Peter Adams

[Canada Border Services Agency Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow up on the previous question. I have to confess straight away that it is not directly relevant to the bill but it is to the Coast Guard.

I wonder if my colleague could tell us whether any thought has ever been given to including the Coast Guard and the armed forces? I have been asked about this quite often with respect to sovereignty, whether it is better to have a coast guard which is essentially civilian in the waters in the Arctic islands, for example, or up the east coast or the west coast. Is it better to have one that is civilian for sovereignty purposes or better to have one that is associated with the armed forces as is the case in the United States?

[Lacrosse, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Kawartha-Chrysler Peterborough Lakers won the Mann Cup this year. This revered trophy is emblematic of national supremacy in one of our national sports, lacrosse. After a tough season, the Lakers took on the Victoria Shamrocks and won the final series in six games. I congratulate the team members on their achievement. They gave our community a lift after a summer of floods.

I also congratulate and thank all those who have worked to maintain lacrosse in Peterborough over many years. In particular I thank and congratulate Ted Higgins, the Lakers coaching staff, its board of directors and supporters.

Once again Peterborough leads Canada in lacrosse.

[Main Estimates, 2004-05, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, he is the second member opposite to mention the Governor General's northern trip.

What I forgot to mention before was the Governor General visited nine northern countries, which is something I approve. I would like to ask a question, although I am not sure if I am allowed. What did the Conservative Party representatives on that trip report when they came home? Did they report to their caucus? What did they say? Why are the people who were on that trip not speaking today?

[Main Estimates, 2004-05, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is speaking out of two sides of his mouth. If he has so much respect for the office and for the incumbent, why this slash and burn approach to the cutting? It is not the amount of money. It is the way it has been done. That has been made very clear from this side. This is the last quarter of her budget.

What would the member opposite think and would he be respectful if I now substantially cut his budget in the last quarter of the year when he had hired staff and so on? If he respects the office so much, why does he not wait and make the arguments for this at an appropriate time? Then if these changes should be made, they can be made in a proper, efficient and respectful fashion.

I suggest it is a witch hunt and that the members opposite are after the office of the Governor General.

[Main Estimates, 2004-05, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

I rise today to speak in favour of reinstating the full budget of the Governor General. I do this because I believe the Governor General is an important institution of the country not something to be used as a political pawn.

The Government General, as representative of the Crown, along with Parliament and the judiciary, forms the foundation, one of the three pillars of our democratic system in Canada.

The institution of the Governor General is a powerful symbol of the Canadian national sovereignty and identity, a symbol as powerful and as etched in our national psyche as Canada's flag, our extraordinary geography and the very Parliament buildings in which we are now sitting.

The Governor General is first and foremost Canada's de facto head of state and commander-in-chief of the Canadian armed forces. This constitutional role is central to the responsibilities of the office.

The Governor General has not only the ability but the responsibility to bring Canadians together, to engage them in non-partisan dialogue on issues of importance to them, to know what their preoccupations are, to know what their values are and to reflect these to other Canadians right across the country. The current Governor General does all of those things, particularly bringing Canadians together better than any other.

I wish to address the important work that our Governor General is doing to bring Canadians from all walks of life, from all corners of this land together. Whether it is by plane, train, car or canoe, the Governor General travels the country visiting Canadians and bringing Canadians together to meet one another.

There are stops in every province and territory beyond our capital cities and continuing off the beaten track to visit Canadians on their farms, in their small towns in rural areas and in northern communities.

I rise today to address the important work that our Governor General is doing to bring Canadians from all walks of life and from all corners of this land together. Visiting Canadians, meeting with Canadians, bringing Canadians together to meet one another.

The current Governor General has made it clear that her goal is to experience how Canadians live and to see how they live. The Governor General uses her visits to speak to Canadians about Canadians and about Canada, and to open their eyes to the originality of the people, of the land and of our languages.

Imagine the type of travel schedule involved. As MPs, we often complain about how many nights we spend away from home. It is no different for the Governor General. At least one week per month is spent outside Rideau Hall or outside of La Citadelle in Quebec City. While visiting different parts of Canada, the Governor General and His Excellency John Ralston Saul meet Canadians of all ages and all walks of life.

They organize round table discussions on questions of social justice and participate in school and community events. As part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Canadian Governors General, Governor General Clarkson presided over ceremonies to invest Canadians into the Order of Canada in four different cities across the country, not as has been the practice simply here in Ottawa.

Events at Rideau Hall and at La Citadelle also provide occasions for Canadians to meet and exchange ideas. In February 2002, Rideau Hall for example, was the site of the first ever Governor General's youth forum. More than 100 high school students spent four days with the Governor General and His Excellency John Ralston Saul talking about challenges to community building and ways to involve more young people in their home towns.

