House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was energy.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Conservative MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands (B.C.)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 36% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act November 25th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill today. I want to say at the outset that the bill to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Act, introduced by the Minister of Health, is very positive. I will be supporting it and I believe my colleagues will be as well.

I should clarify that. I understand that their initial reaction is that they believe it is a very positive bill. They will support it until committee stage when they will have had an opportunity to listen to the research experts. They believe that the intention of the bill is in the right framework, but obviously they want to hear from the experts at committee stage. However, it is my understanding that we are supporting the bill at this stage.

There are a couple of points in the bill that I think are laudable. The bill will repeal the Medical Research Council Act, will bring forth more accountability for all budgetary expenditures and will be a vast improvement over the current system.

I listened to the Minister of Health when he introduced the bill. He talked about the brain drain and how the bill was an attempt to help the brain drain situation by bringing in more research dollars and by making sure most importantly that somewhere in the magnitude of 95% of the moneys would actually be used for research. I believe the goal is that between 4% and 5% will be used for administrative costs. That is a very positive aspect. It is so important for that the money issued for research actually gets down to the end user, the real benefit of which is to Canadian people in the areas of health research.

I will touch on a couple of areas I feel very strongly about that are directly tied into the bill. One of them is the brain drain. As the Minister of Health stated in his opening comments, he is very pleased with the Canadian institutes of health research act, Bill C-13, because it will help alleviate some of the brain drain issues by putting more moneys into research for our universities in the areas of health and will attract people from our universities to stay here.

Hopefully this is the first of many steps to come. Without question the brain drain is the emerging crisis in the country. I listen to the constituents who come into my office on a regular basis to tell me stories about how their children have graduated from university and moved down to the U.S. There is no doubt in my mind that the biggest problem is that they are the very best, the brightest, the entrepreneurs of tomorrow, the future CEOs, the people who would be the economic engine of our country 15 or 20 years from now.

I was with the finance committee in Halifax a few weeks ago. One witness, I believe he was from Ryerson, stated that the top 10 graduates of 30 in one IT program had all gone down to the States. We hear this over and over again. We heard it again this morning in the finance committee. It is a huge problem. It is even exponentially more severe because of the numbers. It is the best, the cream of the crop, that are going south, those who would be crucial to driving the economy.

Bill C-13 to establish the Canadian institutes of health research will at least be a very minimal step, the first step to possibly provide an opportunity for some of our top researchers to stay in Canada.

The brain drain is a huge issue with respect to taxation. We hear that over and over again. The government talked about a $95 billion cumulative surplus. I would argue that if we want to see more programs such as this one, if we want the research dollars and if we truly want to attract the very best, we have to cut taxes. If we want the best researchers not only from Canada but from around the globe, the bill alone will not do it. We have to cut taxes. We are one of the highest taxed of the G-7 countries. Study after study and witness after witness came forward with that thought.

I will go to the second issue the bill touches upon. When I looked at the bill and saw what the government was trying to do, I was very pleased that it was trying to keep the administrative costs of the new health research system at 4% to 5%. It will be accountable for how health research dollars are spent.

This brings us to the Canada Health Act. They are directly tied together. There we have a huge problem. There are over 200,000 Canadians on waiting lists, some of whom are waiting for very serious operations. Some are matters of life and death for many people. Some of these 200,000 people will not live to see the operating rooms, the doctors or the procedures they need. Because of our health care system they will not make it. That is very tragic.

We have seen $21 billion cut from the health care and social transfer payments to the provinces since 1993. When $21 billion are taken out of the pie it has an incredible impact on the services that can be delivered. It is no wonder that some of the 200,000 Canadians on waiting lists will die. There is absolutely no mistake; that is an irrefutable fact which is very sad.

Here is the link to this bill. The positive part of this bill is that the government has focused on putting 4% to 5% on administrative costs. Unfortunately, that $21 billion cut by the federal government from our health care system and social transfers has affected the end users, the patients, those Canadians who are on waiting lists for very serious medical procedures. Many families have a family member waiting for cancer treatment. We hear stories of people with lumps who are waiting for biopsies. The list goes on and on.

