Jerry Pickard

[International Actions Against Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to speak in support of our Canadian forces, the men and women who courageously work on our behalf at home and abroad. They are very much in our minds today as many of them prepare for participation in the military response to the events of September 11.

The military contributions being made by Canada to the campaign to eradicate international terrorism raise other thoughts, particularly for the members of the House who dedicate significant portions of their time and attention to questions of defence and security.

In forming my own thoughts in recent weeks, I have considered the same range of policy, programs and other issues that others here today have already spoken of.

One thing that has forcibly struck me and sticks in my mind is the underscored significance of the government's commitment to maintaining multipurpose, combat prepared forces equipped to perform a wide range of missions alongside our allies.

I have also been impressed with the relevance of these circumstances and of the wide range of initiatives undertaken by the government in support of our Canadian armed forces.

Over the past decade, for example, the government has shown its commitment to acquiring the equipment necessary to enable men and women of our forces to perform the complex and varied defence tasks expected of them. For starters, through 1999 and 2000 federal budgets and through supplementary funding, the government has reinvested more than $3 billion over a period of four years. However, like anything else, it is not enough and it is not just about money. It is also about spending this money very wisely. This is being done by targeting resources in key areas, including modernization.

Prompted by some startling headlines on this subject in recent months, it is worth emphasizing here that thanks to major investments in equipment the Canadian forces are better equipped now than they were a decade ago. Allow me to illustrate with several key examples from each of the navy, land and air forces.

The navy has four updated and modernized tribal class destroyers. One of our destroyers, the HMCS Iroquois , will be the central command and control vessel for the Canadian task force group being deployed as part of our Operation Apollo.

The Canadian forces also possess 12 modern patrol frigates equipped with high tech sensors and radars, as well as complex and capable weapon systems. They operate regularly as fully integrated members of the U.S. carrier battle groups.

Two of our frigates will also be deployed to Operation Apollo alongside U.S. warships, a fact that attests to the capability and expertise of our crews here in Canada.

Four Victoria class submarines that will replace the three 1960 vintage Oberon class submarines will be capable of conducting a more complex operation with fewer personnel and less maintenance than their predecessors.

Recent equipment acquisitions for the troops have focused on acquiring more deployable and operational mobile equipment, including the fast and manoeuverable Coyote reconnaissance vehicles and the LAV III armoured personnel carriers. This equipment is considered by our allies to be worldclass and both of these vehicles are built right here in Canada.

The high tech Coyotes and their well trained crews won rave reviews for their work in Kosovo and most recently in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The army has also acquired the tactical command, control and communications system and a number of other pieces of equipment, such as upgraded Leopard tanks and new, versatile personal clothing and protective equipment.

All of this helps our soldiers do the job the government is asking of them.

With regard to our air forces, the government has also taken significant steps to ensure they have the equipment they need to do the job.

In addition to acquiring 15 new Cormorant search and rescue helicopters, the first two of which arrived in Canada just days ago, the government has announced modernization programs for both the CF-18 fighters and the Aurora marine patrol aircraft, two of which we will be deploying shortly to the Middle East.

The modernization of our Aurora long range patrol aircraft with state of the art main computers and enhanced navigation and communication systems, will enhance the CF-18's ability to carry out coastal patrols and surveillance activities.

Similarly, the government's incremental modernization project currently being implemented on the CF-18 aircraft will provide for a range of leading edge upgrades, including new radar, radios, a night vision imaging system, a helmet mounted sight system and weapons management on computer.

These investments will build on earlier ones in precision-guided munitions and targeting pods that our pilots employed with great skill as part of Canada's contribution to the NATO led air command over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999.

As for replacing the Sea King helicopters, the government has indicated very clearly in the House that the marine helicopter project is the number one equipment priority for the Canadian forces. These will be combat capable helicopters able to work hand-in-glove with our worldclass frigates.

Taken together, these equipment modernization efforts, combined with investments in education, training and the quality of life of the men and women in the military and their families, will help ensure that the Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence are a force to be contended with.

