Rick Borotsik

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member who just spoke so eloquently in the House also inform his constituents that the GST and the NAFTA, which the government was to get rid of, are still in place? Promises were made by the 1993 Liberal government the member talked about, but they were not kept.

Did the member tell his constituents that in 1993 there were approximately $16.8 billion in health care, which in 1998 dropped to $12.6 billion or a reduction of some $4.2 billion from 1993 to 1998? Did the hon. member tell his constituents that the reason health care has such a problem right now is that the Liberals took the money out of the budget in the first place? Did he tell them that $2.5 billion which the government talked about in the budget was over four years, and not $2.5 billion this year? Did the member tell his constituents these facts before he sent out the survey?

[Supply, March 17th, 2000]

We did not. Madam Speaker, the Liberals never listen to what the hon. member has to say. Quite frankly he could have taught them something about the health care system if they had listened.

My question is a serious one. The member talked about the immediate implementation of transfers to health care. I do not disagree with that. We keep hearing in the House all the time that it is not a matter of money. I think the hon. member spoke very eloquently to the fact that there is money and it is part of the component of health care.

We heard recently that in the province of Quebec the finance minister, Mr. Landry, had a reserve of some $800 million which was passed on to that province. As I understand from the last budget it will be put back into health care.

I would like to ask the member a legitimate question. When $800 million are spread over a period of time, all those dollars cannot be spent in one day. There has to be a somewhat reasonable expenditure of those funds. I would like the member to answer as to where and how those dollars will be put back into the system.

[Supply, March 17th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will ask a question of my hon. colleague so he can use some of the three minutes that he lost for the quorum call.

[Supply, March 17th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will not say this very often, particularly with the official opposition, but I must say that I respect this individual member for Macleod as a physician. I respect him as a member of parliament and I appreciate the comments he made today.

Being a member of the medical profession, this member will recognize that there are a number of stakeholders within the health care field: the doctors in his profession, the nurses in the nursing profession and the employees in administration.

I ask the member, who is very close to the situation, how other members of his fraternity, those in the medical profession, feel about sustainable funding? I think I already know that answer.

I would also like him to answer a question about what his membership in the fraternity think about an expansion of the services that he talked about in bill 11 in the province of Alberta. Are they supportive or are they, like most members of society today, split on that particular issue?

[Agriculture, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I assume that means, yes, he will be supporting the reinstatement of GRIP.

In the 1994 auditor general's report, the total administration costs for GRIP and crop insurance was less than 2% of the program dollars. Right now AIDA is seven times that amount in administration costs.

Will the minister now admit that AIDA was the wrong program and perhaps we should be going back to GRIP?

[Agriculture, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend Liberal members will be discussing Progressive Conservative agriculture policy once again. Under priority resolution No. 27 they will be asking for the reinstatement of the GRIP program, ironically the same program that this government killed in 1995.

I wonder if the minister of agriculture can tell us today if he will be supporting that resolution and reinstate GRIP.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Answer the question.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to bring the debate back to the issue.

There have been some newspaper reports recently which have suggested that the member for Mississauga West does not have any substance in his speeches. I say unequivocally and on the record that there was a smidgen of substance in the member's speech.

Personally I have respect not only for the Chair, not only for the office, but for you personally, Mr. Speaker. I can say that unequivocally as I stand here today. I would hold that very dear and true to my party.

Mr. Speaker, you have a job that is almost impossible to do. You have a job that takes the wisdom of Solomon. Obviously you will have some difficulties in trying to satisfy each and every member of the House. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that you have the respect of our party.

I believe the member tried to put a partisanship twist on what we, the Progressive Conservatives, did by giving up our supply day so this motion could be debated. I would like some clarification because, quite frankly, we gave our day so that this motion could be debated. We did it because we felt it was necessary that this motion get out of the way, and I would like—

[Division No. 1162, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I and other hon. members who stood up and voted twice on that voted in favour of the amendment.

[Agriculture, March 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the slow learners come from that side of the House. Only $500 million has found its way to farmers' pockets. The crop has to go in this spring.

Of the $500 million that has been distributed, $35 million went to administer the program. Can the minister tell me why bureaucrats and bean counters can get their money that quickly but not our farmers?