Peter Adams

[Petitions, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of people have signed petitions in recent years expressing their concern about kidney disease. The petitioners know that progress has been made in the treatment of kidney disease in improved dialysis, for example, and in research to prevent and cure kidney disease. They know a great of that work has been done by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

These citizens call upon Parliament to make research funding available to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the explicit purpose of conducting bioartificial kidney research as an extension of the research being successfully conducted and tested at several centres in the United States.

[Service Canada, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, service Canada is committed to continuous improvement and reports regularly to Canadians. Its service charter describes the commitment of service Canada. I am very pleased to announce that we have appointed an office of client satisfaction to allow Canadians to judge the performance of service Canada.

[Agriculture, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, after two years, the U.S.-Canada border is open again to Canadian meat and animals. There is still some uncertainty in the U.S. courts but trade has resumed. We must learn from this tragic experience.

We now know that neither the ruminant industries nor governments were prepared for a prolonged border closing. The opening of the border to meat after 100 days gave us a false optimism which slowed down industry reforms in Canada.

We now know that we should never again become dependent on U.S. processors. We need to have the capacity to slaughter and process all our own animals. I am pleased that we are making progress on this.

Also, we should never again become so dependent on a single market no matter how lucrative that market. Canadian product has access to almost 70 markets around the world. The government and the industry should continue to nurture and expand these.

I thank all the farmers in the Peterborough area for their fortitude, courage and initiative during the BSE crisis.

[Petitions, October 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a number of petitions concerning the importance of kidney research. Hundreds of petitioners in my area are concerned about kidney disease, which is a huge and growing problem in Canada, but in particular, they are interested in a form of research which relates to the bioartificial kidney. This is a partly artificial, partly natural device that will help people who, at present, can only be helped by dialysis.

These citizens call upon Parliament to make research funding available to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the exclusive purpose of conducting bioartificial kidney research as an extension of research being successfully conducted in several centres in the United States.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague opposite had to say because I know of his long time interest in this matter.

However what disturbed me about his statements was his constant reference to the government and the government's bill. Although, technically, Bill C-11 is a government bill, it is my understanding that there is a history, some of which selectively my colleague referred to. It has had a couple of years of debate through private members' bills, inquiries within the system and public inquiries outside of the federal system. We are now faced with this bill which in fact was referred to committee after first reading.

As my colleague knows, the purpose of that, although to people watching it sounds a bit technical, is to allow the committee, if it wishes, to effectively rewrite a piece of legislation. This legislation, Bill C-11, which we are dealing with now, is not a government bill in the more general sense. This is a committee bill that each party here in the House has been able to deal with from the very beginning and change. It is my understanding that changes have been made.

I would like my colleague, if he would, to comment on this. Is he, in his grudging approval of this legislation, damning by feint praise the work of a standing committee of this House, work which has involved, not only members of his own party but of the Bloc, the NDP and the government side?

[Petitions, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of citizens of the Peterborough area who are very interested in and concerned about kidney disease. The petition concerns the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. These constituents know that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research do extremely good work and that the institutes represent a great advance in health research in Canada in recent years.

These citizens point out that kidney disease is a huge and growing problem in Canada. Although real progress is being made in various ways in preventing and coping with kidney disease, and in particular the development of the bio-artificial kidney, they call upon Parliament to make research funding available to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the explicit purpose of conducting bio-artificial kidney research as an extension of research being successfully conducted at several centres in the United States.

[Gasoline Prices, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know that gas is cheaper in Canada than in most countries, that it is difficult to lower gas taxes without windfall profits to oil companies, that truckers and others get their GST rebated, that we pass on GST revenues to municipalities for public transit, and that we should all conserve energy.

But was the recent huge spike in gas prices a reflection of a fair and open market place which should be the foundation of a healthy economy? I think not.

In the past, Liberal caucus groups led by the member for Pickering—Scarborough East have instigated inquiries into price gouging and fixing by the oil industry. These tended to show that the industry was more competitive than I thought, but that there is a serious lack of refinery capacity in Canada.

However, the recent post-hurricane spike smacks of something different. We have gone beyond price gouging into profiteering from a disaster. In wartime profiteering is a serious crime. I would suggest that it is in any human disaster.

I urge the Standing Committee on Finance to again conduct public hearings on gas prices, this time focusing on profiteering from human misery.

[Criminal Code, September 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed what my colleague had to say. I know he has been following the debate and he would have heard earlier one of his colleagues talk about the matter of where the money went. When property or whatever is forfeit and the money comes to the court, and I guess that is the way we put it because I am not a lawyer, it goes some way into the federal treasury? Then, commonly, in each province there are agreements as to how the money would be used.

Does the member had any personal thoughts as to what should be done with funds which are retrieved?

[Criminal Code, September 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague. I think we now have the answer. As we know, my colleague had a senior position in the provincial system and as a lawyer I think understands this. The answer that I received is exactly that one: that the moneys go, undesignated, into the general revenues, but that agreements are made specifically in each province as to the use of them. I agree with my colleague. I think that is the appropriate way in which those moneys should be allocated.

With regard to the third party, I think there is provision in the bill, both before the event and after the event; I do not know the legal terms of these things. If, for example, I was involved in some company or some business and someone else was forfeiting their share of that business, I can apply beforehand. In the settlement which is made by the court, as I understand it, as long as I can demonstrate that I was not involved in a criminal activity, my share would be protected. My understanding also is that after the event, if this happens and I have not had time or I did not hear about it in time, I can apply retroactively to protect my investments in the area where the forfeiture is taking place.

I hope this is the sort of response my colleague wished for.

[Criminal Code, September 28th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, before I became as we all are now, not being a lawyer engaged in this legislation, there were a number of technical things I was concerned about, such as what happens if a criminal writes a book and all of those sorts of things.

I have to say that at the moment I do not have the answer. Whether these moneys go into the general revenues directly and are simply merged in the total budget, or whether they go into the general revenues designated for a specific purpose, or whether they go directly to the police or somewhere else, I do not know.

I would undertake during the debate now to get that reply, in a few minutes, I hope, and I would read the response into the record.