Jerry Pickard

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, over the last 10 years that I have been in the House I have never heard the opposition suggest there is a perfect budget or a perfect answer to any question the government puts forward.

We all realize its job is to criticize and try to find practices and policies which it feels the average Canadian would disagree with. One of the things I have heard over the last couple of days from my constituents is this is a pretty good budget. This is a plan that is moving our Canadian culture and society forward in many different ways. If we stop and think about it, it does hold a tremendous amount of positives for all Canadians.

I would like to examine three areas of the budget that are very important to all Canadians. The message that comes forth in my view is we have a rock solid economy which is the foundation by which business, social programs and all that we stand for as Canadians can advance. Clearly that rock solid foundation has been built by the cabinet of the Liberal Party, by the finance minister and by the members of the House. I want to make it very clear it was a combination of all members here as well as Canadian society in general who have told the House, the finance minister and the government what directions they would like to see in this budget.

The process has changed dramatically today compared with what it was 10 years ago. Thinking back 10 years when I first came to this House a budget leak occurred the night before the budget was to be released. Suddenly, from the Conservative government, all the budgets were sent out and everybody ran in circles and nobody knew what to do because it was a very secretive process, a process in which Canadians did not have a great deal of input and as a result I guess there was a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction at the end.

We have changed that process dramatically. Today we are very transparent. We are very open in consulting Canadians. As a matter of fact, the premier point that I can make with this budget is there was nothing new. Canadians knew what was coming down in the budget long before the budget day announcement. They did not know the fine details, but they certainly knew the direction in which this government was heading because of the consultation process.

In my view, that probably is the number one change that has occurred to make Canadians a part of the process and therefore Canadians are very happy with the result of the process as well.

Three areas I want to touch on are the rock solid economy and how that is helping the Canadian economy grow, investment in social and economic priorities, and the substantial, fair tax relief.

When we think about this rock solid economy that we are building today and in the future, all we have to do is look at the process over the last five years. We had a $42 billion deficit to tackle in 1993 when we were elected. Through very tough programs, through very difficult decisions Canadians worked along with the government to make sure we did not bankrupt this country and leave our children and our children's children in dire situations. The process was to eliminate the deficit and get our house in order. No one in the House can question that putting our house in order was a priority that had to be done.

We paid down the deficit and now we are in a position where we are starting to pay down the debt. The debt to GDP ratio has had the largest decline in 40 years in this past year, which went from approximately 70.3% to 66.9%. What it really means is that we are getting to a point where we can better afford the debt we have. With the growth the country is experiencing we will be in a much better position not only today but in future years.

We have done all we can to support business and make sure business has opportunity to grow in this country and expand beyond our borders.

For technology partnerships, for aid to business support in technology areas, this budget put $380 million. For the Canadian Foundation for Research in which we are moving research forward, helping universities, helping technological growth in the Canadian foundation as well as teaching hospitals which then feed off into our social net, $800 million was placed.

We all know the successes we have had in working with foreign markets, developing opportunities for business to expand beyond our borders, making Canada a world trader and making sure that we have stable businesses in the future.

At the same time, over this period of four or five years, interest rates have been on a constant decline. There is no question that interest rates have afforded business the opportunity for greater investment, to move forward and to grow. As a result our economy is rated number one in the G-7. That is not frivolous. That has happened because of serious careful planning which has made a huge difference.

I remember the former government during the 1993 election campaign stating that unemployment would remain in double digit figures until well beyond the year 2000. That was not quite accurate. That was a quote from a former prime minister. She said very clearly that unemployment would remain in double digit figures at least beyond the year 2000. Today, unemployment is at 7.8%. This drop in unemployment tells us something about the social values of the country because there is no greater move to ensure social stability than ensured jobs for Canadians.

We have not been able to answer every social problem in the country, but we did not start out under the best circumstances either. The distance we have gone, from the comments of my constituents, is tremendous. They are very thankful for the kinds of policies and issues we have moved forward.

Investing in the social economic side of things is another important issue. We know when we looked at the figures over the last several years that youth employment was terrible and we had to improve it. That is why over the last several years we have focused on a youth employment strategy. This year, next year and the year after we will be putting $465 million into youth employment strategies, which will give young people opportunities to develop job skills, to develop scenarios of work, and to develop the skills they need to become active participants in Canada.

