Peter Adams

[Agriculture, April 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will be meeting with President Bush toward the end of this month.

Although there has been improvement in the BSE situation, I hope he will use this meeting, as he has in the past, to urge that the Canada-U.S. border be opened to all Canadian beef and other ruminant products, including livestock.

Most people now realize that the closing of the border had little or nothing to do with health or science.

A single animal with BSE that did not even get into the food chain in Canada and a single animal in the United States triggered a massive and disproportionate response.

It made little difference that both animals were rapidly traced. It made little difference that the U.S. and Canadian herds are genetically one and the same. It made little difference that international experts ruled that the border closing was unnecessary.

I urge the Prime Minister to convey such arguments to Mr. Bush and to stress that the border should be completely opened immediately.

The BSE crisis has been a tragedy for farm families across Canada.

[Social Programs, April 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the throne speech and the Prime Minister committed the government to a strong social economy agenda and appointed a parliamentary secretary with special responsibility for it.

In Canada thousands of non-profit societies and co-ops are working to address poverty, and social and economic disadvantages. They are engaged in building the social economy and creating economic opportunity while at the same time addressing the social needs of people in communities.

Their focus is on increasing economic self-sufficiency, and full economic and social participation for disadvantaged groups. These organizations welcome the social economy agenda. Their priorities are laid out on the CCED website. I recommend this site to all members.

I urge the government and the Prime Minister to move promptly on the social economy agenda. Canada needs a strong social economy.

[David Strangway, March 31st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, David Strangway retires as president of the Canada Foundation for Innovation this week. Dr. Strangway is an officer of the Order of Canada, a former president of UBC and a distinguished geologist who worked on moon rocks retrieved by the Apollo missions.

Since 1998, under his leadership, the CFI has transformed the research landscape in Canada. It has helped change research and development in institutions in every province. Some 3,208 projects in 115 institutions in 56 municipalities have benefited from CFI support. Its investments have helped recruit 3,000 new faculty, retain 3,000 more and attract about 9,000 graduate students.

In a very short time Dr. Strangway strengthened institutions large and small, and decentralized research across the country. He helped research institutes, universities and colleges. I particularly appreciate his support of smaller research centres, as well as larger ones, and his recognition of the importance of linkages between such centres.

On behalf of all members, I thank David Strangway for his service to Canada and wish him well with the Sea to Sky University project in Squamish, B.C.

[The Budget, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised that my colleague suggested that there were no tax cuts in this budget. I know he has read the document from cover to cover, but there are several pages at the back dealing with tax cuts, whether they be social or involve children or businesses.

He knows that we are going into the fifth year of a $100 billion tax cut. By next year, the year that we are facing in this budget, family tax will be lowered 21%. For families with children, tax will be lowered by 27%. A family with two children earning around $40,000 will pay no federal tax at all, so the personal side has been cut.

I know he is concerned about business taxes. The R and D tax environment in Canada is now equal or better than in the United States. We are going to the fifth year of tax cuts. How is it that he can say there were no tax cuts in this budget?

[The Budget, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted by the member's focus on the social economy. I had no difficulty understanding what she was talking about. On this social entrepreneurship, the way our society has developed has at last come together in a way such that it can be dealt with in a policy fashion. I think these community based businesses are a good way of doing it.

In my riding there is a group called COIN, which is a network. They train. For example, they train people to fix computers and then sell the used computers. They train people to use computers. They set up community access sites for the Internet and put our libraries and our townships on the Internet and so on.

The interesting thing is that this is business, community business, but while it is being done it is fulfilling a social need. I would be grateful if the member would comment further on this.

[The Budget, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Ahuntsic.

I would like to pick up where my colleague left off, on the matter of education. I use education in a very broad sense, in a sense of lifelong learning. As he knows, because he has great experience at the provincial level and I have some, we normally think of education as largely a provincial responsibility, particularly in the early years but right through, and it certainly is. I would not want the federal government running elementary schools, high schools or even colleges and universities more than it already does. However, as he knows, the federal government in some ways still does.

