Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was great.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Liberal MP for Kitchener—Conestoga (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2006, with 38% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite. At one point she said that words failed her. Words should fail her, because what she was doing was in effect creating myths. She was not speaking the truth, and she should know better. Let me tell the House why.

This motion is frivolous and vexatious. Instead of grandstanding and fabricating mythology, she should remember that the Bloc is on record as supporting these kinds of programs.

Why do I say that? I read not so long ago in Le Soleil in Quebec that the Bloc is on record as saying that these programs are good.

Today they are putting on this big grandstand show, trying to agitate and get people worked up by vigorously objecting and all of these kinds of nonsensical things. I vigorously object to the kind of mythology that is being promoted in the House today.

I also point out that all of the projects in Quebec, as in other provinces, had to be signed off by the Parti Quebecois, the Government of Quebec, in a partnership role. This fact they conveniently leave out of their fine words.

If these grants were so bad, why is it that the Government of Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, signed off on them? If they were that bad, why did the separatists in Quebec sign off?

Supply March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite. In terms of what he was saying, I am offended that he would paint the Prime Minister and the people of Shawinigan, and Saint-Maurice, the riding which the Prime Minister represents, into a corner and make the implication that the Prime Minister, as any good member of parliament, should not work very hard on behalf of his constituents.

I reject that premise. I reject the implication of the member opposite because it is not only wrong, it is duplicitous. Why will he not understand that a good member of parliament can be effective, as the Prime Minister is repeatedly, to ensure that the kinds of job creation programs are put in place not only in this case in Quebec but across Canada in the best interests of Canadians, groups in the ridings, students, young people, the disabled and others who genuinely require these kinds of grants.

Why is it that he always has to reduce everything we do in the House somehow into an aggrieved state that he must project and talk about? It is unfortunate. He should stand on his feet and congratulate the Prime Minister for working very well on behalf of Quebecers and for doing the kind of work that is necessary not only for Quebecers wherever they live in Quebec but for all Canadians. He should stand and give congratulations but instead he always has to feel aggrieved. Why?

Petitions March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the third and final petition relates to rural route mail carriers and their request upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

Petitions March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the reporting of national abortion statistics for Canada.

Petitions March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.

The first is signed by petitioners in my riding and elsewhere across Canada calling on parliament to enact legislation to establish an independent governing body to develop, implement and enforce uniform and mandatory mammography equality assurance and quality control standards in Canada.

Supply March 20th, 2000

Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman makes a very good point. I think that we as a government have shown repeatedly that we are prepared to go the extra mile.

It is interesting. The Reformers are talking about $1.5 billion today. We put in $2.5 billion. They should be supporting the budget. They should have been supporting the budget, instead—

Supply March 20th, 2000

Madam Speaker, it is interesting how they can dish it out but they cannot take it, these holier than thous. It is interesting to hear them get up on their feet and talk about honour and dignity.

We stand for honour and dignity. We do not stand for the dishonour of simply grandstanding to carve out a name for ourselves, as I suggest the hon. member is doing. Instead of going off into some flighty la-la land like she has been doing for the last little while, she should concentrate on the facts. The facts are crystal clear but, oh no, she does not want to do that. That would muddy the water too much and it would not get her grandstanding message across.

This member and all Reformers opposite should take note of the importance of the transitional jobs funds and other HRDC measures that we put into place. Instead of pulling apart and trying to pit group against group and region against region, they should be celebrating what we are doing for aboriginals, students, the disabled and community groups across our great country.

A number of Reformers actually took time to write the minister and to lobby on behalf of their constituents, and yet here they do the big flip-flop. Yes, they say that they have lobbied on behalf of their constituents but that politically they now have to oppose it and grandstand like they have been doing for the past seven weeks.

Canadians see through those people over there. They see who they are and what they represent. Canadians will have no part of it.

Supply March 20th, 2000

Madam Speaker, this is a very important and hugely interesting debate for all Canadians wherever they live in this great country. Health care is a very important issue and Canadians expect all levels of government to take a keen and important interest in this kind of issue because it is so important not only to individuals but to the families of Canadians.

I am a farmer and still live on the family farm. When I heard the member opposite talk about a manure pit, it really rankled me a little bit because, as the hon. member for Peterborough indicated, we are talking about money for students and money for the disabled. We are talking about money for important initiatives that the Government of Canada helps to fund. It is quite something to hear Reformers talk about manure. All they are noted for is a lot of crap.

Having said that, this particular motion is really insincere. It is replete with duplicity and hypocrisy.

On February 23, under solution number 17, the members of the Reform Party had their chance to spell out in the prebudget alternative issues what they would do in health care. What did they say? They said that it would add zero dollars.

Today, with their smiling faces and great duplicity, they have stood and pretended to defend medicare, to defend what Canadians hold near and dear, our health care system. It is galling to hear Reformers talk the way they talk because we know what they stand for. They stand for two tier American style health care. No matter how they protest, no matter how they caterwaul away and try to pretend that they are not up to their necks in an American two-tiered system, they are.

Canadians see through these people and through their hypocrisy. Canadians, quite frankly, reject that. I can quote the Reform Party leader and member after member who have over the past little while talked in terms of American style health care and a two-tiered system. We are not going to take it. Canadians will reject it and the government stands firm.

