House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 63% of the vote.
Supply November 19th, 1998
Members opposite would look for the simplistic answer to that. The fact is that Mr. Harris cut taxes 30%. To pay for his tax cut he unilaterally cut money to health care in the province of Ontario. The people in Ontario are not stupid. They understand that the provincial government—
Supply November 19th, 1998
What does the hon. member mean by “your dollar?” It seems to me that the member opposite is saying that our dollar is down. That is an interesting reaction.
What are they spending? When members of the Bloc Quebecois cash their paycheques at the expense of the federal taxpayer, what do they get paid in? They get paid in Canadian dollars. I do not think they begrudge the Canadian dollar. Regardless of what it might be worth in the sunny south where many members opposite may like to holiday, the fact is that a buck is a buck is a buck here at home. In spite of the fact that the Canadian dollar is down extremely low, it is good for exports and it is good for tourism. It has encouraged Canadians to holiday in Canada. What a unique experience. They will get to know this country.
There are side benefits to that problem. I find it most telling that a member of the Bloc would point over here and say “your dollar”. Until the hon. member is notified otherwise it is our dollar. It is his dollar and it is our dollar. I suspect when he goes to the store he will be spending his dollar, which is my dollar, which is the taxpayers dollar. I ask the member not to give me this nonsense and this parochial separatist mentality that again simply says the federal government whom they hate should give them more. It is Oliver going for more soup. “May we please have more?” It is hypocrisy and it is truly amazing to watch.
Recently the province of Ontario has undergone some interesting situations. On television any night of the week we see ads about our health care system, a little boy with a boo boo on his knee trying to rip off a band-aid. The mother says “If you rip it off quick it will not hurt”. The message there is that if Mike Harris cuts health care quickly it will not hurt.
For the first time in my 30 years living in Mississauga, a week or so ago I experienced the emergency room at Mississauga General Hospital turning away ambulances.
Supply November 19th, 1998
“For five years” my colleague says. In a recent speech I said Canada had been voted as the greatest country in the world in which to live unless you live here.
It is interesting to listen to the constant moaning and bickering from the opposition. I understand opposition. I was in opposition for five years. I do not expect opposition parties to congratulate the government, but I would expect someone with a provincial bias, whose sole purpose in life is to promote provincial autonomy, provincial authority and provincial government, at least to acknowledge that our health care system is with all its warts and bumps the finest health care system in the world. No one denies that.
The Reform Party would take us down the road of the American health care system. We have Dr. Death sitting over there, the critic who would dismantle the entire Canadian health care system. Yet the Reform Party accuses us of running a health care system based on partisan issues.
Partisanship quite clearly shows when members sit around over there in their little worlds and try to come up with a way they could put forward a nasty little resolution to call on the government to do this or do that or to spend this or spend that. It is like talk radio. Talk radio is very much like opposition. You can say anything you want with impunity. You can demand this and demand that with impunity and without any sense of responsibility.
I was particularly interested in watching the debate the other night on the Quebec election to hear Mr. Bouchard make an amazing comment that no one seemed to pick up on. To paraphrase, he said that Quebec was in better shape economically than it had been in 25 years.
It sounds like a pretty good argument for staying in Canada. It sounds like maybe, just maybe, Quebecers know that the province of Quebec did not succeed in attaining, if what Mr. Bouchard said is true, the lofty position of being in the best economic shape in the last 25 years without being part of the greatest federation of the world, without being part of a country that is recognized all around the world as the greatest country in the world in which to live.
Why could the Bloc not acknowledge that a partnership with the province of Ontario, the largest trading partner the province of Quebec enjoys and vice versa, may work reasonably well? But, no, they want to be like the little spoiled brat who says to mom and dad “I am leaving home. I am going to my own place but I will be back once a month or once a week or whatever for a little allowance. I want you to spend more money”. This kind of double standard is truly remarkable.
I read the polls. I understand what is happening in Quebec. It would be delightful if Quebecers would realize in the upcoming provincial election that indeed the number one priority is health care and not sovereignty; indeed the number one priority is forging a strong economic union and partnership with their cousins, brothers and sisters right across this great land and not sovereignty; and indeed this federation, this family called Canada, seems to be working.
Can we improve it? Of course we can. The prime minister, the health minister and the finance minister have already said that this—
Supply November 19th, 1998
We will take the blame, as the member opposite would like. He would like to blame us for eliminating the $42 billion deficit. We are guilty. We will take that blame, absolutely.
We wonder what is it we have to do to get the message through. It is really quite remarkable. This might as well be an all party opposition resolution. I suspect from comments made that all parties opposite will vote for it.
In the middle of a budget year the motion is calling—and Canadians know we cannot do it—for the government to knee-jerk react because of provincial pressures and spend another $2 billion. Governing is about making choices and they are not always easy choices. I am sure the Bloc will never know that because in reality I do not think the Bloc would govern anywhere. As I said it is a provincial party.
This is a bit like a son or daughter leaving home but wanting to come back to get some money every once in a while. They want an allowance. “Please set us free, let us go, but give us some money just in case”. It is an amazing argument.
Double standards exist around here. I see members of the provincial Bloc Party joining all the parliamentary associations and travelling around the world at taxpayers expense, the same taxpayers whom they would spurn, whom they would like to leave. They are not ashamed to spend taxpayers money in the interim. It is remarkable to see.
I spent eight years in the Ontario legislature both in government and in opposition. Prior to that I spent 10 years on a municipal and regional council. During that time I came to realize that municipalities run for election against the provinces. They look to the provinces to blame for all their problems because far be it from having to admit to their taxpayer, the ratepayer, the homeowner, the resident, that the problems are created locally. They say they are created provincially. All the provinces, perhaps most notably in this instance Quebec, tend to run and play against the federal government, those big, bad people in Ottawa.