Looking back, we can see that Canadian forces have adapted well to the demands of the post-cold war world. They have responded to the diverse assignments, including search and rescue operations, Arctic and maritime sovereignty patrols, year 2000 contingency planning, assistance to Canadians during ice storms and flooding, support of law enforcement agencies and a broad spectrum of international operations.

Defence will continue to pursue, as called on by the NATO defence capabilities initiative, innovative ways to invest defence dollars through pooling of resources and strategic partnerships with our allies. The men and women of the Canadian forces will continue to respond to the call to defend our country and our allies.

It is very clear that the men and women of the Canadian forces are the top individuals in the world. They put their lives on the line to defend this country, to protect our citizens and to serve our nation well. We must be very proud of the military and we must make sure that they are well supplied and they are able to carry out those functions in the best possible fashion.

I salute our soldiers of the past, our soldiers of the present and our soldiers who will be serving this country in a short time in the future. All Canadians must be very sure that first, they will defend our country as well as anyone; and second, we can be proud that they will defend our country with the greatest integrity there is.

[Food And Drugs Act, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill today.

One of the problems I found when doing research on the topic was that there was confusion with regard to safety versus information. I assure every member of the House and all Canadians that safety is an issue with the inspection of food in Canada. Food safety falls under the Department of Health and the inspection process is important to agriculture as well. We have mandatory labelling wherever safety is an issue.

We could talk about safety as it relates to allergies. There is no one in Canada who would not support that. The debate is not about safety. It is about public information. We must make that clear.

My second point is that there is tremendous concern about approving mandatory labelling before all the research is in. Organizations like the Consumers' Association of Canada, the chambers of commerce, the food manufacturers' groups, distributors' groups and processors' groups, many groups in the agricultural sector, the boards that relate to our grains, and the commodity organizations all have great concern with the issue. There is a wide variety of concerns with regard to the effect the bill will have.

There is another concern that because of the research and work going on, and there is tremendous study going on at this time, it is important to wait before a final verdict is made.

Those are the three points I will talk about in the few moments I have.

Food labelling falls under the Department of Health, and food safety is an issue. There can be no compromise with food safety and labelling in Canada. The Department of Health makes sure that anything with a safety condition is labelled. All other food labelling is controlled by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and it is its responsibility to ensure labels are done properly. In regard to health, such as allergy products or anything else of that nature, mandatory labelling is in place in Canada and will continue to be.

There are also rules for labelling genetically modified foods on a voluntary basis. Voluntary means a food does or does not contain genetically modified products. A volunteer labelling system affects all consumers, but it is clear that not all organizations dealing with the issue have set out the rules in a clear or concise way.

The Wall Street Journal on April 24, 2000 suggested there were real problems with genetic labelling.

They tested all kinds of products that were labelled genetic free. The results of the tests showed that some materials in the American public which contained 40% genetically modified products were labelled genetic free. Many products were not labelled in an accurate and clear way. That could become a major problem for everyone in Canada.

If we are to go through a labelling process, the process must be clear. It must be able to be confirmed. It must be accurate and not deceptive to anyone. The rules must be set out by the experts: people involved in food processing, governments that have a vested interest in making sure the consumer gets accurate information, chambers of commerce and others.

At this point in time the CGSB, the Canadian General Standards Board, is working with 132 participants. Some of the participants include the Consumers' Association of Canada, the National Institute of Nutrition, the National Research Council, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, AgriCorp, Ontario Corn Producers, the National Dairy Council, the governments of the provinces and territories, and the departments of health, agriculture, justice, industry and international trade in the Government of Canada.

It is a very broad spectrum. These groups are working as closely as they can with all stakeholders and everyone who wishes to get involved in setting much needed standards for the Canadian public. The results are to be reported within a few months.

It is the obligation of all members of parliament to make certain that proper information comes back so that all groups that have been doing studies for a long time can report, make clear to the Canadian public what information should be reported and labelled, and set out the process in a proper way.

One must wonder why we are moving so quickly at this point in time with a private member's bill when we realize the work that has been done by so many organizations to make certain that Canadians get proper information and that proper standards are set.