When we brought the budget down this past February, it was clear that we not only had a commitment last year of $11.5 billion, but we had a commitment this year as well. We gave another $2.5 billion over to the provinces and territories to use as they saw fit. They could spend some on education. They could spend some on health. They had the ability to use the money in a very meaningful way and with great flexibility built in and know that the Government of Canada would be there for them when it counted.

When the Minister of Health meets with his territorial and provincial counterparts in May, we will have an opportunity to bring the partners and stakeholders together on this very important issue and see where we will go in health care. It is not always about throwing money at the system. It is about how best to approach the system and make it work better into the 21st century.

There are all kinds of ideas that need to be looked at. Three come to mind very quickly. First, is there a better way to provide primary care in Canada? Primary care and its delivery are important topics that we need to look at. I am pleased that the Minister of Health and his counterparts in the territories and provinces will do precisely that. They will take a look at how best to approach that very important area.

Second, how best can we take a look at home care and community care, and are there national standards? Is there a standard that can apply to Canada in terms of how best to provide that? As the House knows, that is an important and integral part of the health care delivery system in Canada. We want to examine that.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Health, I can tell the House that I have been very involved in that debate and that process. I have attended conferences and have talked to people across Canada on how best to deliver that to Canadians in a good, positive and meaningful way. With our aging society, that will be the way of the world and the way of the future. We need to ensure that we have a system in place that instead of being a patchwork system across Canada, will be in the best interests of Canadians and their families.

The third thing I want to touch on in terms of what the health minister and his counterparts in the provinces and territories should look at is the whole issue of accountability.

Canadians want the health care system to be accountable. We need to look at that and we need to put in place the checks and balances that will enable us, in a very meaningful and positive way, to have a system of accountability that makes sense to ordinary Canadians.

We will take a look at that and we will do it in a way that underscores the commitment of the Government of Canada, unlike the Reformers who would gut the system, who would add no cash to the system and who would tear the system apart because that is what they are known for and what they are good at. At every opportunity those people opposite have tried to pit region against region, province against province and group against group to tear at the very fabric of Canadian society.

We do not have to go very far to see that. They are always trying to chip away at the institutions of our great country. Instead of, for example, celebrating the supreme court and the fact that our supreme court is considered around the world to be one of the finest, what do they do every chance they get? They tear at the very fabric of that great institution. Every chance they get they try to tear down the values of Canada and tear away at the very symbols of our country and they do it in the most outrageous sense.

It struck me not so long ago that this was the party that was going to bring a fresh start to parliament. What did we see the Reformers do? The first thing they did was call in the limousine and move into Stornoway.

What was one of the next things they did? They marched up and down these grand halls of democracy with mariachi bands, burritos and all kinds of stuff sticking out of their mouths, denigrating the halls of parliament. Canadians see through that. Canadians will not stand for that kind of nonsense from a party that claimed it would bring a fresh start to parliament, that claimed it would bring fresh air and a new way of doing business in parliament.

The flag flap was another interesting debate. I distinctly remember the member for Medicine Hat taking the Canadian flag from his desk and throwing it unceremoniously to the centre of the floor of the House of Commons. A fresh start, they say, a new way of doing business, they say. The flag flap, the throwing of the Canadian flag on the floor of the House of Commons, the marching up and down the hallowed halls of democracy in this land with mariachi bands and sombreros, imagine. Where was the leader at the time of the Nisga'a treaty? He was in Mexico sunning himself on the beaches. Imagine the duplicity. Imagine the hypocrisy of these people.

We see this again today when they come in with crocodile tears talking about the health care system and what they want to do. Canadians see through it. Canadians will not stand for what they stand for. They will reject it every time.

Reformers cannot even get their act together. They are so far on the right wing that they do not even know where to begin to get their people rallied because they do not know how. They, along with this motion, will ultimately be thrown into the dustbin of history where they so duly belong.

We on the government side will continue to protect the values of Canada. We will continue to protect the health care system that we know is important. Canadians look to us to provide that. They look to the federal government to give the kind of leadership necessary in this very important area. We will continue to do that. Unlike the Reformers, we will do it with honour and with dignity for all Canadians.

Supply March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, we can listen all we want to the member opposite say that he rejects a two tier American health care system. I can say that his very leader at the Ontario Hospital Association convention not so many years ago preached precisely that. I can quote person after person in the Reform Party who is prepared to stand and talk about a two tier Americanized system. To hear the member opposite caterwaul away and talk about their not being in favour of two tier American style medicine and health care is totally erroneous. He should look at what his party members and his leader have said in the past. Then he would know.

Not so long ago, on February 23, 2000, the Reform Party had prebudget discussions. What did Reform members talk about in terms of how much money they would put into health care in Canada? The answer is a big fat zero. If you were so intent in putting health care money in, why at that time did you not indicate that you were prepared to do so? Talk about duplicity. It is outrageous.

Supply March 17th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point or order. You have already warned the member opposite. She is a longstanding parliamentarian in the House. She should know not to comment on the absence or presence of people in the House. By the way, I would ask her where she was the night of the clarity—