People do not often realize the extent to which the federal government is involved in education. While I have been in this place, one of my efforts has been to focus and co-ordinate more the federal government's efforts in education in the broader sense of lifelong earning, without impinging on provincial jurisdiction, so we can work as effectively as we can.

I believe that in recent years the government has done a great deal in those areas, Some provinces have responded positively to federal programs and others have not. By that I mean sometimes when we have increased funding for a certain area of higher education, some provinces have responded by helping students from all income levels to engage in that higher education. However, other provinces have responded by raising tuition fees.

The contrast I would give would be between the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. The province of Quebec has moved to two free CEGEP college years while the province of Ontario has moved to eliminate free grade 13 and has raised tuition to the second highest level in the country.

The budget document really is a remarkable thing. Around this time of year I really wish I was an accountant so I could read these tables to get from them the way the government operates and the emphasis that exists in government. They are all summarized in facts, figures and diagrams in an extraordinary volume. The federal system is truly remarkable.

On the question of learning, training, education or whatever we call it, it is very interesting. There is a table on page 112, which I find is quite good. I have often tried to say that the federal government does not want to have a department of education and impinge on provincial jurisdiction, but it takes a great interest in lifelong learning. The table gives examples of federal government programs at different stages of life, for example, childhood, primary and secondary education years.

We have developed in recent years a prenatal program, with an early postnatal program and early childhood education. In those years we provide the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit to low and middle income families to help them give their children as good a start as is possible. Again, sometimes these are responded to well in the provinces, sometimes less so.

In those same years, we have the early childhood development and early learning and child care agreements with the provinces. We provide funds for child care, and a considerable number of spaces for child care. Again, they are dealt with, and it is the province's entitlement, in different ways in different provinces.

Then we get to the post-secondary years. Bear in mind post-secondary education is still traditionally and should be an area of provincial jurisdiction.

In the budget the federal government has introduced a Canada learning bond, which I hope to speak to in a moment. It has introduced first year grants, which will really fit in with what my colleague opposite was saying. Also, it has introduced upfront Canada study grants for students with disabilities. We have had now for many years the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which will eventually provide scholarships for about a million students, with student loans of around $3,000. This is straight from the federal government to students in every province and territory. Also, for a number of years we have provided Canada study grants.

The member mentioned the Canada student loans program, which is powerful support for students in the country. He is right, there has been an overdependence on loans in recent years and as provinces have raised tuition fees, students have been required to borrow more. Even if the loan program is generous, which the Canada student loans program is, it still leaves them with a burden of debt. Nevertheless, for many years that has been very important base funding for post-secondary students in Canada, and it is a federal program.

There are also the Canada education study grants, which are added to RESPs. When a family purchases an RESP and takes the benefit of the tax shelter the RESP provides, the federal government provides grants for each child in proportion to the amount that is put into the RESP. A family can build up moneys over the years as the child is growing up for the post-secondary years. That has been very well received and was strengthened in the budget. Also, we provide tuition and education tax credits. All of those are in the post-secondary years.

When a student gets to the post-graduate level, which is early adulthood and early workplace experience, we provide interest relief that continues through from the year of the Canada student loan. There are debt reduction provisions for students who encounter financial hardship.

Then we get to later adulthood. We support adult learning, for example, training under EI programs and support for the sector councils, which encourage the trades and things of that type. We support literacy programs, including literacy programs for seniors. All the way through the lifelong learning cycle, there is federal government involvement.

In recent years we have allowed people to use RRSP funds to self-fund lifelong learning. People who are in middle life and need to be retrained and who have some RRSPs, can now take the money out of their RRSPs and apply it to any appropriate training that they care to engage in and retain the tax benefit.