The Royal Society of Canada was asked to look into biotechnology and the regulations Canada would need in the future. The society formed an independent panel of science experts and asked them to study biotechnology labelling. They arrived at three conclusions. They endorsed the mandatory labelling system now in place in Canada and said that where health and safety are important proper labelling must be mandatory.

However there are no clear grounds or rules to develop a general mandatory labelling regime. The Royal Society of Canada, which is doing a great deal of study, strongly supports a voluntary labelling system. It does not believe in a mandatory system that would be without rules, clarity or form.

Where do we go from this point? There is no doubt that consumers should have access to information that enables them to make informed decisions about the food they eat. That information must be accurate, understandable, informative, verifiable and not misleading.

Canada's policy for labelling food has served Canadians very well in the health and safety field. The stringent safety requirements upheld by Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada have long protected the health of Canadians.

More detail is needed if labelling is to be accurate and useful to consumers. That is why the Government of Canada has put in place a process to develop a set of national standards with voluntary labelling to make sure that this issue is handled appropriately.

We should not pre-empt all the study that is being done by the experts and organizations that have been very intensely involved in food production and safety for many years and cause potential trade problems for all of us.

I come from a riding that is very rural and agricultural and that has the Heinz corporation, one of the major corporations in Canada. I ask members to consider the evidence of experts before supporting the bill.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Wild Rose for giving me an opportunity to clarify that position. I, like he, spent 25 years in education and I certainly am very aware of what can happen when young people disrupt the classroom. It is very unfair to all the other people in the classroom. When children are disruptive, do not allow the classrooms to operate and do not allow things to work, I do not think there is a colleague in the House, either on this side or that side, who would think that those children have to be in that classroom and continue to disrupt it daily. That is not the case. I do not believe it to be the case. I certainly would never support it and I know that most of my colleagues would not support it either. It is an accusation that is not supported by my colleagues or myself.

The hon. member was very clear about separating the non-violent people and not incarcerating them but instead giving them some guidance, support and help. That is very important. The non-violent people should have guidance and support where it is required. However, as far as the violent offender is concerned, with this bill we would have a lot more latitude in dealing with the violent people the member referred to. It is not just about putting them behind bars, but we can do that and we will do that. It is not just about sending them to adult court as adults, but we will do that under the bill. That is very clear.

This is not about just dealing with them on one basis, putting them in jail, locking them up and saying that is the end. Per 100,000, Canada has more young people locked up than any country that I am aware of. We have in jail 1,000 per 100,000 young people who commit crimes. In comparison, the United States has 700 per 100,000. The U.S. numbers are much lower. The Americans do not incarcerate as many young people.

The fact is that those young people need more help, a tremendous amount of it. They need guidance. They need counselling. I believe the members of the—

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in debate at third reading of Bill C-7. The introduction of Bill C-7 followed a lengthy period of consultation and review.

I remind members not only of the breadth and depth of the study that preceded the introduction of the bill but of the very strong arguments that were put forward to make sure the Young Offenders Act and the youth justice system would be changed. I further point out the extent to which the youth criminal justice act responds to the recommendations of task force and standing committee reports tabled over a number of years.

When the current Young Offenders Act was last amended in 1995 the government reiterated its commitment to conduct a comprehensive review of the legislation and the operation of the youth justice system. After a decade of experience with the Young Offenders Act it was time to step back and assess how the legislation and the youth justice system were working, and how they could be improved in ways that took into account the concerns and values of Canadians.

The standing committee on justice and legal affairs was asked to undertake an extensive review of the youth justice system. In carrying out its review the committee convened round table discussions, held a national forum, canvassed various parts of the country, heard from witnesses representing more than 100 different organizations and received more than 100 written briefs. The standing committee on justice and legal affairs released its report entitled “Renewing Youth Justice” in April 1997. It included significant findings about the youth justice system and made 14 recommendations for change.

Contributing to this comprehensive review by the standing committee was the report of a federal-provincial-territorial task force on youth justice. The task force, established in 1994 by the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for youth justice, was given a mandate to review the Young Offenders Act and its application. The task force was composed of provincial, territorial and federal officials with expertise in youth justice. Its members worked in prosecution services, correctional services, statistics and research, youth law policy and law enforcement.

