Peter Adams

[Spirit Drinks Trade Act, November 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to begin the debate this morning on Bill S-38, this initiative of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. It is good to see something positive like this coming forward and to see the committee having being involved with it, particularly in these times when with respect to certain commodities across our border with the United States the negotiations have not been very successful, to say the least.

Also, it is something which is very positive at a time when all sectors of our economy are watching the WTO negotiations coming to a peak. These negotiations, which will culminate in Hong Kong at the beginning of December, represent all sectors of the community but particularly the agriculture community, which is represented in this small but very important step of negotiated settlements, the way things should be done. We should not constantly be faced with appeals and counter-appeals and so on.

As I have said, we have seen in recent weeks how adversarial trade negotiations can become, but this bill shows us just what can be done when people sit down, negotiate and accept that those negotiations are a win for both parties concerned.

Bill S-38 and the Canada-European Union agreements on wines and spirits, which it brings into force, are the product of close collaboration, not adversarial debate, on a number of different levels. One is the international level, which I have just been addressing. One is the federal-provincial level. By the way, so much in agriculture involves the federal government and the provinces and is different from one region of the country to another. Another is the government to industry level, in this case with the commodity group concerned. There is the parliamentary level, the standing committee which I just mentioned, and there is the interdepartmental level.

Many different jurisdictions have worked hard to bring this legislation forward for the benefit of the entire Canadian wines and spirits sector, from the processors to the producers to the thousands of Canadians employed in the sector, and indeed to consumers here in Canada and around the world who enjoy our world class wines and spirits. I must note here that although I will be mentioning the main wine producing areas of Canada, specifically British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, we know that wine producing is a developing industry. Prince Edward County, for example, is a northward extension of the Niagara wine belt.

In my region, the Kawartha grape growers association is working with cold-resistant vines to extend our wine industry. The nature of this bill is important for those growers because it has to do with protecting geographic designations of wines and spirits. Thus, as the member for Peterborough, I am very pleased to be dealing with this bill.

In short, Bill S-38 is an example of very effective trade policy. It shows what is indeed possible when negotiations go well and when people put aside differences for the greater mutual gain.

The expedient manner in which members of the House have advanced this legislation is an example of what I am talking about. I would like to thank the members for the support that they have already given.

I was pleased to hear that a member from southwestern Ontario said at second reading that her party will support Bill S-38 because of the benefits it will bring to rural Canada. I have already spoken to that as a member for a rural area which is not yet a traditional wine growing area but which we hope one day will be.

She is right. It is going to bring benefits to rural Canada, where we need benefits at the present time. We know what the migration of people from rural areas to the cities is doing to the economies of many of our rural areas.

Likewise, I was happy to hear support for this same bill from a member from western Canada, from British Columbia, one of our great grape growing and wine producing areas.

As hon. members may know, there is some urgency dictating a timely passage of the bill because Canada has agreed to comply to the areas outlined in the bill by June 2006, but I sense that the will of this House is to move the bill forward for the benefit of the sector, for the benefit, as this member I have quoted said, of rural Canada and of all Canadians.

To understand Bill S-38, one has to put it in the context of the broader Canada-European Union agreement. The bill we have before us would allow Canada to implement an important obligation that we made in the bilateral agreement ratified by Canada and the European Union in 2003 after more than two years of negotiations.

This bilateral agreement is widely held to be a win for both Canada and the European Union. It covers a number of issues related to trade in wines and spirit drinks, including the protection of wine and spirit geographical indications. That is the aspect I referred to before. It also includes the mutual recognition of wine standards, including ice wine. We all know that Canada is not the only producer of ice wine but it certainly has been a pioneer in the area of ice wine and we all want to be sure that whatever is marketed in the name of ice wine is truly ice wine. As well, it includes the establishment of a dispute settlement process to resolve conflicts in the trade in wines and spirits.

For the Europeans, the agreement provides greater protection in Canada for their geographical indications, for wines such as Bordeaux and Moselle.

