Lost his last election, in 2008, with 36% of the vote.
Infrastructure September 22nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. The absolutely stunning performance of the Canadian economy over the last seven years is beginning to put stresses and strains on Canada's infrastructure.
It has been six months since the last budget and the announcement of infrastructure funding. What is the government doing to get this money out to communities across Canada?
Criminal Code September 18th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I echo the comments made earlier in terms of welcoming yourself, my colleagues and the House of Commons staff back from a long summer vacation.
I am pleased to join my colleagues to discuss the pros and cons of Bill C-334. I will concede that there are responsible, reasonable and well-intentioned arguments on both sides of the ledger. That is why it is difficult to definitively come down on one side or another. However, making decisions is part of our job and in this case the appropriate decision is in my view to deny passage to this bill.
I certainly can see the point made during the last debate on the bill. Our war veterans are a dwindling national resource. As we start this new century we are losing many of them very quickly. Such are the ravages of time and old age. Slightly more than 400,000 of our war veterans are still with us and of those who are their average age is now approaching 80.
This fact of time and history imposes on us a duty to honour our commitment to remember their sacrifice for now and for future generations. The question that arises is how best to do this.
Bill C-334 takes the position that allowing relatives of deceased war veterans to wear their medals is one way to keep that memory alive. I disagree. My colleagues on this side of the House have already made the case of the legion's opposition to the bill and I believe this to be the strongest argument against the passage of the proposed legislation.
That said, I would like to point to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast during the debate in May. Let me just pick out a few of the comments and questions he raised. He said:
My initiative comes from the relatives of veterans who fear that decorations awarded to their family members are being forgotten and put away in dusty boxes and drawers. They, like me, believe the time has come to move with the times and not let these precious decorations collect dust somewhere.
He later said in his speech:
Why should it be a crime for a relative to want to display the decoration and thus honour their deceased relative?
Later still he said:
Would it not be a positive gesture to remember them by allowing their families to proudly display their decorations as their veteran family members pass on?
Finally, the hon. member stated:
I believe these decorations are a birthright for the family members of those who were awarded them and sadly can no longer display them.
There is absolutely nothing in the current criminal code legislation that prohibits the displaying of medals. There is nothing that suggests that medals have to be put away in dusty drawers nor does the current legislation say that it would be a crime for relatives to want to display the decorations. The prohibition simply applies to the wearing of medals by anyone other than the veteran himself or herself.
We all encourage family members to proudly and publicly display the medals of their parents and grandparents either at home or on loan in more public facilities, such as local libraries and museums. They could even consider making a donation of these medals to their local institutions for public display.
I would like to make the case that taking the time and effort to display medals in this way will be considerably more meaningful than the option being considered by the bill: wearing the medals one day of the year and then, by implication, putting them back in a box to be worn the next Remembrance Day.
We should consider this proposition very carefully. One way is to try to picture what it must have been like for those who actually served in war and so reflect on why they might take some umbrage at someone else wearing their medals. For those of us who have not experienced warfare, it is almost impossible for us to imagine what it was like.
In many theatres of operations the weather was often very cold and frequently wet. The battlefields, especially in the first world war, were seas of mud, at times waist deep or deeper. Soldiers carried 40 pound sacks of equipment and provisions on their backs. They ate, slept and fought in trenches or makeshift barricades. They did not see their homeland or loved ones for years and those who were the lucky ones survived. Medical conditions often defied description.
In the first world war there were no antiseptic surgical techniques. Antibiotics were non-existent. Many men who escaped death at the hands of human enemies died from diseases such as influenza, pneumonia or infections. In such conditions the nursing sisters, brave women who often lost their own lives in such hellish conflict, struggled to comfort soldiers' broken spirits as they tended their broken bodies.
Our veterans faced implacable enemies, fiercely determined to fight to the bitter end. It was kill or be killed. It is a wonder that these men and women, considering the things they were called upon to do and what they were forced to witness, kept their humanity at all, and yet they did. When they returned home they picked up their lives and started work on building their country and raising their families. For their service, sacrifice and courage under fire they were awarded medals.
Let us look at the most famous medal of all in the Commonwealth, the Victoria Cross. On it are inscribed two simple words: For Valour. In my view it would be a sacrilege and an outrage for anyone to wear such a medal, relative or not, other than the person who won such a high honour.
