliance motion calling on the government to inject the additional emergency funding necessary to keep Canadian farming alive through the coming year.

It sometimes seems like we are speaking to a brick wall over there. As a farm partner myself and one of the hundreds of producers in my riding, I know firsthand how serious this crisis is. The magnitude of the emergency cannot be overstated. We need the money, period.

The minister's announcement a couple of weeks ago was clearly inadequate. He said so himself. Here is a quick rundown. All farm groups are asking for at least $900 million. Five provincial governments are calling for at least $900 million. The Canadian Alliance is calling for at least $500 million. The Liberals knew about this crisis at least three years ago.

Rather than continuing to point out the obvious to the government and the minister, I thought it would be beneficial for you, Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues to hear from farmers in their own words. Before I entered the political arena, through the media I put out a plea to farm people to tell me their stories. These are some of the letters I received. I was overwhelmed by the response from these people, and there were heartbreaking ones from all of them, but especially from the men.

I would like all hon. members in the Chamber to pay careful attention to the letters I am about to read, particularly my colleagues opposite, some of whom clearly need to learn a thing or two about farming and farmers. The first letter states:

This year we didn't put a crop in—we are finished farming. That sounds so simple “didn't put a crop in”. How do I put into words the despair, the tears of anger, frustration, the heartbreak. My husband is so defeated. He used to be up for a challenge. If something didn't work the first time, he kept on trying. He'd find a way.

My husband feels that he is a failure—no amount of me telling him that it's not his fault changes the way he feels. Something is gone inside.

We took a crushing debt load with us, as we try to start a new business. Our little community is in jeopardy. The rail line has been removed and our elevator closed. In the past five years, many families have left the community. Approximately 18 school-age children have left. In a small school with a population of 97—those numbers are devastating. We're fighting to keep our school open. Everything is a fight—and there is little fight left in anyone.

The second letter states:

The sad thing is, if it happened suddenly like a lot of disasters, we would have gotten noticed. But the grey depression that has settled over southwest Saskatchewan where we live has been coming for a long time.

There have been so many marriage breakups, alcoholism, depression, cancer and farmers leaving the land. The whole stressful household is worn out.

All our neighbours are in the same position. It just seems there is no joy in farming anymore. We are puppets with big corporations pulling the strings. I see sadness and depression everywhere I look.

The third letter states:

I farm with my husband and I know the crisis we're in. I need not say more. When the government took away the “Crow”, that was their first mistake. It was to be here as long as the grass grows and the rivers flow.

The government is putting millions of dollars into other countries and have a deaf ear to their own farmers.

The fourth letter states:

In the mid-eighties when grain prices started to fall, my husband became really stressed out and was ready to sell out and quit. This is where our problem arises. Our older son has always wanted to farm. He saved enough to buy a quarter of land so we sold him one. He tried renting some land from a neighbour but found he only had a profit one year of the four he rented.

He had worked off the farm for about ten years and was ready to take over more land and responsibility so we are gradually selling everything to him. We didn't want him to borrow from the FCC or a bank to pay us as the yearly interest alone would be move than the profit from farming. He has no money to pay us even though he does off farm work. He is always busy and if anyone deserves to make a living farming, he does.

At 31, he is still single, which probably is just as well as the stress would be too much for a lot of young women who haven't lived on a farm...He really needs a break but can't afford a holiday even though he has enough air miles to fly almost anywhere. It really bothers him that he owes us so much money and it bothers us too now that we are retired, we are so limited in what we can do. Everything we put into the farm as “the farm is our retirement” is still tied up in the farm.

The fifth letter states:

The farm crisis in Saskatchewan is real—it is happening, it is a tragedy, it is preventable. It is impossible to make a living on a farm of any size with the present world situation.

What will it take for the Canadian federal government to take a long hard look at an industry that feeds millions and yet the principal players cannot make an honest living through no fault of their own? How can a democratic country like Canada stand and watch the death of the western Canadian grain industry? The break basket of the world is being destroyed by an eastern Canadian government that refuses to accept responsibility for its demise. And a demise it is as every other grain producing country subsidizes their grain growers because they value their product, they value the farming industry as an integral part of their country's business world and they recognize the importance of the farmer and his family to their way of life. But not here in Canada—the very country that should be supporting farmers is destroying them.

