Peter Adams

[Committees of the House, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia. This report and related evidence will be forwarded to the commission for its consideration.

I would like to thank the subcommittee that worked on this report and all the members who made presentations to it.

[Petitions, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition with respect to stem cell research.

The petitioners point out that many Canadians suffer from diseases, such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy, spinal cord injury and ALS, and that Canadians support ethical stem cell research which has already shown an encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for these illnesses.

They call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Petitions, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from citizens of the general Peterborough area who are still concerned about the war in Iraq.

They point out that the United Nations was founded to prevent the scourge of war, that Canada is a member state of the United Nations, and that preventive strikes against Iraq, such as the one we have just seen, cannot be justified as self-defence under the charter of the United Nations.

Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to denounce any aggression against Iraq and declare Canada's non-participation in any such aggression, and to urge the United Nations to seek peaceful solutions that respect the charter of the United Nations and all other international law, including the sovereign equality of nation states.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, government members receive few opportunities to ask questions and no chance for supplementary questions. Unlike opposition members, we give notice of our questions. I submit that we are entitled to answers that are at least helpful. Even a junior minister can use the opportunity to show Canadians that he has some empathy for their concerns, some knowledge of the topic, and some grasp of its contents. Among other things, this gives people confidence in our system.

If a minister does not have an answer, he should say so and offer to get back to the member and his constituents. In our complex, modern Confederation, simply hiding behind jurisdiction, as in this case, is a sign of ignorance, immaturity and lack of respect for our citizens and for the House of Commons.

I strongly urge that there be a constructive, national inquiry into the insurance industry in Canada spearheaded by the federal government. This will benefit the industry and all Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 14th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my question was about a perceived crisis in the insurance industry across Canada. I asked it on behalf of constituents, private citizens, business people and elected officials.

Insurance is one of the foundations of our business and financial systems. Our peace of mind and the viability of our economy depend on a sound insurance system.

The events of 9/11, the wars on terrorism and in Iraq have had a great impact on the insurance system. My constituents know this. However there is a widespread belief that the ripples from global crises are being used as an excuse for excessive increases in premiums, reductions in coverage and refusal of coverage.

Why for example should the village hall mentioned in my question face such a huge increase in premiums for reduced coverage? Why has insurance for MPs' offices tripled in recent years?

It was good of the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions in his answer to let my constituents know that he, like them, has learned that insurance is, in the narrow sense, a provincial jurisdiction.

He should also know that Canadians look to their federal MPs and ministers for national and international leadership. They rely on us as the level of government with an overview of national affairs. They do not expect us to wait until a provincial government detects serious problems in its insurance industry resulting from events and decisions overseas. They expect us to be involved in decisions like the merging of banks and insurance companies.

The secretary of state meets regularly with his provincial colleagues on matters affecting financial institutions which have interests in insurance. I suspect he is on national councils that regularly discuss such matters. Also, he is part of the federal Department of Finance which plays a critical role in determining the strength of the Canadian economy. I would be surprised if there are not officials in that department who have at least a watching brief on something as fundamental as the insurance industry of Canada.

The insurance industry has a distinguished history in this country but there is real concern that it is increasingly concentrated in a few offshore corporations. There is concern that insurance coverage is uneven across the country. Ontario, for example, appears to have dropped the ball on auto insurance. There is anxiety about relationships between banks and insurance. In rural areas, with the departure of banks, a fine network of insurance brokers provides critical financial expertise, yet their training and qualifications vary widely across the country.

All of these issues and more merit national inquiry. The secretary of state has access through the House of Commons to our standing committees. One or more of these could easily conduct valuable hearings, not witch hunts, into the current state of the insurance industry, calling witnesses who could reassure Canadians in these difficult times.

Now that the secretary of state and his department have had time to get up to speed on this matter, I hope that the parliamentary secretary can provide a more useful reply. I hope that the answer will include the thoughts of the secretary of state on and plans for monitoring a healthy, prosperous insurance industry in Canada.

[Business of the House, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the extension of government orders because of the recorded divisions just taken, I believe you would find consent to have government orders end at 5:30 in order to proceed to private members' hour.

[Political Party Financing, May 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the member's interest in this topic is an example to us all.

The committee has been considering Bill C-24 for three or four weeks. This evening at 5:30 in room 253-D there is a round table meeting of the committee which is open to all members. We hope that all members will respond to that opportunity.

Later this week we will have further witnesses from provinces which have experience with similar legislation, and some time after the break we will be consider clause by clause and amendments.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the budget implementation debate. I will do something that is unusual in two ways. First, I will talk about budget implementation, and second, I will talk about a tax measure which is unusual for me. It is something that I should do more often.

I understand that our taxation system is critical to productivity and creativity in the country. I tend to talk about other things. I would like to talk about report stage Motions Nos. 18 and 19 that deal with the federal capital tax. It is not the sort of thing that I would normally deal with, but these report stage motions propose to delete clauses 85 and 86 of Bill C-28. The two motions deal with the federal capital tax in different ways, but they are both in fact linked so I will talk about the two of them together.