For the Canadian wines and spirits sectors, the gains under the Canada-European Union agreement are substantial. For example, the bilateral agreement allows the wineries of British Columbia and Ontario to continue to make direct sales from their wineries. It also allows Quebec to maintain its requirement that wine sold in grocery stores in that province be bottled in Quebec. It recognizes Canadian wine-making practices and labelling rules for the Vintners Quality Alliance, or VQA, the Canadian wine appellation system. It protects Canadian wine and spirit names in the European Union, notably Canadian whisky and rye whisky, both products in which I have a great personal interest, by the way.

The sector as a whole is very supportive both of the bilateral agreement and of Bill S-38, which would bring it into force. The Canadian industry has been consulted extensively during the development of this bill and is very happy with the results. The sector believes that this initiative, with a whole lot of upside potential and with little if any downside or negative impact domestically, is of great value to it.

The Canadian wines and spirits sectors are important to Canada's economy, with over $400 million in annual wine sales and over $1 billion in spirits sales. The wine industry believes that on the strength of this agreement it will be able to increase wine exports from about $1.5 million annually to some $5 million annually over the next 10 years.

We know that our remarkable agriculture industry as a whole, of which the great producers are only one part, is in essence an exporting business. More than 55% of the farm income of farmers across Canada comes from exports. Like the grape producers, they must export to maintain their quality of life and to maintain our quality of life. At the same time, we need a strong domestic agricultural industry in all sectors for our own security, so that we get good quality, healthy, low cost food to maintain our standard of living.

As well as bolstering export market opportunities internationally, here in Canada the agreement will help foster the growth of agri-tourism throughout our wine growing regions from Atlantic Canada to British Columbia. I regret that I did not mention the Atlantic Canada region earlier in my remarks, because it too, like the other regions and including my own, is a region where wine is produced, although we tend to think of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia as the main areas.

To speak briefly to the technical details, Bill S-38 would fulfill those remaining commitments on Canada's part that were not addressed before the bilateral agreement came into force last June. The bill would protect the names of five European spirit drinks in the Canadian market; names such as ouzo from Greece, grappa from Italy and pacharan from Spain. These names could not be protected under existing legislation such as the Trade-marks Act because that particular legislation is not designed to protect generic names. Nor does it provide state enforced protection, something that is required under this agreement.

To clarify some confusion that arose during second reading, Bill S-38 deals with only one element of the implementation of the broader bilateral agreement, the protection of foreign spirit drink names in Canada. As for wine and spirit geographical indications, such as a Bordeaux or Beaujolais, these will be protected under the Trade-marks Act, as are Canadian geographical indications such as Canadian whisky, Okanagan Valley, Niagara Peninsula and Lake Erie North Shore. As well, I hope one day Kawartha region wines will be protected.

The proposed act will also house existing trade obligations to protect other foreign spirit drink names. This includes Canada's obligations under NAFTA to protect certain Mexican and United States spirit drink names such as tequila and bourbon whisky. Members should also be aware that the bill was amended in the other place, it is of course Bill S-38, based on interventions from both Spirits Canada and International Trade Canada.

Spirits Canada has made it very clear to us that it is in full support of the bill in its current amended form.

I again thank all members for their support of this important legislation. As has been said on a number of occasions, the bill is a win for Canadian wine and spirit producers and the growers who supply them. It is a win for rural Canada and it is a win for Canadian consumers.

For all these reasons, I urge all sides of the House to continue to support timely passage, and that is of the essence, of Bill S-38 into law.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, October 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-280 concerning the Employment Insurance Act. I genuinely thank the member for Manicouagan for raising these important issues. It is important that we debate such things publicly from time to time.

I also thank the standing committee for its fine work on its ninth report in consideration of this bill. While the Government of Canada cannot agree with the key directions of the bill, we greatly appreciate the work of the committee. I personally thank the member for Madawaska--Restigouche for his passionate support of the unemployed and for unemployment programs, and for the advice which he has given me and other members of the committee during this process.

Bill C-280 proposes fundamental amendments to the EI Act. It is important to revisit the reasons for the present structure of that act. This historical context will, I believe, illustrate the importance, complexity and challenges presented by the proposals contained in Bill C-280.

