Rose-Marie Ur

[The Family, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, October 7 to 13 is National Family Week in Canada and the theme this year is rediscovering family strengths.

Building on the 1995 theme, families are forever, this year's National Family Week theme urges Canadians to celebrate the strengths and capacities of our families.

Where would we be without our families? For many Canadians there is no simpler or more fundamental question to answer. The guidance and the love that our families give us are essential to finding our own path to the future.

Rediscovering the many ways in which families support and help their members through life's changing circumstances, life's joys and sorrows brings us all back to the basics of what families are all about: caring, nurturing, supporting and developing the potentials of all their members.

During this National Family Week and all year long let us all pledge to rediscovery and celebrate the strengths and achievements of our own families and the families in our communities right across Canada.

[Ethanol, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how delighted I am with the October 1 announcement by Commercial Alcohols Incorporated that the dream of a $153 million ethanol plant in Chatham, Ontario is now official.

As one of the largest and most efficient in the world, the state of the art, computerized Chatham plant will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, producing over 150 million litres of fuel ethanol and industrial alcohol.

Construction of the plant, which will be operational by next winter, will be a real catalyst for economic renewal in southwestern Ontario. It will provide 400 direct and indirect jobs and a new market for 15 million bushels of locally produced corn each year.

As well, all Canadians will benefit from a renewable, cleaner burning fuel for motorists. It is worth noting that all car manufacturers approve the use of ethanol blends in their warranties.

This announcement is the perfect counterpart to the government's intention to ban the use of MMT in Canadian gasolines, ethanol being the logical replacement as an octane enhancer.

[Breast Cancer, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It is symbolized by the pink ribbons worn by some of my colleagues here today.

Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths among Canadian women. Approximately 18,600 new breast cancer cases will be diagnosed this year and 5,300 women will die.

In 1992 Health Canada implemented a major initiative on breast cancer totalling $25 million over five years. Our partners in this initiative include the Medical Research Council, the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute of Canada, the provinces and territories.

There are other activities under way. Health Canada supports provincial breast cancer screening activities, the development of care and treatment guidelines, research, five information exchange projects, and strategies for the continuing education of health care professionals.

I applaud the efforts of those who are fighting this disease. October will provide us all with an opportunity to support breast cancer initiatives.

[World Alzheimer Day, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, September 20 was World Alzheimer Day. I had occasion to participate in the first ever Alzheimer coffee break put on by the Sarnia-Lambton Alzheimer Society, just one of 120 chapters participating in this event nationwide.

Over 100 locations in Lambton county hosted a coffee break last Friday. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Mrs. Hendrickson who teaches family studies at Lambton Central Collegiate in Petrolia and her senior students for graciously hosting the event my staff and I attended.

Alzheimer's disease is a degenerative brain disorder that affects a person's mental and physical abilities and behaviour by destroying vital brain cells.

There is hope. While there is not yet a treatment to slow or stop the progression of Alzheimer's, much research is being done. Some scientists estimate that the cure is only five to ten years away. Let us hope this indeed is the case.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and duly certified by the clerk of petitions.

The petitioners request that Parliament refrain from passing into law any bill extending family status or spousal benefits to same sex partners, and further that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex benefits or of homosexuality.

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, June 17th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lend my support to Bill C-34 and the motion to refer it to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food prior to second reading.

Bill C-34 represents a commitment made in the red book and reiterated in the February 1995 budget to reinstate federal statutory authority to make interest free cash advances to farmers across Canada.

The new law, which is long overdue, will be known as the agricultural marketing programs act or AMPA. It will among other things replace by statute the previous government's ad hoc cashflow enhancement program which is due to expire next year. It is very important to have this act in place by statute. In doing so we will be providing security for our farmers.

Bill C-34 is an amalgamation of four existing acts: the Advance Payments for Crops Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act and the Agricultural Products Board Act and one ad hoc program which I have already mentioned, the cashflow enhancement program.

