Bob Speller

[Canadian Heritage, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The minister must be aware now of the silly goings on in the United States capital where the U.S. house of representatives passed a motion claiming that somebody other than Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone.

I am wondering if the minister will take the time to inform the U.S. congress that indeed yes, Virginia, Alexander Graham Bell did invent the telephone.

[Agriculture, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Last month the U.S. farm bill was passed, giving massive subsidies to U.S. farmers and undermining our efforts to reform world trade. I wonder if the minister of agriculture could tell the House and Canadian farmers what actions he is taking to make the U.S. aware of the global consequences of its actions.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of this legislation. I thank all hon. members who sat on the health committee with me for their work in making changes to this bill. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Health for recognizing that members in the House saw that the bill needed some changes. The minister was very good to work with us in putting forward recommendations.

I would like to remind all hon. members that five amendments came from opposition members and were accepted by the government. They include the preamble, which encourages alternative approaches, and the mandate of informing the public, which we wanted to ensure was increased. We also accepted reviews from other OECD countries and the cancellation of the consultation on the policy codes of practice; and for greater certainty the protection for children that it extended to future generations.

Government members put forward amendments dealing with the definition of acceptable risk; the definition of formulas; expediting the evaluation of reduced risk pesticides; and the recognition of the importance of dealing with minor use pesticides and dealing with them expeditiously.

This committee work has showed that members of parliament working together can put forward amendments and put forward a bill representing the interests of all Canadians across this country, whether members of an environmental group or farmers. That is what this bill does.

The bill would aggressively modernize the Canadian pest management legislation. It would safeguard Canadians and the environment while ensuring that our nation's farmers would have access to safe pesticides which would ensure an abundant food supply and allow them to compete with other farmers around the world.

Bill C-53 furthers three important goals designed to benefit all Canadians and it respects what Canadians have been telling the government.

First, the Pest Control Products Act would strengthen protection for Canadians and their environment. This act would specifically protect segments of the population who are most vulnerable to health risks created by pesticides such as infants, seniors and pregnant women. It would also require the Minister of Health to consider a margin of safety, an increase of tenfold, when evaluating products designed to be used in and around homes and schools.

This bill would also place an extra premium on human health by requiring the Minister of Health to account for the cumulative effects of pesticide use and its exposure. This measure would ensure the protection of Canadians from all possible negative consequences of pesticide exposure and use.

Second, the act would strengthen the post-registration control of pesticides. Under Bill C-53, pesticide producers would be required to report any adverse health or environmental impact created by their products. The act would also require that older pesticides be re-evaluated 15 years after they were first registered. This re-evaluation process would ensure that we would continue to use the latest scientific information and data when determining which pesticide products remain on the market. It would also give the Minister of Health authority to remove products from the market when the producer or the pest management product fails to supply re-evaluation data.

The bill would also dramatically increases maximum fines for the most serious violations. Violations may be punished by up to $1 million in fines and I believe these penalties should deter people from using unregistered pest management products or registered products used in an unlawful manner.

Finally, the bill would make the registration process of pesticides more transparent. It would also encourages public verification of the work of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. This is something for which all groups have been asking. The bill would ensure that we could watch over the work being done at the PMRA. It would also establish public registries that would contain detailed evaluation reports of registered pesticides and reading rooms where people could go in and look specifically at the data the PMRA uses to make its decisions.

This increased transparency will build public confidence and will provide Canadians with the knowledge that we have some of the safest food in the world and that we have agencies to ensure that that continues to be the case.

While the health committee recognized that the pest control products had potentially adverse human health effects, it also recognized that pesticides contributed greatly to the quality of life and the strength of the Canadian economy.

Bill C-53 and the regulations would provide Canadian farmers with better access to safe pest management products being registered in other developing and developed countries such as the United States, Great Britain and the OECD countries. Canadian farmers can compete head to head with the Americans but they need the same products to do so. The act and the regulations following it would allow Canadian farmers access to these products and allow them to do it in a safe and timely manner.

Directive 2002-02 of the PMRA extends the NAFTA joint review programs for reduced risk pesticides to submissions made solely to the PMRA. By adopting this reduced risk criteria used by the USEPA, the directive harmonizes and moves toward harmonization of the registration process between our two countries and will encourage more pesticide use within Canada and safer at reduced risk.