Let me begin with the employment insurance account.

Both Bill C-280 and the committee's ninth report suggest alternative methods of accounting but I believe it is important to appreciate why the EI account is reported within the consolidated revenue fund and not, as the bill proposes, separate from the accounts of Canada.

In the 1980s the auditor general of that time expressed concerns about fragmented reporting of government activities. To rectify this situation, the auditor general was of the opinion that EI premiums paid by employers and employees were federal revenues and that given the government's control over EI policy and programs, they should be included in reported Government of Canada revenues, not in a separate account. On the advice of the auditor general, in 1986 the EI account was fully integrated into the government's general finances. This practice follows appropriate accounting methods consistent with the standards of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. This reasoning still holds true.

It is important to note, however, that because the EI account has been consolidated with the other accounts of Canada, in reality it is not an actual account containing cash but rather an accounting method that keeps track of both premiums and benefits.

Bill C-280 would have significant financial and policy implications for the way in which the federal government finances and governs the EI program. A cash-based account, outside of the control of the government, would represent a significant fiscal liability to the government and the taxpayers of Canada, and potentially the first step in loss of policy control.

The government realizes the importance of keeping EI in tune with Canadians. That is precisely why in budget 2003 we committed to undertake a review of the premium setting process and launched public consultations. We promised that the new process would be based on the following principles: first, that premium rates should be set transparently; second, premium rates should be set on the basis of independent advice; third, expected premium revenues should correspond to expected program costs; fourth, premium rate setting should mitigate the impact on business cycles; and lastly, that premium rates should be relatively stable over time.

Consultations were held with a variety of stakeholders. We heard from business, labour, economists, technical experts, the EI commissioners for workers and employers, and individual members of the public. In budget 2005, the Government of Canada introduced a new permanent rate setting mechanism that meets all the five principles that I have outlined and takes into consideration the views of stakeholders and the views of the standing committee which studied this. By the way, this new regime already exists.

Beginning with the 2006 rate, the EI Commission has the legislative authority to set the rate itself. It will be able to obtain, as needed, the services of those with specialized knowledge in rate setting matters. In other words, it can go outside a government. And it will hold consultations on the premium rate prior to setting it. Gone will be the requirement for the Government of Canada to approve this rate.

This new approach to rate setting is based on the principle that the premium rate for a year should generate just enough revenue to cover expected payments during that year.

I think it is important to raise this here and speak to the motion proposed by the member for Manicouagan. The motion outlines a premium rate setting process that is identical to the one originally proposed. The only difference is that it removes the role of the Chief Actuary from the rate setting process. The motion in no way has a substantive effect on the problematic aspects of the bill ruled upon, Mr. Speaker, by you, and your ruling on the fact that the a royal recommendation was needed for the original bill as it was phrased.

Perhaps, given the ramifications suggested in the motion, it is important at this time to clearly articulate the key function played by the Chief Actuary in the new rate setting mechanism this government introduced in the budget 2005.

Under the new mechanism, the EI Chief Actuary annually calculates on a forward looking basis the estimated break-even rate for the coming year based on economic variables supplied by the Minister of Finance. The Chief Actuary then provides a report of this break-even rate calculation to the EI Commission by October 14 each year.

Clearly, the role of the Chief Actuary is a critical component of the new rate setting process, as he provides independent expert advice to the commission concerning the break-even premium rate. The Chief Actuary's report is a key factor the commission must consider in its decision on the rate. It is the only mechanism that factors in important economic variables. Further, the Chief Actuary's report provides the basis to ensure that the premium rate will generate just enough revenue to cover expected payments during the year.

It is important to recognize the important function the Chief Actuary adds to the transparency of the rate setting process. It is his report, providing details of the calculation of the break-even rate, that is made public and provides the basis for the commission's consultations with all stakeholders.

I appreciate the House taking the time to listen to this description of the role of the Chief Actuary. It is important because it explains why this government would not support a rate setting process that does not provide for sound actuarial advice as a fundamental component of the EI rate setting.

These new measures that I have outlined address issues both in Bill C-280 and the standing committee's reports by increasing the independence of the EI Commission in the EI rate setting and strengthening, and this is most important, the transparency of the entire process.

