Gary Carr

[Finance, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his participation in the debate. I must say, though, it is wonderful to be in opposition and to be able to promise more money for all things.

As the health care critic, the hon. member talked about the health care field. It was this Liberal government that made the most significant investment in health care since its inception with the last agreement of $41 billion. At the same time as he is saying there should be more money for health care, more money for the military and more money for all these programs, a lot of his party's members are out there calling for tax cuts.

The member may know that I was an MPP in the Ontario legislature for 13 years. The Conservative government of the day, of which I was a part, ended up with a deficit of $5.7 billion. At that time, the same argument that we needed to cut taxes was being made. When we do that, we end up with a deficit. It is the same, I would say, with George Bush in the United States, who has ended up with a large deficit.

How can you square that with the fact that you are calling for more spending in areas and tax cuts? Will we not just end up like Ontario and the U.S. with big deficits again?

[Finance, January 31st, 2005]

Madam Speaker, would the member like to comment on a couple of jurisdictions that cut taxes and ended up with huge deficits? One is the United States, where George Bush has a $450 billion deficit because he cut taxes too much. As well, the member will know that I was a provincial member in Ontario when the government cut taxes. Ontario ended up with a $5.6 billion deficit as a result.

We need to be very careful when we are cutting taxes at a time when we are investing in health care and child care and also in cities. My friend, who was president of the Conservative Party at that time, will know that the legacy of that government is a $5.6 billion debt that was left to Ontario. I will say on putting money into health care that we could probably do it if we were not investing $41 billion over 10 years.

I would like to ask the member about this, in all honesty and not to be sarcastic. The couple of jurisdictions that have tried this have ended up with deficits, so we need to be very careful, and I would ask the member to please comment on that.

[Sikh Community, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to convey my heartfelt greetings and good wishes to the members of the Sikh community on the auspicious occasion of Gurpurab, which the community celebrated this past weekend across Canada. It marks the celebration of Guru Nanak Dev Ji's birthday. He was the founder of the Sikh religion and one of the greatest spiritual teachers known to humanity.

He preached that all religions were a different path leading to the same destination and therefore deserved the respect of all. His message reached all sectors of society and thus became the foundation upon which Sikhdom developed. The teaching of the guru served as an inspiration not only to Sikhs but to all humankind.

This historic event in the Sikh religion draws families and friends together in a spirit of goodwill, peace and preserving our community's legacy of cultural diversity upon which Canada is founded.

I ask the Sikh community across Canada to please accept my best wishes along with those of my parliamentary colleagues for a most meaningful celebration.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I was in the provincial legislature for 13 years. I go back to the early nineties when the government of the day was NDP. I sat there as a member and watched while the NDP government of the day did nothing but criticize the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney for the same thing. In fact, I went on to become Speaker and some members in the NDP used to remind me that I used to call what they were doing whining. That government went out in 1995 and in came the Conservative government, which did the same thing, complained about the Liberal government there.

When I look back on it, the Ontario government had a program called who does what, where it said that it would be revenue neutral but that we had to find 4%. The caucus used to laugh at that. They have what they call the MUSH sector: municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals. In Ontario, both the NDP government and the Conservative government had to cut those sectors dramatically. So everybody passed them down.

Is it not a pastime in this country for one level of government to blame all of the evils on another level of government, and that includes the four levels because we have regional government in my area? The local governments blame the provinces and the provinces blame the federal government. Quite frankly, when there is a fiscal problem like that, all governments have to make the tough choices.

Therefore is it not true that every government of every political stripe has complained about the federal government of every political stripe not having enough money?

[Petitions, November 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that comes from a group by the name of RAIL, Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines. The undersigned are concerned about the impact of a proposed CN major intermodal terminal facility in our community and express their opposition to the development of a CN major intermodal terminal facility on the existing agricultural land.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop the development of the proposed CN, Canadian National Railway Company, major intermodal terminal facility in the Town of Milton or the surrounding area.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on the member's comments, we may get to know each other a little better as we go along. In fact, we have had the pleasure of spending some time together.

Very quickly on the funding issue, I think it is very important. The minister and the Prime Minister said when the agreement came out that the federal government puts money in, but there needs to be flexibility by the provinces to make those decisions.

I will give examples. The hon. member mentioned home care. There may be certain provinces that are very good in terms of their home care programs. There may be others that are not quite up to that level. There may be others that are very strong in cancer care.

What I firmly believe in--and it is what this deal does--is giving money to the provinces and allowing the flexibility for them to make the decision. So if the priority in Ontario is home care, Ontario can put the money into home care. If its priority on the waiting lists happens to be cancer care, it can put the money there. I am a firm believer in giving the opportunity to the provinces to make those decisions. That is the way I see it working.

Having said that, the government also needs to ensure that there are benchmarks and indicators. I believe this needs to be done so we know exactly how the money is being spent and whether or not it is a good idea. Is Ontario doing well in cancer care? Is Ontario doing well in home care? There needs to be flexibility, with the federal government setting indicators and benchmarks. That is how I see it working.