I want to conclude by saying that members of parliament were allowed to listen directly to their constituents and put forward their concerns. On my part that would be the farmers in my community and across the country. The government allowed us to make sure that those concerns were put on the table and to make the changes needed to ensure that all Canadians, whether an environmentalist or a farmer, had a voice in this debate.

[Excise Act, 2001, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank members for giving me the opportunity today to talk about this legislation and its impact on my riding of Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant.

I come from a small rural riding in southwestern Ontario, located on the north shore of Lake Erie. My riding is unique because it represents about 80% of the tobacco growers in Canada. These are farmers with small tobacco farms averaging about 100 acres each.

The 1,200 or so tobacco farmers in my area, along with rural communities such as Delhi, Tillsonburg and throughout Norfolk and Brant counties, employ some 17,000 full time and part time people. High school students, university students and others from across the country come to work and help pick tobacco on these farms. The jobs help students get through high school, university and college thereby helping them further their education. These types of jobs also help our small communities, the local general stores and hardware stores thereby producing an economy for the area.

I mention that because the legislation sets out the ways governments will deal with tobacco, particularly with regard to taxation of tobacco.

When we first came in as government, we faced the tobacco smuggling situation which was taking place across the country. It seemed that tobacco smugglers were receiving more income than the Government of Canada, and in particular the province of Ontario because of its taxation measures. We took steps at that time to ensure the tobacco smuggling operations were stopped. We did that at the request of the tobacco industry and tobacco farmers.

I represent a riding which includes the six nations reserve, the largest native reserve in the country and Mississaugas of the New Credit. People told me they did not like what the smuggling operations were doing to the community. I took their representations forward as did a number of members. The government brought in legislation to deal with that, not only in terms of taxation by dropping the tax, but also at the criminal level. We ensured that more policing was available to look after that area. It was fairly successful in dealing with the problem of smuggling, and I know people talk about it today.

Now smugglers not only smuggle from the United States, they also smuggle goods from the islands to the south of us or from a number of different parts of the world. They bring in tobacco and cigarettes which almost match the cigarettes we have in Canada. Smuggling has been a challenge over the last number of years and smugglers have become a bit better at it.

This is not only a question of whether or not the taxation level is lower in Canada or the United States. We now have to look at the whole operation of smuggling to see what is happening. The Government of Canada has given its commitment to do that. I hope the resources from government will be there to ensure the smuggling is stopped

I bring up the whole question of taxation because it has a direct impact on what the farmers in my constituency have received for their product. High levels of taxation on tobacco products obviously encourage smokers to quit. If they do not quit, at least they cut down somewhat. As a result it has a direct impact on what the companies make and therefore on what farmers earn from the companies because the companies themselves do not decide one day that they will take this hit. They look at their costs. There have been challenges within the tobacco growing areas by companies asking for less tobacco and wanting to pay less money for the tobacco they do buy.

There have been other challenges in the area. Companies have told growers that they must change their kilns and the way they grow their tobacco to reduce a substance called nitrosamine. The farmers have taken up that challenge and have tried to work with government and the companies to ensure they produce a safer product. If it is recognized that there are substances in tobacco that need to be removed, the farmers themselves have collectively agreed to work on that because they recognize the nature of the industry and the nature of the product with which they deal.

Remember that governments in the past encouraged farmers to grow tobacco. Farmers came from countries around the world such as Hungary, Poland, Germany and Belgium, set up communities within the tobacco growing regions and produced a product. They are proud of the work they have done.

Members have said that they could do something else and that maybe they should get out of tobacco and try another product. It is not that easy. They have all their capital assets to consider. Also, it is not as easy to grow something else, particularly in the type of soil that is predominant throughout that area, which is a sandy soil. In fact they have tried in the past to adjust. They have tried to move forward into other types of crops. They have been somewhat successful in a number of them, but there are not a lot of alternatives to tobacco. If they go into another commodity, it is a challenge throughout the agricultural communities in the production of other crops to get a fair return for their labour and investment.

I wanted to point out these issues because governments increase taxes. Our taxes have not gone back to the levels they were in 1994 when we first dropped the taxes because of the concern about smuggling. I would encourage the Government of Canada to look at the whole issue of offshore smuggling, not just from the United States of America, but from other islands in the Atlantic and other areas from which they are shipping these products. That directly impacts what the farmers in my area receive.