In proposing its response to the standing committee report entitled “Renewing Youth Justice” the federal government took into account not only the findings and recommendations of the report but also the findings of the task force and calls from Canadians across the country for a strategy to change the Young Offenders Act.

As a result, a strategy for the renewal of youth justice was released in May 1998. The strategy sets out the basic themes and policy directions contained in Bill C-7 and, perhaps more important, the rationale. The strategy identifies three key weaknesses in Canada's youth justice system.

First, not enough money is being put into the system to prevent young people from falling into a life of crime. Prevention has been mentioned by almost everyone in the House. My colleague who preceded me was very much of that mind and many members of the House have said very clearly that prevention is important. This is the direction in which we need to go.

Second, the system must improve the way it deals with the most serious violent youths, not just in terms of sentencing but in terms of ensuring they are provided with extensive, intensive, long term rehabilitation that considers their interests and those of society.

Third, the system relies too heavily on custody for the vast majority of non-violent young offenders when alternative, community based approaches could do better. The system must instil social values, help right wrongs and ensure that valuable resources are targeted where they are most needed.

In response to these weaknesses, the new strategy proposes to renew Canada's youth justice system with a focus on three key areas: crime prevention and effective alternatives to the formal youth justice system; meaningful consequences for youth crime; and rehabilitation and reintegration of young people. All of these, working together, will help society have a better system.

It commits us to target custody as a response to the more serious offenders and to provide more meaningful community based sanctions for the vast majority of youth crime, thereby contributing to a reduction in Canada's youth incarceration rates, which are among the highest in the western world.

For provincial and territorial governments, the federal financial commitment takes the form of a five year financial arrangement worth a total of $950 million to support the implementation of the youth criminal justice act and the overall policy objectives of the youth justice renewal initiative. The new agreements promote and support a wide range of services and programs considered most likely to assist in the rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons in conflict with the law and in reducing reliance on the youth court system and incarceration.

Additional federal funding would also be available to support the development of programs required for the implementation of the new intensive rehabilitation custody and supervision sentencing option. These financial arrangements are an important component of the flexible implementation phase undertaken in close co-operation with the jurisdictions.

Through the youth justice renewal fund, provincial and territorial ministries responsible for youth justice may apply for grants and contributions to assist in the preparation for and implementation of the youth justice renewal initiative. Funds are available for activities related to training, community partnership development or expansion, reintegration planning and support and implementation contingencies. Examples of such activities include: assessment of staff training needs in light of new legislation; development of policies that will govern youth justice committee work; review of policy and procedural materials; and development and delivery of orientation sessions on the new legislation for frontline workers, managers, administrators and youth justice committee members.

With respect to the legislative process, let me note that prior to the third reading of Bill C-7's predecessor, Bill C-3, the election call came. However, the government's commitment to move forward with new justice legislation remained strong. The Speech from the Throne to open the first session of the 37th parliament of Canada stated that the government would reintroduce legislation to change how the justice system deals with young offenders. New legislation would encourage alternatives to custody for non-violent offenders, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration into society while toughening consequences for more violent youth.

This commitment to reintroduce youth justice legislation has been kept. Bill C-7 was introduced in the House of Commons on February 5. Bill C-7 is basically the same bill previously introduced as Bill C-3, except that Bill C-7 incorporates government amendments that were made public before the election call. The inclusion of these amendments demonstrates once again the ongoing consultation that is accompanying this bill as it moves through the parliamentary system.

The government has consulted and listened. Many views have been expressed, some diametrically opposed to others. The overriding goal is to put in place a youth justice system that is fair and effective, and that is what Bill C-7 would do.

The substance of Bill C-7 has been open to public scrutiny for a long time. Its introduction was preceded by lengthy studies and consultation. Now is the time to move forward and replace the Young Offenders Act with the youth criminal justice act, an act that would instil values such as accountability, responsibility and respect, which are long overdue in all of our systems. This is an act that would result in the kind of youth justice system all Canadians want.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I could agree with my colleague across the way if we had to sit back and wait. However, I also believe that many municipalities have looked very carefully at problems if they have had problems. They have had people working at it.