Unlike income taxes which are paid when a corporation has taxable income, capital taxes must be paid even where a corporation has not been profitable. This is important because even people who are anti-business recognize that small and medium sized businesses are basic to our society, and in reasonable periods of time these businesses must be profitable.

Capital taxes, which are paid even when the business is not profitable, have been identified as a significant impediment to investment in Canada. That is a significant thing because we do need to attract business. A country of our size, although we are prosperous and wealthy, needs investment from outside the country.

The federal capital tax was introduced in 1989 as part I.3 of the Income Tax Act. The tax has been levied annually at a rate of .225% of a corporation's taxable capital employed in Canada in excess of a $10 million capital deduction. A corporation's taxable capital is generally described as the total of its shareholders' equity, surpluses and reserves, as well as loans and advances to the corporation, less certain types of investments in other corporations.

A corporation's federal income tax surtax, 1.12% of taxable income, is deductible against the corporation's capital tax liability. That is very clear and my colleague from Quebec understands that much better than I do.

In order to promote investment, the 2003 budget proposed to eliminate the federal capital tax over a period of seven years but beginning January 1, 2004. Clauses 85 and 86 of Bill C-28 would implement this proposal by increasing the threshold for application of the federal capital tax from $10 million to $50 million of capital for taxation years ending after 2003 and by reducing the rate of tax over the period 2004 to 2010.

Under the bill the federal capital tax liability would be eliminated for almost 5,000 medium-sized corporations in 2004. The federal capital tax would be fully eliminated by 2010. Report stage Motions Nos. 18 and 19, if adopted, would deny the benefits of these changes to Canadian businesses and would harm Canada's economy. Therefore, I will not be supporting report stage Motions Nos. 18 and 19.

There is an aspect of the budget I would also like to mention that is tiny in one sense and has not received a great deal of play. In the whole order of things, the billions of dollars we deal with and so on, it does not seem to be that much, and it is the palliative tax credit. This is the fact that at last, and I regret it is only in a very small way, people who give up work to look after a close relative who is dying will in fact get EI support, will get benefits from the system.

As a beginning, and I hope that it is just a beginning for this palliative care program, it is for four weeks. It may not sound like much, but people could take it and look after the person who is needing palliative care for four straight weeks. Or on the other hand, as I understand it, they could take a week at a certain point in the illness of the person and then go back to work and the person could be looked after by another relative and then they could take another week and a break and then another week and so on. In total, any way that they do it, I think it has to be a minimum of a week. It cannot be done a day at a time and I can understand that even though there might be some benefits from that particular approach.

I have to say that after many years of lobbying by some members, and by the way, members on both sides of the House, this is now in. Palliative care is a term which only a few years ago people watching this would not have recognized, but now in all of our communities there are groups and institutions devoted to the proper and appropriate care of people who are dying. Sometimes it is literally a bricks and mortar institution, a hospice, into which the sick person can move. Other times, as in the case of Hospice Peterborough in my riding, it is teams of people who work with the family and the dying person in their own homes. They will work around the clock if necessary, providing whatever care is necessary, ranging from counselling to the family to simply sitting with the family or with the sick person.

It is not a coincidence that this type of wonderful activity in our communities has arisen at the present time, because as we know our population is aging. There are great benefits to that. Years ago people used to die when they were 30 and 40. They were cut off in their prime from illnesses or overwork and their children would be deprived of them early in life.

Now people live to a much greater age, an extraordinarily greater age. This winter I have been to five birthday parties for people who were a hundred years old, in each case a woman. At these parties, the 100 year old person was not only present but was actively involved in the organization and what went on at those birthday parties. If I, as one MP, have been able to go to five in my riding, we can imagine how many more 100th birthdays there have been in my riding. Since I was elected nine and half years ago, I have sent greetings to over 200 people who were 100 or more. And you and I should know, Mr. Speaker, that all but one were female. Mine is but one riding of 301 ridings in the country, so that gives us an idea of how aging is affecting the pyramid. At the top of our age pyramid there are more and more people who, with their families, may not always but are most likely to need palliative care.

That is why I was particularly pleased that this time we started with this four weeks of palliative leave. I hope that future budgets and future people debating budget implementation will see a strengthening of that type of support for people looking after those who are dying and their families in this period in our history when our population is aging.

[Nursing, May 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, nursing is the heart of the health care system. For Canada to be a world leader in health sciences, every worker in this field must be supported in maintaining and upgrading their skills and knowledge.

Of 81,000 graduates of nursing schools in Canada from 1990 to 2000, only 79% were still registered in 2001. Large numbers showed an interest in moving to the U.S. and other countries.

Our nurses need support for continuing their education. New graduates consider the move to the U.S. for a number of reasons. One is that permanent nursing positions in American hospitals include access to continuing education.

On National Health Day during National Nursing Week and all year long, we must acknowledge the valuable contribution nurses make to our health system and support them in their desire for ongoing training in an evolving medical environment.

We should also this year thank them particularly for the care they are providing and the sacrifices they are making during the SARS outbreak.

[Committees of the House, May 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the report of the electoral boundaries commission for New Brunswick. This report and related evidence will be forwarded to the commission for its consideration.