Dick Proctor

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this throne speech debate today. I want to begin by saying that I am sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Dartmouth.

In the current throne speech, it says that:

Canadians want their government to be open, accountable and responsive to their diverse and changing needs...the government will provide clear guidelines and better enforcement of the ethical standards expected of elected officials and senior public servants.

These are words, obviously, and not deeds. On Wednesday, in this House, I asked about political interference by some ministers of the Crown on the matter of riding boundaries and I want to elaborate on that before this packed chamber this afternoon.

The Prime Minister was one of the few current MPs who was actually here in 1964, when key progressive changes were made by the 26th Parliament regarding the distribution of federal ridings and new boundaries.

In the current review of boundaries, we are now aware that at least three political ministers managed to get their grubby, little fingers into the process and compromised the independence and impartiality of those commissions.

In his response on Wednesday, the Prime Minister chose to say that I was attacking the position of the Speaker. I want to say most emphatically I was not. I happen to have a very high regard for the position of Speaker and even higher regard for the present incumbent who we elected following the 2000 election. However the Prime Minister was half right. It was an attack on a government that has grown too comfortable in office and grasps at every bit of additional power, leverage and influence that it can. That is what I was attacking and it needs to be done, because the changes in the way that we proceed with boundaries was fundamentally reformed in 1964, after 90 years of blatant gerrymandering.

I spent an invigorating evening reading the debates that went on in 1964 involving such parliamentary luminaries as John Diefenbaker, Tommy Douglas, Jack Pickersgill, Allan McEachern, Gordon Churchill, Stanley Knowles and Gilles Grégoire. It is crystal clear that these members of Parliament in that minority government were working hard, labouring to reach an accommodation and an understanding that would end these decades of partisan gerrymandering and make the process fair for all political parties and, equally important, for all Canadians.

They were trying, in other words, to put into practice what Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent had said in 1952 on the topic of redistribution. He said that it was not a matter of executive policy, that is the treasury benches, but it was a matter and responsibility for the House as a whole.

Then there was the intervention of Dr. Norman Ward, a well known political scientist, who said that the government pays lip service to this idea of fair redistribution. Then he went on to say that:

This doctrine, resting as it does on the premise that ministers can forget they are ministers whenever redistribution comes up, and that their supporters can forget it too, put an increasing strain on the credulity of opposition members as the debates wore on.

Is that not exactly the position that the public works minister finds himself in now, where his office conceded that the two people appointed in Saskatchewan were indeed recommendations of that individual?

Jack Pickersgill, who was the transport minister in 1964 and who led this debate in the House, had some excellent opinions on this matter of fair redistribution. He said:

The first and by far the most important of these was that we should not follow the pattern that had been followed in the first 90 years since confederation, of having the readjustment of representation in this place done in this place by its members directly, but that it should be done by somebody which would be as impartial as we in our collective ingenuity could provide and who would be as competent as we could find means to provide through legislation and subsequent appointment.It was also agreed that in the process the government should have no more voice than any other part of the house, because this was a business that was peculiarly the business of parliament, of all of parliament, where we all have an equal obligation and, I hope and think, an equal desire to see that the people are fairly represented.

Mr. Pickersgill went on to say:

--I should like to say parenthetically that there is a real problem in getting people who will not only be fair but who will appear to everyone to be fair.

For the record that I have nothing personally against the two individuals who were appointed to do the boundary redistribution in Saskatchewan. I do not know them. They are probably terrific at their day job. They may even write a brilliant report. However that is not the point. The point is one cannot have a partisan way of selecting two of three commissioners and then try to convince the residents of Saskatchewan that, even though they were appointed by a political minister, they have suddenly become impartial and non-partisan from here on in.

The Pearson government in 1964 understood that and understood it well. This bunch over here today, 38 years later, has totally forgotten it.

Again, Mr. Pickersgill said:

--in order to insure what after all is the most priceless of all our constitutional rights in this country, the right of all our citizens to have as nearly as possible an equal voice in the government of this country.

He went on to say that none of these appointments would be made by the government. He was in debate with someone at this point when he said:

--that is the point the hon. gentleman does not seem to grasp. Under this bill, no appointments would be made by the government at all...

That was precisely the thing to which Mr. Pickersgill objected during the debate two or three years before. He said that they were not going to transfer redistribution from Parliament to the government. He said:

I have never varied from that view, and it is for this reason that in this bill we have been very careful to have no appointments made by the government but to have appointments made by parliament or officers of parliament.

