Peter Adams

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of my colleague's deep interest in this important subject. The objective is jobs rather than employment insurance, and he would agree with that. The employment insurance is there for temporary support.

With respect to jobs, in Quebec alone 50,100 jobs have been created this year so far. Since 1996, the year of the employment insurance reform, 563,000 jobs have been created, again, in Quebec alone.

In addition to the various changes the government has made, which I have mentioned, the member should recognize the Government of Canada transfers some $600 million each year to Quebec for active labour market programs to help workers, including older workers and younger workers, find and keep work. The annual transfer that this represents has increased considerably from $427 million in 1996-97.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it comes as no surprise that the Speech from the Throne referred to the employment insurance program. It shows that the government is fully aware of all that has to be done to resolve the problems that affect not only Quebec, but all parts of the country. We have a long history of ensuring that the employment insurance program remains responsive to the needs of all Canadians.

Employment insurance continues to provide temporary income support to people who involuntarily leave their employment. For example, in 2002-03, 1.4 million people received $8.2 billion in regular income benefits. According to the 2003 monitoring and assessment report, 88% of employed workers would have been eligible for EI benefits if they had lost their jobs with just cause.

Employment insurance helps Canadians re-enter the labour force. Nearly 640,000 participated in active employment measures and 220,000 returned to work.

May I remind my colleague from Chambly—Borduas of all the changes the government has made to the employment insurance program so that it can continue meeting the needs of Canadians in a rapidly changing labour market. For example, the intensity rule was repealed because it did not help increase labour market participation. The clawback provision was amended, and now no longer applies to Canadians who seek temporary income support for the first time or who receive special benefits. As well, parents who re-enter the labour market after staying at home to take care of their young children can establish their eligibility for benefits by accumulating the same number of hours of employment as other workers.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has indicated that among the OECD countries Canada has the second lowest long term unemployment rate.

As for the employment insurance account, I would like to remind my colleague that on the advice of the auditor general of that time, there has been no separate EI account in existence since 1986. That is even before you were elected to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. All surpluses and deficits are now part of the consolidated revenue fund. In fact we have been reducing premiums every year for 10 years. As a result, the premium rate dropped from $3.07 in 1994 to $1.98 in 2004, the lowest level since 1940. Our objective is to balance revenues and expenses, and we believe we will achieve that this year.

This government has understood what Canadians need and that is why we are proud of the improvements we have made and will continue to make in this important program.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that as my colleague began, I could understand where the question would go, which was accountability to Parliament for an institute or a particular project that the federal government is funding.

For the Canadian academy of sciences, first of all I think it should be totally transparent. Wherever it gets its resources, and I hope it gets it from many locations, the source of that funding will be clearly published. If it is private sector funding, provincial government funding, or an endowment from some foundation, I hope that is entirely public.

I would not have this Canadian academy of sciences responsible to Parliament in some other way. Its purpose is to focus science out there and to give governments of the day, not just the federal government because its services could be used by provincial or municipal governments, an independent body.

I deliberately described the example where there was a particular project that was funded in the United States, directed by the federal government. In that case, the money came from there but that academy did not have to give a favourable report in order to get future funding.

I would have to say to the member that while I understand the importance of reporting to Parliament for all sorts of things, in this field an arm's length independent body is extremely important.

With regard to the others, and she mentioned one example, I would be the last to say that things are perfect in the federal system. I mentioned $13 billion. She has to be aware that the Canada Foundation for Innovation alone has been responsible for strengthening the research infrastructure in Canada to the point now where the brain drain, as we used to talk about it, particularly in larger science that needs equipment, has been reversed and it is coming back.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which as my colleague knows replaced the medical research council, is now I believe 13 institutes. For example, the Cancer Institute does cancer research and works with the cancer associations in all of our ridings doing good science but keeping in touch with the public. Its funding in the last four or five years has almost tripled. In other words, the money for medical research has gone up almost three times.