Besides being confusing, producers were not being treated equally under the four acts. In order to overcome this confusion and unfairness, the new agricultural marketing programs act will treat all commodities groups alike. In this way, inequities and irregularities of the previous programs have all been eliminated. Simply put, cash advances give farmers the flexibility to meet their expenses after harvest and before crops are sold, despite what may be untimely market limitations or unfavourable prevailing prices when cashflow is desperately needed.

In Canada these cash advances have traditionally been interest free until 1989 when the previous government removed that feature from the law and left interest charges to be decided on an ad hoc basis from year to year through the cashflow enhancement program. The results have been far from satisfactory, creating confusion, instability, anxiety and unfairness. In order to make this new legislation more effective, it has been divided into three particular programs: the advance payments program, the price pooling program and the government purchases program.

Under the advance payments program, which is covered by clauses 4 through 25 of the bill, the maximum allowable advance payment to producers will be $250,000, the first $50,000 of which would be interest free. If there should be a crop disaster due to abnormal weather conditions or disease, an emergency advance payment of $25,000 could be paid but in such a case the minister would not be liable for the interest.

This part of the bill is fairly similar to the Advance Payments for Crops Act but it would also make adjustments in order to take into account the specific situation of grain producers under Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction. Under the bill and unlike the situation under conditions now in force, advance payments would be paid directly to producers, not the Canadian Wheat Board permit book holders. As well, clause 14 would allow the use of cash purchase tickets as advance payments to producers under CWB jurisdiction. This particular example illustrates just how flexible the new act will be to meet the needs of producers who operate under a wide range of diverse marketing systems throughout Canada.

In cases where a producer who defaults on his obligations with a partner, a member or a shareholder of another association, the association would not be eligible for advance payments and vice versa. For greater clarity, the rule applicable to associations between spouses, parents or children would be the same rule which is applicable to Revenue Canada income tax returns.

One important objective of Bill C-34 is to reduce defaults on repayments which have unfortunately cost taxpayers heavily over the years. Defaults on repayments under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act have reached several million dollars. The bill would provide that producers who defaulted on repayments would have to pay all recovered costs and interest on outstanding advance payments. As well of course they could not obtain other advance payments nor avoid repayment by setting up another company or business. Obtaining a new Canadian Wheat Board permit book would not allow a grain producer to avoid the obligation to repay advance payments which were obtained by using another permit book.

Although eligible crops are listed in clause 2 of the bill, the following criteria would also apply: the crop would have to be harvested and stored; it would have to be possible to store the crop in its unprocessed form; the producer would have to retain ownership of the crop; and the producer would have to be responsible for marketing the crop. In some sectors of agriculture, particularly horticulture, these criteria have been perceived as being overly restrictive since many products are difficult to store in their unprocessed form or are acquired immediately after being harvested.

The Ontario corn producers were one of the three farm groups that had requested that advance payments be made at seeding time and that advance payments be set at 70 per cent rather than 50 per cent of the value of the crop.

I must reiterate that this act is primarily based on equity among crops, regions and producers right across Canada.

As for spring advances not being included in the act, it is important to remember that consultations for this bill involved over 160 producer groups across Canada. Most of these groups were either neutral on the issue or opposed the concept of spring advances.

The great majority of producer groups felt that spring advances would change the focus of the advance payments program in such a way that the current focus of marketing would be changed to one of simply supplying operating credit. The producers felt that this would ultimately reduce the benefits and increase the costs of the program to unacceptable limits.

The act will establish a new risk sharing program where the delivery agent's liability for defaults will be based on the history of defaults. It will range from 1 per cent and 15 per cent instead of the current 2 per cent for the Advance Payments for Crops Act and no liability for the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. The act will also define more clearly the crops and eliminate potential overlap with the price pooling program.

The new legislation will permit producers to continue to use price pooling mechanisms while the approval process for these provisions will be greatly streamlined. Since the bill in clauses 26 through 30 would delegate authority to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food subject to the annual concurrence on general terms and conditions by the Minister of Finance, it would thus remove the requirement for the appointment of auditors and professional accountants for each agreement.

Having removed these layers of red tape, the federal government could much more easily establish a minimum guaranteed price for all products sold out of a pool by grade, variety and type of product. This guaranteed price would cover the initial price to producers and the operating costs of the pool.