I have talked to the average person on the street. I have been to Quebec City and had trouble finding a separatist. It was amazing. The people who depend on the economy for their living are not separatists. Members should talk to the cab drivers, the waiters and waitresses, people in the hotel business, and people on the street. I found a few of them in the legislature. I am sure Bloc members could introduce me to some. I have no doubt. It was quite amazing to see the provincial parochial interest.
I find it absolutely astounding to have a member of the Bloc stand in her place and say that the government's health care policies are based on partisan interest. What nonsense. The Canadian public knows. It is rather interesting that every year we are voted by the United Nations as the greatest country in the world to live.
Supply November 19th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I find it interesting to note the level of frustration that exists on the opposite benches. I think their frustration stems largely from the fact that despite all their rhetoric and all their accusations, the government remains the most popular government since before the war, interestingly enough, in the entire country.
We have to ask ourselves why. When we look at a motion by the Bloc, fundamentally a provincial party, fundamentally a party with only provincial and regional interests, we see that they are saying we should simply give more money. When the Reform Party stands every day in question period the lament is to give more money. We come to expect it from the New Democrats. We know they are spendthrifts. We have had some experience, not out west but certainly in Ontario, with New Democratic policy. Their lament is simply to give more money. The Progressive Conservatives left office somewhat unceremoniously in 1993, leaving Canadian people with an overdraft of $42 billion.
We take credit, I suppose as a government, but I think more importantly as a people.
Mississauga West November 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party recently mailed brochures on employment insurance to individuals and businesses in my riding of Mississauga West. I remind the Reform Party of the old adage you gotta fish where the fish are.
In the last election the Reform candidate in my riding got a whopping 18.3% of the vote. That may be slightly better than Reform's current standing in the national polls but it is a far cry from the 61.2% of my constituents who voted Liberal. It does not appear to me that many Mississaugans would be interested in being on Reform's mailing list. The real galling part is that Reform has the audacity to title its brochure “Whose money is it anyway?”
Despite the fact that the brochure warns the government not to misuse taxpayer dollars, the Reform Party used taxpayer dollars to produce it and to mail it out. Whose money is it anyway? It is the taxpayers' money and the citizens of Mississauga West—
Supply November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member one list. There was a $42 billion deficit which was eliminated by this government. That is clear. I will give him another point.
The Reform Party is looking for quick fixes with this motion. In fact in the short term NISA holds about $2.5 billion that Canadian farmers can access. This represents an annual contribution of $600 million by the federal government, $400 million by the provinces and $600 million by farmers.
The record is clear. This government stands ready to support small business, fishermen, miners, steelworkers. Absolutely we will support farmers.
Supply November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I give the member a point. Picking rocks on Uncle Ted's farm certainly does not qualify me to be a farmer, and I do not pretend to be.
Being elected to a national parliament requires dealing with all kinds of different issues. I have never worked in a mine and yet I am very concerned about the mining industry in the province of Ontario. I have never worked in a steel plant, although my father, my uncle and cousins did, but I am very concerned about the impact of downloading and the pricing problem in the steel industry. I have never worked in the fisheries. Does that mean as a nationally elected politician I should have no concern for Canadians in Atlantic Canada?
I have never worked on an active farm. I admit that but it has nothing to do with it. The point is the hypocrisy I am pointing out in that party.
Supply November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the member will know that there was $7 billion in tax relief in the last budget. The member will know that when we took over government in 1993 the inherited deficit left by Mulroney's Conservative Party was $42 billion.
The member will know that our finance minister recently announced a debt reduction of $3.5 billion in addition to the fact that debt instruments totalling $9 billion were not renewed by the government. The member will know in his heart but he will not admit it that the government has started the country on the road to tax relief from which farmers will benefit far more than the nonsense being proliferated by the Reform Party.
Supply November 3rd, 1998
The department of agriculture. There were others: industry, fisheries and oceans and natural resources. Their knives knew no boundaries. They were prepared to slash and burn and put up figures regardless of sustainability or of the impact it would have on those ministries in regions of the country. We can imagine what would happen in fisheries and oceans.
No wonder they do not have a seat in eastern Canada. They should go into eastern Canada and tell them that they want to cut money out of those ministries that support Canadians working in those industries. They would cut $640 million by downsizing agriculture, industry, fisheries and oceans and natural resources. They did not say the environment.
The other day the debate in the House was about how all environmental issues should be turned over to provincial interests. Someone even suggested that the municipalities could do a better job, that the federal government had no position to play as custodians of the national environment, and that it should abdicate its responsibility.
It would not surprise me in the least if the day arrives in the not too distant future when members of the Reform caucus will call for the Minister of the Environment to invoke tough federal regulations to protect a particular interest that they may have that day or that they have read about in the Globe and Mail or the National Post that morning, which seem to be the fundamental research documents used by the Reform Party.
In addition, a further $690 million would be cut from other regional and sector specific funding through the department of agriculture. They talk about environment, industry and natural resources. It is truly astounding.
The motion calls for emergency measures including tax relief and yet their own documents do not support it. One thing I find most interesting is how this seems to be a johnny-come-lately for Reformers. Where have they been in question period? Where has the critic for agriculture been? Where has the leader of the Reform Party been to stand and ask amazingly tough questions of the government and hold its feet to the fire?
They do not ask questions during question period. Rather they sit in the back room and concoct some kind of emotion to throw on the floor and try to pretend they are the saviours of Canadian farmers and Canadian businesses, that they are the only ones who can foster tax relief. It is hypocrisy in its purest form, and the Canadian people know it full well.