I would also encourage the government to continue to work closely with the tobacco growers themselves. They understand the nature of the industry and want to co-operate. They want to work with government to move forward and ensure that rural communities such as mine in southwestern Ontario are protected and nurtured by government as they should be.

Tobacco is still a legal product to grow and smoke in this country. Farmers in my area are saying that if Canadians were to continue to smoke they should have the choice to grow a Canadian grown tobacco.

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the hon. member for Northumberland could not complete his remarks. I know coming from the riding he does he would be very supportive. I appreciate the support that he has given me on this piece of legislation. I thank all hon. members who today rose in their place and spoke on behalf of what I think Canadians feel are their values and some of the things that they cherish. I am speaking of course of our Canadian flag.

Unfortunately this piece of legislation will not be voted upon. It has been deemed by a committee of the House which has a member from all parties that the bill and in fact previous bills should not be voted upon. On that committee we need unanimity to get items voted upon.

That aside, Canadians from across the country need to take this issue and speak out. They need to call their members of parliament, provincial MPPs and put forward either petitions or letters to tell those who are in power and in the public service that they understand the feeling out there on this issue.

I want to address one issue raised by the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. He suggested that in the bill anybody who might dispose of the flag inadvertently might be charged with a criminal offence. If the member reads subsection 56.1(2) of the criminal code it says:

No person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if the person disposes of the national flag of Canada because the flag has become worn, soiled or damaged.

There is no question that this is not the case. It is too bad the member has left the Chamber but I would hope that he would have read and understood that point. There are a number of people in the House who support the bill and I am wondering if I could get unanimous support to have the bill votable.

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 2002]

moved that Bill C-330, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the Canadian Flag), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present to the House my private member's bill, Bill C-330, desecration of the Canadian flag.Like many people in the country, when I see people desecrating the Canadian flag on television, I feel a profound sadness for those people and what they are doing to the memory of many Canadians who fought for that flag.

I put the bill forward to speak on behalf of many people in the Royal Canadian Legion, not only in my area but across the country who wrote members of parliament to ask them to bring forward this very important issue for debate in the House.

The proposed section 56.1 outlined in my bill would read:

(1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, wilfully burns, defaces, defiles, mutilates, tramples upon or otherwise desecrates the national flag of Canada is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction

(a) for a first offence, to a fine of $500; and

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, to a fine of a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $15,000.

(2) No person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if the person disposes of the national flag of Canada because the flag has become worn, soiled or damaged.

The purpose of the bill is to make it illegal for anyone to wilfully desecrate the Canadian flag, which I believe is cherished by everybody in the country. Although I and many others believe that the act of desecrating the Canadian flag runs contrary to the values of this nation, warranting a criminal code provision, I believe most people think it is not serious enough to be punishable by jail time.

It is in this regard that my bill differs from other bills in the House that have come before in that they proposed as a penalty jail time for this offence.

I want to make it clear that there are many instances where the Canadian flag will need to be destroyed because it has become worn, or soiled or inadvertently damaged. In these instances it would be irresponsible for parliamentarians, with this bill, to place people who were properly disposing of their flags in violation of the criminal code. That is why in proposed subsection 56.1(2) of the bill I made it perfectly clear that no one is guilty of an offence when they are properly disposing of a flag for the purposes of the stated reasons in the bill.

I believe this issue is a very important one. It is not only important to me and my constituents, but it is important to members of the Royal Canadian Legion who from across the country wrote members of parliament and ask them to take action.

I want to read from a letter I received from the Royal Canadian Legion in my area. It states:

In support of The Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Executive Council, we wish to raise the issue of safeguarding our national flag.

Since 1994, Dominion Command has been presenting resolutions to the Federal Government urging legislation against willful and indiscriminate acts of desecration to the flag. They are not satisfied by the bureaucratic response, and are now asking for individual and Branch support.