It is also very important that tax relief has been included in the budget. That tax relief is for all Canadians. I look forward to the questions.

[Charitable Contributions, November 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no question that the government thinks it is very important to make sure all charitable organizations obtain contributions and recognition for the work they do. I and everyone else in the House would certainly support measures to make sure that political contributions and the work done by charitable organizations are recognized.

This is a motherhood issue when we stop to think about it. On the one side we can say that charitable organizations fill many gaps that government can no longer afford to pay. Charitable organizations can broaden the spectrum and add to the quality of life of many people. That is a given and is very true. Every one of us sees it in our communities.

I commend all charitable organizations and all the work they do. This bill however brings bring into existence a change in tax policy and suggests that whatever we do on the political contribution side should be matched equally on the charitable side. In that kind of scenario I question whether both of those measures have been set up for very specific reasons.

It is my belief that charitable organizations have been treated relatively well by this government. We have moved the agenda forward. We have increased the tax forgiveness for charitable organizations over the last four years even though we have had very tough times. The government is no longer spending $42 billion more than it is taking in. The direction has been to make sure that there is a balanced approach to this question.

Talking against a tax structure for charitable donations might be like talking against apple pie. The reality is that for the first $200 of charitable donations, the dollar amount people can have as a tax deduction is in the neighbourhood of 30% whereas for the first $200 of donations to a political party, the amount is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60%.

There is a little better tax break for very small amounts given to a political party. However, as the tax structure is built, those people who give larger amounts to charitable organizations receive a far better tax break. After that magic figure of $200, people who give for example $100 to the heart association, $100 to the cancer association, $100 to a walkathon or some other local fundraiser, will get a better tax break after they have given $200 than before.

The point is that this government cannot afford to chop money out of its operating budgets because we would be placed in a position of reducing service to the Canadian population. In talking about the cost of this motion, without taking into account all of the donations above $200, it is my understanding on the first amount where this bill may equalize the political contributions and the charitable donations, it would cost the government in the neighbourhood of $125 million on that first $200. That is a pretty hefty cost.

A lot of work has gone into every government department to make sure that they streamline their spending, hold wage increases to employees, make certain that all things happening in every department to deliver the most vital services at the least expense have been looked at. Now we hear from the opposition to spend money here, spend more money there, give tax breaks here, give another opportunity there. At every juncture we are being asked to run this country using the scenario it ran on for so many years: if there is a problem, run the wheelbarrow full of money out and resolve the problem; if somebody wants money for a venture or somebody is having a problem, government can solve it by spending more money.

We came out of that. This country is doing better on the world scene today. We are doing better on the employment initiatives. We are doing better on delivery of service to Canadians. We are doing better because we have not moved to a different course of spending more money than we can, reducing taxes to buy in many cases the favour of a few.

At this point it is important that the government maintain the course we are on. We have to do the best we can for those making political donations. We have to make certain the rules and opportunities are there for those offering services to Canadians so we can help them as well as we can. However, I am frightened because day after day I hear more people suggesting in the House that we have money to spend and to give away, that we do not need to take in as much revenue. All those arguments are there, but that will inevitably lead us to our own defeat.

We must maintain a course of being as prudent as we can be. We must maintain a course of making sure we deliver services as efficiently as we can. We must make sure we maintain what Canadians have elected us to do, to be prudent in the decisions we make in the House and to make certain we get this economy back on track.

Some people say that since we have $3 billion to $6 billion more income than what we are spending, we should spend that $3 billion to $6 billion. I remind everybody in this House that there is a debt of $600 billion which must be paid for either by people today or by future generations. We cannot and should not get into a situation where we do anything except stay the course and try to be as fair with every organization and citizen as we can be.

Although it is a motherhood and apple pie issue in many ways where some say we should give them a better break, the other side of the coin suggests that if we continue to move in that direction we will be going back to old ways which inevitably will be bad for Canadians.

[Natural Disasters, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it was with regret and dismay that all of us heard of the enormous disaster that occurred in Nicaragua and Honduras by hurricane Mitch.