There are two things we need to look at. It was the government that agreed with the 50:50 split in the payment of our national health care system. Now it is contributing somewhere in the range of 10%. No wonder the system is crumbling before our eyes. The system needs to be overhauled. There are a few areas where that has to happen. Cash is not the only thing that is going to do it. We saw $21 billion taken out of the pie. When that much money is taken out it has a huge and devastating impact on what happens.

It is crucial that there is accountability to ensure that the dollars are reaching the patient. What happens when that much money is taken out? I would argue that the administration stays the same, and in many cases it might have grown. It is the patients who are affected. The money is taken away from the line users, Canadians. It is so critical that we make the system the most efficient it can be, that we maximize the money being put in, that we make sure it gets to the patient and that it does not get swallowed up by the bureaucracy or the administration.

Years ago when I was in law school, I looked at the new health care facility that was connected to the Vancouver General Hospital, which is a very old and incredible hospital. It was a brand new pavilion, a great big concrete tower, about 15 to 20 storeys high and very impressive from the outside. It can be seen when driving down Oak Street in Vancouver. This pavilion has been there for years. It is hollow on the inside because of a lack of planning, accountability and making efficient use of our dollars. It is not being used. That is frustrating.

It is important to give credit where credit is due. This bill is a very good first step with respect to health research. The government is focusing on the accountability portion and on having the administrative portion around 4% to 5%. That is a very good first step. I look forward to seeing what the research community has to say. When the bill comes before the committee for clause by clause review we will get its valuable input. Hopefully we will bring forward amendments at that time that will even strengthen this bill.

I am pleased to say that we will be supporting the bill but we cannot get stuck in a vacuum. We cannot forget to look at the real picture. We cannot forget that the Canada Health Act is failing the people of Canada. It is crumbling around them. There are 200,000 people on waiting lists and some of them will die because the Canada Health Act is failing them. It needs to be overhauled. There needs to be accountability. Most important, the dollars we invest in health must get to the patient. That is what has to happen.

The other issue which is directly tied to health research is the brain drain. I listened to the Minister of Health talk about this bill. He was pleased that it would help alleviate the brain drain problem and that some of our top research people will want to stay in Canada because of the new accountability and that 95% of the funds will be going directly to the research programs. That is wonderful. I support that whole theory but if he is not going to look at other problems of why people are going south to the United States in droves, if he is not going to look at the taxation system, this bill will not do it alone.

One of the witnesses in the finance committee this morning only three hours ago said that we are talking about a $95 billion “surplus”. I have always argued that there is no real surplus. It is not the government's money that it has taken out of the back pockets of Canadians. Canadians want it back. Until we give them that money back, that taxation surplus that is rightfully theirs, we will not be able to attract the top researchers the government wants to attract to the new Canadian institutes of health research. It will not bring those people here.

The highest levels of brain drain are not only in technologies but also in our health care and engineering sectors. The very best, the very brightest, the cream of the crop, the leaders of tomorrow are leaving not only because of the taxation levels. They are leaving for a whole host of reasons.

The United States spends more on a percentage basis of GDP per capita on the health care system than Canada spends. That is a factual number. Sometimes we are very quick to criticize our neighbours to the south. We should make no mistake that they actually spend much more than we do in Canada. That is why people are going there. Their taxes are lower.

I will finish up by summarizing my two key points. This bill is a great start but it is only the very first step. If we really want to move forward, stop the brain drain and keep our best researchers here in Canada, if we want to attract people, we had better look at our taxation system. Until we do, there is not a hope or a prayer for us. People will continue to go south and the problem will grow exponentially. The unfortunate part is we will not see the impact of this for five, ten or fifteen years. That is when these top people will have reached their peaks in their careers. They will be the leaders of tomorrow. Right now they are going south.

It is not just the people that are going south. Another witness made this excellent point in committee. It is not just our top people that are going south; their positions are going with them and they are not coming back. Those positions are going south to the U.S. as well and they are not coming back to Canada. It is very important that we do not lose focus on that and that we deal with that.

Most important, all of this will be meaningless. It will have no impact. We can have the best research in the whole world and we can cut our taxes so that our researchers stay here. However, we must look at the Canada Health Act, bring in accountability, put the money back in so that those 200,000 people will not die on waiting lists. All of this will be meaningless if we do not bring back accountability, if we do not put back the $21 billion that has been taken out of our health care system. If we do not put that back in all of this will be meaningless and more Canadians will continue to die on waiting lists.