The debate began with the assumption that the chief justice would appoint the chair of each boundary commission with the prime minister and leader of the opposition appointing the other two. However Stanley Knowles and others pointed out that would not be fair necessarily to other Canadians who never voted for either of the old-line parties.

They proposed a Manitoba model that had a university professor, the chief electoral officer and the chief justice of the province. There were some problems with doing it that way in the parties because some provinces had more than one university and there were discussions about presidents and which one would be chosen.

To make a long story longer, on November 10, 1964, there was a compromise. Again it was Mr. Pickersgill, the transport minister, who recommended that the other two people, other than the appointee of the chief justice, would be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. He said at that time who better to trust than his hon. the Speaker to do the sensible thing and not to put any strings upon him except the obvious string that these appointments must be made from persons resident in the province. That was passed November 12, 1964.

Stanley Knowles, in conclusion of that debate said:

--we are dealing with the subject matter which for nine decades or more has been a most explosive one. I suppose few issues have generated as much ill-will in parliament as has the question of the redistribution of the seats in the House of Commons.

Mr. Olson, who I believe was from Alberta, said:

--the passage of this bill to set up this commission will indeed be a red letter day and a proud day for parliament.

It was a red letter day. It did end 90 years of gerrymandering and it makes great reading.

Far more important, I urge, I demand, the treasury benches across the way to heed and take heart from what was done in 1964 and agree that the clumsy, unfortunate and totally inappropriate way in which some boundary commissions have been appointed this time, in New Brunswick, Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular in 2002, will never be replicated.

[Agriculture, October 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, parts of Alberta and Nova Scotia have just suffered through their worst drought in memory. For several years now each summer seems to be hotter and dryer than the previous one. This is causing additional uncertainty and confusion within the agriculture community.

Now we have the spectre of a new El Nino, but farmers are also concerned that Kyoto will increase their energy costs. My question is, what steps will the government take to ensure that the many benefits of Kyoto will be passed on to our farmers?

[Electoral Boundaries, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the office of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has confirmed that the two Saskatchewan appointees were indeed recommended by that minister.

Since the act establishing these commissions states that any two members constitute quorum, would the Prime Minister not agree that the whole process has been tainted, that any veneer of independence has vanished, and that whatever the report recommends will be viewed with suspicion and skepticism by what not only looks like but smells like complete political interference?

[Electoral Boundaries, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was here in 1964 when major readjustments were made to federal electoral boundaries.

A basic tenet of those readjustments was the assurance that the government's involvement in the process would not be any greater than that of the other parties. Unfortunately, at least three of his ministers have stuck their noses into the process.

Will the Prime Minister explain why the impartiality and independence of the commissions were jeopardized?

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2002]

Right.

The member for Brandon--Souris said that six of the last nine emergency debates since 1997 have been on agriculture. Do members know that an emergency debate that we did not have was one after the ice storm in 1997-98? Why? Because the government moved and moved quickly to assist Ontario and Quebec farmers. That is not lost on people in western Canada and Atlantic Canada who are going through an extremely difficult time.

In Saskatchewan, as has perhaps been pointed out but bears repeating, farmers are harvesting the smallest crop that they have harvested in more than three decades. In short, it has been a summer from hell: drought, a frost on August 2, and grasshoppers. If I may be permitted black humour in this debate, and there is plenty of it out there, a friend of mine, Bob Long, who farms in west-central Saskatchewan, said that he and his neighbours were really worried about an infestation of grasshoppers in June but the fears proved to be groundless because the grasshoppers went out to the fields and promptly starved to death.

In late summer we did have some rainfall in the drought areas. Some farmers are now cutting crops for hay, crops that obviously did not mature, while others have simply abandoned their fields completely. We have lost 30,000 farmers over the past 5 years, 6,000 in Saskatchewan alone, where agriculture is and always has been number one. Employment in Saskatchewan agriculture has fallen by 30% over the past three years alone. In short, people are leaving agriculture in droves because, regardless of their sacrifices, they simply cannot make a living from farming. It is a combination of isolation, poor pay, long hours and constant financial worries. No wonder that parents would not want to have their child inherit all that difficulty.

The problems, the reality, that Canadian farmers have are in part the massive United States and European subsidies that are driving international prices. Farmers are simply walking away. This year alone there is $1.3 billion in trade injury, and farm income overall is off by 19%. The pain extends to rural community centres and the small towns and cities.

In a crisis like this, farmers who are self-reliant are looking to the federal government for help and unfortunately are looking in vain. As a result of the government inaction, Canadian farmers from eastern Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes initiated a Hay West campaign to assist their western counterparts. It was a great initiative in nation building, as has been pointed out by virtually all the previous speakers. The media climbed all over it. It was an example of distant neighbours helping out. The generosity was extremely well received in western Canada, but who jumped shamelessly on board the Hay West campaign? Of course it was the government. Its financial commitment was to pay for some of the fumigation, and about 377 cars were donated to match what the railways had done and donated to the Hay West campaign.

