Kevin Sorenson

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the former commissioner of the RCMP does not share the same confidence that the solicitor general does. In fact Norman Inkster warns that our heightened vigilance following a terrorist attack on the U.S. cannot be allowed to lapse as it has in the past. Mr. Inkster says that if Canada is serious about security we must have appropriate funding and it must be maintained.

I ask the solicitor general, will he immediately request additional funding for CSIS and the RCMP?

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has assured Canadians that the country's security forces are on high alert following the terrorist attacks in America.

Is the solicitor general confident that our security and intelligence agencies have adequate resources to effectively discover and apprehend terrorists already residing here in Canada?

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question as well as the best wishes offered by himself and his constituency.

What we have seen happen and the words that we bring forward are not new. No one wishes that they need stand in parliament or any place and offer condolences to the American people for what has happened. Everyone wishes that this event would have never happened. However the Canadian public expects the government's number one priority is for the security and safety of its citizens.

When we talk about cutbacks in the many different areas of funding, budgets and fiscal restraints, never has our party or any other party suggested that cutbacks should occur in areas that would negatively impact on the security of our nation and its citizens.

However, in answer to the question, CSIS, our Canadian Security Intelligence Service, has made it abundantly clear in its reports that we are risk managing. These words, which jump out of the reports, are being said by the individuals responsible for the security of our nation. When they conclude that we are trying to risk manage the files, issues and people we are performing intelligence on, it is of huge concern to the House.

As has already been mentioned, reports have shown that operating budgets have fallen from $464 million to $333 million. CSIS states in its reports that there are now more files and more cases but $131 million less with which to operate.

Our RCMP state that the responsibility of CSIS is to gather information and intelligence and bring it to parliament and the government so that the RCMP will be able to reach out and provide safety and security to our nation. We have seen 2,200 positions cut in the RCMP because of lack of resources and funding. We have seen $175 million cut.

As we say back in Crowfoot, we need to put our money where our mouth is. We need to show our commitment by taking action on these cutback measures and showing our commitment to providing security to our citizens again.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in the debate expressing heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims of the attack on America and to the American people. I do so with a heavy heart.

My thoughts and prayers, as well as the prayers of all Canadians, have been and will continue to be with the many American and Canadian families who are grieving the loss of loved ones. The enormity of this tragedy is incomprehensible to most adults.

One can therefore only imagine the impact of these horrific events on children who suffered the loss of a mother, father, aunt, uncle, brother or sister. Our own children, only remotely affected by the evil death and devastation, are reeling from the mere thought, let alone the reality, of losing those they loved so dearly and depended on.

I for one have hugged my children just a little more fiercely and protectively in the last few days. Prior to my departure yesterday, my nine year old daughter Kristen and seven year old son Ryan expressed reservations about daddy flying to Ottawa. How can we assure our children, who cannot comprehend such world complexities and tragedies, that such tragedies will not befall us? The answer is that we cannot.

However we can assure them that as parliamentarians we will do everything within our power to minimize the chances of such atrocities happening in Canada and from reoccurring in the United States. I therefore join with all members of the House in urging and supporting the government to maintain the heightened levels and vigilance enacted in Canada following the attack on America. We cannot afford to do otherwise. Canada cannot remain complacent.

It is true that Canada is not a major target for terrorist attacks. We cannot, however, presume to be immune from terrorism. It has been well documented that we are a venue opportunity for terrorist groups, a place where they may raise funds, purchase arms and conduct their activities and support their organizations in their terrorist activities.

Most major international organizations have a presence in Canada. The 1998 CSIS report indicated that there were as many as 50 organized terrorist groups active in Canada, mainly using our country as a banking centre.

The report indicated that liberal immigration laws, relatively open borders, freedom of movement, advanced communications systems and the proximity to the United States all made Canada inviting for terrorists. Our geographic location makes us a favourite conduit for terrorists wishing to enter the United States.

Over one-third of all terrorist attacks worldwide are against the United States. It is therefore absolutely imperative that we, for the sake of our best friends and closest neighbour, ensure that we effectively plug that conduit. We must begin by ensuring that our security and intelligence service, our front and first line of defence against terrorism, is adequately funded.

I am referring to the mandate of CSIS to collect and analyze all information and to report and advise our government on threats to the security of our nation. I am also referring to the RCMP that has the responsibility to take direct action to counter any terrorist threat.

The operating budgets for these agencies fell from $464 million in fiscal year 1989-90 to $333 million in 1997-98, or a $131 million reduction. Funding for CSIS fell from $179.4 million in 1991 to $167 million in 1997-98. The Canadian public wants to know whether the government is committed to the safety and security of its citizens.