It ties in with what my colleague was saying. The federal government in recent years has strengthened its role in lifelong learning and training. I would agree with him that it should be more coordinated and it is an appropriate area for the federal government to work in. I also agree with him that the moves in the budget toward grants instead of loans, toward focusing on low income students, are very important.

In the time remaining, because of some of the criticism I have heard from the other side, I would like to stress the changes that have occurred. I particularly appreciate the Canada learning bond, which provides money from birth for children in low income families. Also, there is the increase in the Canada education savings grant which I mentioned, which is a grant, not a loan, and which is associated with the RESPs.

I am particularly delighted that with respect to the early childhood development, the budget proposes to accelerate the implementation of the framework on early learning and childcare by providing an extra $75 million in 2004 and $75 million in 2005 and 2006. The total federal commitment for learning and child care will be $375 million in the next two years.

I truly believe that of all the lifelong learning span that I have described, the most important years are the early years. I commend the federal government for what it is doing in early childhood education and I urge it to do more.

[The Budget, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's remarks. I particularly appreciated the way he focused on the budget and his views of it, unlike his colleague who spoke previously, where I really did not hear the budget mentioned.

I think he knows that I share his views about education. I was very pleased about the way he elaborated on how education affects all of our society. For example, the evidence shows that the better educated people are, the more healthy they are. The evidence shows that even if we could set up a perfect health system now, we can only maintain it by educating our people to make it sustainable over a period of time. He knows these things, and he gave some examples.

I thought I heard him say that the federal government only provides 16% of the funding for health care. I could not help but notice this. On page 94 of the budget document, referring to the year 2003-04, it points out that the federal government transfers $14 billion to the provinces for health care. In tax transfers it provides another $10 billion for health care. Through the equalization payments, it is estimated that $3 billion is used by the provinces for health care. Direct federal spending and tax measures worth $6 billion of support for first nations health, Inuit and veterans' health, employment insurance health, health protection and public health featured very large in the budget. Therefore, federal expenditures for health are approximately $34 billion, or 40% of the $85 billion spent by governments on publicly funded health care in Canada.

Could my colleague address the difference between his 16% and the 40% which is in the budget.

[Meals on Wheels, March 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate and thank all Meals on Wheels volunteers across Canada, especially those from Peterborough. These volunteers provide hot meals to their fellow citizens who, for one reason or another, are shut in and unable to prepare the major meal of the day themselves.

Meals on Wheels volunteers work in all weather through all seasons. With the meals, they bring a friendly contact, a smile and news of the day. For many shut-ins the visit is worth as much as the meal.

I also would like to remind all MPs that most Meals on Wheels organizations provide frozen meals. They are good for MPs who live alone in lonely garrets here in Ottawa. MPs can help their local Meals on Wheels organization by buying these frozen meals. Last night I had sole florentine. The night before, I had traditional pot roast, and the night before that, fish and chips.

The frozen meals I bring from Meals on Wheels Peterborough really are on wheels. They travel three and a half hours by car from Peterborough to Ottawa.

I urge all members to support Meals on Wheels.

[Petitions, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition on the ongoing tragedy of BSE. The petition is signed by representatives and supporters of the Canadian beef cattle, dairy, goat and sheep industries which are all in a crisis as a result of the BSE problem. The entire industry in fact, not just the farmers, are in crises. In my riding 1,000 families are directly affected.

These citizens call upon Parliament to open the U.S.-Canadian border as soon as possible and to develop a long term solution and economic relief that is fair and reflects the importance of these industries to Canada.

[Petitions, March 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present another petition for National Kidney Month on behalf all those in Canada and around the world who suffer from kidney disease, for the people who support them and, in particular, for the researchers who do research into kidney diseases.

I have presented a series of these petitions, some of the petitions supporting research into bio-artificial kidney and others supporting a national kidney institute. These were all initiated by Ken Sharp of my riding. He has enormously increased awareness of kidney disease. He and the petitioners call upon Parliament to encourage the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include kidney research as one of the institutions in its system to be named the institute of kidney and urinary tract diseases.