At present it is estimated that up to 7,000 people may have lost their lives in flood and mud slides. The International Red Cross said yesterday that it was tripling its efforts to make sure assistance was going to those hurricane victims. In many places in Canada we can do a great deal to help in this cause.

Small villages sat where seas of mud now exist. I call upon the generosity of all Canadians to try to support organizations like the International Red Cross and church organizations which are sending relief to flood and disaster victims in Honduras and Nicaragua. Canadians should get together to help those people.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely true. The comment made by my hon. colleague is so clear. Farmers are exposed to the elements. They are exposed to any kind of disaster that happens in nature. They do not have a guarantee at the end of the year that they will be able to harvest the crop they plant. It is a business that has a lot of risks to it which are extremely difficult to deal with at the best of times. There is no question about that.

I believe that it is a desired direction we need to go in. We need to make sure we have programs in place which help take those high risks out of it and give farmers an income they can count on for support. We have to do this in conjunction with the producer groups, the provincial governments and with anyone who will sit down and work out good policy.

My colleague does raise an important point and one that all of us have to be aware of. Farming is probably in the only business in the western world that is so uncertain because of the uncertain weather conditions. It is something we all have to consider every day.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that everyone in this country does not have the morbid point of view that my colleague just raised.

I believe there is a great deal of pressure on many farmers in this country but the reality is that in many respects the government is trying to put in place quality programs. It is not doing it on a unilateral base. It is doing it in conjunction with the farm community. It is discussing these issues with farm leaders on a regular daily basis. It is discussing the issues with provincial leaders on a regular daily basis.

We are not going down a stream of the federal government not understanding the realities in every region of the country. As I tried to point out, we are trying to put in place programs and resources that will help our farm communities.

I suggest the member is correct. Canada does have an extremely low price when it comes to agricultural and food commodities. As many others, I am very interested in making sure Canadian farmers get a fair return for their dollar. I am not opposed to making certain that a fair return does come back to the farm and there is no question when we raise that.

However, I would not like to leave on record that we are looking at a monstrous unfair system either. We as a government are trying to do our best to support farm communities and make certain they have the tools to work with.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate today. This debate is one that is very vital to the agricultural industry of this nation.

It is not just by accident that Canada ranks as one of the world's largest economies and is doing business in a very positive way throughout the world. Our success is the result of the efforts of the Canadian government, the provinces and the Canadian people all working together. Those joint efforts have made Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector an important and dynamic part of the world economy.

This same model of partnership prevails in the agricultural sector. Producers work closely with the provinces and the federal government to set directions for today's programs, those in the past and those in the future.

The federal government is providing many ways so that all regions of Canada can work in the agriculture sector. The Government of Canada works hard to balance the needs of regions and the sectors, providing support for each and every area of the country. Federal investment fosters the growth of the sector by encouraging the development of our export markets, our food supply and in developing new innovative food products. A healthy dynamic agricultural economy means jobs for Canadians.

Past federal investment in the sector tended to be governed by specific crops or market failures. Thanks to the combined efforts of farmers, provincial governments and the federal government, the farm income production system we currently have takes into account both the different needs of individual farmers and the agricultural economy as it varies across this country. The safety net agreements that we have in place result in a more market driven program. They also provide inevitable and reasonable support for commodities, producers and provinces.

It is this system of safety nets that will help stabilize incomes and reduce the need for ad hoc assistance. All provinces enjoy substantial advantages in being part of the Canadian federation especially when it comes to the agriculture and agri-food sector. While it is not easy to put dollar figures on many of these national advantages, they are every bit as valuable as federal support that goes directly to individual farmers.

By working co-operatively with provincial government partners and with our clients, the Government of Canada will ensure that the advantages of federalism continue to be fully exploited to the benefit of all Canadians.

As mentioned by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, we do have the tools in place for farmers. We spent the better part of a decade working closely with farm leaders and our provincial colleagues to put in place an effective system of farm income.

Mr. Speaker, I should have noted at the beginning that I am splitting my time with my colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant.

Under the current safety net system, we have three components: crop insurance, the net income stabilization account, and province specific companion programs. Those tools are funded partially by farmers but a large chunk, $1 billion, comes from governments. Each and every year the federal government puts $600 million and the provinces put $400 million into that program.