It is our desire to make you aware that Royal Canadian Legion Branch...support 100% the position of our Dominion Command. This position is stated quite clearly. I quote: “We want the government to enact legislation which would make it a crime to willfully desecrate the flag. We do not want the punishment to be so onerous that offenders are put in prison, but we do want the offence to carry a suitable penalty such as...$500 - $15,000--

That is exactly what I have in this proposed legislation. The letter continues:

The Legion is sensitive to the right guaranteed in Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to 'freedom of expression'. Our veterans offered the supreme sacrifice to protect this and other freedoms for all Canadians. We also believe the Charter was never meant to protect those who would violate the freedoms and rights of others. In this regard, we maintain that those who would trample, burn and desecrate the national flag of Canada have committed a criminal act in destroying property which belongs to all Canadians. It is our view that to desecrate the Canadian flag is to dishonour the memory and sacrifice of those who died protecting it.

...we ask your support of our views, and urge you to help implement the legislation required to ensure our flag will be honoured with the respect and dignity it deserves.

That came from members of the Port Rowan Legion in my constituency. Essentially they are saying to the House that they believe the flags they have fought under should be protected by laws. Also many have represented Canada around the world with that flag since 1965. I totally agree with the letter. I stand before the House to try to protect the institutions and what this flag symbolizes. I believe many other speakers will speak in favour of this also.

This raises an interesting point. While many people will argue that the public desecration of the flag is protected under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, meaning that it is protected as a freedom of expression, it is not my intention to limit the freedoms that people have and that this great nation enjoys. However I will argue that the Canadian flag is not an acceptable means of expression. Desecrating the flag is not in any way against the expressions that are found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This flag is not a piece of cloth with a neat design on it. What it expresses are the ideals of our nation. It does not represent a particular government policy, or an institution or a party; it represents the nation itself. It supercedes any other actions taken by government in that it is a representation of what this nation stands for and has stood for since 1867. It is this country that the flag symbolizes. It is not the government. The desecration of the flag is not a political means of expression. What they are desecrating is what this country has stood for since Confederation.

The ideals of this nation are what over 100,000 Canadians unselfishly gave their lives to protect during World War I, World War II and the Korean War. For the people who were alive during these wars, their lives were profoundly touched. People of all ages and of all races and of all social classes did whatever they could to help protect the cause. Many of them served in various roles in the military where others helped out on the home front. It was a collective effort by the entire nation where many people were forced to give the ultimate sacrifice and indeed sacrifice their lives. They fought for freedom, for justice and for Canada. They also fought for freedom of other countries around this world. Even though it is not the present day flag that these people fought under during the war, these flags are symbolic and they are of one flag. I know members of the Royal Canadian Legion today see it that way.

They fought for the ideals of this nation. They fought for this parliament and they fought for what we as parliamentarians represent in this country. Because of the sacrifice of so many, to most of us war is something that we see on television or a journalist's recount of events. Where our closest emotional contact with war is usually of our knowing someone else who was there or from old diaries or letters and memorabilia, it is because of their sacrifice that we now sometimes take for granted the freedom that we have.

It is because of these people, members of the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations, that I stand here today with this bill. Not only is it for them though, we also have Canadians in Afghanistan.

Canadians around the world wear the Canadian flag on their shoulders. It is also for them that we stand in the House today to bring forward this legislation.

It is important that we take a look at how this flag came about. As we know, on July 1, 1867, Canada was proclaimed a nation. It was still a colony of Great Britain with strong colonial ties to that country. As a result Canada did not have its own national flag. It had Great Britain's Union Jack. However, Canada often used the Red Ensign as a flag. It was a flag that showed its individuality from Great Britain. It actually took the House many years of debate to come forward with an agreement from all sides on the Canadian flag that we have today.

Lester B. Pearson proclaimed during the election campaign of 1963 that Canada would have its own flag. It was a promise that Mr. Pearson did not forget. It was really in the spirit of non-partisanship that people from all sides of the House came together and voted in favour of a Canadian flag on December 15, 1964. The vote was 163 to 78 in favour of the flag.

The Senate approved the flag two days later and the Queen gave her approval on Christmas Eve. She signed the official proclamation on January 28, 1965. On February 15 of the same year the maple leaf flag became the official flag of Canada with an extensive flag raising ceremony not only on Parliament Hill but cross the country and indeed around the world at Canadian embassies, consulates and high commissions.