The government's restraint program significantly affects the services resource levels. Between 1992 and 1998 personnel was reduced by 760 people, or a slash of 28%.

The 1996 CSIS report stated that it had more files than ever before but fewer resources to do the job. The CSIS 2000 public report said:

Up to now, CSIS has been able to risk-manage the challenges. However, the terrorist events of late 1999 underscored the continuing requirement to review efficiency within the context of the existing threat environment. More than ever, the Service must rely on risk management, concentrating resources selectively and precisely on the major issues, while assessing new and emerging issues.

The same report goes on to state:

Terrorism in the years ahead is expected to become more violent, indiscriminate, and unpredictable than in recent years. The use of advanced explosive materials, in combination with highly sophisticated timers and detonators, will produce increasingly higher numbers of casualties. There will likely be terrorist attacks whose sole aim would be to incite terror itself. A hardening attitude and a willingness on the part of certain terrorist organizations to directly support terrorist operations in North America reinforce the belief that Canadians, now more than ever, are potential victims and Canada a potential venue for terrorist attacks.

In the last couple of years CSIS has endured a number of setbacks or scandals. In November 1999, a top secret document was stolen from an analyst's van. On the heels of that incident, another agent left a computer diskette, brimming with highly confidential and classified information, in a busy Toronto phone booth. The worst security lapse occurred when CSIS failed to uncover two alleged terrorists living in Montreal. Algerian born Ahmed Ressam, at the centre of a terrorist organization, was operating out of a small apartment just hours away from Ottawa. According to the United States government, he was not the only suspected terrorist residing in Montreal, he had other brothers in the cause. Apparently on the eve of our millennial celebration, the pair, allegedly on a lethal mission for the Osama bin Laden group, were to slip from British Columbia down into Washington state where they had the ingredients for a bomb so powerful that it could have obliterated a large building. Fortunately, a United States custom agent stopped Ressam as he was attempting to cross the border on December 14, 1999.

Apparently CSIS had no role in Ressam's arrest despite the fact that the alleged terrorist had been in Canada since 1994. He had fraudulently obtained a Canadian passport and was using it to freely move back and forth between Europe and even up into Afghanistan and to Canada.

Ressam's failure to appear at immigration hearings and even his arrest for robbery apparently did not set off enough warning bells with CSIS or immigration.

The Los Angeles judge presiding over Mr. Ressam's trial has expressed outrage at Canada's handling of this case. No one really knows how Ressam evaded CSIS. However I will give our security intelligence service the benefit of the doubt assuming insufficient resources played a significant role. I would suggest that clearly it is time to reverse the government's restraint program that has so adversely affected CSIS and the RCMP and therefore undermined the security of this nation and the safety of its citizens.

It is time to reverse the RCMP's loss of 2,200 positions and close to $175 million in funds since 1994.

Due to time restraints today I cannot list the many unanswered questions regarding the effectiveness and abilities of security or intelligence services. However in the coming days I will, as the solicitor general critic for the official opposition, ask questions. As one of my constituents writes to me:

We owe our freedom and way of life to one thing only, the goodwill and protection afforded us by our neighbours to the south. Without them, we would be under the control of whomever had the might to take for themselves the rich resources of this country, for we surely do not have the strength to protect what is ours in this present day. Terrorism declared war upon our good neighbour on September 11, and so declared war upon us. This then is a time when we should support, in every manner possible, the United States.

We must ensure our first line of defence against terrorism is properly equipped, staffed and funded to ensure that Canadians are not potential victims and Canada a potential venue for terrorist attacks.

We must be vigilant.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it has been over a year since the government has promised a more commercial grain handling and transportation system. The plan required the Canadian Wheat Board to negotiate commercial agreements with the rest of the grain industry, but this has not happened.

Could the Minister of Transport tell the House why these commercial agreements have not been signed? What is he doing to end this impasse that is negatively affecting Canadian agriculture?

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

Competition is good. I hear the Liberals questioning and heckling about competition. We love competition and a competitive economy, but businesses do not want to compete with the federal government. They do not want to compete with their own tax dollars. They do not want to compete directly with a federal corporation or institution in which they have put tax dollars.

We are also concerned that the expanding powers of the FCC would simply duplicate the existing authority of other public financial institutions such as the Business Development Bank. The Business Development Bank, which realistically does not have a great track record, would then perhaps move out of areas dealing with agriculture.

It would appear that Farm Credit Corporation would simply deal with agriculture and not the farm. Its name is to be changed to Farm Credit Canada. Maybe it should just be changed to agriculture because they have forgotten the family farm.

Our amendment would ensure that FCC's new powers do not duplicate the authority problem that is currently present in the Business Development Bank. We are also very concerned about one aspect which we brought to committee and which the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands raised in the House on a number of occasions.

