Debates of Feb. 21st, 2000

Division No. 689

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 690

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion lost.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, on October 25 I was on my feet in this place to question the government House leader on the joint UN and Elections Canada vote that was to be held in schools across Canada. The initiative which was held on November 19 required all school age students to select a right as defined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which they felt was most important.

My question for the government House leader and eventually to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada was why, given the controversial nature of the UN convention, were Canadians being kept in the dark with respect to this undertaking? More important, why were school administrators, trustees, teachers and parents being kept in the dark?

In a subsequent letter to the editor which I forwarded to my riding media, I explained that the rights as listed on the proposed in school ballot were taken directly from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is important to mention that this convention was passed in 1989 by cabinet only. Indeed the document that has inspired this exercise in democracy, as Mr. Kingsley called it, has never been subjected to the scrutiny of the Canadian adult democracy.

Opponents of the convention have long claimed that the wording of the document is anti-family. I have also come to believe that this is one of the reasons the Canadian parliament has yet to debate the matter and why the United States has failed to ratify the convention to this day.

Before I continue I want to be perfectly clear that I am neither supporting nor condemning the convention. However, I have very grave concerns with some of the potential problems that have been brought forward by the many people who have signed petitions opposing this document. I understand that over 13,000 Canadians have signed petitions since 1997 opposing this convention. I also feel that given the fact that the said petitioners claim that the convention has implications with respect to family life and parental rights and responsibilities, parliamentarians should have the opportunity to debate the issue more fully.

Each and every day we pass laws and regulations that are supposed to improve the quality of life for all Canadians. In fact earlier this evening we gave Bill C-23 its second reading. It is no secret that this bill which amends over 60 pieces of legislation to extend spousal benefits to same sex couples is highly controversial. It is also no secret that I am not supportive of this legislation.

I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I am not supporting this legislation due to the fact that it recognizes financial dependency only in cases where there is conjugality. Yes, as silly as it seems, apparently Mr. Trudeau was wrong and the state does indeed belong in the bedrooms of the nation.

As you know, Madam Speaker, I represent one of the best ridings in all of Canada. Moreover, Huron—Bruce is primarily rural in nature. This fact often creates a situation where extended families are financially required to band together so as to maintain functionality. I can name numerous dependency relationships such as those involving two siblings or even a child and an elderly parent.

I would ask why are these relationships less deserving of benefits or less financially or emotionally dependent on one another than a same sex couple, those who are engaged in relationships based upon conjugality? The short answer is that they are not less deserving.

As we all know, the Supreme Court of Canada has determined in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that society cannot discriminate. With this in mind, I would respectfully suggest that if we fail to recognize all dependency relationships, we are simply exchanging one form of discrimination for another.

In conclusion, I do not want to be seen as someone who is simply opposing this legislation because it would extend benefits to same sex couples. While it is true that I am a staunch supporter of traditional family values and its systems, I am also not a person who is prepared to promote hate or prejudice. I am promoting an inclusionist policy. Let us heed Mr. Trudeau's famous words and draw the shades if we are going—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the issue raised by the member for Huron—Bruce in his original question raised in the House.

The hon. member had asked why Elections Canada was involved in hosting a vote in schools across the country. I believe he was referring to what was known as the national election for the rights of youth. Elections Canada and UNICEF Canada had invited all students under the age of 18 to select which one of the several rights enumerated in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child they felt was most important. These rights include the right to an education; the right to food and shelter; the right to a safe environment and a healthy life; and the right to be treated without discrimination.

The Canada Elections Act gives the chief electoral officer a mandate to implement public education and information programs to make the electoral process better known to the public. Over the years Elections Canada has undertaken numerous initiatives, many of them involving youth, on the importance of voting and other means of participating in our democratic system. Examples are the Forum for Young Canadians, CRB Foundation, regional heritage fairs and Salon Pepsi Jeunesse.

In carrying out such initiatives with Canada's youth, Elections Canada is not indifferent to the fact that the 18 to 24 year old age group registers the lowest rate of participation in the electoral process.

Elections Canada has also developed educational programs to assist schools in explaining how the Canadian electoral system works. Participation of schools in these educational programs, such as the national election for the rights of youth, is always on a voluntary basis. The decision to undertake—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid there is no more time.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise tonight and put forward some views and ideas regarding the farm aid package announced last year by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

With my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and the southwestern Ontario region producing a large percentage of agri-food products, the success of agriculture is of prime importance. If we lose our farm families and our means of production, we lose our sovereignty as a nation.

Having met with the federations of agriculture in my riding, the pork producers, dairy, corn, soybean, wheat and vegetable growers to name just a few, all have offered ideas on possible improvements to AIDA within the whole array of federal-provincial safety nets and national agricultural policies. All of the producer groups in my riding believe that changes could be made to improve safety nets and help producers of all agricultural commodities in times of financial hardship.

It has been suggested by the Middlesex county pork producers for one that for NISA, the matchable deposit percentage of eligible net sales should be raised from 3% to 6%, allowing producers to build a cushion to fall back on when eligible net sales drop.

In addition, they feel that producer accounts should be allowed to go into a negative balance when eligible net sales drop below 75% of the previous three year average, to a maximum of 10% of the previous three year average of eligible net sales in any given year, with a total allowable negative balance of 25% in all years combined.

To offset prolonged financial problems, combined with the deposit caps now in place, the NISA program would help producers most in need of financial assistance, namely young producers just getting started in farming and producers of commodities prone to cyclical price swings beyond their control.

Corn producers have constructive suggestions too. The market revenue program now extended for two more years needs to be confirmed for a longer period. They are calling for 90% coverage and elimination of premium deductions in market revenue. This would recognize the continuous pressure put on cash crop producers by the U.S. farm programs.

We must cause positive changes to the AIDA program. It definitely has some kinks in it and collectively we must make it work to establish a more effective farm aid approach.

With the suggestions of producer groups, such as those in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, with the provinces and the federal officials, and through the national safety net advisory committee of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, I am hopeful that new proposals will be assessed on their own merits.

We must stand for our farmers. We must support our farmers and rural Canada, the backbone of our economy. I look forward to working with the minister and local producers in my riding to develop better methods to deliver assistance more quickly and efficiently to the farmers most in need.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, the changes which the government has introduced to the AIDA program will benefit many producers across the country. We will now be covering negative margins. Negative margins occur when a farm has a particularly bad year and the operation has insufficient revenues to cover variable costs like fuel, machinery repair and chemicals.

What will also help farmers get through these tough times is that they now have the option to make a choice in 1999 of a reference period on which the payment calculation for AIDA is based. They will be able to choose either the previous three years or three of the previous five years where high and low income years are not counted. This is called the Olympic average. This will be a real help to farmers as they will not need to count a low income year that they may have had due to flooding, drought or some other occurrence beyond their control.

Furthermore, in response to industry requests, on January 13 the Government of Canada made a new commitment of up to $1 billion for the next two years to design a new disaster program to assist those producers most in need and to help them get through the tough times the hon. member referred to.

The government continues to improve AIDA in response to input from farmers and members of parliament, such as the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.17 p.m.)