However, as Senator Sparrow and others have said, the Hay West shipments from eastern Canada were never necessary and the cost was twice as much as that of what was readily available in southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan. For all the ballyhoo that the Hay West campaign generated this summer, it amounted to less than 1% of the hay that is required to feed the livestock this winter. Whoever said it was like offering two pizzas to a city on the verge of starvation put it in the proper context, but it did serve the public relations purpose: a photo op of a government and a Prime Minister who really, really care. It had nothing to do with rolling up their sleeves and doing the right thing. Rather, it was to make the federal government look good in Ontario and elsewhere and to give the impression that the feed problem in western Canada had been solved. Hay West was a great initiative by some well-meaning and caring folks who gave hay, hard work and a lot of time and effort, and a cynical government tried to capitalize on that initiative.

In June the Prime Minister announced $5.2 billion for agriculture, a sleight of hand. It is like the old carny trick of trying to guess which of the three peanut shells the peanut is actually under. Half of the money had already been announced while much of the new money was earmarked for items in the agriculture policy framework, things such as improving water supplies, on-farm environment plans and export markets, but really nothing to help solve the drought and the cost-price squeeze that farmers are in. Just $1.2 billion of the $5.2 billion was actually for compensation against enormous subsidies, spread over two years. In Saskatchewan, which has 47% of the arable land, it works out to about $3 an acre.

That was the Prime Minister's big June announcement. The agriculture policy framework is a long-term plan for agriculture in Canada, but it is important to point out that without a short-term plan to find relief for farmers hurt by several consecutive years of low prices, high input costs and rising farm debt, a long-term plan will not be necessary at all. The government simply has to reassess the way it looks at agriculture. Its position is “if you can't make it on your own two feet, find another line of work”. In fact, the minister of agriculture personifies that approach and wears it like a badge of honour.

That attitude, I believe, is a hangover from the 1993 to 1997 era when the government was cutting the deficit and the Reform Party opposed any kind of government support to agriculture. We have heard those members change their minds on that. We have heard it as recently as this evening. The fact remains that if we look back over the 130-odd years of Confederation, federal governments, regardless of their political stripe, have always supported agriculture in this country. Hon. members should think back to the free or almost free land of 100-odd years ago in western Canada, to the Crowsnest Pass freight rate agreement of 1897, or to a two-price system for wheat. Only in the last 10 years has the federal government adopted this approach of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” and “my mind is made up so don't confuse me with facts”.

To make matters worse, the government refuses to accept any responsibility in the trade injury area, which affects so many farmers. The minister of agriculture has said that the money announced in June does not relate to trade injury, but the bulk of our agricultural products is indeed traded on world markets. How can the government promote an agricultural policy framework agreement and pretend that trade irritants and trade injury simply do not exist?

In the lead up to the agriculture policy framework endless consultations were held with stakeholders, as has been referred to previously. The promise is for a long-term plan for agriculture. The consultations seem to go on and on. Another round is planned and skepticism as well as frustration is growing. The fear is that this is another public relations smokescreen to create an allusion that there is genuine consultation while the government intends to go its own way on agricultural policy.

What is to be done? First, we must put money into sustainable agriculture. We need a food production system that allows Canadian farmers to earn a descent living and if we do not we will soon be buying our food from others. Incentives are required to ensure food production remains in the hands of farmers and not of agribusiness.

Our farmers are on the verge of becoming modern day serfs running businesses that will belong to the Cargill's, ConAgra's and the Archer Daniels Midland's of this world. We need policy and practices to protect the environment, to create economic stability and promote job creation and employment in rural Canada. We cannot allow an efficient, commercial farm sector to be permanently crippled or dismantled because of unfair international trade practices, or by a government that ignores that this country has helped farmers since the inception of the country. Make no mistake, we are on the verge of doing permanent damage to agriculture and the future of agriculture in the country.

In 1988 there was an election on free trade and while food exports have tripled since 1988 in the 14 years since, net farm income has dropped by 24% when adjusted for inflation. Farm debt has doubled. Our value added flour mills and malting plants that used to belong to Canadian companies have been taken over by large U.S. commercial operations.

Freight rates in western Canada have gone up by 500%. There are the Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan pools which have all gone the way of the dodo bird. They were once co-ops and now they have either merged or they are something else and simply are a shadow of their former selves.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food made great announcements about the government's commitment. The fact is that government spending is down more than $1 billion a year unadjusted for inflation.

