Hedy Fry

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

What is wrong with setting up private clinics so that people who want to pay can pay? We only have to look at the United States where people who want to pay can pay and buy as much as they want whether or not they need it and people who cannot afford it have inadequate and inappropriate access to health care.

A major determinant of health is socioeconomic status. Poverty is the greatest determinant of health. Poor people need more services. We are basically saying that we have some false savings here. We will not save any money. The people who need the services more will be the people who cannot afford them. They will still be going to the public sector. That is the first point.

Second, if we look at the United States model, private clinics have tended to create massive costs and inefficiencies in the system. They have taken away clinical autonomy from physicians who no longer have the ability to choose what they do for their patients but have to ask a non-medical person, some insurance adjuster, what they should and should not or can and cannot do. That is not what I consider to be choice.

We have choice in this country. In the United States they are not free to choose a physician. They are only free to go to a physician who is under a particular insurance plan and works for a particular insurance company. In Canada we are free to choose a physician anywhere and everywhere we like.

We have what is known as access to anyone we want to see. That is choice. In this country we are free to go to any hospital we choose. We are free to have a bed in the hospital next to anyone we choose to be with. We do not have to go to one for the poor if we are poor. We can sleep under a bridge or lie next to some multimillionaire in a Canadian hospital.

What the member is considering is wrong. If he does not believe me, let him think about what happened in the United Kingdom. I did my medical training in the United Kingdom. Its wonderful easy answer was that it would take care of the poor and those who could pay would pay. We have seen a two-tier system in which the poor have been relegated to second rate medicine. Physicians do not want to work in the areas where there are large poor populations. The United Kingdom is sending for physicians from developing countries to go there to provide care. That does not create equality of care. That is what is wrong.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for rewriting the history of medicare a bit. Some people would argue that it was Saskatchewan and others would say it was Quebec, but that is a moot point.

The hon. member mentioned money. We keep hearing about money being a factor in providing effective health care. There is an English saying that necessity is the mother of invention. Because of necessity and because there has been very little money, provinces have begun to be inventive. It is not an invention that has decreased the quality of health care.

Something that has been necessary for many years which neither the provinces nor the federal government faced up to was that we needed to change our health care system to make it more appropriate to the needs of people and to make it more effectively and efficiently managed. As a result of the necessity, people are beginning to manage the system.

The amount of money put into a health care system by any study of any country does not equate to quality of care. Otherwise, as I said, the United States would have the most wonderful health care system in the world because it spends the most money. Yet Japan, which spends the least, has the best. There are more things that determine the health status of a country and the health of individuals than money spent on intervention and on medical care.

I spoke as well about the ways in which we could decrease the cost of the system, improve accessibility and improve the ability of patients to make decisions within their own health care system. That is by shifting from acute care to community care, by shifting and creating guidelines for care, by looking at outcome analysis and by setting up technology assessment, by doing all the things we are learning to do that some provinces have already begun to do.

Judith Maxwell of the University of Ottawa is predicting in her report that if we continue to do such things we will need to put less money, almost $7 billion less, into health care. It is very important to understand that and not fall prey to the rhetoric that continues to say that we should keep throwing money at health care in the hope that it will stick somewhere. It never has and it never will.

All the studies on mortality, morbidity and quality of life are telling us that is not what will create the outcome we are looking for.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak with a mixture of emotions. There is some confusion, some humour, and some sadness.

I am confused that members of the third party would bring forth this kind of motion when it so clearly contraindicates everything they have ever said in the past during their campaign and even during their proposed budget earlier this year.

There is some pleasure because I am proud to be able to speak for the system of health care we are espousing in this country and in which we so firmly believe. And there is a little sadness because one of the movers of this motion is a physician and has shown such a lack of understanding of the system, the words, the terminology and the principles that medicare is all about. It saddens me that he should rise to speak to this motion when he so obviously does not understand the system. I would like to know why he does not understand it.

What we have heard is simplistic rhetoric. It is the kind of thing we have come to expect from the third party: there is always a simple answer; let us not confuse the complexity of the question, let us just throw a simple answer at it.