As for the government purchases program contained in Bill C-34, the act will incorporate the provisions of the Agriculture Products Board Act. The act will maintain the ability of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to buy and sell agricultural products when unusual marketing conditions exist while removing another layer of bureaucracy, that is, the requirement for the agricultural products board.

In closing, I would like to briefly summarize the benefits that would come about once the agricultural marketing programs act is scheduled to come into force January 1, 1997. There will be one act instead of four to deal with the financial agricultural marketing programs in Canada, thus reducing current crop and regional inequities, inconsistencies in program administration, and overall program costs. Financial marketing programs will be easier for producers to accept. All producers will be able to obtain cash advances under the same administrative requirement. Defaults will be reduced by better screening before issuing advances, by improved controls, improved collection methods and stronger penalties for defaulted advances.

The act will be consistent with current government policy to recover administrative costs, increase risk sharing with participants, combine legislation which shares a common base and reduce program costs through less bureaucracy.

An overwhelming majority of farm producers and their organizations across Canada have shown widespread support for the direction the government is proposing to take on these issues. I encourage members in the House to do likewise by supporting the motion to refer Bill C-34 to committee prior to second reading so that my colleagues and I can give this bill our undivided attention.

[Petitions, June 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I table a petition signed by the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex, pursuant to Standing Order 36 and duly certified by the clerk of petitions.

The petitioners state that Canadians deserve a real say in how our scarce health care dollars are spent and which health care procedures they consider to be essential.

They request that Parliament support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I wish to table three petitions signed by the constituents of Lambton-Middlesex.

The petitioners request that Parliament refrain from passing into law any bill extending family status or spousal benefits to same sex partners and further that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex benefits or of homosexuality.

[Food And Agriculture Organization, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

On June 7 the federal government hosted a forum to discuss world hunger and food security with groups from across Canada. As a result of these discussions is the minister contemplating any changes so Canada can do more to help feed the world's hungry people?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the report stage debate on the employment insurance legislation, Bill C-12, which will surely have a positive impact on all communities of Canada, including my riding of Lambtom-Middlesex.

It should be mentioned from the outset that the old Unemployment Insurance Act has not been revamped for 25 years. The technological revolution that has been sweeping over the economy during this period of time has also been a force in reshaping, reconfiguring and redesigning our jobs.

Let us be clear. Changing technology does not mean there are no jobs. It does mean there are different jobs often in different places and often requiring different skills. The result is that people today change jobs more frequently not only within the company or industry but crossing into new industries and occupations as whole industries are reshaped and new ones spring up.

This new economic renewal has its positive side. It has brought new opportunities, new growth, new jobs, over 600,000 new jobs since the government was elected two and one-half years ago. An innovative economy also requires innovative social policies and I strongly believe Bill C-12 delivers.

Today I will address two key structural changes which are important features of the bill. The first is the switch from using weeks of work at UI covered jobs to using hours of covered work as the main unit of account for the new employment insurance program. The second is the new intensity rule whereby the replacement rate for insured earnings would fall with increased use of the program over the previous five years. I strongly support both of these innovations. Each is a made in Canada solution to important problems with our present unemployment insurance program.

The first of these two key proposed changes, the shift to using hours of work as the main unit of account, is a forward looking provision that will greatly affect program coverage in years to come. We currently have a program that excludes jobs offering less than 15 hours of work per week from UI coverage. Part time employment is on the increase for many reasons. However, as part time employment continues to grow, the portion of total employment in our economy that is UI or EI covered would also continue to fall.

Unemployment insurance programs in Canada and in other developed countries have been in place long enough that most of us have come to take for granted the important economic stabilization functions of these programs. For example, when any country slips into an economic recession, those who are laid off must cut back on their expenditures far more severely if they are ineligible to collect earnings from insurance benefits. In addition to the damage to them and their families, the large decreases in expenditures also translate into lower levels of sales and even more layoffs.

This circular spiral of layoffs leading to sales decreases which lead to more layoffs can potentially result in deep economic depression. I believe this is every bit as possible now as it was back in the 1930s without powerful economic stabilizers like our UI program that push up the standard of living of those who have this coverage. Thus, the value of UI or EI programs as an automatic stabilizer depends on the broadest coverage possible.