The intention of the Canadian flag was to honour all of the founding nations of this country which denoted allegiance and was devoid of its colonial independence. This is the flag that represents the diversity of this nation, its independence and freedom. This is not something that we should be taking for granted. It is something that we should cherish and which I believe Canadians do cherish.

For the few that would use it for their own political means to express to the House, to government and to Canadians that they somehow dislike what is going on in this country, I and many Canadians cannot take it.

We believe that sort of action should have consequences. That is why I bring forward legislation in the House to make sure that all Canadians understand that if they want to attack the memories of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have stood by that flag and its previous flags in representing this country overseas there are consequences for their actions.

I understand that people's sense of patriotism cannot be legislated. It is not something that we can force upon people. It is something that people feel within themselves. It is an ideal of their nation. For the most part we do not need to remind people of how sacred our flag is. However, for those few who find that they should offend these values and the ideals of this country I believe that in fact there should be consequences and that they should suffer those consequences.

I wish to say that we have had support from all parties on this issue. I wish to send a message to Canadians that even though this piece of legislation will not come to a vote because of some of the political goings on in the House, we feel it is important enough for us to remind them of what it is they do when they desecrate the flag.

I thank all hon. members who have given me their support for this piece of legislation. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the House and their views on how we can assure Canadians that their flag, and the ideals behind their flag, will be protected and cherished for years to come.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to rise in the House today and talk about the budget and the budget implementation bill as put forward by the Minister of Finance.

I want to first congratulate the Minister of Finance for putting together a budget which probably had the most widely consultative process we have seen within the country in some time. It is important that Canadians of all ages, from sea to sea to sea, have an opportunity to talk to government. It is important to point out first and foremost how the process was done because I think it really reflects what is in the budget.

What we in the House and parliament did was allow a committee of the House, the finance committee, to travel across the country, hold public hearings and listen to Canadians about what they felt was important, because these are challenging times. There is no question that the events of September 11 and the global downturn in the economy have made it much more difficult for governments at all levels to deal with their budgets and particularly to deal with public expectations as to what they feel should be in budgets.

I think it was quite good that members of parliament from all sides of the House went across the country and consulted with Canadians. Many of us went throughout our own ridings and talked to people at local grocery stores and at the gas stations and got a feeling from them as to what they felt should be key in the budget.

On this side of the House I know that the Minister of Finance met with a wide range of different caucus committees. He sat down with them and talked to them about where they thought the government's priorities should be. For my part, I chair a task force on the future of agriculture. My task force had an opportunity to consult with Canadians across the country and then sit down with the Minister of Finance, dialogue with him and show him directly where farmers across the country thought the government's priorities in spending should be.

On our part we were successful in some areas but what we got from the Minister of Finance, from the Prime Minister and from the cabinet was a commitment to look at the long term issues in agriculture and to make sure that the structural problems that we found across the country when we talked to Canadians would be addressed in the next and upcoming budget. I think the process went very well. Members of parliament on all sides of the House had an opportunity to sit down, talk to the Minister of Finance and put forward to him the concerns of their constituents.

The budget first and foremost gives a boost to the Canadian economy at a time when there is an international downturn, at a time when there are challenges. Given some of the difficulties we are seeing in the economy, such as some of the large manufacturers we relied upon during the last number of years to create many jobs but are now contracting a bit, it was prudent of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to give a quick boost to the economy.We did that in many ways.

We put $2.2 billion into air travel safety. Certainly after the events of September 11 we all realized the importance of making sure our skies are safe. We also put $1.6 billion into policing and intelligence to make sure that our police forces, CSIS and all the people who are out there looking for terrorists and possible dangers to Canada's national security have the resources they need to address these problems.

We also put $1 billion into more efficient screening of refugees and people who are trying to get into the country, to help secure our borders and make sure that Canadians can feel safe. Not only did we make sure that we kept our border secure on the outside, but we also have made sure that our borders with our most important trading partner, the United States, are more open and free for the free flow of goods across the country.

As hon. members know, after the events of September 11 the border was clogged. I know that many businesses in my part of the country and indeed across this great country were concerned that their most favoured, lucrative and protected market might be cut off. I thank the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade for their work. They took it upon themselves to go directly to Washington to make sure there was no danger of our goods being stopped at the border. It took a bit of work and some phone calls from the Prime Minister, but it was done. We have an effective and open border now. Although there still needs to be more effort put into making sure that we get a quicker free flow of goods across the border, certainly after the clogging up due to the events of September 11 their efforts have gone a long way to help open up the border.