She mentioned the granting councils. The granting councils report regularly to the House. Their funding has more than doubled, and I hope that it doubles again. That is not to mention scholarships and a variety of other things the federal government has done.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest these past days to what members have said. One of the interesting things about a Speech from the Throne is that it is, by its very nature, a sort of a blueprint of what the government intends to do and it gives all sorts of people an opportunity to show their talents. I think this is very useful.

I would like to speak to a couple of things, one quite briefly and one a little bit longer. The first one is the place for science in the Speech from the Throne. Many members have talked about the importance of research and development and the fact that since the budgets were balanced the federal government has put roughly $13 billion into research and development. It has not done that out of charity or out of opportunism. I would stress the opportunism because some members often mention that. Thirteen billion dollars is not inconsiderable and it is not the sort of money that grabs votes. If a government is putting money into research and development it is a long term investment. We do not see the results for a long period of time.

However if we do not make investments this year, things will not happen in five or six years time. I would like to mention two small things, not the amounts of money that are involved.

First, I would like to applaud the reinforcement of the establishment of the office of the science advisor. As we all know, the federal government is a very large and, as members opposite will say, particularly cumbersome operation and, by its very nature, it is like that.

The federal government is not like a provincial government or a municipal government which can be quite focused. It really is quite diverse. In fact, because of that it does remarkable work in research and science and virtually every federal department has a research capacity.

Many federal departments not only have their own research capacity, but they fund research in particular areas. I would mention, for example, the Department of Health. The Department of Health has scientists who are doing good research and it funds, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, research in all aspects of health all across the country: in the colleges, the universities, the institutes and so on.

I do not want to keep repeating examples but the Department of National Defence, which is often mentioned here, rarely do we hear members raising the fact that the Department of National Defence has people doing research into all sorts of things. I happen to know they do some research into snow, for the trafficability in snow and the movement of vehicles over snow. The department also funds research.

Having a research capacity is an important function of the federal government and the establishment of an office of the science advisor, with Mr. Arthur Carty, the former head of the National Research Council, as the first occupant of that position, is very important.

This was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and reinforced. I understand the funding is flowing for that office. I think this office will, coordinate may be too strong a word, but it will become a point of first contact for all research in the federal government. It will help the federal departments, which tend to be quite isolated from each other, to work better in science together. It will also work with the provinces or the private sector, or whatever it is, in the areas of science. I think that is extremely important. I was not surprised by this. I knew it would be in the Speech from the Throne and I was glad it was there.

Another commitment in the Speech from the Throne is to the Canadian Academies of Science. A thousand people have probably just turned off their television sets because who is interested in the Canadian Academies of Science and what does it mean? What is it? By the way, there is no such thing at the moment. It is just a proposal.

All developed countries have something like an academy of science. The United States has one. Russia has one. France has one. They are different in each country, but I will use the one in the United States as an example.

The academy of science is a place where the different sciences come together in that nation. Among other things, it recognizes the best and the brightest. That is one of the things it does. It funds research in all the different areas. The people in the different areas of science talk to each other. In the United States it is a focus for thinking, research-minded people in that country. In addition to that, it is a resource for the government of the United States. I will give an actual example, although it occurred some time ago.

There was a problem with the pavement on the main interstate highways in the United States. A lot of money, as we all know, goes into highways. It turned out over a period of time that there were problems with the pavement that was being used and it became an epidemic. In different jurisdictions it was found there was something wrong with the highways.

The federal government of the day asked the academy of science to look into the problem. The academy of science said that it could put together a panel, that it could do this, that and the other thing, it could produce a report, send people out to test and it would cost a certain amount of money. The federal government gave the funds to this perfectly independent organization, not a federal organization, to conduct a study.

What it did was bring together not just the best U.S. scientists and engineers on highways, but people from all around the world. Those people came together, designed a study, determined what was wrong, gave the best advice they could to the federal government of the day in the United States and the problem was solved. By the way, it involved great expenditures of money. That is an example.