To sum up, the answer to the hon. member's question is that there needs to be flexibility for the provinces to make those decisions. I firmly believe the district health councils will be of further assistance to the provinces in making those decisions. In the hon. member's area there may be a need that is a little different from the needs in my area. I think there needs to be the flexibility.

With regard to the cities and communities, I agree. Cities may decide to use it for transit in the larger areas. My area has both urban and rural areas, a combination, and I think there should be flexibility. I can tell the member without telling tales out of school that in speaking to a lot of rural members, I know they are very committed on this side and I am sure on all sides of the House to ensuring that the rural communities receive their fair share as well. I am sure all members will do that.

It will be difficult. Because of the amount of money, there will be different tensions and fighting between the different municipalities in my own area. We have a situation where the region says it should get the money and decide it. The local communities of Oakville, Burlington and Milton say the money should be given to their areas because they know better. There will be some tensions in those areas, but I am confident that at the end of the day we will come up with a solution and a compromise will work.

I will also say this very clearly, having watched our own caucus, although I have not seen the other caucuses quite as much yet. The members from the rural areas in our caucus will be continuing to fight for the people in the areas they represent, just like the people in the larger cities. Together, I think we will come up with a solution. I look forward to working with the member, because at the end of the day all communities need to benefit, both cities and communities, rural and urban.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to congratulate you on your position as Speaker. As you know, we were friends in my former life. I was the Speaker of the Ontario Legislature for four years. In fact, I reflected this morning that it was October 19, 1999 when I was elected Speaker. Being the small world that it is, it was the member for Dufferin—Caledon who was my opponent in the that election. It was a very close race. I apparently won it 52 to 50 with one abstention. My good friend from Dufferin—Caledon is now here, and the two members for the NDP, the member for Hamilton West and the member for Sault Ste. Marie, who were also deputy speakers in the Ontario Legislature.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, you will have the full cooperation from the new members from the Ontario Legislature because we know what you go through in your position.

I very quickly want to thank all the fine people of Halton for electing me. As I mentioned, I was the speaker and I was the provincial member for Oakville for 13 years. This is the first time I have been elected as a federal member for the new riding is now Halton. I want to thank the good people of Halton for their support.

I am honoured and feel privileged to serve the people of Halton and will work to try to improve the standard of living and quality of life of the people of my riding and indeed all of Canada.

I represent that fine area with portions that are urban as well as rural. I have a portion of Oakville, a portion of Burlington that I share with my colleague from Oakville and Burlington, as well as Milton and other communities. It is a beautiful part of Ontario and I am pleased to represent the people here in the House.

I want to ensure that our community has some local solutions to the problem. My vision is to have a community in which our publicly funded universally available health care system both provides exemplary care and exemplifies our national framework.

I very briefly want to talk a little about the throne speech. Of all the things I am pleased about with the throne speech, is that a lot of it is what we talked about in the election campaign. Often politicians of all political stripes at all levels are accused of not doing what they say they are going to do in the election campaign. If one were to take the “Moving Forward” document that was the platform during the election campaign and compare it with the throne speech, I think one would find that it is very similar. I am extremely pleased about that aspect.

One of the very important issues in my riding is health care. The government has committed $41.2 billion to go to the provinces, starting with $3 billion this year and next year to close what is known as the Romanow gap. As well $500 million in Canada health transfer payments for the fiscal year 2005-06 will mean enhanced home care service and catastrophic drug coverage. This will bring the total transfers from health to the provinces and territories from about $16.5 billion in 2005 to about $24 billion, and I am extremely pleased about that.

During the election campaign I had the opportunity, along with the Prime Minister and my colleagues, my good friends the member for Oakville and the member for Burlington, to meet with people from Cancer Care Ontario. About 35 people meet with us. They talked about some of the waiting lists they had experienced in the Ontario area because of cancer line-ups of people who were unable to receive treatment. It was indeed moving to hear the stories first-hand from some of the people, like Elizabeth Carmichael whom I know. They talked about what the government should do. I was particularly pleased with the comment by the Prime Minister who said that he would tackle the issue of waiting lists similar to the way he did the deficit.

I think it is very clear that when the Prime Minister says that he will do something, he does it. When he was minister of finance, he took the deficit of about $40 billion and along with the fine people in the House and fine people across the country he was able to reduce the deficit and get us to a position where we can now put money back in. I firmly believe the money should go back in to health care. As we begin to age, not only the baby boomers but everyone, it is important that we put money back into the system.

I want to talk about a couple of issues in health care that are extremely important. One is to reduce the waiting times for patients in areas dealing with the heart, cancer, joint replacement and sight restoration. That is extremely important to people in my area. It will also mean more doctors and nurses and other health care professionals.

In my former life as an MPP I was always arguing for more money from the federal government to assist the province. I am pleased this has happened and a major commitment has been made. I thanked the Minister of Health last night in our private discussion. Obviously, as the Minister of Health he is responsible, but the Prime Minister deserves a lot of credit. Conservative premiers, Liberal premiers and New Democratic premiers all signed their names to the accord. We finally reached an agreement. That is a tribute not only to the federal government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, but to all the premiers by showing that this federation can work in cooperation. It is sometimes not easy, but with a lot of hard work and a lot of goodwill it does succeed.

