Dick Proctor

[Division No. 52, November 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am taking part in the debate this evening because of the conflicting signals that are being dispatched across the way by government officials, ministers, and the Prime Minister surrounding the agricultural income disaster assistance plan.

One movie I enjoyed was called Cool Hand Luke . There is a great line in that movie when the warden says to Paul Newman: “What we have here is a failure to communicate”. Truer words were never spoken when it comes to this program. I would like to give a few examples to support that.

When the minister of agriculture was in the province of Saskatchewan at Prince Albert last July, he refused to meet in any meaningful way with the farmers of Saskatchewan who had very grave concerns about the AIDA program. When the Prime Minister was asked by my leader to go out and inspect the flooded regions of Saskatchewan and Manitoba last July, he declined that invitation. So far as I know he has never gone there or flown over it to inspect it.

When the premiers and the farm lobby from Saskatchewan and Manitoba came last week to meet with officials in Ottawa, they were what can only be politely described as sandbagged by government officials. All of a sudden there were new numbers. They would not release the numbers.

Those numbers have been released as of today. For the record, it says that Saskatchewan remains significantly below the previous five year average and is expected to remain significantly below the previous five year average in the year 2000. Nevertheless that was reason enough to say that they could not give them any more money at this point because the numbers did not jibe.

Today I had an opportunity to meet with alfalfa dehydrators from Alberta and Saskatchewan. These folks are diversifying. They are doing value added, primarily in the two western prairie provinces. They are doing exactly what the government wanted producers to do, to diversify, to do value added and to have more folks working in that part of the world, rural development.

International prices on alfalfa have dropped far below their cost of production. The Europeans are subsidizing to such an extent that our folks cannot compete. Once again there is no additional money for an industry that is not yet mature but has been growing and has had a strong track record. We simply cannot compete with European subsidies. It is another example of a failure.

The AIDA deadline was extended yesterday for farmers in four provinces, including Manitoba and Saskatchewan, who had significantly expanded their operations. My office had a call this morning from a farm family who did not even know there was a program under AIDA for significant expansion. We were running around frantically yesterday because the deadline was November 1, only to find out after they got the forms in the mail that it has now been extended to December 31. They were running around literally like chickens with their heads cut off.

There are half a dozen examples of glaring failures to communicate effectively with the western Canadian agriculture sector. My point is that unless this is rectified immediately it will result in a very large problem in western Canada.

[The Late Roderick Webb, November 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic caucus I too am very pleased to stand and offer our condolences on the passing of Roderick Webb who was elected 40 years ago this fall in a byelection in Hastings—Frontenac to represent that constituency. Mr. Webb was re-elected in 1962, 1963 and 1965 and retired in 1968 undefeated, which is a feat in and of itself.

What a political decade Roderick Webb lived through. When historians write about the century that is just ending and about the political scene in Canada, they will probably single out the 1960s as one of the most, if not the most, turbulent decades. Mr. Diefenbaker's huge majority after 1958 was reduced to a minority in 1962. Mr. Pearson was unable to secure a majority in 1963 and again in 1965. It was an extremely fascinating time. Roderick Webb was here and was very much a part of that decade.

Other people have spoken very eloquently in the House about Mr. Webb and his background. I would simply like to conclude by noting what a friend of Mr. Webb said upon his passing: “He enjoyed politics and life, was a community leader and just a nice person”. Would not all of us like to be remembered that way?

On behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus our sincere condolences to Mrs. Webb, Mr. Webb's son Fred and grandchildren.

[Agriculture, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what happened last week with the farm lobby here was a total travesty and a cruel joke, as Henry Dayday will be the butt of two weeks from today.

What does the minister say to Darlene Doane from Saskatchewan who called this morning to say that with flaxen and canola off $3 a bushel they are $90,000 in arrears this year over last year? What does he say to the grade six student from Manitoba who wrote to the Prime Minister in November and said “Because my parents don't get enough money from the crops and the cattle, we don't get as much food, clothes, school or recreation supplies?”

In light of these heartfelt questions how could the minister possibly justify his department's unavailable assertions?

[Agriculture, November 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, news that the federal Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food has downgraded the seriousness of the farm income crisis on the prairies undoubtedly had farm families dancing in the streets this past weekend.

This analysis, albeit without any statistics to support it, must have been music to the ears of farm families that are at the end of their line of credit, unable to borrow more from their lending institutions or to pay their suppliers, and cannot afford new school supplies for their children.

In order that the unrelenting joy and affection from prairie farm families toward the government continue, I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food when he will table these latest forecasts from his department.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, November 1st, 1999]

Not here. I agree with the hon. member, and that is why we voted against the time allocation motion earlier today.

We support the treaty. We are proud that our New Democratic Party provincial colleagues in British Columbia have taken this historic step. The Nisga'a treaty was 20 years in the making and its signing is an important step toward stability and certainty for all British Columbians. We are hopeful that the post-treaty era will bring greater stability and more opportunity for economic development.

