House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 70% of the vote.
Health Care December 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, that applause was a nice farewell.
Informetrica did a study which states that by the end of the EPF freeze in 1995 the federal government will have offloaded $29.4 billion unilaterally on to the provinces, $10.4 billion on to Ontario alone. Some Canadians think this is a big problem.
What will the minister do? I ask her to stand up and answer if she has an answer but if not to stay seated preferably in the backbenches.
Health Care December 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, five weeks ago the health minister threatened private clinics throughout Canada. She promised swift action and then she vanished, perhaps permanently.
The minister now knows that all provinces struggle to fund health care because this government withdraws from medicare funding.
Will the minister give every province a Christmas present by admitting her political blunder?
Health November 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, Alberta did not join this task force because she has her own task force and will report directly to the minister. She knows this.
Let me describe two clinics. One deals with cataracts; a facility fee of $1,275, a doctor's fee $526. Another clinic deals with fertility; facility fee, $2,750 and a doctor's fee of $1,235. One is in Calgary and the other one is in Toronto. If she shuts down the Calgary clinic will she shut down the one in Toronto?
Health November 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the health minister wants to disrupt private clinics in Alberta that charge facility fees. This will disrupt private clinics in every province: chiropractors, physiotherapists, abortion clinics, executive health clinics. Shall I dispense?
Will the minister treat every private clinic in Canada in exactly the same way?
Private Health Clinics November 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, health care is far too important to be partisan with. Last week our health minister went on national TV and singled out Alberta's private clinics because they charge facility fees directly to the patient while the doctor's fee is paid by medicare.
When I pointed out to her that exactly the same thing is done in every province, stunned silence. When I asked the minister to clarify, she waffled. When I challenged the minister to a debate, she ran like a scared rabbit.
Private clinics are an offshoot of this country's financial crisis. Our debt is squeezing the life out of social programs like health care. When the health minister was in opposition she knew this was true. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Social Security Programs November 17th, 1994
I had an opportunity to say to them: "Who's paying you to come here?" I found that the government was financing not only their way here but the studies they were undertaking. One group had $40,000 for the brief that it came to the committee with.
We as individuals are paying not only for their trips but the briefs. Surely interested Canadians do not need $40,000 to tell the minister that there are specific things that they want him to conduct in social program review.
When I was an intern I once went mountaineering. Your pages, Mr. Speaker, are still young enough to be mountaineers. Let me tell a mountaineering story. I wanted to climb Mount Assiniboine, 11,870 feet, one of the really high peaks in the Rockies, a famous peak. It looks like the Matterhorn. It is a significant height to get to. I had a big back pack. I went with one of my buddies.
As we got into Assiniboia we met up with a fellow from California, a powerful looking young man with all the fancy equipment. I have never seen more mountaineering equipment in my life. It was the most modern, the best. He had ropes that were beyond our means. We had pretty inexpensive ropes and all our climbing equipment was used, tattered I suppose you would say.
We were going to climb Assiniboine and he asked to join us. Well, a pretty impressive group, but mountaineering is somewhat dangerous. We asked what his experience was. He had climbed all over, almost everywhere. He had climbed this peak, that peak, and had all this equipment so we said he should join us. He did.
We climbed early in the morning. You have to cross underneath the glacier in this particular spot. If you cross early enough in the morning the sun does not melt the ice and snow and there is very little risk. We crossed underneath the glacier at three in the morning, before the sun was up. We got to the place where the climb started to get a little bit risky, so we roped up. My buddy was on one end of the rope, the stranger in the middle, and myself on the end. We started to climb one at a time. The rope was simply for security.
We reached a point where there was a gravel slope with a very steep cliff at the end. The young man in the middle fell. He skidded down the gravel slope and went over the cliff. Of course the rope was designed so that we could arrest him. As I tried to get good footing, I also skidded down on the gravel, lost my footing completely and I was going over the cliff. This was 1,500 feet straight down. Gonzo, over the cliff. Luckily, because he was higher up on a better more secure spot, my buddy was able to arrest us both.
What lesson do I bring from this mountaineering story on Assiniboine to the pages? There is a huge risk in our society and the risk is that we will ignore our debt. The debt is going to pull us over the cliff and there will be no arresting us if we go over. The social programs will be gone if we go over that cliff.
We talk about review of the social programs. Forget the social programs if we go over the cliff of the debt. There are ample examples of this in other countries, New Zealand being the best one. The field I am so keen on is health care. I look at what happened to their health care system when they slammed into the debt wall. They went from a socialized health care system to one where every single visit to the doctor costs. Cough up, shell out. Do we want that in Canada? Do we need that in Canada? We do not. Social program review is necessary. Social program review is mandatory. You pages should have a part in social program review. I ask you, I beg you, I implore you to be involved. Speak up. Tell my generation what matters to you in social program review and, to the pages, thank you for listening to me.
Social Security Programs November 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I will address the House on social program review today in a slightly different manner than is usual.
I will direct my comments to the pages in the Chamber for a couple of reasons. I think the pages might well listen to me. I find it sometimes frustrating to stand in the House and I do not think I am necessarily being listened to. I should like to address these young, enthusiastic, keen students who have come to Parliament. They are smart. They are a good example of what Canada should reflect upon.
They are fluently bilingual. They are from all over the country. I notice a few of them gathering in the wings here. They are paying attention. They are listening to the fact that somebody wants to talk to them.
I know they are smart because they remember all our faces. They can call us by name. They are kind to me when I speak to them in French as I try to improve my French. They speak very slowly so I can comprehend what they say. I am speaking to them because what we are undertaking in this social program review will affect them a lot more than anyone else in the Chamber.