Since 1998, His Excellency John Ralston Saul has been bringing together French immersion and francophone students from across the country for the annual French for the Future, Français pour l'avenir conference. The conference has grown from a one community event in 1997 to a cross-country forum which links students in nine different cities from Vancouver to St. John's.

Through a video link, students are able to interact with other French immersion and francophone students from across the country and share their experiences and thoughts on being bilingual in today's wonderful Canadian society.

Through the annual Lafontaine-Baldwin conference, His Excellency John Ralston Saul encourages Canadians to come together in national debate around the future shape of Canada's civic culture. If we are not encouraged from time to time to think about ourselves, to think where we are and where we should be going, where is our future?

By looking back at the historical context of our democratic roots, all members of the House and all Canadians are in a better position as a society to discuss the way we imagine ourselves and the way we imagine us continually evolving democracy. This also means ensuring that the rest of the world understands that the greatness of Canada is based on our economic, political and cultural resources and values.

Abroad, the Governor General and His Excellency John Ralston Saul paint a contemporary image of Canada by bringing together a cross-section of people who contributed to society. First nations, Inuit representatives, film makers, playwrights, novelists, poets and business people accompany them on state visits. They also invite people who make wine, people who are concerned about the environment and people who study and write about our social policy.

For the Governor General, these people are part of Canadian culture and it is through them that our society becomes known in other countries.

I would now like to turn to one of Canada's most enduring symbols, the residence of the Governor General, Rideau Hall. I believe the work that is being done by the Governor General to showcase Rideau Hall is extremely important. Whether it is the flowers in the gardens, hospitality offered on behalf of Canadians during state visits or the art collection that adorns to the walls of Rideau Hall, Government House is now a showcase of Canadian excellence and creativity.

At home and abroad, the Governor General takes pride in work produced by Canadians. When we walk down the corridors of Rideau Hall, the walls come alive with the creative spirit of Canadian artists. Working with the National Gallery and many other galleries across the country, the Governor General has turned Rideau Hall into a temporary home for many of Canada's finest art works. It is a showcase of Canada's best art, ranging from classic to contemporary. That is what the Canadian public and visiting dignitaries deserve to see when they visit the official residences of the Governor General. The doors are wide open.

In what other country in the world is the resident of the head of state wide open to the public?

The Governor General hosts foreign dignitaries and heads of states at Rideau Hall. Not only do they find an office vividly linked to excellence in the arts, they discover a menu featuring Canadian products from all parts of the country.

His Excellency John Ralston Saul leads working delegations of industry representatives and ambassadors from countries that produce wine and represent potential markets for Canadian wines to the annual Cuvée at Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario and the Okanagan wine festival in British Columbia.

Rideau Hall and its grounds, as I say, belong to the Canadian people. The gates are wide open.

I support the motion before us to reinstate the full budget of the Governor General as prescribed in the estimates and I do this: (a) because of the office; and (b) because of the quality of the present incumbent.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the fish, it does seem to me that all animal life cycles are very complicated, but salmon is the most extreme case.

My colleague mentioned the question of temperatures in the river. It seems to me that in a life cycle as complicated as the salmon's, at least one important trigger at various stages of that life cycle must be temperature. He has mentioned the temperature of the rivers, which has been disputed here and I know this is a matter of science. However, he also mentioned the oceans. In climate change at the moment it is becoming increasingly clear that critical changes in temperature in various parts of the oceans are partly triggers and partly a result of climate change. A very significant feature of the current change in climate is changes in the temperature of the oceans.

I wondered, and I know it is science, if the hon. member has any thoughts about the effect of changes in temperature in the ocean part of the cycle of these fish.

[Supply, December 9th, 2004]

Why not borrow them from the public library?

[Employment Insurance Act, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on Bill C-278, which proposes changes to employment insurance.

This is a particularly important debate, because EI plays a key role in providing temporary income support for people coping with job loss and for employed people who cannot work for reasons of sickness, childbirth, parental responsibilities, or the need to care for a dying family member. Also, for those Canadians who have lost a job, EI provides skills development opportunities, that is, training so that they can return to work quickly.

To illustrate the importance of EI, let me outline how it helped Canadians during the period 2002-03. During that time, Canadians filed 1.87 million new EI claims and $12.3 billion was paid out in benefits. In addition, 638,000 people participated in active re-employment measures, an investment of $2.1 billion in training and in the labour market success of the people concerned.

Clearly EI is there for people when they need it most, but this was not always the case. Before the introduction of EI in 1996, aspects of the old unemployment insurance system caused some to question the very sustainability of this vital program, a program which is vital for social reasons, for reasons of humanity and, by the way, for reasons of keeping our economy going. Those features included the encouragement of people to become dependent on program benefits, and it emphasized unemployment rather than employment, in some cases actually acting as a disincentive to work.

Unfortunately, this bill threatens to return us to the situation that confronted us in the past. Let us take, for instance, the bill's proposal to relax entrance requirements.