I will answer some of the questions I have been sitting here listening to for some time. We hear repeatedly that it is a race based treaty. We do not accept that. We think it is based on justice, fairness and stability. We think this treaty may make laws so that non-aboriginal people may indeed become Nisga'a citizens. That is provided for in the agreement. It also protects the rights of non-Nisga'a people living on Nisga'a lands.

We also hear calls that a referendum should be held on this matter in the province of British Columbia. There has been a great deal of consultation on the bill. There is neither the requirement nor the need for such a referendum.

I will close by noting that the treaty transfer of ownership of the land collectively to the Nisga'a people allows for the protection of property rights. It allows for various ways for people to privately own the land they live on. It specifically says that individuals cannot get less in terms of property rights than they already have. They can only get more.

Finally, we have heard that the treaty denies all rights to Nisga'a women. There is absolutely no basis for this claim. Women's rights are protected by the charter of rights and freedoms which applies to Nisga'a law.

We support the treaty. We are proud that our NDP colleagues in B.C. have taken this historic step to rectify wrongs of the past. We note that it is 20 years in the making and that it is an important step toward stability and certainty. We want to help aboriginal people not only in British Columbia but across the country build stronger, more self-reliant communities.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, November 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. Like the previous speaker I am not from the province of British Columbia. I do not represent that riding, but that is where any similarities end with regard to my support for this treaty.

The treaty was signed in August 1998 and has been ratified by the Nisga'a people and by a free vote in the B.C. legislature. Ratification by parliament is the final step.

The Nisga'a final agreement sets aside approximately 2,000 square kilometres of the Nass River valley as the Nisga'a land and establishes a Nisga'a central government with jurisdiction similar to that of other local governments. Two thousand square kilometres sounds like a significant piece of property and it is. I note that it is about 25% of the size of the constituency I have the privilege of representing in Saskatchewan.

Under the final agreement the Nisga'a will own surface and subsurface resources on Nisga'a lands and have a share of the salmon stocks in the Nass area wildlife harvest. The final agreement also provides the Nisga'a financial transfer of some $190 million payable over 15 years as well as $21.5 million in other financial benefits.

We believe that the payment will support economic growth in the region and help to break the cycle of dependency that has endured over the centuries. In addition, the final agreement specifies that personal tax exemptions for Nisga'a citizens will be phased out.

The criminal code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other provincial and federal laws of general application shall continue to apply. These provisions and others are comprehensibly set out in the final agreement.

The treaty provides for a total of $253 million in one time payments to the Nisga'a over 15 years from this government. The B.C. government has contributed land valued at slightly in excess of $100 million, another $37.5 million in forgone forestry revenue and $40 million for paving highways in the area. In addition, a fiscal financing agreement is in place to transfer money to the Nisga'a for social services. Ninety per cent of that is already being transferred so we are talking about a 10% increase in that area. Finally a known source revenue agreement details how the Nisga'a government revenue will phase in to reduce federal transfers.

I want to emphasize, as I said a few moments ago, that over time the Nisga'a will become much more self-sufficient than is the case at the outset.

With regard to surface and subsurface resources such as logging, fishing and minerals, they will be managed by the Nisga'a in accordance with provincial laws and regulations. Unlike other treaties the Nisga'a final agreement does not require the Nisga'a to surrender their rights under the constitution. That is important because it was recommended by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People and this treaty has been agreed to without such a clause. It is therefore seen as a way to coexist rather than a means to have aboriginals surrender their rights in exchange for a treaty.

We believe that the level of public and legislative debate on the final agreement has been unprecedented in the province of British Columbia. It included hundreds of public meetings, province-wide public hearings by an all-party committee of the legislature, and media coverage across the province. It is noteworthy that in the legislature there were more than 120 hours of debate, which I am told is more debate than on any other piece of legislation in B.C. history.

[Points Of Order, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when the member for Halifax West made his comments. I did not see the lips move but I heard and recognized the voice of the member for Prince George—Peace River as saying that comment.

[Agriculture, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, even the Liberal member for Provencher in statements before question period today agreed that Liberal MPs from Manitoba said that they recognized that farmers need resources urgently and that they need them now.

The numbers coming out today show that a specific bridging arrangement or transitional payment is required. Will the minister of agriculture inform the House whether or not he is prepared to level that playing field now by providing some help, or will he just stand idly by as prairie farm families are forced off the land? Which will it be?

[Agriculture, October 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the prairie farm lobby has been telling any MPs who would listen today what we have been telling the government for months. Namely, net farm income for both Manitoba and Saskatchewan is in a deficit position and AIDA and other safety net programs simply are not working because they were never designed to deal with a crisis of this magnitude.

Everyone agrees that the long term solution is for Americans and Europeans to reduce subsidies. We know that. What is the government's short term solution that will allow 16,000 prairie farm families to stay on the land this year?

[Petitions, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on behalf of 200 people living in the riding of Palliser who are concerned about threats and rumours that funding for the Snowbirds will be curtailed. This is the air demonstration squadron 431.

The defence department is suggesting that perhaps funding will be limited. The petitioners feel that the Snowbirds represent an icon with the skill, professionalism and teamwork of the Snowbirds. They are asking the House to take all action necessary to ensure that there is stable funding for the air demonstration squadron 431 Snowbirds.