I will be dead and gone when the effects of the social program review are truly on the table. I speak to the pages and only to the pages. If others in the Chamber want to close their ears, look down at their papers and do other things, I give them my complete concurrence; I am not going to be upset if they do so. I do not think the pages will heckle me either. Maybe that is another benefit in talking to the pages.
Why are we undergoing a social program review in Canada today? During the election campaign a significant number of individuals got after me for the social program review thoughts that I had. I laid them out on the table pretty plainly. I did not find social program review to be a large part of the programs from some of the candidates who ran against me.
I read a very interesting article in Maclean's magazine just before the election. That article had a headline ``Social Programs: The Cuts to Come''. It described a process whereby we were going to undergo social program review no matter who was in power. It said it would not matter if it were the NDP, it would not matter if it were the Tories, it would not matter if it was the communist party from somewhere else, whether Reformers were in power or whether the Liberals were in power, there was going to be social program review.
I said there is no way that some of the parties that conducted this campaign could have a major social program review. I read the platform carefully. I said there is no way that the Liberals could have social program review. And here we are today with a major social program review.
I said to myself: Why are we now undergoing this social program review? Of course, the reason is staring us in the face. The reason is our debt. The debt leaves us with unsustainable social programs. As the article said, it would not matter who was sitting in the government benches, we would have that review.
I have had trouble in understanding the debt. All my life I have heard this spoken about. I am a car nut, a phrase that I bear proudly. I love old cars. I have a hobby of old cars. I finally figured out how I could explain the debt to the high school students. To the pages, here is what the debt means.
Each one of you young people in this chamber today owes to the federal government a brand new Camaro. It is a basic Camaro, not a fancy one. It has plain wheels. It does not have radial tires, it has plain tires. It is an automatic. It does not have electric windows, it has wind-up windows. It has a heater and it has a good motor. It will get you from home to the Parliament Buildings or from university to the Parliament Buildings every day. It is brand new. That is your debt to the federal government.
Do you know what the kids in the high schools said to me? They said: "Grant, where is my Camaro?"
If the current mandate of this government takes place and everything that they promise us unfolds, I say to the pages that they will owe the federal government a Z-28 Camaro. This Camaro will have alloy rims and an AM-FM stereo. It will not have a CD player. We are not quite that broke yet. It will have the big motor. Now, this motor is a hot motor, a 300 horsepower motor, zero to 60 in about 5.4 seconds. It has electric windows. It has nice thick upholstery in it. It is not the plain Jane model at all. That is their debt to this federal government.
When I told that to the high school students they really were upset because every one of them wants the Z-28 Camaro. They are beautiful cars, every kid's ideal. They said to me: "Where is my Z-28?"
The answer is: Your Z-28 you will pay for and it is in the hands of our federal government. Every single individual in Canada owes to the federal government that Camaro; every single infant, every single grandparent, every single member of these chambers. That is the reason that we are undergoing social program review.
The interest on the debt that we are paying is just paying for the borrowing each year. What a legacy to the pages. What a legacy my generation presents to you. Many of you, if you think carefully of this, will say: "Thanks a lot for the debt; thanks a lot for that legacy."
Will they look back with fond memories at their time here in these chambers? Will they look back and say: "I learned a lot as I was studying in university and was present and part of the history of these chambers?" I believe they will. Will they feel a part of Canadian history? We have a new Parliament. We have an opportunity with many new backbenchers who have never been tied to the old government ways, many individuals with bright thoughts, on both sides of the House ready to undertake new ideas, ready to reform the way government operates. Rookies. They know about the dissatisfaction of the public. They went to the doorsteps and heard the problems. Yet I see what I consider to be a slow slide back into some of the old ways of the old government.
I had an opportunity to sit with the HRD committee and talk about the consultation process it has undertaken. I am fully in agreement with the consultation process. Canadians need to know what the government is doing, need to have input, need to have the opportunity to reflect upon and express their viewpoint on the consultation process.
I am very critical of 15 members of Parliament flapping around the country like a wounded goose, going from major city to major city looking for public input. I am profoundly critical of the numbers of individuals who can reach them. I am profoundly critical of the cost of that exercise. I read that even though they have a somewhat crippled goose to fly around on, it will cost $800,000.
There is another mechanism for this government to consult the public on something like social program review. The mechanism is straightforward. The HRD minister presents a package that is very straightforward so that everyone has the same information. I look upon the best package as being a video. It would spread the HRD minister all over the country. I thought he would like that idea, with his smiling face in every townhall meeting.
Every single member of Parliament would take that video along with the background information and have townhall meetings throughout their constituencies; for the senior citizens in homes who do not get to have a consultation with the Minister of Human Resources Development and for those individuals in the small communities who are too busy to travel to the main cities. The cost would be very small. The taxpayers are already paying the member of Parliament's salary and already paying their way home. Who knows the constituency better?
That information would be gathered by the members of Parliament. They would come back and present that information to the committee which would look at all the input, profound input, close input, tight input, input that I think would be much more typical than special interest groups being paid for by the government to step forward.
I saw those individuals come to the committee before, one after another. I heard NIMBY, every single one of them with a NIMBY. At the second round of consultations the same people came back.
Private Medical Clinics November 16th, 1994
The straightforward question is this: Is this health minister afraid to debate me on the issue of private medical clinics?
Private Medical Clinics November 16th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I suggest we have this discussion outside in the lobby today. Too busy? Let's do it on "Newsworld". Not ready? Let us debate this in the minister's office with all her bureaucrats-
Private Medical Clinics November 16th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the health minister has challenged Alberta private medical clinics to a showdown at high noon. Alberta's health minister has given me the authority to refute these allegations. Where would the minister suggest we have this debate?