Dick Proctor

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the opportunity to respond. I realize it is a difficult situation for the western world as to how to respond.

If I lived in the United States I would likely never be accused of voting for the republican party up until this point in time. However I must say that the president of the United States has acted with more skill and diplomacy than I would have given him credit for at the outset in the aftermath of September 11. We are at a pivotal point and we will have to see whether that comes to fruition in the immediate days ahead.

In answer to the hon. member's question, if this attempt to get at the perpetrators or the masterminds of these attacks is done through the United Nations, I have full confidence it will be done with a minimum of harm to the civilian population of Afghanistan or other countries that may be involved in the process.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity other than a very brief intervention in the first week of September 17 to participate in the House. Therefore I will begin by expressing my profound regrets and condolences to the people of the United States and, as my colleague from Burnaby--Douglas said, the 60 other countries with representatives in the World Trade Center when the attacks took place.

I think I heard Mayor Giuliani say in recent days that it was now 80 countries that had representatives there. It is an enormous number and it is a tragedy of untold proportions. I extend my deep condolences to everyone who has been affected.

As this important debate takes place today we seem to be on the verge or the precipice of a military response, from listening to the prime minister of the United Kingdom and others. This is an extremely important debate today in the House of Commons.

I think that September 11 exposed the vulnerability of a free and open society to terrorist attacks. We should not be surprised that in the immediate aftermath the reaction was that of anger and even of hatred against the perpetrators.

The western civilized world and its laws have been designed by wise counsel over many generations. The resulting jurisprudence has been to ensure that anger and hate never become the last words on the subject. We have learned that revenge breeds revenge and that an eye for an eye is not the way to proceed in this regard.

When the terrorist attacks are referred to as acts of war as CNN does 24 hours a day under its subtitle America's New War , it seems to me all that does is help dignify the individuals who masterminded these appalling acts. They should be seen as international pariahs. Their crimes are against humanity and they must be brought to justice publicly and rationally. As Kofi Annan said a couple of days ago:

Terrorism will be defeated if the international community unites in a broad coalition, or it will not be defeated at all.

To seek indiscriminate revenge is merely to react in the same primitive and deadly way as the perpetrators of the acts of September 11.

We are at an incredible point where the entire world at the moment stands behind the United States in wanting to exterminate crimes against civilized society. There is an unshakable commitment at the moment to go forward and rid the world of these individuals, but if we risk the slaughter of innocent people in the hunt for revenge, it will guarantee that episodes of international terrorism will become the legacy of this new century. We want to avoid that at all costs and we have an opportunity to do so.

I want to shift gears for a moment. I was struck by a briefing book delivered to the Western Governors Association, which had a joint meeting almost a month to the day before the attacks in New York City and Washington. Material was provided by the Canadian consulates general for western Canadian premiers who were taking part in the conference. There was a small reference to border security and terrorism. It noted:

Terrorism is not typically seen as a border issue but the Ressam case has alerted both countries to the potential threat.

The reference is to the millennium bomber.

Just as a very brief aside, Terence McKenna's dramatization of that which played on Newsworld a couple of weekends ago was a very compelling television documentary, or docudrama, perhaps. It was appalling to see the ease with which Mr. Ressam was able to get in and out of Canada, acquire a false passport and use that to fly to Afghanistan, apparently for military training, fly back to Los Angeles and eventually into Montreal and on to British Columbia. He was apprehended only as he attempted to enter the state of Washington through Port Angeles.

The document provided by the Canadian consulate told the western Canadian premiers that “Canada and the U.S. are working to improve interdiction of potential terrorists before they reach North America”. That is something we have also heard in the House. The document states:

U.S. law enforcement officials note that the United States is a top target of international terrorists. While the threat to Canada is low, the Government of Canada has taken important steps to enhance Canada's ability to combat terrorism.

That seems to me to fly somewhat in the face of what the executive officer for the Canadian Police Association said yesterday when he said:

Canadians should not be lulled into a fall sense of security when it comes to border security, immigration enforcement, and security at Canada's airports and ports of entry.

Police association executive David Griffin also mentioned four specific points that our caucus has talked about for any number of years. One is the elimination of Canada's ports police. I well remember the NDP talking about its concern about that in 1997-98. Second, the privatization of airport security is something that we have talked about for a long time. Third, there are the drastic reductions in immigration and customs personnel. Finally, there has been a shifting focus at Canada's borders, from security and enforcement to revenue generation and cash collection.

Those are important points that we have talked about, both before this terrorist attack and certainly subsequently. It behooves the government opposite to take some remedial action and to do so very quickly.

