House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 70% of the vote.
Health Care November 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, private clinics everywhere in Canada operate on this principle. For instance, Mediclub Montreal conducts executive health exams exactly this way. Abortion clinics in seven provinces charge facility fees between $200 and $500 paid privately, the doctor's fee paid publicly.
How can there be one set of rules for Alberta and another set of rules for everyone else? Good luck.
Health Care November 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the health minister has recently hammered Alberta for private health clinics and their facility fees. Could the minister please tell us how the facility fees in Alberta are different from facility fees elsewhere in Canada?
Minister Of Canadian Heritage October 31st, 1994
Mr. Speaker:
A certain minister of the crown Forgets the simple rule, That requires him to step right down If he has been a fool.
"As heritage minister, I hang my head, I've made a little blunder, Please just clarify the rules a bit Don't tear my world asunder."
For what price do we all place On friendship and loyalty, In Liberal circles there is a space For ministers who think they're royalty.
"Above the rules for mortal men, No way will I resign, Behaviour like this we see again, Who cares if the backbenches whine."
"But when we sat across the floor It was a different story, Now that we sit upon this side We act just like a Tory!"
Airstrips October 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have been advised that documents within Parks Canada recommend the permanent closure of the Banff and Jasper Park airstrips. This is another example of the heritage minister's incompetence.
These grass airstrips are vital to the safe air transportation of local pilots through the main mountain pass corridors. Furthermore, these airstrips are maintained primarily by local pilots.
Under the department's existing recommendation, local pilots who encounter bad weather or equipment failure would have to land their aircraft on the main highways. That is stupid.
The private pilots need to be considered. In the name of public safety and common sense, I urge Parks Canada to trash this proposal.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act October 27th, 1994
Indeed that was my understanding. Should the minister resign? The Canadian people really should decide that. I wish there were a direct, specific mechanism for ministerial recall as well as member of Parliament recall.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act October 27th, 1994
Six months later could be called a covering of the backside.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act October 27th, 1994
Now I hear there was a second letter written which obviates all responsibility. I would ask for a report on how soon that letter was written after the first.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act October 27th, 1994
Yes, it came to me clearly. And where do we sit with this scandal today? A minister writes a letter to somebody under his direct responsibility. He owes his job to the minister. I see a straight line relationship there. Most Canadians can understand that.
The minister has a direct responsibility, a direct understanding of that responsibility. The minister should follow the precedent that was established when the Liberals sat in opposition and called for the resignation of a minister.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act October 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that this is a bill of such profound importance as I detect from the opposite members.
I wanted to rise on Bill C-53 with a specific interest. The interest is this. Why would the bill come to the House now? I would like to ask that rhetorical question. Why is the bill in front of us now?
I have listened to my Liberal colleagues speak very eloquently about a fairly major review of much of the government's operations. In my view the bill would fit very well into a fairly significant review of those operations.
I looked actually for the department to give some specific recognition that there is some controversy here. The controversy has been heightened by the minister's actions. Those actions might provide a lightning rod for the Canadian public in terms of his department.
Why now? Why would the government bring in a bill on multiculturalism before a major program review? I am not sure I can answer that. I ask for some advice from my colleagues across the way.
I listened just a moment ago to an eloquent discussion of how the elites in our society should be the ones to provide our cultural heritage for us. I reject that allegation. I listened to how a king, a pope, a prince, someone with tremendous recognition of value looked after the artistic community, looked after the needs, wants and wishes of the artistic community.
I reflect on the individuals in our society today who are pushing the cultural agenda. Who are those individuals? They are individuals who have been elected to public office. Were they elected to public office to produce artistic works, to decide what had merit?
My constituents did not elect me to do that. They elected me to provide some very specific leadership on issues that had nothing to do with culture, nothing to do with language. They asked me to come to Parliament to bring common sense to the debate here. I do not see common sense well displayed by individuals who say that the government should be the provider of cultural direction. Elites should not decide what is good for the public. The public should decide.
What will the bill not do? If I am going to criticize a bill, I would like to criticize the things that it will not do and look for some positives. It will not streamline the department. I see no indication that there will be less administration nor do I see any indication that it will downsize the department. I do not see anything in the bill that will save the Canadian taxpayer money and why would I want to see those things happen? Why would I care if the department were streamlined, downsized and fiscally responsible?
I want that because I have come here hoping that our health care system can be saved. I have put a very high priority on our health care system. Looking at the health care system throughout our country I ask: What is happening to it? I see streamlining and downsizing. I see a decrease in administration. I see hospital beds being closed. I see surgical operating room time being diminished.
I look at those things and I ask: Where is the priority in our country? Where is the priority that would allow a government to put this department, no downsizing, no streamlining, no decrease in administration, ahead of the health needs of Canadians?
I look at the proportion of dollars that the party in government puts toward health care. I have watched those funds drop in the last 10 years. Federal government funding has gone from some 30 per cent of health care dollars down to 22 per cent and I am sorry to report it is still falling. That is wrong.
If there were a prioritization of issues for the government, the department would not have high priority. It should not have high priority when we face the financial situation we are in today. I call for and plead the government to change its priorities, to actually reverse the momentum toward things like this that do not have long term significance, that will not help the patient with cancer and will not help the mother with a problem pregnancy. It will do none of those things.
Where do I come from in a personal cultural sense? My own background is one-half English, one-quarter Irish and one-quarter Norwegian. I had a very close relationship with my Norwegian grandma. I actually lived with her when I went to university.
She expressed in a very interesting way how she maintained her Norwegian background by saying: "I maintained my Norwegian background by my honesty. I did not come to Canada to become a mini-Norwegian here; I came to Canada to become an honest citizen of Canada". She had a cute little poem which is the only thing she reflected upon about her own particular ancestry. She decried the idea that somebody should help her look after her culture. "I am a Canadian. I am a Canadian who came via Oyen to Edmonton to be just that, a Canadian".
I look at what I consider to be the scandal facing the government today with this department and its minister. For those watching on television, comments are coming from across the way that there is no scandal here but I would like to reflect on one precedent of scandal.
One precedent when the Liberals sat in opposition is as follows: The member for Sherbrooke, the Minister of Justice at the time, made a phone call to a judge. Members sitting on the government side today called for that minister to resign. They called for his resignation because of a conflict of interest. A minister calling someone whom he had direct responsibility for was a conflict of interest. The minister resigned. He did not
want to resign. It would have looked better for him if he could have said: "I did not intend to influence the judge, I was just representing a constituent". I think that was one of the comments I heard.
Health Care Forum October 20th, 1994
And that will take four years, Mr. Speaker? Here is the format of the forum that should have been: short and sweet; dialogue from all the provinces, other nations, nurses, physio, disabled and natives; everyone present; and specific goals. All MPs would then consult with their constituencies. The time frame: about a month; results: dramatic.
This is the consultation Canadians want. This is the consultation Canadians deserve. This is the consultation Canadians need. Will the government give us that kind of consultation?