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act November 23rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been sitting in the House for the last half hour listening to this debate and to questions and comments. I have been listening to the members of the Bloc—

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act November 23rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I will defer to my colleague on the other side, as I hope to be the next speaker and I will raise my point then.

Aboriginal Affairs November 23rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this minister talk about the hundreds of meetings over the last few years. But let the truth be known that not one word from either side has ever changed this agreement.

These meetings are nothing more than a scam by this government. It is not interested in listening to one word from one British Columbian. It holds these meetings and refuses to change one word.

Let the truth be known that the government does not believe in democracy. That is the only reason it is not allowing a vote for the people in the province of British Columbia.

Aboriginal Affairs November 23rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, Alex Macdonald, former attorney general of B.C.; Gordon Campbell, leader of the B.C. Liberal Party; Gordon Gibson, former leader of the B.C. Liberal Party; Mel Smith, constitutional advisor to four B.C. premiers and the author of the amending formula in the Canadian constitution, have all said that the Nisga'a agreement is unconstitutional.

It is not just the Reform Party that is opposed to this agreement. Every day more British Columbians are voicing their opposition to this treaty. Is that not the real reason why the Prime Minister will not give British Columbians a vote?

Petitions November 22nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am honoured to present on behalf of the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands concerns an issue that arose last spring.

The petitioners request that parliament refrain from enacting legislation which would remove references to God or to the supremacy of God from the Canadian constitution or the charter of rights.

Petitions November 22nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table today from the people I represent in Saanich—Gulf Islands and, more importantly, from throughout British Columbia. This petition adds to the 10,000 signatures that have already been tabled on this subject. I also note that in an Angus Reid poll 60% of Canadians called on the government to change our Immigration Act so as to allow refugees who are not genuine to be sent home immediately, without delay.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to change the immigration laws so that people who are obvious abusers of the system can be sent home without delay.

We have about 11,000 signatures on this subject and I would ask the government to take note of these people, along with all of the other people of Canada who are calling for this change.

Supply November 22nd, 1999

Yes, it does away with the Indian Act and it creates the Indian Act II and will create only more wishes.

The member stated that the Reform Party was stopping or preventing the witnesses. Would the hon. member stand in the House and name one witness that was on the government invited witness list that did not get an opportunity to speak? I do not think he can.

Supply November 22nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a few of the comments made by the Bloc member, much to my absolute disbelief.

I would like to tell the House the exact truth of what happened. I was at that meeting in Victoria with the committee listening to the witnesses.

The member stated that the Reform Party was blocking, preventing, or stopping the witnesses from speaking. The truth be known that every single witness on that list when I was there got their entire allotted time and more time.

He left us with the notion that he heard words spoken, such as Bosnia and Chechnya. He put that in the context that the Reform Party was this or that. What he is not telling the House is that it was aboriginal people from the Nass Valley who used those words. These were the words of aboriginal witnesses from the Nass Valley who testified before the committee, their words and nobody else's. The House should take note of that. That is the absolute gospel truth.

He also used the words “a paternalistic motion”. Imagine that, a paternalistic motion. Can anyone imagine that a vote is paternalistic?

I would like to leave the House with one last thought. The sole purpose in this House of the member who just spoke is to divide this country in two, to create division. That is exactly what the Nisga'a agreement is going to do and that is probably why the Bloc is supporting it. It wants to create division and to divide the country in two. The hon. member has no other reason for sitting in this House. That is why he is here. His party has stated that on the record. It is no wonder the Bloc is supporting the agreement, because it is going to create division.

The unfortunate part is that what has happened with the aboriginal people in Canada over the last 30 to 50 years has not worked. They deserve to have a solution that does work.

Petitions November 3rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to present a petition on behalf of over 10,000 people not only of Saanich—Gulf Islands but also of Victoria, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and all other ridings of British Columbia.

The petitioners are calling upon parliament to enact changes to our immigration law so that people arriving on our shores, in our airports or coming across our borders who are not bona fide refugees can be sent home immediately without delay.

The petitioners advocate that legislation be enacted requiring refugee claimants to demonstrate through identification, documentation or any other means that they are genuinely fleeing persecution. If they are unable to do so they should face deportation immediately without delay.