One of the key things the government did in the budget was give dollars back to Canadians. The government made sure in this budget and particularly in the previous budget that $100 billion in tax cuts over the next number of years will flow back to Canadians. It is important for Canadians to have cash in their hands to spend, particularly in difficult times. It helps the little businesses to have these dollars in their hands to put back into the economy, particularly in my area of the country and in rural Canada. I was pleased that we in the government did that the last time. I am hoping that in future budgets we can go even further to make sure that more tax cuts are put back into the hands of Canadians.

We also did something that I think was important for rural Canada in particular, because what we are seeing across the country is that our rural infrastructure is crumbling. Governments have cut back to deal with budget deficits and debt. As a result, they have not been putting the dollars into infrastructure across the country, municipally, provincially or federally, that were needed in the past. Through this budget we have put an extra $2 billion into infrastructure. As federal and provincial governments have cut back and municipalities get sideswiped by our cutbacks, it is good to see that both federally and provincially we have put some of those dollars back into the municipalities to make sure that their infrastructure is kept up to date.

We in rural Canada were pleased to thank the former Minister of Industry for his program to make sure that rural Canada was wired to help it keep up with the technology in the urban centres. We are pleased that there is an investment in broadband in rural areas.

Health care in the country is a subject of debate now, with a national task force on the future of health care. I would say that it is a subject of debate in provinces and municipalities across the country. We made sure that the dollars we put into health care were increased over the last couple of budgets to make sure that those services were provided, particularly in the area of equipment in hospitals that needs to be upgraded. There have been more health care dollars put into the last number of budgets to make sure of that.

I want to say that the budget was a budget for young people in Canada. My two young children, Christopher and Victoria, are looking on today. I think the budget speaks to their future. It makes sure that this great country has the services and the ability to provide a lifestyle for the young children of Canada, for their future.

I again want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for a budget that I think addresses a balanced approach, which Canadians across the country were calling for.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's comments. As a member of parliament who has been championing the issue for some time, well before the hon. member was elected, I want to reassure her. After we came into government in 1993 I and a number of members of caucus pushed legislation for the government to move forward on the issue.

As slow as it has been, we have seen governments at all levels recognize the significant problem of sexual offenders in Canada and the problems local police and law enforcement officers have in terms of tracking them down and making sure they are known in their communities.

I have had many meetings with our solicitor general. I can assure the hon. member he is truthful and honest and wants to move forward as quickly as possible on the issue. The hon. minister will be meeting with his counterparts from the provinces over the next couple of weeks to narrow down many of the issues and move forward on them. It has been difficult because of jurisdictional problems, as he has said.

A number of the issues the hon. member and colleagues around the House have brought up today will be addressed in the next few weeks at the meetings. From what we are told, legislation will probably come forward later in the year so we can have a national approach to the problem.

I know the hon. member is sincere when she says the government and all governments across the country need to move forward and do something about this serious problem. I have been given assurances by the minister, and I take him at his word, that we will see the changes the hon. member has requested in the very near future. I am pleased with the minister for giving us those assurances.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

How many of your own colleagues are there listening to you, Bill? How many NDP are watching you?

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. He mentioned that his constituents are asking for health care, security, tax cuts and something to make sure we do not have a deficit.

I think the hon. member missed the speech yesterday because obviously from his comments he did not understand that in this budget, as in previous budgets and in this fiscal year, the Government of Canada had to book all those commitments we made last year for health care. Therefore, in fact, we are spending more dollars on health care, we are putting dollars toward security, we are giving Canadians tax cuts this year and we are dealing with the deficit.

I agree with the hon. member that this is in fact what Canadians are saying, not only in his riding but also in my riding. In fact we are funding an extra $23.4 billion in health care. I think that is important. Those dollars go to, for instance, my province of Ontario. Is the hon. member not aware that this year alone the Government of Canada gave $2.8 billion extra for health care? A lot of that is going into my province. Hopefully the other provinces and the other ministers of finance will match those sorts of increases that the Government of Canada--