Dick Proctor

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate this afternoon to make amendments to the proposed changes to the Farm Credit Corporation Act.

Some Canadians will know that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has been considering this legislation over the past short while. We have heard from some of the groups that would be affected by the legislation. In opposition to what we have heard in the last two speeches, the New Democratic Party caucus does not have major concerns with what has been proposed.

The Farm Credit Corporation was established in 1959. Although it was originally the lender of last resort to family farms, that role has changed over the years. Probably most of those changes were introduced after 1993 when it became a self-financing operation.

The industry has been changing dramatically since the act was amended. There are active farmers in the House of Commons today who can attest to that only too well. There is an ongoing revolution in Canadian agriculture and perhaps around the world. It is more complex. There is much greater interdependency among suppliers, producers and processors than ever before.

Producers are growing new crops. In the standing committee this morning we had a lengthy debate on organic crops that have been multiplying enormously over the past 15 years or 16 years. They are growing new crops. They are diversifying into livestock production. They are entering into long term contracts with suppliers and buyers. Farmers are forming alliances to increase their purchasing and selling power. These are called new generation co-ops among other things. Some producers are exploring new generation co-ops and others are expanding into value added manufacturing.

In this environment producers need a broader and more complex range of financial and business management services to help them achieve the long term success they are striving for. Farm related businesses need greater access to capital, including equity and venture capital in order to achieve that growth.

In the winter of 2000 the standing committee was told by the chief executive officer and other senior officials of Farm Credit that they had held a number of stakeholder consultations with more than 100 national and regional organizations to discuss the proposed changes to the legislation. Almost all those organizations, we were told, were supportive of the amendment. Their main concern was that Farm Credit Corporation should continue to maintain its focus on family farms and on primary production.

We were told that one farm organization which was strongly opposed was the National Farmers' Union. The NFU's main objection, as we heard it and understood it, was that the proposal before us would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to finance farm related businesses which were not farmer owned and controlled.

That is a significant piece of the proposed change to the legislation. Until now it has had to demonstrate amply that it is farmer owned and controlled. This change is one that the NFU believes would enable Farm Credit to act like a private lender with its only goal being that of maximizing its profits.

The NFU believes that Farm Credit should focus only on family farms. It is concerned that if Farm Credit is allowed to lend to agribusiness that is not farmer owned or controlled it will emphasize operations geared to the export market instead to domestic family farms.

We have considered that point. We listened carefully to people who made representations to the standing committee on agriculture. Notwithstanding the concern expressed by the National Farmers Union, notwithstanding what my colleagues from the Bloc and perhaps the Alliance said, we think on balance the changes are warranted and support them.

Before I get into the Alliance recommendations, there is a name change. The acronym FCC would be the same but it would now be called Farm Credit Canada. Farm Credit Canada would be allowed to provide financial services to farm related business on the input or output side of primary production. For the first time FCC would be able to lend money to non-farmers. That is a change as I mentioned a moment ago.

In addition, equity financing would be extended to producers and farm related businesses either directly or in partnership with others.

[Trade, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade who has rationalized the supplemental permits to import U.S. cheese sticks in excess of the WTO quota because of an increased demand in Canada.

At the same time the minister says that he wants an access agreement with the United States so Canadian cheese sticks can be exported there. If Canadian processors have product to export, obviously they have the supply to meet our domestic market.

Would the minister cease these silly mind games, stop issuing these supplemental permits immediately and protect Canadian supply management by enforcing the tariff rate quotas that were negotiated at the WTO?

[Agriculture, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food heard in a non-partisan way that prairie agriculture ministers, their lead critics and indeed ordinary farmers say that failure to act quickly on the crisis faced by grain and oilseed producers will mean the loss of a key industry and one with important export implications.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial and territorial counterparts will be in Whitehorse at the end of this month. My question is in the same vein. Will he and his officials commit to be as open minded and visionary as possible so that together a program can be developed that will save this industry before it is too late?

[Labour, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Retail Council of Canada gives a retailer of the year award but we should consider a sweatshop retailer of the year award. There is no shortage of worthy candidates from which to choose.

Nominations could consider the Disney Corporation which has sweatshops in China that force women to work seven days a week, 16 hours a day for the princely sum of $90 a month.

We could consider Walmart which manufacturers its Kathy-Lee products in southern China where workers are reportedly locked up for all but 60 minutes a day, work 90 hours a week and then charged most of those wages for room and board.