I also want to make a comment about the third point in this resolution today, which deals with acts of intolerance against visible and racial minorities. I as well was discouraged to hear the comments from the member for Portage--Lisgar when he said that this is not an issue and that essentially we are overplaying it. That is unfortunate. In the spirit of generosity let me say that perhaps coming from a rural riding in Manitoba as the member does he has not seen or heard about these incidents, but from any number of people that I have been in contact with, we know that these incidents abound.

We heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs this morning relate an incident from his daughter's school. I know from friends and acquaintances in Quebec of similar occurrences there. I know that on the Friday after the attack it was noteworthy at one of the local colleges here in Ottawa how the Arab and Muslim students were simply not in attendance at classes that week, undoubtedly for fear of reprisal or attacks, verbal or otherwise.

I will make specific reference to an article that was written by Vanessa Redgrave. She makes reference to mayor Rudolph Giuliani's magnificent speech for unity and tolerance. On the same day he made that speech, a Pakistani shopkeeper whose son was murdered in the attack on the Twin Towers was beaten by racists outside his shop in Brooklyn. Such outrages also occurred all over Europe before and after September 11. Ms. Redgrave's point is that this will increase a thousandfold if and when the bombing missions begin, and people of all races will suffer.

In closing, this is a very important time and the world of the future will judge us on what we do.

It behooves us to act with discretion and to follow the lead of the United Nations in its approach to this attack against terrorism.

[Gopher Control, September 19th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this motion which, as the previous speaker pointed out, is talking about the need for higher levels of strychnine to control the gopher population.

When I first realized I would be speaking about this matter my heart immediately went out to the most well known gopher in Canada, Gainer the Gopher from Parkbeg, Saskatchewan, and his cousin, Leonard. For those who are not fans of the Canadian Football League, he is probably the most famous mascot in the CFL. I wondered what would happen to poor Gainer under these circumstances but then the way that the Roughriders have been playing for the last month he is probably thinking of taking it directly himself.

The debate is about the level of strychnine and the concern, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, is about a reduction in the potency or percentage of strychnine in the pre-mix, whether or not the 5% has gone to 2% or to 0.4% as is alleged by the member who moved the motion.

We too have some environmental concerns that were indicated by the government spokesperson. We are concerned about what has happened to the population of swift foxes and bald eagles over the last decade as well as burrowing owls which are very important in the Moose Jaw area. There was a story in the local newspaper within the last month about how the number of pairs of burrowing owls had declined rapidly in recent years. Dog poisonings have also been mentioned. In the volume of work in this area a couple of suicides were reported. All of these seem to be impacted by the use of strychnine.

The government has been prudent in reducing the way in which the bait has been used with no above ground bait stations in recent years. Farmers have to put the bait in the ground at least 18 inches. They have to bury the carcasses so that eagles, dogs and other animals will not be contaminated and spread the problem.

I have no intention of minimizing the issue. I note that the member from the North Battleford area is in the House. I know it is a much bigger issue in that area of the province than it is in the Moose Jaw and Regina area that I happen to represent. I know from reading that 100 gophers will eat as much pasture in a day as sheep, and that 370 of them will eat as much as a cow. I also know that predators such as badgers that go after the gophers can cause severe damage to livestock.

There have been injuries, as the member for Lakeland indicated, because of the lack of controls, but as I have tried to indicate there have been some injuries as a result of overuse of strychnine in the recent past.

The government member indicated that the federal government was working actively with the provinces and farmers to find solutions. He mentioned federal labelling, research permits and made reference to bait. I did not hear, however, what the government was doing about developing less lethal products for the environment at large that would be more effective for the problem that farmers are having with gophers.

The point I am trying to make is that the overpopulation of gophers seems to be a cyclical thing as is the case with a lot of wild animals.

A few years ago we had stories in Saskatchewan newspapers about how gophers had virtually disappeared from our highways and byways,. People were not seeing very many of them. Obviously now in some sections of the province and certainly in the province of Alberta they are back and they are back with a vengeance.

I would have appreciated hearing whether the government or the Pest Management Regulatory Agency was doing anything about developing alternatives to strychnine. I note that in Saskatchewan a farmer has developed an anhydrous ammonia vapour that he believes has been very effective in eliminating gophers. Although it is not licensed or registered by the PMRA, farmers know that anhydrous ammonia is a principal ingredient in nitrogen fertilizer and it is certainly registered for use in that vein.

I would be interested to know what the government is doing to develop alternatives to a recognized poison such as strychnine.

It is a serious problem. There are rural municipalities in both Saskatchewan and Alberta that have declared themselves disaster areas as a result of the overpopulation at the moment.