Finally, the sixth letter, written by Nicole Stenerson of Sonningdale, Saskatchewan, a University of Regina first year student, states:

A very sad situation has evolved in our prairies. A morbid cloud has rolled onto its beautiful sky. Hopelessness is in the air and you stop for just a moment, you can almost hear the land weeping in mourning for what used to be. The death of a family farm is upon us. The tradition that this country was founded on is dying along with the spirit and the pride of the farmers that are left to preserve the land. Today, every family farm on the prairies is in danger and many of them are indeed dying. This story is the truth and it is happening today.

Canada's farming economy affects everyone. This is a fact that is most misunderstood. Most Canadians think the farming crisis does not involve them, and approach the issue with great apathy. In truth, this crisis affects every Canadian. If sympathy for the struggling farmers cannot cause you to surrender your support, perhaps fear for this country's economy can. Canada's economic base was originally farming, with the prairies considered the “bread basket of the world” and today they still are. Unfortunately, this is a fact that has become forgotten.

As Canada loses its farmers, it begins to suffer economically. The disappearance of the farmer would affect the economy in a very direct way. Farmers with less money spend less money. This would mean the demise of both small businesses and large corporations. Without farmers, there would be no need for farm equipment dealerships, fertilizer and chemical companies and many other large businesses that base themselves solely on farming. This is not a prairie crisis; this is a Canadian crisis.

As Canadians, we need to stand up for our fellow countrymen. We need to show the farmers empathy for their plight. Unfortunately, if this government continues to do nothing to stop the extinction of the family farm, we will soon be in mourning for a culture that has disappeared completely. We cannot stand idly by as a culture of the country is in such great suffering and not even offer our heartfelt sympathy and support.

What more can we offer the government? What more can we say? How can we convince the backbenchers of the government that cannot see what kind of a plight agriculture is in? How can we convince government members to stand up and vote tonight on the Canadian Alliance motion?

[Hockey, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding group of young athletes from my riding, the Delisle Bruins, who on Saturday won the provincial bantam A hockey championships.

In the total point series, the Bruins triumphed over the Weyburn Red Coat Rams by a score of 12 to 4. The Bruins are made up of players from Delisle, Asquith and Harris.

I extend congratulations to Rylan Isaac, Cory Thiessen, Derek Gramson, Matt Dunlap, Kevin Chave, Andrew Busby, Perry French, Tyler French, Blake Rolston, Jeff Colborn, Brendan Reynolds, assistant captain Dustin Knittig, Kevin Burwell, Adam McTavish, Mitch Mrack, Dan Yakasovich, assistant coach Shawn Colborn, coach Joel Durham, and manager Bill Mrack. Because I am a bit biased, I wish to extend special congratulations to Shaun Cairns, assistant captain Chad Laing and captain Louis Genest, all from my home town of Harris.

On behalf of my constituents and all the proud parents, let me offer my congratulations to the Delisle Bruins on their wonderful victory.

[Agriculture, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, foot and mouth disease is spreading like wildfire through Europe. The disease would devastate our livestock industries if it were imported to Canada.

Travellers returning from Europe have told us that customs officials have failed to determine if they had visited farms. Farmers have also reported that there were insufficient security inspections to ensure that potentially contaminated food was not being brought into Canada.

On March 2, Linda and Bill Plank landed at Vancouver airport directly from London and indicated that they had visited United Kingdom farms. They were not even questioned by customs officials let alone referred to food inspection officers. This was in the middle of the crisis in the United Kingdom, yet again our government was failing to fully protect the Canadian livestock industry.

It would only take one person transferring the virus on their shoes or clothing to begin a Canadian infestation. We must prevent transmission of foot and mouth disease into Canada before it happens. We must therefore ensure complete security and inspection for travellers and imports coming from all of Europe. Canada cannot afford to react after the fact.