The irony of this is that many VCs were awarded posthumously because the recipient died in service to his country and to his comrades in arms. If we could agree that the VC should not be worn by anyone but the recipient, then it would be hard not to see the same principle apply to all medals for service and courage.
Far better and more honourable than appropriating the medals is to honour the memory of our veterans through the retelling of their exploits. We can do that. We can write their histories in places like parks and street names. We can write them in places of dignity and circumstance, like the National War Memorial, and in the glorious landscape we have been blessed with where the names of many of our mountains, rivers and lakes now proudly bear the names of our beloved veterans.
We can write the memories of these brave men and women and the principles they fought and died for in our hearts. We will carry these memories with us from the past into the future.
If we go to any gathering, meeting or convention of veterans anywhere in the country we will see, in their binding friendships forged in the crucible of war, our history laid out plain and clear, living and breathing. We must all reclaim that history. We cannot allow it to perish, not even when the last of our surviving war veterans passes on, especially not then.
The reclamation is not to be found in the wearing of medals not earned through one's own actions. We know what to do. We give our past a future by putting it in the hands of the next generation. It is our duty to tell our children and our children's children the story of courage and sacrifice, the story of Canada's veterans. It is only fitting and proper that we do so. It is their heritage too.
Bill C-334 does nothing to that end. Its passage will cause grief and anger among those who served. I cannot and will not support the bill.
Supply June 15th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to engage in this debate on the health care system and its future. I fear that with less than four minutes left in the time allotted I will not have the opportunity to address a lot of the issues that I would like to address, but I will try to address as many as possible.
On June 9 provincial and territorial governments issued an interim report on understanding Canada's health care costs. Let me first say that the Government of Canada very much welcomed such efforts. Health policy decision making in Canada needs to be informed by better evidence, a better understanding of the issues and a better understanding of the prospects we face. This report is a good step along the road to that better understanding. I know that federal and provincial governments and their officials will continue to work toward enriching our understanding of these issues.
I would like to start with what the report called the base cost drivers. The report takes a very broad cut at estimating what those drivers could be. It argues that health care costs in Canada will be pushed up by four key drivers: inflation, population growth, population aging and a catch-all category.
The first is general inflation. As the overall cost of living rises, so will the amount of money that needs to be spent on health care. The report pegs this pressure at about 2% a year, which is consistent with the policies of this government to keep inflation between 1% and 3% so as to keep interest rates low and the economy strong.
The second is population growth. As the number of Canadians grows so will the need for health care spending.
The third is population aging. It is well known that older Canadians have more health care needs than younger Canadians by a wide margin. They are more likely to have chronic health problems, those that persist and cannot simply be fixed by some procedure like setting a broken limb, and are more likely to need some ongoing form of care as health problems cost them some of their independence. The aging of Canada's population will thus inevitably add to health care cost pressures.
The report estimates that between now and 2026 aging will add around 1% a year to health costs, somewhat lower for the next few years, and more further out as the baby boomer generation moves into their sixties and seventies and beyond. One of the reasons there will be more older Canadians in the future is not only because we are living longer, but because we are healthier and indeed having more years of life in good health.
The last base cost driver the report mentions is a catch-all category. The report assumes that we will spend more on health care year in and year out between now and 2026 to cover off increases in the available health care technology and for a variety of other pressures.
Historically, health care costs in Canada have risen faster than just population growth, the effect of aging and general inflation. These four factors together, general inflation, population growth, aging and this other component, gave a base estimate that health care costs in Canada will rise about 5% a year from now until 2026.
Petitions June 15th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, finally, this petition calls upon the government to end child poverty by the year 2000.
Petitions June 15th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, this petition calls upon parliament to write off the debt of impoverished nations.
Petitions June 15th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, in this petition the petitioners call upon parliament to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
Petitions June 15th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, in this petition the petitioners call upon the government to develop and enforce mandatory mammography quality assurance standards.
Petitions June 15th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, this petition involves rescinding the right of landing fees on immigrants and refugees.
Petitions June 15th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, this petition is with regard to the age of consent. The petitioners request raising the age of sexual consent to 18 years.
Petitions June 15th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the next petition involves child pornography.