Farmers have doubled and redoubled their exports over those past 14 years. They have diversified and adopted new techniques and technologies. They have invested billions of dollars in their farm operations. In short, they have done everything that they were told to do to adapt to the new world of free trade and globalization. The result is the worst farm crisis in more than 70 years.

There are two things that have to happen. The free trade agreement erases the economic borders between nations and forces one billion farmers around the world into what has been described as a single hyperactive market where they are all frantically competing. That is on the one hand but simultaneously with that, free trade agreements are creating waves of agricultural business mergers which reduce or eliminate competition and drive prices ever higher. The end result of all that is that there is a balance of power between farmers and agribusiness that has become totally distorted and the distribution of profits is tilted dramatically toward corporations and away from farmers.

The government must provide adequate assistance to farmers. The Prime Minister said he does not want a legacy. That is fine. Let us give a decent legacy to our farmers. Let us put the resources into sustainable agriculture and food safety.

We in this party will use every means to ensure the government pursues those policies and Canadian farm families deserve no less.

[Agriculture, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the Speaker for allowing this important debate to take place tonight. I especially want to pay tribute to the right hon. member for Calgary Centre for having proposed an emergency debate on agriculture.

I had the privilege of attending an Ontario Federation of Agriculture convention in Toronto in November 2000, just days before the last federal election. I had the privilege of sharing a platform with the member for Calgary Centre as well as the agriculture minister. I recall the right hon. member saying that in order to be successful any agriculture minister must have the support of the key members of cabinet, the support of the Prime Minister and the support of the finance minister.

This is not a comment on the agriculture minister but a comment on the inner sanctum of the cabinet: I think it has been very clear throughout the past number of years that this minister really does not have the full support of the main members of cabinet. That explains why Canadian farmers have in effect had it with the government. Despite the fact that farmers' backs are against the wall, foreign subsidies and the worst drought in memory having caused that, there was basically no mention in last Monday's throne speech of financial assistance for agriculture.

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 4th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, particularly with respect to committees. He talked about the laws being there for a purpose but having been around here for a few years now myself, would he not agree that we should and could be doing much better when it comes to committees?

I appreciate the point that he was making about the length of time it takes for a bill to get through, however, if the committees had more independence from the government, from the executive of cabinet, would it not be more beneficial for legislation and for the feeling that we are here for a purpose and with the ability to do something more than to be a talk shop or to have busy work going on in committees?

As a member of the agriculture committee, I have had a fairly good attendance record at committee meetings, and I appreciate that there are good witnesses that come before us on a fairly regular basis and we hear from them. I am sure other committees operate in the same fashion. The point is that we could be a lot more effective if those committees were given additional powers.

We talk about the democratic deficit. Surely that is an area that is in need of major change. I would like to get the member's comments on that.

[Grain Transportation, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport stated his intention to dispose of the federal hopper car fleet used for three decades that moved grains and oilseeds to port while keeping the costs to farmers down.

The Farmer Rail Car Coalition is working to develop an efficient and affordable grain handling system and wants those 13,000 cars turned over to the coalition.

What assurance could we have from the minister that no decision would be made before a thorough review of the coalition's business plan and an opportunity for the coalition's executive to meet directly with the Minister of Transport?

[Iraq, October 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I too listened intently to the member's remarks in which he expressed the wish that if there is to be a regime change brought about by the United States and the United Kingdom that those countries would stick around to do the clean up and put the country on a better path in the future. Those are good words.

Since the Marshall plan that he alluded to, has there been a time over the past 50 years when the United States intervened in other countries and stayed behind to clean up the rubble following its military intervention? Can the member tell us one occasion when it did that? Is it not more accurate to say that it has simply moved on to what it considers to be the next area that needs to have a regime change?

[National Library, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago the National Library of Canada was established by an act of parliament to acquire, preserve and promote the published heritage of all Canadians. Unfortunately, the national library is now in a state of crisis. Its collections are being destroyed, public access curtailed and Canada's written heritage and culture are at risk of being lost forever.

The national library has suffered over 70 incidents recently involving burst pipes, leaky roofs and excessive heat resulting in the destruction and loss of more than 25,000 items. Across Canada librarians, authors, musicians, teachers, parents and children entrust the care of these collections to the national library. This trust must not be betrayed.

Local libraries count on the national library to support our research needs and ensure the safety of our cultural collections. The library serves as a beacon to all Canadians and the government must commit adequate funding immediately for a new National Library of Canada building .