Dick Proctor

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, because of low commodity prices, the failure of AIDA and unchecked input costs the pessimism on the prairies this spring is apparent to all and palpable.

Now farm organizations want a grain freight rate costing review because recent efficiencies within the system appear to be favouring CN and CP by about $200 million a year. Two hundred million dollars a year would amount to about $5,000 per farm per year.

My question to the Minister of Transport is, when he meets with the stakeholders on Wednesday in Winnipeg, will he agree to establish a comprehensive grain freight rate review?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we need a balanced approach, in answer to the member for St. Albert. Certainly there are areas where we need tax relief. I remember back to the Carter commission in the 1960s when we talked about tax reform. It has never happened in the last 30 odd years. We do need that but we also need good social programs.

I would say Canadians are a bit schizophrenic. Some people say that Canada wants a Scandinavian social program paid on an American tax base. We clearly cannot do that, but we need some direction from Canadians about which they want more.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member's comments are very accurate in terms of the drop in financing for agriculture.

We are in a very real dilemma in agriculture, particularly on the prairies where grain prices and world commodity prices have dropped precipitously. Input costs are going up. We thought we got the government's attention last fall when it made a commitment toward an agricultural income disaster assistance plan.

The plan came into effect or the details were announced in February and they are not at all promising. Most farmers with whom I have spoken feel that they will not benefit very much, if at all, from this AIDA program.

There are some real concerns. Members on all sides of the House will recognize the important role agriculture has played, especially in recent years as we have begun to grapple with the debt and deficit and to improve our balance of payments.

Agriculture is now the seventh leading sector in Canada. Yet I fear that we will throw out the goose that laid the golden egg by simply grabbing everything we can and leaving our farmers impoverished, to the point where many of them will have to walk away from their agricultural responsibilities or opportunities, those things which they love to do most, simply because the government is either unable or unwilling to give them the protection they need so that they can compete effectively with their counterparts, farmers, producers and ranchers in the United States and Europe and in other countries around the world.

The member has raised a very important issue which the government will need to address in the days and months to come.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about the implementation of the 1999 budget. I want to make several points, but since it has been dubbed the health care budget I will start with that.

Perhaps just as an aside to the member for Fundy—Royal, and I do not want to get into a big debate about this, but the record will show that the first provincial government that eliminated its deficit was not Mr. Klein's in Alberta or Mr. Filmon's in Manitoba. It was in fact the Romanow government in Saskatchewan.

All across Canada the years of federal neglect and cutbacks have taken their toll. The fact that the Liberal government felt compelled to come up with a health budget is a credit to the thousands of Canadians, some of whom may be actually watching, who have written, or faxed or phoned their members of parliament in recent months.

We do not forget on this side of the House that the government only a few months before the introduction of the budget refused to admit that the health system needed an infusion or a transfusion of cash. It is only with constant public and political pressure together with a relentless stream of individual horror stories that the government was forced to put some money back into our ailing health care system.

What is striking about this budget when we strip away the hype is that it really does not offer very much at all. It is really a lesson in underachievement. It may abet the Liberals' political crisis but it does not come close to solving the larger health care crisis. If there was ever an opportunity to have taken dramatic steps to set things right, we had it in this budget.

The deficit was gone and there appeared to be enough surplus money to make a difference, but by holding back, Canadians will actually have to wait for several more years before the money that has gone out of the system is put back into our health care system. I remind the House that the Liberals with the introduction of the Canada health and social transfer back in 1995 cut more than $21.5 billion out of health and social funding.

More than half of that $21.5 billion was in the health care funding. This year the budget put back only $2 billion, not quite the cause for celebration that some on the other side would have us believe. Members of the government keep repeating $11.5 billion. We heard it this afternoon. That is what they want us and Canadians to remember about the budget. What they want us to forget is that the $11.5 billion is spread out over five years.

It gets worse. We do not get the ongoing benefit of that $11.5 billion because it is not cumulative. By the end of the next five years only $2.5 billion will have been permanently added to the transfer, $15 billion per year, up from the current $12.5 billion. It is like a wage bonus instead of a wage increase. It is a one time fix that leaves us no further ahead.