We are concerned that Bill C-25 will allow Farm Credit Corporation or Farm Credit Canada to become a significant land holder. The amendment is designed to ensure that the federal government does not become a major holder of Canadian farmland. By so doing it would not influence the market price of land.

I think we would agree on all sides of the House that we have seen places and times in Saskatchewan when there was a great land bank. The government owned land that had been turned back to it. We want to see changes that would prohibit the owning of farmland by the government, thus influencing the market value of land.

Our concerns on this subject were increased during the clause by clause debate in committee. The chairman of FCC indicated that it could consider taking possession of land in the government's yet to be announced plans to facilitate intergenerational transfer of farmland. FCC and the government should have no objections to this motion because the FCC has stated in testimony before the committee that it was not its intention to become land holders.

We have seen time and time again that intentions may be the best, but obviously sometimes legislation allows for loopholes or just the opposite. Farm Credit has also testified that it works to ensure that land is sold at prevailing market prices and that FCC does not influence land values. All members of the House, even those on the other side, believe that the longer a federal government corporation holds on to land it will not sell it for this price because it has money vested in it. As long as that happens it will influence the value of that land on the market.

Motion No. 3 is similar to an amendment we brought forward at committee. With the consideration and the wisdom of the House I believe that all three amendments and recommendations will be accepted.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-25, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 18 on page 2 with the following:

“services and products to farming operations and to those small and medium-sized businesses in rural Canada that are businesses related to farming. The primary focus of the activities of the Corporation shall be on farming operations.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-25, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 2 with the following:

“that complement but do not directly compete with those available from the private sector, or that complement but do not duplicate those provided by other publicly owned institutions;”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-25, in Clause 5, be amended by adding after line 44 on page 2 the following: f .4.1) dispose of farmland acquired by it, provided that the disposal is at fair market value and is done as quickly as possible, and in any case no longer than five years, after the acquisition.”

Mr. Speaker, again it is a privilege to stand in the House to debate some amendments to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Farm Credit Corporation Act.

It was my privilege to attend committee meetings and to hear the witnesses. We were fairly apprehensive as we went into the exercise of looking at Bill C-25. After the committee meetings we were even more apprehensive and maybe more concerned about some of the legislation that was being brought forward in this change.

The first amendment is designed to address one of our party's most serious concerns about Bill C-25, that the corporation would lose its focus of providing service to farmers because of its involvement in off farm businesses.

One concern of the Canadian Alliance and other members is that the Farm Credit Corporation would move away from being directly involved to the extent it is now in the family farm into a new realm that is currently controlled or benefited by other corporations. Consequently we believe the legislation would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to fund, help and provide service to larger businesses.

According to the current wording of the bill, the FCC could loan money to any agricultural business no matter how large or lucrative. For example, if an application were made by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool to the government, the government could conclude that the FCC could help with the financial requirements the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool would be after. The amendment would ensure that any services offered to non-farm operations would only be given to small and medium size businesses and not to large corporations.

In committee the FCC and government officials said they would have no reason to fund the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. That would move beyond the FCC's mandate. However the legislation as it is would not limit or prevent that from happening. If that financing began to happen we would soon see that the family farm would be put on the back burner and would lose another opportunity for funding.

The second amendment is designed to ensure that the federal government does not actively compete with private financial institutions, banks or credit unions. One of the interesting facts that came out of our committee meeting was from representatives of Canadian credit unions. They made very clear that in a number of instances the Farm Credit Corporation was directly competing for business the credit unions had already had.

In one instance the Farm Credit Corporation after hearing what interest rate percentages the credit union was offering competed by lowering its interest rate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among all parties present and I think that you would find unanimous consent of the House to have the report stage motions in the name of the member for Cypress Hills-Grasslands transferred to the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot.

[Agriculture, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, an overnight rain will not fill most of the dugouts that are parched and dry. In regard to water supply for livestock, PFRA supports community or group projects, but individual farmer and rancher projects will only be considered depending on the availability of funds.

This is cold comfort to people like Dale Fagin of Hardisty and Dale Bousquet of Consort who have repeatedly been denied assistance to drill water wells for their livestock. I ask the minister of livestock if he will immediately request additional assistance for the PFRA and ensure the funding goes to farmers—

[Agriculture, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Alberta farmers are facing severe drought conditions which have not been experienced since the 1930s. Livestock cannot be pastured because of a lack of grass, and now they cannot be pastured because the water wells and the dugouts lack water.

The only thing drier than the water wells and the dugouts is the funding that is available through the PFRA. The PFRA ran out of money four days after the renewal of this year's budget.

Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food immediately request additional funding through the PFRA for western Canadian farmers to help them deal with these extreme drought conditions?