Steve Mahoney

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the classic example of opposition party members denigrating these grants is the suggestion that some $45,000 was given to a bowling alley, I believe, in the Prime Minister's riding.

What they fail to tell is the complete story, that it was a $7 million tourist investment made by the private sector, by the provincial government, by everybody in the community, and an additional $45,000 was provided by HRDC. They happened to use it in the bowling alley. If the member wants to destroy a $7 million project because of that, that is irresponsible. It is simply not telling the whole story. We cannot say it is a lie. It is not only not parliamentary to do so, it is also not really a lie. It is a distortion of the facts to try to perpetrate a fraud upon the people of the country that somehow we are misusing those dollars. It is not the truth.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what our Minister of Health has said is that the government wants to study all ramifications of the bill in Alberta. That is the responsible thing to do.

To simply have a knee-jerk reaction and say that it is all good, as the Reform Party would say, or that it is all bad, as the New Democrats would say, is irresponsible. We have to analyze bill 11 and find out if indeed it is in violation of the Canada Health Act. I can tell the member that if it violates one hair of the Canada Health Act, then Alberta will hear from the federal government and it will not be allowed to stand.

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if I might, I would like to pick up on the comments from my colleague who was addressing the issue of whether or not there is a scandal. I think there is.

I think there is really quite a remarkable scandal in this issue. The scandal surrounds the attempts by members opposite to try to portray the programs run by Human Resources Development Canada as being somehow corrupt. If members opposite want to chirp about this issue they should go to their HRDC offices.

We know that many of them have not taken the time to do this. They should go to their HRDC offices and meet with the men and women who deliver these programs. They should get down and dirty and meet with the people who are being helped by these programs. They should roll up their sleeves and talk to disabled Canadians who are being assisted by HRDC funding. They should roll up their sleeves and talk to the young people of Canada, whether they are in entrepreneurial programs, automotive programs, computer programs, training programs, job finding programs or require assistance in writing a resume. These are things that perhaps members opposite take for granted. Many of these people do not have the facilities or the ability to do these things.

The real scandal here is that the opposition has succeeded in denigrating these programs. Those members denigrate the good work that is done on behalf of all Canadians by HRDC staff.

I am not saying there are not problems. The parliamentary secretary, the minister and the Prime Minister have admitted that there are indeed administrative problems. But should we throw out the proverbial baby with the proverbial bath water? That in essence is what this motion is asking the government to do, to take the $1.5 billion that is being put into improving access to these programs and move it to the CHST.

I want to hear members opposite, who I believe have an understanding of the role of government, speak on this. I have yet to hear them. What I sense is some kind of Profumo mentality that somehow they have us on the run.

The damage being done by the daily proliferation during question period and in the media is not being done to us. It is not being done to members on this side of the House. It is being done to young people, the disabled, the people in aboriginal communities, all of the people who need the help of this government.

One good thing which comes out of a debate like this is that it draws clear lines in the sand. The Reform motion suggests that we should take the money out of these programs and put it into the CHST, simply write another blank cheque. We know that the mentality of the Reform Party is provincial. It need be provincial because there are only certain provinces in which it can get elected. We know that Reform would turn over the entire health care system. Reform members have called for the dismantling of the Canada Health Act. They have called for user fees. They have called for private medicine.

Reform members stand in this place and defend the actions of the provincial government in Alberta without allowing proper debate. There may possibly be some things worth looking at in Bill 11. Again, I would not throw it out entirely. Why do we not discuss this in a less than partisan atmosphere to find out what kind of service delivery we should be providing in the areas of health care?

I received a call from a constituent today who has an 81 year old mother with cancer who lives in Montreal. He has to make trips down to see her because she cannot get the service that she needs in that province delivered by the provincial government. Should we wash our hands of this? Absolutely not.

We know that we have a federation that requires co-operation. The federal government collects taxes and redistributes the wealth around the country to ensure that things such as our Canada Health Act are upheld. Canadians understand that is the role of the federal government. It is also our role to ensure that the provincial governments, which are indeed the delivery mechanisms for health care, live up to their requirements under the Canada Health Act to make it universally accessible and affordable to all Canadians, and to not allow for two-tier health care. Yet we see the debate. We understand. Our Minister of Health has said that of course there are clinics that provide private health care in certain areas which are perhaps not funded in Ontario through OHIP. We need to look at them. Are they effective? Do they make sense? Are they taking away opportunities for Canadians? Without paying extra user fees or additional funds of some kind, are they taking away opportunities for all Canadians to access health care? If they are, that is not the principle that the Liberal government, this government, and frankly even Conservative governments in the past have espoused and upheld.

What do we see? We see a request that we simply transfer more money to the provinces without any kind of agreement or understanding that the money will be used for that 81 year old mother of my constituent in Montreal to access better health care, so that my constituent does not have to take several days away from his commissioned sales job to make sure his mother is getting the proper care.

We think that is wrong. However, we understand and Canadians need to understand that the provincial Government of Quebec, in this case, has left money on the table. The Mike Harris government in Ontario has left some $800 million sitting in a trust account for goodness sake. Why? The answer they gave was “We weren't ready to draw it down because we might need it more next year”. What kind of nonsense is that?