This year's sweatshop retailer of the year award goes to Reitman's stores which continues to import huge amounts of clothing from Burma in spite of the Canadian government policy asking businesses to refrain from trading with that country because its brutal military regime uses profits from the textile industry to finance the repression of its citizens.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the leader's remarks in this area. In his previous capacity as the treasurer for the province of Alberta, he will know, in terms of the farm situation, that in recent years the Liberal government made much of the fact that funding for farm aid programs was in the 60:40 ratio; 60% from the federal government and 40% from the provinces. The government would have us believe that has been the case since confederation. However there are all kinds of examples to indicate that it is a relatively new phenomenon.

I just came from a meeting of the agriculture committee at which it was made very clear that the have provinces, which would include Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, were probably better able to finance farm programs, such as the AIDA program and now the Canadian farm income program, than some of the have not provinces, including Manitoba and Saskatchewan at this point in time, as well as I suppose the Atlantic provinces.

Could the Leader of the Opposition comment on that and indicate what his party feels should be done in this instance?

[International Child Abduction, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I believe our caucus is the only one that has not had the opportunity yet to participate in the debate.

Debate is on the motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. The motions states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show leadership on the international stage: (a) by taking action designed to increase the number of signatory countries to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; (b) by signing bilateral treaties that include commitments to respect custody and access orders as originally handed down by the courts; and (c) by taking the necessary steps within its own borders to combat international child abduction.

I read with some degree of interest what the spokespeople for all other parties in the House had to say on this topic. It is very timely that the Bloc member introduced the motion. I note it has the support of the government, the Official Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party, and now the New Democratic Party today.

There are three parts to the motion. It is not necessary to go into great detail because it has the unanimous support of all five parties in the House of Commons. I am pleased to be adding the weight and support of the New Democratic Party to this and would take my seat on that point.

[Agriculture, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year farmers were told that the government's pockets were not as deep and that was why they could not get the kind of funding they so desperately needed to compete with international subsidies.

Yesterday's announcement of at least a $15 billion surplus puts the lie to that particular argument. Given the size of the surplus and the fact that it is one-third larger than was predicted by the finance minister last fall, will he now commit to helping out those desperate farmers today?

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I want to ask him to develop the theme he raised, which is that we may be going in a slightly different direction than the Americans are. I agree with him very much on this.

In our speeches we both raised the fact that the U.S. supreme court has taken a very different position on the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Last week the justices voted 8 to 0 against allowing it. We have gone in a different direction in this country. I think some 400,000 Canadians have been designated to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. There does seem to be some science that goes with it to suggest that this is a good thing.

In regard to the broader idea of taking a direction that is different from the American direction, I do not want to bring up politics, but the member's party and our party have a different view of free trade. It is my contention that globalization and NAFTA are placing greater impositions from the United States on Canadians and Canadian law.

If we were to go in a significantly different direction than the Americans would appear to be going—and there is nothing to indicate that they are about to decriminalize anything related to so-called soft drugs—I wonder how much latitude we would actually be given as a country. I would be interested in the member's comments on that.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the last question, I did not mean to suggest that there are not people in all strata of our society who do not have a problem with recreational drugs, abuse and addiction too. Maybe there was some misunderstanding.

What I said was it seemed to me to be more prevalent in people who were the more vulnerable in our society. I agree with what he said. Those of us who have seen the award winning movie Traffic would see that it strikes at all levels of society.

With regard to detox centres, yes we do have some in Saskatchewan. I doubt there are enough. I imagine there is a paucity of these in all jurisdictions in the country. However I would hope that part of any study done by the House would look into that in detail.

Just on that point, the provinces deliver health care. We must work with the provincial and territorial jurisdictions to find out what is currently available and what we think needs to be done collectively to address any shortage of detox centres.

[Supply, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can pull them out, but I have seen some statistics that would suggest drug use in Saskatchewan is just a little under the national average and quite a bit lower than it would be in British Columbia, Quebec and perhaps one or two other jurisdictions.

In all jurisdictions, I think people who tend to be more vulnerable, the young and the poor, would use these drugs. We probably would see a greater percentage of use by native people and perhaps newcomers to Canada. Regardless of the percentage of use in a province or jurisdiction, there would probably be an overarching group of people who would be most vulnerable and likely to use these drugs more than others.