In the final analysis we have to be very cautious. We have to take the precautionary principle on this so that we do no harm until we ensure that we can do no harm. We should be very careful and very leery about the use of this product.

I remind members, in the words of David Suzuki, that the human race is the most predatory animal in the history of the world. We have a phobia about eliminating anything and everything that gets in our way. Some day that is going to come back and cost us in a very large way.

This is a problem and I do not want to minimize it, but I think we need to and should look at alternatives. The issue has been around for 10 years. The government has absolutely failed to develop alternatives that would work as a replacement for liquid strychnine.

[Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the minister's remarks, but what I did not hear from her is whether or not she and her party are supporting the bill today. Could she help us on that?

[National Revenue, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue will be aware of an ongoing disagreement between his department and the Saskatchewan government which affects about 100 widows whose husbands were killed on the job before 1985.

Two years ago Saskatchewan paid out $80,000 tax free, but it ran afoul quickly of federal income tested programs like old age security, so the widows had their allowance clawed back by about $5,000.

While the federal and provincial officials continue to point fingers at each other, the only people out of pocket are the widows themselves. How long will it take for the two levels of government to sort this out and make restitution to the Saskatchewan widows?

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, June 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will not talk about the Canadian Wheat Board today because we are talking about the Farm Credit Corporation. There are other opportunities to deal with the board. An effective member such as the member for Selkirk—Interlake ought to know that.

It is interesting to a number of us that two rural members from Saskatchewan chose to vote against the Canadian Alliance yesterday on this issue. That speaks for itself.

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, June 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, there might be an opportunity later to ask the Alliance why it did that. I will simply restrict my comments to say that the family is an integral part of the fabric of the country and hopefully will continue to remain so for a long time. That is the assurance frankly that we were given by Mr. Ryan and other representatives from Farm Credit Corporation when it was before the committee to explain why it was requesting the change in the mandate.

The NDP certainly has always been a strong proponent of the family farm and will continue be so for the foreseeable future.

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, June 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, yes it does concern me. The member has raised a good point. However I feel that there has been a significant change, not only within the Farm Credit Corporation but also among lending institutions themselves. There has been a dramatic shift since the late 1980s when equity financing began, which was the reference point that the member gave in his remarks.

I have talked with lending institutions in and around my riding. A lot more attention is being paid now to files and loans, and more managers are managing those files to make sure that people are not in a great deal of difficulty. The 1980s was perhaps more laissez-faire, and not as much attention was paid to the files of farmers.

Even though we have a very steep downturn in the agricultural economy, when I talk to FCC, the banks and credit unions I have been told that the files of farmers who are in serious trouble are remaining relatively stable and are being managed more carefully than they were at the reference point that the member indicated.

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, June 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak to third reading of Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act. I intend to be brief because we dealt with this at report stage yesterday. I made an intervention at that time and I have no intention of repeating myself.

The major provisions of the bill would allow the Farm Credit Corporation, soon to be called farm credit Canada, to lend money to farm related businesses not owned by farmers, in other words by agribusiness, and extend equity financing to producers and farm related businesses.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, as I mentioned yesterday, supported the bill in committee. I failed to mention at that time that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association also supported the bill. Both groups indicated that more financing and more equity financing was required and, in particular, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was confident that the primary producers would remain the primary focus for farm credit Canada.

Credit Union Central of Canada was not opposed to the bill so long as it complemented its work in the community. We endeavoured to have an amendment added to the bill to ensure that this kind of complementary activity worked. We were not successful but it was not for lack of effort.

In my legislative report, I said that the only farm group opposed to the bill was the National Farmers Union. The Canadian Bankers Association was also opposed. It indicated that a broader mandate would allow farm credit Canada to compete unfairly with private lenders.

We heard yesterday, and just now from Bloc Quebecois representatives, that the UPA in Quebec, which represents Quebec farmers, have said that it has serious reservations about the bill. It is unfortunate that the UPA did not come before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food when we had the debate so that it could have informed the committee of its reservations.

At least one group from Quebec was present, a group that purported to deal with a number of co-operatives in that province. Overall it was supportive of the change in the mandate of Farm Credit Canada.

We heard this morning from both the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois in committee. The objections to the bill were based on two major issues: first, to what extent a business has to be involved in farming to be considered a business related to farming and, second, with the changes to the mandate of Farm Credit Canada, how much of the corporations lending activities may be transferred from the primary producer to agribusiness.

In 1995 the FCC board of directors set the maximum loan size at $20 million. We were advised that less than 2% of the current loans in the portfolio of the corporation exceed $1 million.

