Roger Simmons

[Mental Illness, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this week is the third annual Mental Illness Awareness Week. The Canadian Psychiatric Association and other organizations are focusing on mental illness in the family this week.

Mental illness can affect anyone at any time. One in every five Canadians will suffer from a mental illness at some point in their lives. Canadian hospital costs for people being treated for mental illnesses exceed $1 billion a year. We as Canadians have a responsibility to do our part, especially in these times of fiscal restraint.

Governments, organizations, communities, families and the individuals diagnosed with mental illnesses have to work together to create a more cost effective, more humane approach to the treatment of mental illness.

[Income Tax Act, October 6th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-282, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (medical expenses-disabled senior citizens).

Mr. Speaker, the objective of this bill is to reduce income tax for disabled seniors with extra medical expenses. Under the current law the first $1,614 or 3 per cent of net income is required to be spent before you can take it into account for income tax purposes.

This bill would make it possible for all eligible medical expenses from the very first dollar to be effectively income deductible for disabled seniors. I believe there is a need to do that.

While disabled seniors have higher medical expenses than others they generally have lower income than other people. Paying out of pocket medical expenses is therefore a heavier burden for this group of people, disabled seniors, than for others. This bill is a step in the direction of easing that burden.

In that context I have much pleasure in having the bill introduced at this time.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Committees Of The House, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Health.

Pursuant to Standing Orders 108(1) and 108(2), following consideration of the evidence received and the conclusion reached by the subcommittee, we have studied the process by which order in council appointments are reviewed by the health committee.

The committee has agreed that any such review should preferably involve referred nominations rather than appointments and should focus on the qualifications and competence of the individual, having taken into consideration any regional aspects important to Canadians.

The committee agreed to recommend that the House consider referring the issues raised in this report to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that although the Bloc Quebecois members sitting on the committee approved the report, they disagreed with the following statement: "It would be appropriate not to take into account the political allegiance of those appointed".

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 19th, 1994]

With respect to the Auditor General's finding in his 1993 report that the $200 million senior strategy "was renewed in 1993 without reliable, complete and timely information on the results of the first five years of spending", ( a ) what specific action is the Department of Health taking to clarify objectives and activities, and to ensure that renewal funds are expended appropriately and effectively, ( b ) how does the department ensure that recipients of funds for programs under the seniors strategy comply with the terms and conditions of the arrangements, and ( c ) what proportion of the total costs of each arrangement is administrative?

[Committees Of The House, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled "Towards Zero Consumption, Generic Packaging of Tobacco Products".

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response within 150 days.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 20th, 1994]

With respect to the Auditor General's finding in his 1992 report that, for 1989 and 1990, the Canadian Coast Guard's "search and rescue vessels and aircraft were instrumental in incident resolution less than 20 per cent of the time", ( a ) what specific action has the Department of Transport taken to redress this, ( b ) will the use of other federal and non-federal resources, such as the Canadian Marine Rescue Auxiliary, be expanded, and ( c ) will a set of search and rescue service standards, and a national search and rescue program, be developed in full, as recommended by the Auditor General?

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 14th, 1994]

Is the Department of Environment taking the necessary measures to ensure that its regulatory impact analysis statements contain full and accurate information on its proposed regulatory initiatives, and will they remain "the essential means of disclosing information to cabinet, Parliament and the public"?

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 14th, 1994]

What action has the Department of Environment taken in response to the concerns raised by the Auditor General in his 1993 report that "parliamentarians and stakeholders were not comprehensively and equally informed about key issues affecting the effectiveness and cost of the pulp and paper regulations?"

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from St. Boniface is at his very best when he decides to put the cat among the pigeons.

He did that so well at one point early in the election. I heard him one morning early as I was driving out to begin my campaign schedule for that particular day. It was just a week into the campaign I recall. I felt so good about what he said that I sent off to him a missile, which I am sure he will remember. I think I guaranteed I will be in his memoirs one day. It is not the first time he has put the cat among the pigeons.

I have never been shy in telling my friends in the Reform Party on what points we disagree and on what points we agree. I wanted to have a moment ago a nice positive sounding speech because I wanted to appeal to the better judgment of people like my friends from Elk Island, Surrey North and Wetaskiwin and so on. I wanted to appeal to their better judgment that whatever the partisan differences here, this bill is a good bill.

Now that my friend has put the cat among the pigeons, now that he has called my bluff as it were, I have to say directly what I said by inference. Those who think that you can put job creation aside until we solve the deficit problem are smoking something different than I am smoking. They are dreaming in Technicolor. You cannot put the country on hold. You cannot say to those people, as the former Prime Minister, the lady from Vancouver Centre at the time, said in the opening gaff of her campaign last October: "We're going to wait until the year 2000 to deal with job creation". You remember that famous statement. We cannot do that.

I say to my friends in the Reform Party and to the Bloc and any people in this party who happen to be of that particular view that we cannot, as a government, as a group of people's representative, say to people: "Put your aspirations on hold, run up your grocery bill for 10 years until we get the deficit under control".

By the same token we cannot say: "Let's have all jobs, jobs, jobs and ignore the deficit". That is why I have said there has to be a balanced approach. Often I hear the simplistic rhetoric that says: "What are you doing about the deficit today?" The answer is: "About the same as we are doing about the job creation today". We are doing it hand in hand. The day you find us doing more about the deficit than job creation, more about the deficit

than the social security net, is a day you have the formula out of balance.

To answer my friend from St. Boniface, if I disagree with some of the people in the Reform Party, since he mentioned them, it is on that question of balance. I know the member does not want to hear this, but he is going to hear it anyway, and I am going to do it very quickly because my time is up. I say to them, if you talk to them as really free voters rather than as part of a monolithic host which they like to pretend sometimes, you will find that in their heart of hearts-yes, they all have hearts, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that-they really like those people, those Canadians, to have some work. They are not really as Scrooge-like as they sound from time to time.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Windsor-St. Clair for her question.

The important thing to keep in mind is that what we are doing here, and I wanted to emphasize this during my remarks, is but a first step, an important and integrated first step.

I take my hat off to my friend the Minister of Finance. If anybody ever came well qualified for this job it has to be him, not only in terms of his paper credentials and his commitment to public life but in terms of the preparation that he did, the leg work he did across the country in the two or three years leading up to the election.

He together with the Prime Minister have such an amazing grasp of the problem, it is no surprise that his first budget and Bill C-17 which flows from it give us the beginnings of a coherent, sensible is the term, approach to addressing some of the problems we face.