In this calendar year alone, the national crop insurance program which is offered to Canadian farmers at low or no cost will provide farmers with an estimated $430 million in direct payments. The program has a participation rate of 55% to 60% nationally.

At this point I would like to take the opportunity to speak about the third component of the Canadian farm safety net system, the province specific companion programs. While crop insurance and NISA are national in scope, the $200 million in federal money devoted to companion programming supports initiatives specific to a province based on the needs and make-up of that particular province's farm sector.

The companion programs that have been put in place are generally of six types: additional producer and government contributions to enhance the NISA program; enhancements to existing crop insurance programs; whole farm income disaster programs providing government assistance to those who have major income shortfalls for reasons beyond the farmer's control; adaptation and development programs to strengthen the overall competitiveness of the farm sector; residual price support programs, available in Quebec, Ontario and Nova Scotia; and the experimental programs, such as self-directed risk management in Ontario.

These companion programs have been very positive. They allow different provinces to experiment with new programs that lead to better production for farmers. For instance, the income based disaster programs run by British Columbia, Alberta and P.E.I. have proven so popular and effective that the national safety nets advisory committee is exploring the possibility of a national program based on similar principles. It is part of the long term review process mentioned earlier by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. I want to emphasize that no decisions have been made to this date, although I am sure it will be one of the things that comes up in tomorrow's discussions with farm leaders.

As many members know by now, the minister has called a meeting in Ottawa to discuss with our partners in the safety net system what producers are requiring, where producers see the government could provide support. The minister has also invited the provincial ministers of agriculture to deal with the current situations that are faced by our agriculture sector.

I do want to assure members of the House that the federal government is not about to implement a unilateral program within the safety net system that does not have the support of all producers and provinces throughout this country.

To conclude, the Government of Canada's approach to safety nets is a true reflection of Canada's strong federal-provincial-producer partnership in ensuring the future of Canadian agriculture. I am quite certain that the meeting tomorrow will produce outcomes that will be beneficial to those farmers who are presently feeling a great deal of difficulty. The minister will work with the provincial ministers to ensure that our goals meet the needs of the farmers, the provinces and the federal government.

[Supply, October 20th, 1998]

Why independent?

[Mary Ann Shadd, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, October 1998 marks the seventh year that Canada will celebrate Women's History Month in recognition of women who have played vital roles in our heritage.

I wish to recognize the life achievements of the late Mary Ann Shadd who at one time resided in Chatham—Kent in my riding. Mary Ann Shadd, a noted author, educator, journalist, publisher and lawyer, was truly a pioneer in her time. After emigrating to Canada in 1851 she earned the distinction of being the first black female newspaper editor in North America. In an era where few women were politically aware, Mrs. Shadd was an advocate for abolitionists and a voice for equal rights.

Mary Ann Shadd serves as a role model for women young and old across the country. Her legacy instils a sense of pride in our history and in our origins. It is with honour that I rise to celebrate with Canadians the difference women have made, are making today and will make in the future.

[Humanitarians, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to recognize Heather Bondy and Crystal Smith, two outstanding humanitarians from Chatham—Kent Essex.

Heather is the driving force behind Chatham Outreach for Hunger. She has raised thousands of dollars and collected tonnes of food, hospital and school supplies which have been taken to the Dominican Republic, Zaire and Uganda where she has personally delivered that aid. Heather is presently planning to deliver tens of thousands of dollars in aid to Haiti.

Crystal Smith, a 20 year old student, works in an orphanage in Ukraine that houses many victims of Chernobyl. The orphanage was called “The Place that God Forgot”. Thanks to Crystal, it is now the place that God remembers.

I thank Heather and Crystal for their great work. All the citizens of this country are very supportive of their efforts. I add a thanks to Air Canada, British Airways and the Department of National—

[Division No. 230, September 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me today to speak to Bill C-3 which provides for the establishment of a national DNA data bank.

The DNA identification act will make Canada one of only a handful of countries in the world to have a national DNA data bank. I am pleased to inform the House that the ground breaking legislation this measure supports will signify Canada as a mover in the world community on a very special base as one of a handful of countries that has gone forward with this type of legislation.