With the proposal in the Speech from the Throne, like the science advisor I mentioned, I believe we are getting near the top of a pyramid of things which have been done--I mentioned the $13 billion before--over the last six or seven years for research and science in Canada. This move toward having an arm's length Canadian academy of sciences is a step we can take now. We could not have taken it seven or eight years ago when research was less strong in Canada.

The government's objective is that Canada by various measures be in the top five nations in the world. I have to say, having become a bit cynical, I think that means we are going to be fifth. We are not going to be fourth; I think we are going to be fifth by the year 2010 in research and development.

The government's objective, which has been the objective for two or three years, is not for fun. It is because our productivity depends increasingly on keeping on top of research and development in all the various fields. These two little things, which are not so little, although they are in financial terms compared with many items in the Speech from the Throne, are moving us toward that position.

I mentioned the year 2010. In various sciences and in various aspects of science, we are already in the top five. In genetics and astronomy, for example, we are already in the top five. As of this year, and I saw this very recently, we are now number one in the G-7 in terms of public funding of research and development. This is a remarkable thing.

I did not hear this mentioned in the election, but it is something which has already been done. We have moved from second last to first in publicly funded research and development. Following that, as I have mentioned, in the years to come we will see improvements in our standard of living and our quality of life resulting from that.

I appreciate everyone's patience in listening to me. I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your new position. You look wonderful sitting in that seat.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague from Winnipeg had to say. She covered a great deal of ground.

First of all, I am delighted that progress is still being made to deal with the flood problems in Winnipeg. As hon. members know, there were serious floods in Peterborough this year. We are also looking at infrastructure to deal with them in the long term.

One of the things that I am pleased about in the Speech from the Throne is the commitment to aboriginal people and not just in words. Serious efforts are now being made to work with the first nations and Inuit people of Canada to improve their situation.

The hon. member mentioned the urban aboriginal population in Winnipeg. One of the things we are trying to do now, as I understand it, is to work with the first nations themselves and work with the reserves, but at the same time reaching out to the increasingly large aboriginal population.

I know this involves the federal government working with community colleges, the universities which have special native studies programs, aboriginal training institutes and so on. I would be grateful to hear my colleague's thoughts about how we are progressing with regard to helping urban aboriginal people in Canada.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what my colleague had to say. We greatly appreciate having the member here, with his background and interest in water.

Could he broaden his interest a little? We are big supporters of Kyoto. There have been two big changes in Kyoto. One is that Russia has signed on, which will help the hemisphere in a most extraordinary way. As a result of that, Kyoto is now in force. He also knows that all the things to do with the atmosphere and water on the earth's surface are all inter-related.

I would like to hear his thoughts on how we can move to strengthen what we are doing with respect to Kyoto and perhaps, in particular, with respect to the way the atmosphere affects water and water pollution.

[Sharon Nelson, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the passing of Sharon Nelson, née O'Donoghue, of the Village of Keene in the Township of Otonabee-South Monaghan, Ontario.

Sharon, a most vibrant person, was wife of Dave, mother of Stephanie and Jason, and grandmother of Syndey. She died of cancer. Sharon was dedicated to her family and to the Village of Keene. She was very active in the Lioness of Keene for more than 20 years. She had a 100% attendance record, was twice president, and she served the club and the community selflessly.

She was the local representative of the city county disaster trust fund, responsible for the care and relief of victims of fires and other disasters. An artist in her own right as a member of the Kawartha Guild of Folk Painters, she was particularly active in the “Keene on Keene” beautification committee.

Sharon will be greatly missed. I extend condolences on behalf of the House to Dave, her children and their families, and to her extended family.

[Canada Education Savings Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think in some ways the member has answered his own question, because I greatly admire the fact that we have these diverse education systems across the country. I think this is one of the strengths.

We tend to think of crises, but of any OECD country we have by far the largest percentage of students who have the experience of higher education. The United States, which is second, is some way behind us. I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, that we have students in post-secondary education across the whole country at about twice the rates of the OECD, on average.