More important, the federal share of health spending is not going to change significantly either. When medicare began, the federal-provincial ratio rate was 50:50 funding. When the Liberals came to power in 1993 the federal share had dropped all the way to 18%. Now it is down to about 11%. In the next five years it is going to go up only 1.5% to about 12.5%. How much clout will 12.5% buy us when some provinces would like to slide into a two tier American style health care system?

Our look at the federal budget has helped us realize that much work lies ahead for all Canadians who care about our public health care system. New Democrats certainly do. We cannot count on the government. It is now obvious that only continued public pressure will keep the government from backsliding on its commitment to health care. Will next year's budget just be another corporate affair?

There has been some conversation in this debate about the previous prime minister. It was interesting to see not long ago that Mr. Mulroney was congratulating the current Prime Minister for his success in implementing the Progressive Conservative agenda for Canada. I remember the former prime minister used to say that in 20 years we would not recognize this country. After nine years of Mr. Mulroney and now six years of the Liberal administration we do scarcely recognize our country.

We saw it again today in the House of Commons during question period. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance gave us happy talk about all the good things that are happening across the country, how the dollar is strengthening, the deficit has been eliminated, and the debt is being managed. That is not what they are saying behind closed doors.

The other day I read an economic summary of a report written for the use of federal deputy ministers. This report discovered what most of us already know from our very personal and family experiences. That is that the average income of Canadian households has declined in the 1990s. In fact in 1996 family income was a full 6% less than it was seven years previously. This is the legacy of the government: falling incomes, rising uncertainty, and fear about the future.

Members may ask why this is happening. The report I referred to says that this decline was mainly due to loss in market income, in other words, income from employment. Remember this was a report done for deputy ministers of the government. The authors warned of their growing fear that after 15 to 20 years, income inequality is now very much on the rise. The stage is set for a growing gap between the affluent and the poor in our society. There is plenty of evidence around to suggest that it is already happening.

I do not have to tell the House of Commons or the folks who live in many Canadian cities of the homelessness and the lack of affordable housing and the crisis proportions this has resulted in. What I found most interesting in talking with an economist about this recently was the observation that if it had not been for Canada's social programs, the decline in household income would have been much greater than it was between the 1989 and 1996 period.

If it were not for programs such as health care and social assistance, as wounded as these programs currently are, the inequality among the rich and other Canadians would be much greater.

At the same time this economist told me that there have been what he calls massive increases in the economic insecurity being experienced by Canadians because of deliberate cutbacks the government had made to employment insurance, health care and other programs.

Canadians know, for example, that if they lose their jobs it is difficult if not next to impossible for them these days to get employment insurance. That is not the way it used to be, but that is the way it is now since the government has changed the rules so severely.

Health care is under attack, as I have said, and people know that if they get sick they have to pay for many of the services that used to be provided from tax revenues.

With regard to employment insurance as it is now known, or unemployment insurance as it used to be known, the government has raided the employment insurance fund. It was at $26 billion at the end of March. The government has placed the surplus in the employment insurance fund as a nest egg to spend as it pleases, rather than provide adequate benefits to workers, increase the benefits, or help more people to utilize the fund.

In the city of Regina where I live only one unemployed person in five is now eligible or actually receiving any form of employment insurance. In fact, the two cities of Regina and Ottawa share the distinction of having the lowest percentage of unemployed receiving employment insurance benefits.

This is clearly a deliberate government policy. The result is insecurity and hardship for thousands of individuals and families, and the loss of millions of dollars to small businesses that the unemployed can no longer afford to patronize by purchasing groceries, gas or children's clothing.

These policies are callous and unacceptable. People do matter. They pay into employment insurance and when they lose their jobs it has to be there for them. Our caucus has made this issue a priority and we will push hard for improvement.

We have talked in the House in recent days about Bill C-78. I believe it was before the committee today. It is another $30 billion tax grab that the government wishes to take out of the pension plans. Last week we heard the parliamentary secretary talk about the fact that the government was responsible for losses and therefore should enjoy the benefits of the surplus. He said in his response that the government had dipped into the plan by some $13 billion, which therefore justified it being able to take out $30 billion.

We simply do not buy that. We have talked to the retirees. We have talked to the current employees. They are not saying that the $30 billion all belongs to them, but they are saying that it needs to be shared. That is a message the government is not interested in hearing whatsoever.