It is important to add that over the past 11 years premium rates have steadily gone down while benefits to Canadians have been enriched. With the 2005 rate for employees at $1.95 and $2.73 for employers per $100 of insurable earnings, consecutive rate reductions mean that employers and employees will pay $10 billion less in premiums than they did under the 1994 regime.

I appreciate the contributions of the hon. members and of the standing committee to the debates on the EI Act. I also welcome this opportunity to share ideas but for the reasons that I have outlined, the government cannot support Bill C-280.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, October 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, my colleague always speaks passionately to these matters. I know he has the concerns of low income people greatly at heart.

I too have received a lot of calls from people who do not qualify through the present criteria. I hope there might be some expansion in this legislation but if not, it does seem to me to be a way to deliver some relief to a large number of people very quickly and efficiently.

I know my colleague studies these matters. I have an idea of the cost of this, and we heard it in the debate today, but I wonder if he has an idea in his mind of the amounts of money involved in the following.

It is my understanding that people like truckers and farmers who use gasoline and diesel already receive the GST rebate, so they are helped already by our system, the system we have here in Canada not overseas. Also, it seems to me that all low income people receive GST rebate cheques on a regular basis and they will continue to receive those.

I also know we have transferred from the gas tax, which we are discussing here, large amounts of money directly to the municipalities all across the country, particularly for transit but also for other purposes. I wonder if my colleague has any sense of the amounts of money being transferred from the GST in these particular areas.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there any reason that I should not take six minutes out of a ten minute question and comment period?

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have sat in this House for a long time and I have heard good speeches and bad speeches but that sort of fearmongering degrades the House of Commons. I do not think I have ever heard more false morality and more claim to principles in a more rambling, disjointed tirade since I came into this House. It truly is disgraceful. I find it disgraceful that a member so new would sink to those depths in connection with serious legislation and occasionally mention it in the context of Chuck Cadman and enfold Chuck Cadman in his arms. I do not know in what sort of world he lives but he certainly seems to be a very paranoid person.

I have the figures here for crimes committed in the last decade or more for the province of Ontario, my own province. They are not my statistics. I did not invent them and I did not see them in a newspaper. These are the statistics from Statistics Canada.

Our fearmongering friend over there is talking about our children not going to Canada's Wonderland in Ontario out of fear. He knows, or at least he should know, as he is a member of Parliament now and perhaps should remember that from time to time when he is posturing in this particular way, that the overall crime rate in the province of Ontario is at an all-time low. It reached a peak in the early 1990s and has gone down every year since and is now a fraction of what it was before.

This is not to say that there are not serious crimes going on out there. I am simply pointing out, if he looks at the figures, that serious crimes are down perhaps a third of what they were at their peak in the early 1990s when we first came in.

I regret the recent spate of handgun homicides in metropolitan Toronto. It is a terrible thing and it is something we have to deal with but I do not think it has to be dealt with through savage penalties, although they certainly should be the most severe penalties. We need to deal with those communities and do what we can about it. Nevertheless, homicide rates in Ontario reached the world record peak in 1991 and 1992 and have come down virtually every year since. They have gone up very slightly in the last year but they are still a fraction of what they were.

I mentioned property crimes earlier. They, too, are down.

Violent crimes in the province of Ontario, which reached a peak in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993, have come down every year since.

What about offensive weapons crimes. He talked about gun control. It is the same thing. At the beginning of 1994 offensive weapons crimes were at 75 per 100,000 and they are now down to 40 per 100,000 in the province of Ontario.

We should do everything we can to stop every offensive weapons crime. We should work with the communities and punish those involved but we should not go around telling our people and our children that our communities are more dangerous now than they were.

My colleague pretends, in this meandering rhetoric that he has, to having high principles. I represent a rural riding and I have had my problems with the gun registry, as many other people have. However his claim that the gun registry cost $2 billion is not just a lie, it is a big lie. It is something that absolutely cannot be proven. The cost of the gun registry is nothing like $2 billion. It is not even $1 billion. It is not even over $100 million.