Four successive monitoring and assessment reports, the reports which review the program regularly, have stated that overall access to EI benefits is strong: 88% of employees would be potentially eligible for EI if they lost their jobs. Among those working full time, 96% would be potentially eligible for EI if they lost their jobs. Among part time employees, 57% of women and 41% of men would be potentially eligible for EI if they lost their jobs.

Bill C-278 would also increase the benefit duration, which could have the effect of making unemployment more attractive than work. Such a suggestion contradicts successive EI monitoring and assessment reports which have said that the current duration of benefits is in fact appropriate.

For example, on average, regular beneficiaries receive benefits for less than two-thirds of the weeks for which they are eligible, which means that the benefit duration is already more than enough for most clients. Even people living in areas of high unemployment typically do not use more than 70% of their entitlement. Add to this the fact that benefit exhaustion rates have steadily declined since EI's introduction, from approximately 37% in 1995-96 to about 31% in 2001-02. All of this suggests that the benefit duration is appropriate.

What about the bill's call for the government to raise the replacement rate and maximum insurable earnings? In my opinion, this also is unwise given that the current 55% replacement rate serves as a balance between income adequacy and ensuring that work incentives are maintained. In addition, individuals in low income families with children can get additional support through the family supplement, which allows these individuals to receive as much as 80% of their insured earnings.

I might add that at the time of EI reform concerns were raised about the fact that the level of maximum insurable earnings at that time was substantially higher than the average industrial wage and so was acting as a disincentive to work. To address this, the level was reduced to $39,000 a year with the understanding that it would be reviewed at some later date when the average industrial wage increased to the equivalent of that level.

Such a review has not occurred because the maximum insurable earnings figure is still 10% higher than the average industrial wage. It is important to note that 70% of all paid employees have earnings below the $39,000 level, which means that the majority of claimants have their employment income fully insured by the EI program at its current level. This level seems to be set properly as well.

Finally, there is the proposal to increase the premium refund threshold from $2,000 to $3,000, while also lowering entrance requirements to 360 hours. This recommendation is also ill-advised since it would effectively result in some workers being in a position to qualify for and receive EI benefits without having paid premiums, something none of us would wish to see happen.

It is clear that the bill contains a number of serious flaws. That brings me to the heart of the matter, namely, that given the vital importance that EI plays in our social safety net, it is critically important that any changes we make to it be well thought out in advance to avoid unintended negative consequences that could damage the whole program and its ability to help workers.

Of course, this is not to say that EI is cast in stone, never to change. Some fine tuning is required from time to time, and when evidence indicates that such changes are necessary, the government has acted. For example, this happened when we removed the intensity rule, when we adjusted the clawback, and when we made the small weeks provision a permanent and national element of the program and subsequently increased the threshold.

We have also commenced a pilot project to test labour market impacts in areas of high unemployment by adding five weeks of entitlement to address the needs of those who go without income for a period of time prior to the resumption of their work.

However, rather than make rash, badly thought out changes as this bill would have us do, we instead need to pursue a balanced approach that takes into account larger issues such as the likely impact of changes on the labour market as a whole, on the financial sustainability of EI in the future and on the EI program as a whole. Because EI is such a complex program, involving employed as well as unemployed people, that impacts many aspects of our economy and the lives of millions of workers and their families, we need to get it right for their sake and for the sake of future generations who will need to call on this program for assistance. It is for this reason that I cannot support the bill.

That being said, I do want to commend the member for her commitment to helping workers cope with job losses and the difficult task of balancing workplace and family demands, a commitment which I share and which the government shares. I particularly share her concern about balancing work and family and particularly about the return of women to the workplace. Those are two areas in which I personally would be glad to work with her to maximize the benefits of this program.

I would urge her and other members to work with the government as it seeks to pursue a balanced and thoughtful approach to fine tuning the EI program so it can continue to help Canadian workers for generations to come. It is only by getting the full range of ideas and insights, such as some of those the member has put forward this evening, that we can make this important program even better than it is.

I regret to say that I cannot support the bill.

[Agriculture, December 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the BSE crisis has driven home to us the importance of being able to track cattle, sheep and all animals used for food. Our primitive tagging system for beef cattle allowed us to track the single animal that triggered this crisis back to her home farm.

International expectations are now such that much more sophisticated tracking will be required in the future. I urge that we move directly from tags to DNA tracking, bypassing the computer chip implant system which some propose.

Canada is a leading nation in genetics, including DNA research. A simple, cheap test at birth, or on entry into the country, provides a unique identification for each animal. Using this, the animal can be tracked throughout its life and meat from every animal can be identified.

The RCMP has a sophisticated national DNA database system. It would be easy to extend it to produce a national DNA system for cattle, sheep and other ruminants. Let us do this now and invest in our farmers.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act, December 7th, 2004]

I think it would be piggymoron if it was Orwell.