I mentioned my union system. I was shocked. The administrator for the municipality of Leamington chaired a committee to look at what needed to be done with that system and at what corrections needed to be made. The committee made certain suggestions within technology. Chlorination was one of the recommendations, not only at the source where they are pumping water out but in different areas in the municipality, where they do injections of chlorination in order to resolve the problems in the system.

I believe each system has specific problems in specific areas, which we must deal with. As a result, I would suggest that every municipality has its own area to struggle with and work with. I am not saying it is a blanket, but it is something that has to be dealt with system by system by system.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that as we move along as a society there is a definite requirement for money to be put into infrastructure. We have a problem today in water systems, perhaps many water systems across the country, but new guidelines are being structured and set. New goals and targets are being worked on. It is important the experts sit down to look at what is the most cost efficient and yet achievable goals to make certain the system works.

Chlorination was a system used in the past. Today new systems in chlorination and other systems have been developed. I do not know what those costs are. For me to suggest that putting in more money would resolve the question is naive, to say the least. It is also naive for me to say that we do not need more money, but what is clear is that we need a safe system.

We need experts to look at the costs. We know that costs in the past have traditionally been shared by the municipalities and the provinces. We know that the federal government has tried to come into the system with a program of infrastructure. Since first elected in 1993 until now the Liberal government has provided infrastructure dollars to assist municipalities and provincial governments to achieve the goals that need to be achieved.

I believe it is extremely important to look into what the costs are, at how those costs could be shared, at what the role of each level of government is and then make the decisions there. It is not just a simple matter of money. It is a matter of safety, a matter of technology and a matter of what needs to be done in the systems before I could possibly make that commitment.

[Supply, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I too, as most members of the House, wish to thank the member for Fundy—Royal. When it comes to a health issue that affects the lives of every person in the country, it is imperative that we put aside partisan politics and work toward the best interest of everyone in the country. The motion does that.

The motion respects all members in the House and it tries to put an issue forward that would be fundamentally helpful for the whole system. It would help the federal, provincial and municipal governments to work together to make certain that these kinds of tragic incidents that happened in Walkerton and North Battleford do not repeat themselves time and time again.

When I was first told that there was a boil water order in the municipality that I live in, I found it difficult to accept here in Canada. We talk about boiling water or not drinking water when we travel to some third world countries but not many of us thought about that situation happening here in our own country. It did bring shock but it also brought awareness.

Everybody in the country must be made aware that we have to do all we can, at all cost, to ensure we have safe drinking water and a safe supply of other items such as food and so on. It is clearly an issue that affects the lives of everyone. The barrier to this point has been that public opinion has not moved forward.

When I was the mayor of Kingsville much of the municipal fund was spent in trying to improve the water system. Our small community was looking at $1.5 million year after year to separate the water system so that raw sewage was never pumped into the Great Lakes. A great deal of work was done on the water system to make sure that safe water was available.

We now find that systems are getting older, but we can now test the systems to find bacteria or micro-organisms that create somewhat of a problem. Places like Walkerton and North Battleford raise our awareness of what is happening. It is important that we have standards across the country to make certain that no one can be threatened under any circumstances by our systems.

It is extremely important we make sure that frequent sampling is done on a regular and consistent basis. The national guidelines structured between the federal government and the provinces show us a good direction to head in. They point out where we need to go.

The issue is to ensure that those national guidelines are enforceable. That is what the debate is about today. It is about ensuring that water pollutants are treated properly so that our water is safe, that the aesthetic concerns about water which Canadians demand are met, and that we test water on a frequent basis to make sure it is safe for all Canadians. As I understand it, the national guidelines have been accepted in Alberta, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Hopefully that program will continue and cover the rest of the provinces as well.

By making sure that all provinces move in an appropriate way to correct the systems that need correcting is the important issue of the day. Yes, the Liberal government did take action. No, we cannot correct all things in one quick sweep. I do not believe many people 5 or 10 years ago would have thought that we would be faced with the dilemma we now have with our water systems.