Good gun control costs money over a period of 10 years. The registry costs nothing like that. I support expenditures on gun control in Canada so we can continue to bring crime rates down.

Our colleague should apologize for putting fear into the hearts of Ontario families and children by imagining a level of crime that simply does not exist.

[Criminal Code, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and as I said off microphone, I think he should thank God that he is not a lawyer.

We have heard a lot of talk in this House in the last year about crime and punishment for crime. I have to say that this particular bill touches me very personally. It is not something I discuss very widely in public, but in my very early teens I was actually involved in joyriding. I have to think of myself at that time and the crimes and the punishments that we are suggesting and what would have happened in those days had penalties of this type been in place.

I would like to point out to my colleague, that I do not have the figures nationally or for the Atlantic provinces, but I do have the figures for Ontario. I have to point out here that the overall crime rate in Ontario reached a historic peak in the early 1990s at the end of the Mulroney era. As far as I can tell, the overall crime rate here has gone down in a most remarkable fashion every single year since.

Violent crimes in Ontario truly did. They reached the highest level on record in 1993, which is the year the Liberal government came into power. The rate has gone down, not every year, but every year except one since. The rate is now at a level which is close to a historic low. The same is true for crimes involving offensive weapons in Ontario. Crimes involving offensive weapons reached a peak in 1994 and have gone down every year since. There are similar figures for homicides.

I assume motor vehicles are property, and for property crimes we see the same thing. We see an all-time high in 1991 and never reached that again. Property crime has gone down to a historic low according to the last figures I have for 2002-03.

By the way, a lot of the lowering of the crimes has had to do with the prosperity we have created. It also has to do with reaching out to poor communities. I know it also has to do with changes to laws and our more restrictive control of guns and things of that type. Given these sorts of figures and given what has happened since 1993 in crime of all sorts, does a lot of the lowering of the crime rates has to do with the mood in our communities?

I know my colleague is very serious about this issue. I would like my colleague to address that aspect of property crime and remember that one of his colleagues did in fact participate in joyrides in his youth.

[Telecommunications Act, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have been following the debate with great interest because, as I mentioned earlier, I am interested in the legislation but I am not a member of the committee.

It seems to me this is a case where the legislation has been developed in committee, or at least large parts of it have been, and as we know in the current Parliament the opposition has control of the committee. We are dealing with legislation which has been greatly shaped by the opposition and I am pleased to hear that members of the various parties support it.

I asked earlier about my concern regarding charities and charitable organizations. My colleague opposite gave me an answer to that, that they will be exempt in various ways from this do not call legislation.

I am also concerned about businesses, particularly small businesses in my riding. Quite a lot of these businesses have lists which they already phone. For example, I am on the list of the company that services my car. That firm may phone me occasionally about servicing my car. I believe there is provision in the legislation to protect groups like that carrying on their normal practice.

I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc would care to comment on that so that we can have on the record what the situation is for small businesses that have call lists of their own.

[Telecommunications Act, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague. I am not in the position that he is in. He is on the committee and he has followed the development of this legislation with a great deal of interest. I am not a member of the committee.

My question has to do with the status of charities, social services, community organizations, and arts and cultural organizations in all of our communities with respect to this legislation. My understanding is that groups such as that would be exempt from the legislation. They would be able to continue with their normal work and normal practices.

I ask this because it is extremely important for the vibrancy of these often very tiny organizations in our communities that they not be restricted by legislation of this type. I wonder if my colleague could give us some indication that I am right.

[Employment Insurance, October 19th, 2005]

As I mentioned, and as the party opposite worked for, we have established a new public commission, an independent commission, which will recommend to the government what the EI premiums should be. By the way, it has certain criteria to meet when it makes those recommendations.

The Bloc supported that process. It wanted an independent commission. Now we have it. We should wait and see what that commission recommends.

[Employment Insurance, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we have reduced premiums every year for many years, but in the last year we have established a new commission, which is a public commission and a transparent commission, and which will recommend the premiums for the coming year. We look forward to the first ruling of that commission as to what the EI premiums should be.