On homelessness, Canadians know only too well that the government has done little or nothing for the homeless in our country and very little for the poor. The United Nations last fall published an in depth study which was not at all flattering to Canada.

Although it was referred to earlier that the United Nations has said that Canada is the best country in the world in which to live, this study said that in addressing budget deficits the federal government had not paid attention to adverse effects for the population in general. In other words, the government had balanced its books on the backs of ordinary families and those hurt most were those most at risk.

The committee says that homelessness in Canada is an area of grave concern. The report states that it is of grave concern that little or no progress has been made to improve the lot of aboriginal peoples, especially in the areas of housing, unemployment and safe drinking water.

The world's poor is also worthy of some attention in this budget address. The Liberal government has demonstrated a lack of concern for the poor not only in this country but the most vulnerable in many other countries. The budget introduced in February provided only a modest increase of $50 million for development assistance. This amounts to a mere 0.2% of our gross domestic product.

In the 1960s a more generous Liberal government set a target of 0.7% of GDP.

We are providing about one-third of what we actually promised more than 30 years ago in developmental assistance to the third world, despite the fact that Canada remains one of the richest countries in the world.

Stephen Lewis, a former Canadian High Commissioner to the United Nations and a social justice advocate at the international level, said last year the fact that Canada was not meeting even this modest 0.7% of its GDP was an international tragedy. This overseas development assistance, according to Mr. Lewis, is used for health systems, nutrition, education, water and sanitation, the things we cannot get private sector investment to undertake.

Along much the same line, I was disappointed that the finance minister was silent in the budget about any commitment to forgive the debt owed to our government by some of the world's poorest countries. Many thousands of Canadians are involved in the Jubilee 2000 campaign to cancel the bilateral debt owed to Canada by 50 of the world's poorest countries. These countries are so indebted that they will probably never be able to repay us.

Our gesture in forgiving that debt would have both generous and symbolic importance. Leaders of the Jubilee 2000 campaign met with the minister last fall. They felt he was sympathetic. They came away encouraged, but they and the poorest of the world's poor came up empty handed when the budget came down.

In conclusion, we are very concerned about the direction the country is going in. We will be watching vigilantly human development and continuing to ensure that Canadians are protected against sickness, against unemployment and against poverty.

We are certainly in favour of creating wealth but we want to see that wealth shared in a fair and equitable manner. Too many of the Liberal government's policies in Ottawa are both callous and unacceptable. People matter and we on this side of the House are prepared to work with Canadians to fight for things that matter most to them and to their families.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know there are a couple more members who would like to participate in the debate. If you would please indicate when 10 minutes are up.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the member opposite. I listened carefully to his speech.

I wonder if the member shares my disquiet about the recent comments from one particular corporation operating in this city. I am referring to Nortel. I am old enough to remember that Nortel was once Northern Telecommunications which was a Canadian crown corporation. In his comments he talked about the wealth that has been generated for individuals over the last 30 years. I wonder if the present board of directors of Nortel appreciate that the investments that were made by Canadian taxpayers and the Canadian public over the years have helped to put Nortel in the position that it is in today. The wealth that it is generating has come from the public and in fact there is some obligation that is owed back to this country. Would the hon. member care to comment?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having an opportunity to say a few words. I have been listening to the debate all day, however, I have yet to hear how the $30 billion surplus accumulated. There has been some acknowledgement that the employer and the employees have paid into it, but so far very little has been said about the interest that is earned on the investment, and there is a significant amount of money earned in that manner.

This was debated back in 1992 under Bill C-55, and I am not speaking about the split-run magazine bill. The current minister responsible for the Treasury Board makes a great fetish of how this is taxpayers' money and it must go back to them. However, if we look over the last 40 odd years, in 1955-56 the employer contributed 33.9% to pensions while the interest earned at that point was 36.8%. It peaked in 1975-76 when the employer contributed 37.4%, although the interest earned was up to 49.4%. By 1993-94 the employers' contribution was only 14% and 75.1% of the money came from interest earned. All of this has been documented.

The previous auditor general criticized the plan and noted, for example, that in 1991 there was a pension holiday. The government did not contribute any money in that year, a saving of some $760 million dollars.