This new legislation strengthens our commitment to combat crime, especially violent crime in Canada. The plan that was developed early in July 1995 gave provincial judges the power o put together warrants which allowed police, after they collected samples, to identify people who had committed serious offences. We have stepped forward today by adding a law which will usefully put together a framework for DNA samples in a data bank.

This is another concrete step toward protecting Canadians from violent criminals. We should make no mistake. Bill C-3 gives Canadian police access to a powerful tool in its fight against crime. As we all know, forensic DNA analysis has been instrumental in securing convictions. It has also been crucial in helping to exonerate wrongly condemned people, but it also raises potential privacy and charter concerns because it has the ability to reveal much more of a person than what a fingerprint would reveal.

Given the magnitude of these issues surrounded by the use or potential misuse of DNA information, the government has taken steps to ensure that a detailed and careful study of the legislation has taken place.

The legislation was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights before second reading. The government also went to Canadians to hear what they wanted to say. Bill C-3 reflects the views of Canadians across the country. The reflections came from a broad spectrum of Canadians which included police associations, victims groups, legal organizations, provincial attorneys general, academics, privacy experts and medical people. The committee was vigilant in making sure it heard from those with concerns over the charter and from those whose overriding concern was public safety. The goal has always been to protect Canadians from violent criminals.

Some other issues were discussed as well. The data bank will include two indexes: a scene of the crime index containing DNA profiles from actual crime scenes and a convicted offenders index containing profiles of offenders convicted of designated offences. With this structure, stored DNA information can be cross-referenced in order to identify linkages and to help solve serious crimes in any police jurisdiction anywhere in the country.

Sharing information is the key to successful arrests of offenders. Bill C-3 sets out the circumstances where samples can be taken and stored in a data bank. Where a person has been convicted of a primary designated offence the court will, except in most exceptional circumstances, make an order requiring that person to submit bodily substances for data bank purposes. Where a person has been convicted of a secondary designated offence and where the crown makes an application to the court, the bill lets the judge make an order requiring the offender to provide bodily substances for DNA banking purposes. In making that order the court must satisfy that it has the interest of administration and justice in order.

The primary and secondary designated offences listed in the bill were developed on the basis of the serious nature of the offences and the likelihood of finding DNA evidence at the scene of the crime. DNA samples are most likely to be found at crime scenes of primary offences like those of murder and sexual assault. On the other hand, DNA evidence is less likely to be found at the scenes of secondary offence crimes such as those of robbery or arson.

Taking samples after an offender has been convicted balances an overriding concern for the safety of all Canadians. It also takes into account the need to respect the rights protected by Canada's charter. The accused has the right to presume innocence and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. I think members would agree with that statement.

The issue of when DNA samples should be taken has garnered much attention throughout the development of the bill. The vast majority of Canadians we spoke with said that taking samples from convicted persons is the only way to respect the rights of all Canadians under the charter. The majority of those consulted also took the position that taking samples at the time of arrest or charge would pose a very serious risk of being struck down as unconstitutional. Legal experts from the Department of Justice and three of Canada's most eminent justices have told the government that taking samples before a conviction would be unconstitutional. I think we can all agree developing legislation that will be thrown out by the courts is not useful for the justice system and not useful for Canadians who look to parliament to develop appropriate legislation.

Bill C-3 will not only capture serious offenders following conviction. It will also permit DNA samples to be collected from high risk violent offenders under penitentiary sentence who were convicted before the bill comes into law. Samples will be taken retroactively from the designations of dangerous offenders, repeated sex offenders and murderers who have killed more than once. Collection of DNA samples from these offenders will give police valuable information to help them solve outstanding criminal cases.

Young offenders will be treated in the same way as adults with respect to taking DNA samples for the purpose of data banking. The DNA extracted from a sample will be analysed with the resulting profile entered into the convicted offenders index of the data bank.

Bill C-3 authorizes the RCMP to establish and maintain a data bank. It is worth noting that access to DNA profiles contained in the convicted offenders index and the samples themselves will be strictly limited to those directly involved in the operation of the data bank.

There is no question that this law is very appropriate at this time. It will provide a service to Canadian police officers so that they will be able to pursue and follow up in a much more scientific way on actions of violent crime in the country. I recommend that every member of the House support the bill in the name of criminal justice.