The proposed move to an hourly as opposed to a weekly unit of account will, I believe, reverse the erosion of our present UI program due to the increasing numbers of part time jobs that are ineligible for coverage under the present program rules. This will definitely help to preserve the important economic stabilization rule of this program.

The change will lead to greater equity of treatment for part time versus full time workers. This is increasingly important in an economy where growing numbers of people can only find employment in part time jobs though they may be working full time when their hours of work and all jobs are counted.

Before offering my comments on the proposed intensity rule in Bill C-12, it is worth mentioning that the 1971 changes to the UI Act set our UI program on a course toward becoming an income transfer rather than a social insurance program, characterized by an unwieldy mix of regional equalization and federal welfare transfers in a social insurance program format. I am convinced that the intensity rule would help re-establish UI or EI as a true social insurance program.

I use the term social insurance to mean a program that provides insurance coverage against specified perils, with those paying for the program receiving fair personal value for their money. True insurance coverage is not the same as having individual rainy day accounts that eventually can be used by individuals for other purposes if the insurance peril does not occur, in other words, if what was paid in is not fully used to cover peril related damages for the individual.

True insurance means that those who are covered by the program, who are unlucky and suffer the insured peril, whether it be fire, theft or unemployment, can draw out more than they paid in according to stated rules. On the other hand, those who are lucky and never do suffer the peril they are insured against must be satisfied with having enjoyed the peace of mind of knowing they were insured.

All true insurance programs involve some sort of experience rating or other risk related adjustment of the premium payments versus the coverage levels. There are essentially two forms of experience rating in most insurance programs. Those in higher risk groups either must pay higher premiums for the same coverage levels as is common for automobile collision insurance or get less coverage for the same premium rates.

The proposed intensity rule in C-12 adopts the latter approach. That is, all claimants with more than 20 weeks of regular benefits in the previous five years would have their benefit rate gradually reduced. It would decline by one percentage point for each 20 weeks of past benefits collected to a floor of 50 per cent of insurable earnings.

The maximum benefit rate under Bill C-12 would be 55 per cent of insurable earnings. I believe this is more than fair. This is true to the experience rating adjustment of any real insurance program. It is also worth mentioning that everyone would start EI with a clean slate. Previous use of UI benefits before July 1, 1996 will not count.

Our present UI program is not means tested and is not paid for out of general tax revenues. It is entirely funded by payroll taxes on those covered by the program and their employers. Yet it is not experience rated either and is thus not really an insurance program. In fact, all those covered by the program are taxed according to the same schedule.

Those at greater risk of becoming unemployed because they live in regions with higher unemployment rates are given more rather than less coverage. Those in high unemployment regions become eligible to collect UI benefits with fewer weeks of insured benefits and can continue to collect benefits for more weeks.

At present the use of our UI program is constrained by neither experience rating nor means testing. The intensity rule addresses this by introducing a mild degree of general experience rating in the UI program.

Rather than largely excluding seasonal workers such as those engaged in the construction trades, as was the case prior to the 1971 changes to the UI program, Bill C-12 will provide high risk workers with coverage. However the degree of coverage would diminish with increased claims over the previous five years. In this way broad coverage would still be maintained without risking a runaway growth of program costs.

I am convinced that the intensity rule would successfully change the current UI system by transforming it into a real and much fairer insurance program. Of course many of those in intermittent employment truly cannot find other work.

Canadians have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to make personal sacrifices to provide financial assistance to others who are in real need. That is why Bill C-12 contains a number of provisions to address this reality. For up to three years those who have exhausted their benefits will have access to target employment benefits such as wage subsidies, earning supplements, self-employment incentives, and skills and loans grants.

Experts have looked at all aspects of how the old UI system operated. They know it can affect the behaviour of employers and employees in ways that Canadians simply do not accept any more. Bill C-12 is a good piece of legislation that successfully addresses some of the more current aspects of our system.

After 25 years of the status quo, it is time Canadians had an employment insurance system that better reflects the realities of the 1990s and beyond.