Treasury Board projections to the parliamentary committee that looked at it at that time forecast a reduction in employer contributions of $5 billion over 10 years, or $500 million a year. Once upon a time the Liberals even saw through this perspective. Not any more of course.

The Treasury Board study of 1986 concluded that the Public Sector Superannuation Act would likely earn an additional 2% interest if the government had stopped borrowing money while determining unilaterally what tiny bit, if any, interest it would repay to the plan.

Who has been affected is another question. It has been documented that the 20 year average for people at the low end of the wage scale, especially women, employees who endured wage freezes and did not receive pay equity, is about $9,600 per year in pension.

It is no wonder that the Professional Institute of the Public Service says that people are amazingly upset at what the government is about to do with this $30 billion surplus. The president says it does not seem to matter how much we discuss anything, because if the government does not get its way it just writes legislation and imposes its will on us.

In 1992, here is what the Liberals proposed on Bill C-55. They proposed binding arbitration to resolve disputes, including disputes around the disposition of pension plan surpluses. They also proposed that there be minimum employer contributions of 10% to the Public Sector Superannuation Act, 12% to the Canadian Forces Act and 14% to the RCMP Act. All three plans would be subject to the Pension Benefits Standards Act with right of access to data estimates and projections by all interested parties.

What has happened between 1992 and 1999 is the complete reversal? Obviously in 1992 the Liberals were on this side of the House and in 1999 they are on the government side of the House. It reminds one of the old Irish proverb which I have used before: You can vote for whichever party you like but the government always gets elected. It is certainly true and nowhere more true than in this country where for 132 years Canadians have switched back and forth between Liberals and Conservatives.

In opposition we hear nothing but promises, promises, promises: promises on pension reform, electoral reform; tax reform, health reform, and reform of committees to give MPs more power and influence. Once they get on that side of the House how quickly they forget. They even promised parliamentary reform when they sat on this side of the House. What do we get today? We get a few hours to debate a very important piece of legislation, a document of more than an inch thick. It is a total sham.

In this case it is even more odious because hundreds of thousands of retirees probably do not even know what this latest smash and grab is by the government. It reminds all of us of the former prime minister's admonition that the boys are cutting up the cash in the back room.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 26th, 1999]

Turn it over to management. That is what is happening.

[Division No. 386, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have a very straightforward question. I listened very carefully to the parliamentary secretary. He said that the federal government has put $13 billion into the program over the years. If it has only put in $13 billion, why is it trying to take out $30 billion? Why is it not sharing it with retirees and current employees?

[National Agricultural Relief Coordination Act, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate today on Bill C-387. I congratulate the shy, quiet and soft-spoken member for Brandon—Souris for his initiative. I only wish as well that this were a votable motion.

This is a very good initiative. It calls for the co-ordination and delivery of programs by governments in the case of agricultural losses or disasters created by weather or pests, the co-ordination of the delivery of information, assistance, relief and compensation and to study the compliance of such programs with the World Trade Organization.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture president has stated in response to this that it supports the initiative on Bill C-387. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture feels that the farm community has lost confidence in the safety nets debate both now and in the future and it requires a more honest and open relationship between industry and government.

I am sure part of the initiative for this bill comes out of the meeting 26 in Regina that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had back on February 26. It talked about the need to identify principles that are essential to initiate discussion for federal-provincial agreement on safety nets. This document is not a policy study but it suggests fair and transparent guidelines which are essential to establish a long term and predictable safety nets package.

I listened very carefully to the member for Brandon—Souris. It would not be my intention to be as hard on the minister of agriculture as the member was. I note last fall when we were discussing this program the minister of agriculture said a number of things publicly and privately. He said that it had to be a bankable program. He said it had to be a whole farm program. He said it had to be a long term program and that the application forms had to be easy to fill out.

By my calculations we have come out of this with one out of four of those. We have a whole farm program. But as my colleague from Manitoba has said, it is not a bankable program. The credit union manager in Dodsland is on the record as having said that. This is certainly not a long term program. It is a two year program which certainly is no one's definition of long term.

Despite the minister standing in this place last week and saying that only six forms have to be filled out, people that are in the accounting business for a livelihood say it is not just farmers who are dazed and confused by the rules governing the federal-provincial farm aid program. Professional accountants are saying that it is extremely complicated. It is so complicated a lot of producers may decide it is not worth the trouble and expense of applying for assistance under AIDA. One accountant also said that he hoped not but he thought it was probably going to happen.