I speak from personal experience. My wife's mother is very ill and needs hospital care on a regular basis. This is a woman who has breathing problems. We go to a hospital in my community. I never thought I would see the day when it would be necessary for my wife to clear the dust off the shelves or the window ledges in an area that deals with people living on oxygen, living with emphysema, living with serious problems. There is dust in our hospitals.

I know that the men and women who work in those hospitals are overworked. They are working their fingers to the bone. What is the problem? It seems to me that we have, at least in the province of Ontario, and I think we have seen it right across Canada, provincial governments which want to go to their electorate and say “Aren't we wonderful. We have cut your taxes”. Meanwhile they increase the debt.

Even the premier of Quebec has recently jumped on the tax cut band wagon. He is afraid he is going to get left behind. Yet they cut health care services. Then, lo and behold, they complain that the nasty old federal government is not giving them enough money, but we find that they have left it in the bank.

Do Canadians really want us to sign another blank cheque to allow Premier Bouchard, Premier Harris and Premier Klein to simply do what they want, to reduce their provincial tax load at the same time as they cut health care? I think not.

What the debate should really be about is who is delivering what. How does that 81 year old or how does my mother-in-law get proper care in the community or in the home? That is what our health minister is talking about. Instead of denigrating the great work that people are doing in helping our young people, our disabled, people who have been laid off through no fault of their own to deal with this incredible changing economy, instead of bashing these programs that work, I would think that members in this place would suggest that we should be having a debate on how we can continue to support those people who need help and on how we can better deliver good quality health services that are not Americanized, that are not privatized and that are not based on the model that we know the Reform Party prefers.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the fifth party for agreeing to give up its opposition day today so that we could debate this motion. If that settles the member down and reduces his blood pressure, I am happy to contribute.

The member referred to the flag debate. I was in this place. It was at the beginning of this parliament.

We hear people talking about decorum in this place. Let us take a look at what has happened.

I remember a member of the Bloc picking up his chair and walking out of this place. He took it to his riding. That is real decorum, that is. We have the young people stealing the furniture for goodness sake.

I remember members opposite wearing Mexican sombreros and doing hat dances outside. I do not know what they were protesting.

People painted a car with a Canadian flag and drove it all around Parliament Hill.

These are parliamentarians. I think that Canadians are a bit embarrassed. They become embarrassed with the kind of nonsense they see in this place. I think it is a shame that the Bloc wants to take it out on you, sir.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Yes, I was.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

I have answered it. My problem is not with the member for Brandon—Souris. He should take a Valium and relax.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite will be happy to know that my quarrel in this instance is not with the fifth party. My concern is the abuse of the system because the Bloc failed to derail the legislation.

I do not disrespect Bloc members for disagreeing with the bill. That is their right as elected parliamentarians. But once we lose in this place, we lose. That is the way it works. That is reality. They cannot turn around and say, we lost, we cannot get the government to change, so we will attack the Speaker. That is wrong.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose if we had another 80 hours we could have heard more witnesses.

How long do these members want to continue to debate the issue of sovereignty? I can tell them that people in my riding and I think people in the rest of Canada, including many people in Quebec, are simply fed up with it. The bill put some clarity forward. Who can argue against that? Who can argue against a question, in all honesty, that simply asks: Do you or do you not want to separate from Canada?

There were three paragraphs in the bill. The legislation consisted of a page and a half. Do we need 1,000 amendments to clarify it, or is that not, very clearly, simply an attempt by the Bloc Quebecois to put a wrench into the machinery of government?

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the member because I think he has made a good point. In the point of privilege the member for Rimouski—Mitis said the deputy principal clerk sent a letter to the office, et cetera. Her concern, as I understand it, was that 700 motions had been rejected. Two of them had never been officially submitted.

Also, as I understand it, the staff were working from their data base because they had worked with the member opposite to prepare these amendments. With 700 amendments on their data base, they did not go through them line by line and check them all off. Two of them were not included in the total number submitted. I think they probably made a mistake, but does that justify an attack on them? Surely not.

[House Of Commons, March 16th, 2000]

It is not probably possible, but I would like to think, whether I am here or on that side of the House, that I respect this institution and that I respect the rules.

We know the difference and the reason we do not have brawls, although we have come close on a couple of occasions. The distance between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition is the distance between two people holding swords with the tips barely touching. Why is that? The symbolism of that for me says it all about Canada. We do not kill one another. Our weapons are our minds. Unfortunately some of the weapons are a little less sharp than others. Our weapons are our minds. Our ammunition is our words. That is why it gets so heated in here. That is why we get so partisan in here. That is how we do battle. That is how we fight on behalf of the people who sent us here to represent them.

I received an e-mail the other day in my office from a constituent I have never met who referred to a recent newspaper article in which there were some rather unfair criticisms of my style and so on. The e-mail said “I do not agree with that reporter. I want my MP to be heard. You keep it up”. I will keep it up. There is no doubt about that.

This is a most reprehensible attack on you, Sir. It is a reprehensible attack on the table officers, on the staff and on the very institution that we would all die for. We know that. Many have died for it. We celebrate our veterans when we bring them here. We will continue to fight to uphold that democratic principle.

If members do not like what they see they should not attack the Speaker. They are trying to shoot the messenger who is just doing a job. If they want to attack us that is fair ball and we will give it right back.