To go back a bit, there is flexibility. I am glad that the province of Quebec, and with the help of the federal government, I like to think, has been able to develop the very distinct education system. The House heard me earlier. I particularly admire the fact that the CEGEPs are free. I think that if we could keep that level as economical as possible, that would encourage people to come in.

For my colleague from the NDP who asked a question about the purpose of the bill, obviously there is the money. There is going to be some money in the hands of an 18 year old or a 21 year old or whatever age it is going to be. That is one thing. The other thing is to get a family, when a child is first born, actually thinking about education for that child's entire career.

For a government like this, which is a fairly blunt instrument, particularly in the area of education where we have the 13 jurisdictions, each of which is different and which responds differently to our various measures, how do we reach out to those families? I would suggest that this is one: that we say to the poorest families in the country, “Here is a grant”. That is the first thing we say. We try and we spend some money and get those families to where they know there is this money, and with a minimum of inconvenience they can start accumulating it.

Without any family money, I think having that money is a huge step forward psychologically for the children of that family. The decisions for higher education are not made when the child is thinking about what the tuition is now. That decision is made when the child is in grade 7, 8 or 9. By that time, under this program, a family will have sort of committed itself. We should think about that as well as the actual help which will be available when tuition time comes.

[Canada Education Savings Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague and every member in the House knows, we are dealing, for better or for worse--and in some ways it is better and some ways it is worse--with a split jurisdiction. Tuition fees are definitely within the area of the provinces. The province of Quebec has the lowest tuition fees and, as the NDP member from Nova Scotia who spoke previously said, that province has the highest in the country.

Dependence on tuition fees varies from province to province. I wrote an article recently expressing concern about the dependence of our institutions on tuition fees. I noted that it had risen to between 20% and 30% from being in the teens only a relatively few years ago. This is a matter of great concern to me. I have a letter from a university in Nova Scotia indicating that it is 43% dependent on tuition.

Let me go back to my colleague's point. I understand the province that he is from. We cannot control the tuition fees. In fact, one of the things we are interested in doing in this legislation is making sure--and we have agreements from some provinces as we do on the RESPs--that the provinces will not in fact in some way claw back or simply increase the tuition when the federal government does something.

Millennium scholarships have been mentioned, in some ways disparagingly, but they do exist. For low income students, the Government of Canada is now implementing a $3,000 first year grant, which will begin very soon. There is a $3,000 grant for disabled students for every year of undergraduate, which is starting very soon. There are graduate student grants, which I mentioned in my speech, and those are federal grants. It is our hope that whenever we develop one of these programs the provinces do not draw it back and therefore put the burden back on students and their families.

My colleague's province is one of those that has not yet agreed to not count RESPs as income. I hope he will encourage his province to do so. I am pleased to say that Nova Scotia has already agreed. We are going to try to get agreement with all the provinces so that the moneys accumulated under this program will not in some way be clawed back by each jurisdiction.

[Canada Education Savings Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the administrative costs which have been mentioned are in the order of $40 million in the first three years.

I have to point out that because the legislation is built on the existing RESP legislation, we work with financial institutions and others which have already generated the $12 billion or $13 billion of savings which I have just mentioned. That system is already in place. We are sort of piggy-backing on it.

Because of that, a considerable part of the money which is mentioned as necessary to administer the program in its first few years will go into promotion. We feel it is extremely important. Many of these families do not normally save, as one of my colleagues has said. They may not even have bank accounts. A reasonable amount of the money will go toward reaching those families and explaining to them that in the first instance, at the very basic level of the legislation, if they open an RESP, if they open a bank account, they will get a grant. They need not put any of their own money into it.

I have to say to my colleague, because he used a very particular example, that I was very disturbed about the way one of our programs did cost more than was indicated, even though I supported that program. It is my sincere hope that because we are building on an existing mechanism, there will not be large bureaucratic costs involved with the bill. However, there will be considerable costs at the beginning in reaching the people to whom the bond itself is directed.