During the Walkerton incident there was a great deal of discussion about water safety across Canada. As an election platform the Liberal government looked very carefully at the infrastructure in the country. The government may not do all the things that need to be done, but by working in co-operation with the provincial and municipal governments and by directing $2.65 billion toward infrastructure it will go a long way in the next few years to ensure that the needed safety factors are in place.

It is important we also realize that we as the federal government do not do things alone. As our minister said yesterday, passing a law is not the only way to resolve a problem.

It is important that we have consultations with the provinces, territories and municipalities. We must make certain that we take their expertise, technology and their advances into consideration so that we build a system that would be workable and safe for all Canadians. We must ensure that municipalities spend what is required to make certain that the municipal water systems and waste systems are state of the art technology. Canada must go in that direction to make sure that we are there.

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment on May 1 put an agreement in place to protect surface groundwater quality, making sure that it was a priority for all governments across Canada. It agreed to collaborate on water research. That means we can bring together the experts who know systems that are workable and the solutions available and who can make certain that all municipalities and all provinces have all the information required to use the best technology possible to work on this problem.

It also agreed to share best management practices. Oftentimes training and management practices are not necessarily as they should be. It is important to realize that under proper management systems it is possible that the Walkerton situation may have been averted.

We have heard testimony from Walkerton. We are all aware that there were some very difficult situations in their management system. That should not happen and we must make sure that anyone operating a system maintains it at the best possible level. We need to accelerate the development of our guidelines. They would be structured to make sure that we have a system where everyone could share in what needs to be done and share in the monitoring of all systems across the country.

When we look at the issue it is critical to support the motion which has a tremendous amount of merit. It can take away partisanship in the House. It can make certain that we are all working together to ensure that Canadians have a system that is workable, that is better for everyone than some of the systems of today, and yet takes into account all the technology, costs and resources required to move forward.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when all is said and done, Bill C-2 should be viewed with some pride and a great deal of satisfaction by all parties in the House. The bill is evidence of an effective governance and effective law-making.

In 1996 the government set out to put in place a much improved plan to assist Canada's unemployed, to help get them back to work and keep them working. That plan had goals that are as vital today just as they were then: a fairer system that treats all workers more equitably; a system that encourages work and reduces dependence on benefits; a system that provides assistance to those most in need, namely people from low income families with children during periods of unemployment; and a system designed to help people get back to work and help keep them at work.

A very important part of that system included a provision to continuously monitor and assess the system to see if it was in fact living up to its design goals. As a result, the EI system has been adjusted to ensure it continues to serve the purposes for which it was introduced. Bill C-2 is another step in this evolutionary process and warrants the support of all members of the House.

This is how effective programs are designed and implemented. No regime should be fixed in amber, unresponsive to changing economic and social conditions. I sense that, in general, members opposite also welcome the changes proposed in the bill.

However it seems that much of the discussion on Bill C-2 has focused on the rate setting process for EI premiums. The government has been charged by members across that premiums are too high and benefits are inadequate. Surely we must acknowledge that rates have been consistently reduced in recent years.

The employee premium rate for 2001 has already been set at $2.25, down from $2.40 in 2000. This is the seventh straight year premiums have been reduced. At $2.25, employers and employees will save approximately $6.4 billion in 2001 compared to where the premiums were at when we took over as the government in 1994, which was $3.07. That is a total reduction in premiums of 82 cents. If that is taken as a percentage of the present rate of $2.25, that is a 32% reduction in rates. That is a very fundamental reduction.

The argument that a surplus in the EI account is evidence and that the premium rates are too high does not hold water. The EI account must be allowed to accumulate a surplus during periods of improving economic conditions to ensure that premiums do not have to be raised if the economy is in a downturn which would inevitably be accompanied by higher unemployment and higher demands on the EI account.

Surely we do not want to raise premium rates in an already depressed economy which would put a further damper on economic growth and job creation. We should bear in mind that during the last recession a $2 billion surplus in the EI account at the end of 1990 became a $6 billion deficit by the end of 1993, in spite of the rise in premiums. As to the adequacy of benefits, that is precisely what Bill C-2 would propose to improve.