This will also mean expanded home care which is important to many of us who have aging families as well as ourselves who are approaching the baby boomer years. Some younger members have a long way to go, but some of us in the baby boomer years will need health care. I am particularly pleased with regard to health care and what it will mean to Canadians.

It is extremely important that we were able to get the commitment for people in all areas. The CMA, nurses, health care professionals all said that this was a good deal. In fact the leader of the official opposition said that it was a deal he would have signed, which was a good thing for him to say rather than always criticizing. A lot of hard work by a lot of people of all political stripes ensured it was done. It will be extremely important to have good health care for the people we represent.

I am also pleased that a new deal for communities has been included. In North Oakville, North Burlington and in Milton there is a real increase in the number of new homes being built. Infrastructure money is needed. There is great leadership from the regional chair Joyce Savoline as well as the mayor of Milton, Gord Krantz, Ann Mulvale in Oakville and Rob MacIsaac in Burlington. They need some assistance in terms of infrastructure, particularly in high growth urban areas. I am pleased that a commitment has been made to put money back into that area. I spent a bit of time dealing with all of the municipal leaders over the last 13 years, and they need some help with some of that money. I am pleased we recognized that, and a new deal is being put together for cities.

We have a great responsibility in this fine place to work on behalf of our constituents and I plan on doing that.

I would be very remiss if I did not thank my family, my wife, Teresa, and my three children Lindsay, Makenzie and Gavin. They spent a lot of time on the election campaign. My wife is probably more politically astute in this place than anybody else. I have said to her on occasion that she probably should be the person in here rather than me. Maybe at some point in time that will happen.

I also want to thank my mother for her support. There may be days when she is the only person who turns on the television and watches when I speak, but I know she will always be there. Thanks also to my brother who helped out in the various campaigns.

I am looking forward to working with all the fine people of Halton and all members here. I also am looking forward to working with the Table and with you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks again to my family. It is indeed an honour and a privilege to be here. I honestly believe that together we will build a better, a safer and a more prosperous Canada that will provide maximum opportunity for all its citizens.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, regarding accountability, the fact that this government called an inquiry I think shows the Prime Minister's commitment. He moved very quickly to call the inquiry, and a public inquiry.

My good friend from Dufferin--Caledon, who served with me in Ontario, will be speaking next. He will remember that in Ontario we had two incidents. One was the Walkerton situation and the other was the Ipperwash situation. At the time I was speaker and I watched while the opposition asked two successive premiers to call public inquiries on those two issues. They did not do it. Eventually it was done on Walkerton and when the new government came in it did so for Ipperwash. That contrasts with the leadership of this Prime Minister, who moved very quickly, right away. He said it did not matter who was involved, whether or not it was anybody within the Liberal Party. He called the inquiry.

I contrast that with the situation of Ipperwash in Ontario. I will not get into details, but there were allegations that the premier's staff was involved. This Prime Minister Minister moved very quickly and said, “We are going to get to the bottom of this”. That, sir, is accountability.

I would ask the hon. member to comment on that as well as the balanced budget. There have been seven straight balanced budgets. Again, my friend from Dufferin--Caledon, who also served in the Ontario legislature, will remember that the government of the day left a $5.7 billion deficit. Serving as speaker, every day I heard the opposition say to the government that it had a $4.5 billion deficit. The minister of finance said there was no deficit. After the election there was a deficit of $5.7 billion.

In terms of accountability, this government moved very quickly on the Gomery inquiry and I think the Prime Minister should be commended for that. Second, how does the hon. member account for the fact that this Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Finance, cleaned up a mess, quite frankly, of $40 billion left by the previous government?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your new job. In my former life I was the speaker of the Ontario legislature, having been elected on October 19, 1999. This is indeed a very interesting day for me.

First, I would like to commend the member for her comments about her riding. I have been to Manitoba, but I have not had the pleasure of visiting her riding. The way she described it, it sounds extremely beautiful. I hope some day to be able to visit.

I do not want to be too harsh on my colleague since it is her first speech in this wonderful place, but I do take exception in saying that it was not what we promised in the election. The member is probably not as familiar with our platform, called “Moving Canada Forward”, as I am. She probably did not read it to the same extent I did. If she were to compare our platform to the throne speech, she would find it to be very similar. In fact it is almost identical. That was one of the things for which I pushed. I would encourage the member to take a look at both of them and compare them because, with all due respect, saying they are not the same is empty rhetoric. They are very close.

I want to talk a bit about the Americans and the situation about which my colleague talked. I spent six years playing pro hockey in the United States. I attended Michigan State University on a scholarship. I know very well the extent of co-operation between Canada and the U.S..

In what ways does the member believe the government has not co-operated with the U.S.? Co-operation has been very strong between the two governments. She talked a bit about some comments that were made, but the government, cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister have been very strong in saying that we need to work with our colleagues in the U.S.. Some comments made by some members do not do justice to nor reflect the true intentions of our government. What specifically does she think cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister have done? I think they have been very supportive. The member is quite wrong in saying that we have not been co-operative with the Americans.