Currently primary producers are about 94% of the FCC's overall clientele. With the proposed changes FCC president, John Ryan, anticipates that this would change to about 80%. There would be a change over the next five years as it grows and moves out into this emerging field. Some 20% of its lending would be to farm related enterprises.

I listened with some care to points that were made this morning by my colleague on the agriculture committee from the Canadian Alliance as well as by the member from the Bloc Quebecois. The Alliance member was concerned that the Farm Credit Corporation was intruding into the marketplace. Whereas I believe in many parts of rural Canada there is not an explosion of choice when it comes to lending institutions. It is just the reverse. There is less and less choice.

For example, in the province of Saskatchewan a number of small banks have recently gone out of business. In most cases the local credit union has taken over those operations. It is not that there is too much choice among lending institutions. It is that there is not enough choice. That was recognized by two Saskatchewan members who sit in the Canadian Alliance who I noted voted against their party's recommendation on the bill yesterday at third reading.

There is no doubt the primary focus will continue to remain on primary producers. There are times when Farm Credit Canada will probably have more land than it would want to hold on to, depending on the ups and downs and the cyclical nature of the agricultural industry. We saw no evidence that it is interested in getting into the landholding business in any serious way.

The Bloc Quebecois, which incidentally voted in favour of it at second reading but appears to have changed its mind, indicates that the gates are being opened too wide. However there is an ongoing revolution in agriculture across the country. We are trying to get more value added on the prairies and elsewhere. In order to do that we will have to take some initiative, break some new ground, get out there and encourage value added. Farm Credit Canada is one of the tools in the kit that we could use.

The New Democratic Party supports the changes and will be voting in favour of the bill at third reading.

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, June 7th, 2001]

Yes, I think it is a good idea. This financing would be aimed mainly at new businesses on a venture basis. There would be a statutory limit on the percentage Farm Credit Canada would be able to take. There would also be a fixed date by which the FCC would be required to sell its share back to the majority owners of the business.

Farm Credit Canada would be able to offer a range of business management services to producers across the country either directly or in partnership. These consulting and support services would include business and financial planning, risk management, succession and estate planning.

The FCC's ability to offer lease financing directly or in partnership with agriculture producers would be clarified. Farm Credit Canada would be able to create subsidiaries to enter into partnerships with other organizations and offer expanded financial services.

Just on that point, we heard from the Credit Union of Canada. It was generally supportive of the legislation. We heard a different approach from the Bloc member about caisses populaires, and perhaps it was true, but the Credit Union of Canada represents caisses populaires, as I understand it, and was generally supportive of the provisions contained in the bill.

The corporation would also have access to additional financial management tools to secure its portfolio and fund additional services. Overall the changes are positive so long as Farm Credit Canada continues to focus on primary production.

I mentioned that those who came before the committee were largely supportive. Let me read into the record a couple of their comments. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture said it had no objections to the legislation. The Credit Union of Canada, to which I referred a minute ago, said it had formed a committee to study the legislation. During the consultation process it fully supported the proposals as long as credit unions could participate in some of the new services, equity financing and partnerships.

Although the NFU is concerned that Farm Credit Canada will soften its focus on family farms and primary production, the government and Farm Credit have made a commitment that farming and the primary producer would continue to be the main focus of the corporation's work.

We were told that 94% of Farm Credit Canada's lending is directed to primary producers. An amendment to the act requires that the primary focus of the activities of the corporation shall be on family operations including family farms.

I will move to the recommendations before us today. There are three from the Alliance. One is on family farms. The Alliance amendment, as we understand it, would remove the references to family farms. We believe it is important that a reference to family farms be maintained in the definition of the corporation's purpose and primary focus. Therefore we oppose Motion No. 1.

On Motion No. 2 the Alliance remains consistent in opposing any FCC financial services that it feels might compete with the private sector. We heard the member for Crowfoot on that point a few moments ago.

In my opinion this would be detrimental to the agricultural community. A number of private lending institutions in rural Canada have recently gone out of business. Some of them have been taken over by smaller credit unions, at least their work and their mandate. There is not a lot of competition out there. There is not a lot of choice for farmers to secure a loan. We oppose Motion No. 2.

We also oppose Motion No. 3. The Alliance was concerned that FCC could acquire large blocks of land through acquisition, which would be harmful for private enterprise. John Ryan, the very well respected president and CEO of Farm Credit Canada, responded directly to the concern at committee by stating that it was not the corporation's intention to acquire blocks of land or be in the land management or land banking business.

He also noted that young farmers in Canada suggested that as long as there was this kind of leasing arrangement there would be an opportunity for intergenerational transfer and for new farmers to get on the land. We support the bill and we oppose the three Alliance recommendations.