The intensity rule would be removed. The so-called clawback provision would be adjusted to ensure that first time users and those on special benefits would be exempt from paying back the benefits. The re-entrant rules would be adjusted so that re-entrant parents would qualify for EI regular benefits with the same number of hours as other claimants when they returned to the labour force following an extended absence to care for young children.

The opposition has also criticized the provisions in Bill C-2 concerning rate setting, claiming that the process should be placed at arm's length from the government. However these criticisms are clearly beside the point. Even the auditor general questioned whether an arm's length treatment would improve the process. Arm's length or not, the question is what is the rate setting method that would best serve Canadian workers, employers and taxpayers?

The Standing Committee on Finance recommended the EI premium rate setting procedure be reviewed. The government is addressing this question and prior to Bill C-2 made a commitment to review the rate setting process over a two year period.

The auditor general stated that the review could result in a better methodology and that he welcome anything that would clarify the rate setting procedure. However, until such a review can be completed, the government has provided a means to ensure predictability and stability in the EI premiums.

The governor in council will set the premium rates for the year 2002-03 allowing time for review and allowing the government to adjust the changing economic conditions. Researching and deciding on a sound rate setting mechanism will require taking into consideration interests of workers, employers and taxpayers. This is not something we could hope to achieve through Bill C-2.

The Department of Finance, along with Human Resources Development Canada, will carry out a review during which all stakeholders will be consulted, including the EI commissioners representing workers and employers. Surely that is a better method. I would say that it is the only rational method for devising a rate setting structure that best meets the interests of all parties in the longer term. I believe that the hon. members should reserve their views and feelings on the rate setting method and permit the review to take its rational course.

The passage of Bill C-2 will present no obstacle to the successful completion of that review. That is why the House should give speedy passage to the bill and permit Canadians to begin benefiting from its improvements to the EI program.

[Agriculture, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate tonight. Member after member has stood in the House and pointed out that there is a tragic crisis in the agricultural community, and no one in the House, no one who has spent time with agricultural people, will deny that. We certainly need to make some changes. We need to move that agenda very rapidly and we need short term and long term solutions for that crisis.

A safe and abundant food supply that is very cheap is clearly one of the joys that we in Canada share. The agriculture and agrifood industry plays an enormous role in the daily living of every Canadian. The agriculture and agrifood industry is the third largest employer in Canada, generating about $95 billion in domestic, retail and food service sales each year and $22 billion in exports.

Indeed, the agriculture and agrifood industry holds a significant place in our country's economy. That is why the current state of this industry—and its future—is an extremely important issue for all people in Canada. Every Canadian must pay careful attention to what is happening.

Canadian farmers boast an impressive record despite the distressed economic situation they are facing. Farming has always been a risky business, but never more so than today. Low commodity prices, adverse weather, high input costs and overproduction due to high subsidies in the United States and the European Union are causing great hardship for our Canadian farmers. This is particularly the case for our grains and oilseeds producers, who have experienced significant income declines due to circumstances far beyond their control.

Prices paid to Ontario and other Canadian farmers for sales of most Ontario grains and oilseed crops have been near their lowest historic levels in value. In real dollars, they are lower in the last four years than in any historic past. This is a direct result of government policies in western Europe and the United States. We are told that a crop farmer in Ontario growing a typical balance of corn, soybeans and wheat receives less than half as much government support as he or she would receive from growing identical crops just a few miles south of my riding, in the United States. This is the reality my local farmers face.

Since December 20, the price of corn has dropped 10 cents to 13 cents a bushel. Soybeans are down 82 cents to 84 cents a bushel. Fuel and fertilizer costs are up. Last summer ammonium nitrate was $300 a metric tonne and now it is $345. The price of urea has increased from $300 to $450. Local property taxes are forecasted to increase. Farmers are having difficulty obtaining bank loans and banks will start foreclosure. In fact, news of foreclosures has already been splashed across the media in my area.

Farmers are wondering if they can even plant their crops this year, and the level of frustration among farmers is reaching a peak.

