Peter Adams

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's enormous interest in post-secondary education. She is a great supporter of post-secondary education, but so is the Government of Canada. It provides over $5 billion each year for research support to institutions, student grants, and loans and tax measures. I could easily increase that by several billion dollars if I extended the range of the expression “post-secondary education”.

The federal government supports post-secondary education by many means. For instance, the Canada social transfer is a federal block transfer to provinces and territories in support of post-secondary education, social assistance and social services, including early childhood development, and early learning and child care. The Canada social transfer is made up of both cash transfer and a tax transfer component, and is allocated on a per capita basis to ensure equal support for all Canadians regardless of their province or territory.

Further, the government, as the member mentioned and I greatly appreciate her support, has introduced Bill C-48 aimed at improving the standard of living for Canadians by promoting a highly skilled workforce in an efficient and effective labour market. The new bill would augment the budget bill to better reflect the priorities of Canadians.

Nothing better exemplifies these priorities than this bill's emphasis on post-secondary education. Bill C-48 would maintain the excellence of our post-secondary education system and would build on it to maximize learning opportunities for all Canadians. The emphasis on learning contained in this legislation would create the conditions for continued economic expansion and increased prosperity. It would also demonstrate our collective determination to ensure all Canadians could participate in building our future.

Bill C-48 commits the government to invest, as the member said, $1.5 billion over the next two years, if surplus funds become available. These additional funds would be used for initiatives which will assist students and strengthen our colleges and universities. Canada's social transfer cash levels are currently set in legislation up to 2007-08 and planned levels were established in budgets 2003 and 2004, all the way up to the year 2010-11, providing a predictable, sustainable and growing funding framework for the provinces and territories.

Canada's social cash transfer will rise from $8.2 billion in 2005-06 to $9.35 billion in 2009-10. This translates into transfer increases of more than 3% annually over that period. In addition, further support is provided through the underlying tax transfer which grows in line with the economy.

The Government of Canada will work with all the partners, including the provinces and stakeholders, to promote post-secondary education in Canada. The Government of Canada respects provincial and territorial jurisdiction. We welcome the opportunity to work effectively with our provincial partners; however, and I know my colleague mentioned the high tuition rates, that is an area under provincial jurisdiction. I personally wish we could influence the provinces more than we can. I know that she feels it more than many of us here because her province of Nova Scotia has the highest tuition rates in the country.

[Fisheries, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are always very concerned when people become unemployed and when large numbers of people in a region become unemployed. The Department of HRSD provides assistance to employees and employers when something like this occurs. Our officials go to the premises concerned, or to a mutually agreed to site, and they help employees apply for EI. The federal government is helping in this case.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, May 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague and I know from her passion that she is interested in most of the areas with which this new department will be dealing.

Bill C-23 is about setting up the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. It essentially is a department of lifelong learning and lifelong training. It is my sincere hope that it will more effectively deliver what the federal government generally is delivering already.

My colleague mentioned students. This is the department that deals with the Canada student loans which students all across the country benefit from. It is the department that provides annual grants to disabled students for every undergraduate year. It provides first year grants for low income students. It is the department that will deliver the Canada student bond, which is the way in which low income families can accumulate money toward the education of their children. I know my colleague knows this department, when it is reorganized and redesigned, will be dealing with students.

She also mentioned seniors and this is the department that will be dealing with seniors. For example, the National Literacy Secretariat, which is in HRSD, deals with literacy problems from childhood through to seniors. Although it is not a large federal organization, it is a remarkable organization that deals very effectively with the provinces, the territories, the not for profit organizations and aboriginal organizations on literacy all across the country. I know she is interested in these things. She also mentioned EI and training. My thought is that this new department will deliver those programs more effectively.

The bill does not come from the government. It is not a surprise to the House of Commons. It comes from a unanimous committee report, which the Bloc supported, recommending that the old department be divided in two. This is one-half. The House of Commons, with Bloc support, unanimously endorsed the division of the old department and the setting up of this new one. I really would like to ask her to explain how it is that the Bloc has changed its position on this improvement in the delivery of federal government services.

[Foreign Credentials, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, through the foreign credentials recognition program, we are working with the provinces, the territories, regulators, sector councils, professional associations and others to improve the recognition of work experience, credentials and skills obtained overseas.

We have committed $68 million already to improve foreign credentials recognition. Significant progress is being made, especially in the areas of health care for nurses and physicians, as well as in engineering.

[Employment Insurance, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, we have increased the power of the Auditor General. The Auditor General now produces reports every three months and the government responds to them.

In this particular case, the Auditor General said that this particular fund was a part of the general revenues of the Government of Canada. It has been so since the 1980s. We have made it more independent and more transparent but it is still part of the general revenues of the government.

[Employment Insurance, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the fund, we have increased transparency. We have increased its independence.

I would point out to my colleagues, who frequently reference the Auditor General when speaking to us, that the fund is a part of the general revenues of Canada on the basis of advice of auditors general.

[Employment Insurance, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in this budget alone, the one we voted on yesterday, there is $300 million in addition to the EI fund, helping 225,000 families across the country.

Further improvements include calculating EI benefits based on the best 14 weeks, increasing the working while on claim threshold to allow workers to earn more while they are receiving benefits, continuation of a second year of a pilot project providing an additional five years of EI benefits in regions of high unemployment, extension of the--

[Employment Insurance, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if I could take some extracts from the committee report and the response of the government, the improvements we have made to EI are: the extension of maternity and parental benefits; the elimination of the intensity rule; the elimination of multiple waiting periods for apprenticeship programs; the new compassionate care benefit; and three new pilot projects expected to benefit 220,000 each year that will run in regions where unemployment is very high.

Those are a few of the examples of the improvements which this government has made to EI.

[Community Care, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Community Care is the best named organization in Peterborough. In the city and county its caring services include caregiver relief, the caremobile, diner's club, home help, home maintenance, income tax clinic, information and referral, in-home and telephone friendly visiting, intergenerational programs, meals on wheels, medical equipment loan registry, personal distress alarm, telephone reassurance, transportation, wellness and health clinics, workshops and seminars.

This is community care indeed. It has bases in Apsley, Chemung, Harvey, Havelock, Keene, Lakefield, Millbrook and Norwood as well as Peterborough.

Community Care has a dedicated staff who are supported by 800 volunteers. Thank you, Community Care Peterborough.

[Points of Order, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very excited in recent days and weeks, but I am truly concerned that Parliament maintain the strength of the Standing Orders and I know you are very interested in that.

I was surprised last week that you did not rule on it, but I noticed again today that the opposition used the Standing Order which allows a question to be posed to the chair of a standing committee.

This is a relatively obscure but extremely important Standing Order. It is a Standing Order which gives strength to committees. It gives the committee chairs some stature in the House.

I would argue that in both cases the opposition abused that privilege. Mr. Speaker, if you read the Standing Orders, and I know you have the Standing Orders memorized, you will note that yes, a question can be posed to the chair of a standing committee, but the chair of the standing committee can only reply with respect to the organization of the committee and its agenda. The chair cannot comment on the work of the committee and certainly cannot criticize the work of the committee or anything of that sort.

I would argue that if you, Mr. Speaker, leave the question that was posed by the Leader of the Opposition last week with respect to public accounts and the question that was posed today to the chair of the government operations committee hanging, you will have weakened permanently the Standing Orders of the House and weakened the status of standing committees of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to look into both of those questions and rule, as I think you will, that those questions were an abuse of a very valuable Standing Order.