I do not blame particularly the minister of agriculture for what has happened. I think that after December 10 the minister of agriculture was snookered by other members around the cabinet table, probably by the Minister of Finance. They wiggled and squirmed and dealt so that NISA was included and negative margins were excluded.

I remind the parliamentary secretary, who I am pleased to see here today, of the meeting we had at the Agricore Founding Convention in Calgary last year. He along with the mover of this bill, the member for Brandon—Souris, were present. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food predicted that the Government of Canada would be “very generous” when it came time to revealing the AIDA package. There are no farmers whom I have spoken with in the constituency of Palliser or in Saskatchewan who think this program is generous in any way shape of form.

As an aside, I met with the organizers of the rally in Bengough, the same group that organized the rally in Regina, on March 6. They were in my office on Friday. According to one of the organizers, he had found one individual who qualifies for some assistance. The amount is less than $500, or less than the bill that he will receive from his accountant for this work.

That is why the Canadian Federation of Agriculture came out on December 10 or 11 and said that it was very pleased with this program. This was before it realized that the devil was very much in the details. On April 6 it went on to say:

The AIDA program...is a labyrinth so complex that very few farmers will be able to reach the financial assistance at its centre. CFA continues to find new twists in how eligibility for coverage is calculated that only serve to exclude an increasing number of farmers and reduce the 70 per cent of support promised. After the math is done, the effective support may be as low as 40 per cent for some farmers.

The former president, Mr. Wilkinson, has said that it is not the third line of defence that they requested. The current president, Mr. Friesen, said that this program is more about saving money than saving farmers. It is not what they wanted and not how they wanted to work with the federal government.

The farm stress line in Saskatchewan is overwhelmed with the number of calls that are coming in from farmers. I want to read into the record a couple of extracts from the farm stress line as of February 4. There is an update that I will get to in a moment. It says:

We have noted an increase in the number of calls beginning in the fall of 1998. The Farm Stress Line has received 1,581 (calls) in 1998, representing the second highest number of calls in a year since the Line began in Feb. of 1992. Thirty percent of the calls received in 1998 related to farm financial issues. These calls may be considered as indicators of the crisis, but should not be considered as reliable statistical data.

Callers are bringing forward a wide variety of problems and issues, but it is apparent that financial issues dominate. Callers speak of cash flow problems, operating loans being at maximum with no ability to pay them down, and not being able to make land and equipment payments. Others speak of an inability to pay their utility bills, and worry about services being cut off. They also worry about how they will put in crop this spring. We receive calls from families who are being pressed by collection agents, and others have noted little tolerance or leniency from lenders. Many of our callers feel that they have no control of their situation, whether it is commodity prices or input costs. This situation makes it very difficult for people to be proactive and to find solutions.

There was an update on April 5. It said that the farm stress line received 430 calls from January 1 to March 31. Of those calls, 37%, almost 160, were on farm finance issues. Callers spoke again of no money to put in the crop, inability to gain operating money or refusal of a loan.

Earlier in the year some callers made inquiries on the soon to be announced support payments. In February and early March as people became aware of AIDA they inquired about how the application form might be accessed. In March some called to express their anger at the complexity of the form and the need to spend $300 or more to have an accountant determine if they qualified for AIDA.

In the majority of financial and/or insolvency calls, many said that they did not see a future in agriculture and were searching for other options. Options discussed have been either off farm income to support the farm operation or exiting farming all together. Some callers expressed the view that their employment options were limited and they required retraining, and it goes on from there.

These hit home. These are the very real issues that are of concern.

Just let me conclude by saying that we note the difference between what has happened south of the border and what has happened here in Canada. I want to read into the record the statement that the secretary of agriculture, Dan Glickman, made last fall, November 16 to be precise:

Factors beyond farmers' control, record worldwide production, weak Asian markets and merciless treatment from Mother Nature combined to depress prices and threaten the livelihoods of the very people we count on—

That is why this administration was resolute in its determination to get immediate emergency assistance to America's farm families.

We are asking where is that immediate emergency assistance for Canadian farm families?