The approach the federal government has taken so far involves short term and long term measures. To respond to the farmers' immediate needs, emergency assistance has been put in place, first in 1998 and again last July. We worked hard to implement a three year $3.3 billion federal plan for agricultural incomes. This approach includes an outgoing income disaster program, which Canadian farmers called for. Annual funding for safety nets now committed by the federal government is almost double what it was before this agreement.

Over the past five years the federal government has spent approximately $13 billion in support of the agrifood sector, but immediate cash shortfalls and assistance programs are only part of the solution. At present, they are not helping our farm community as much as our farm community needs. Several members of the House have made it very clear a cash injection at this time is imperative. There is no question that we need to make sure there is some stability in that agricultural sector here in this country now. I think that is extremely important.

We also have to realize that we need to go onto the international scene, as many members of the House have said and certainly as the farm communities have said. We all want forms of agricultural support subsidies eliminated. Support subsidies in Europe, in the United States and in other countries that compete with our farmers cripple our farmers if our farmers do not get the same supports. If we try to raise our supports, we will just have a spiralling roof which will make it impossible to have reasonable prices for commodities.

Our farm communities have said very carefully that they do not want subsidies, they want fairness. They want good prices for their products. Cheap food is a reality in Canada, but we have not supported our agricultural producers who are producing that cheap food in the way we need to. The sooner the better, the minister has said, let us get rid of these subsidies. Let us not just go on a cheap food policy, but let us stop international dumping at low costs. Everyone gets hurt when it is an internationally subsidized crop. Clear rules are needed to prevent the forms of export assistance from becoming subsidies for export.

The same goes for domestic forms of assistance that can be as trade distorting as export subsidies. If world prices that are already too low are being driven down by these unfair practices, if these practices are hurting our farmers and farmers in the majority of other agriculture producing countries, these practices should be curtailed and eliminated. Rules that apply equally to all are an important part of a trade equation. Trade rules that are open, secure and predictable, as well as fair and level, are the key to ensuring that agricultural policies of this country and all other countries are fair.

That is why I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister recently state that we must address the subsidy problem, that our farmers should be able to compete on a level playing field. The subsidy wars are of no interest or help to Canadians. This is a battle Canada must win. Positioning the Canadian agriculture and agrifood sector strategically for the long term is an important element in helping Canadian farmers achieve stability, profitability and long term support.

That is why I was equally pleased to see that agriculture was mentioned in the recent throne speech and that the government will help Canada's agricultural sector move beyond crisis management.

I could not agree more. It is time the Government of Canada and Canadian farmers moved beyond the crisis management mode and worked together. I support the government's efforts to support this vital industry. However, we must commit to doing even more for our farmers at this time, especially those in the grain and oilseed sectors.

We need to do everything possible to help farmers who put food on our tables through this difficult period. We need to close the gap and put farmers on a fair and equal footing. That is what farmers want; that is what the government must do; and that is what I have heard from every member of the House who stood today.

We need to recognize very clearly the agricultural crisis. It is important to thousands of families across the land who do not farm. It is important to the sectors of society that sell goods to farmers. It is important to the sectors of society that use farm products. It is important to the sectors of society that are helped by this thriving industry.

Let us not forget that this basic industry has been the foundation for Canada's development in the past and in the present. It will be the industry of the future that will ensure the well-being of Canadians.

[Medal Of Bravery, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at a ceremony in Ottawa earlier this month, five individuals were awarded the Governor General's Medal of Bravery for their valiant rescue efforts along the shores of Lake Erie at Point Pelee National Park in August 1998.

Two Canadians and three Americans were involved: Helmut Dueckman, Mark Major and Juliana Bartel, as well as Ashley and Marna Getz.

On that day when two small children were overcome by two metre waves, those who witnessed the event did not pause to react. They put their lives at risk to save others.

Tragically, 71 year old Helmut Dueckman, grandfather of these two children, lost his life despite the heroic rescue and revival attempts by Mark Major, a member of the Point Pelee National Park staff.

We commend these tremendous acts of bravery and join Helmut Dueckman's family in mourning his loss.