What is so simplistic about it and what is so rhetorical about it is in terms of the statement of the problem, which is not factual. The statement of the problem is not based on fact at all. As the Minister of Health said when she spoke earlier, the figures quoted, which indicate a decrease in the percentage of payments to the provinces from the federal government, are absolutely untrue. The statement talks about total health care cost. It does not show any understanding of what the cost the federal government contributes to, as written in the established programs financing, is all about. That cost is purely for hospital and physician services. It is not for the whole bailiwick of health care services, which each province has expanded or constricted as it feels it wants. That is not what the federal government sends the transfer payments for; it is purely for physician and hospital service. That is the first bit of disinformation that came about in this.

The second thing that is simplistic and rhetorical about the whole thing is the solution, the constructive alternatives we were given. They have absolutely nothing to do with ensuring efficient, universal, affordable, quality health care in this country. Universal quality health care is far more complicated than giving a cute, uninformed speech. It is a complex issue.

Let us look at the preamble of the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest. He talked about the fact that we already have a multi-tier system. That alone shows a lack of understanding of what is meant by the term comprehensive, which is one of the five principles of medicare. It shows a lack of understanding of what medically required services means. It shows a lack of understanding of what the terms universality and accessibility actually mean under the Canada Health Act. The hon. member did not even read the Canada Health Act. He does not even understand the definition of the terms.

The whole idea of having a multi-tier system is one of the usual red herrings that are thrown at us. Of course we have systems where there are always and have always been non-medically required services that patients pay for. They have always paid for them. If anyone wishes to have a face lift, they can always pay for one. There are many instances where people think they want something that is not medically required and they go out and buy it. That does not constitute a multi-tier system; that constitutes a system that operates outside of what the Canada Health Act defines as the five principles of medicare. The hon. member should go back and read the Canada Health Act.

The other thing the hon. member said in his preamble was that users should define full services. Users define full services? I do not know that many patients would want to define what an essential service is and what a medically required service is, because they are not physicians. They may want to participate in the decision making of what is appropriate in the treatment, but they would not want to define what is clinically necessary and clinically required for them. That is why they go to a physician or a health care provider. That alone seems to me to be a rather simplistic and very impractical solution.

What else do we have if we have started off with the first part of the motion being based on a false premise? The whole scaffold on which the argument is based is nothing more than

smoke and mirrors. It is a weak scaffold because it is based on lack of fact, lack of information, and lack of knowledge.

The hon. member said that we talked earlier on about the 50 per cent the federal government is supposed to transfer to the provinces.

As the minister and I said earlier, we were never supposed to transfer 50 per cent. In 1975-76 we transferred 39 per cent of total health care. That 39 per cent constituted a greater percentage toward hospital and physician services only which is where it was supposed to go. Therefore, the rest of it is nonsense.

That has not gone down a great deal when we look at the fact that in 1992-93 the total percentage of transfer has gone down to 32 per cent and the provinces have expanded their total pot. That again is a false presumption of what the percentages should mean.

There again I think the mathematics and the understandings were not done. If the figures were wrong and the assumptions were wrong, is the whole concept we are debating today wrong? It must be because it is based on a false assumption and a false concept.

Everyone is saying that we need more money for health care. The concept of more money does not seem to sit well with the third party. The leader of the third party said in his budget speech and in fact said in Saskatchewan that he would transfer more tax points to the provinces. He would give them more money.

Simple mathematics, and I am not a mathematician, tells me that in taking away from one side of an equation there is surely a corresponding addition to the other side. Therefore, if we take money away from our big pot to give more tax points to the provinces, what the hon. member did not factor in in his budget speech is that he is going to be $10 billion deeper in the hole in the deficit. How does that make sense with fiscal responsibility and cutting the deficit to zero in one year that we were talking about? It does not make sense. None of it makes sense.

It is widely recognized as a fact that anyone who understands health care economics knows that throwing more money at health care is not the answer. In fact the quality, the outcome, the efficiency and the effectiveness of a health care system does not depend on money. If it did, the United States which spends the most amount of money not only per capita but as a percentage of GDP on health care would have the best health care system in the world. However, it does not.

At the moment the country that ranks the highest for having the best health care system in the world is Japan. It spends a lot less money than Canada spends as a percentage of GDP. Money and a good system do not equate. Money in a health care system does not equal outcome.

We know that many other things determine whether people are healthy or not. They have to do with socioeconomic factors, environmental factors, lifestyle factors and quality of life factors. None of those things are part of giving people more medical care. We can give people more medical care and we will not decrease those outcomes one whit. Throwing money at the health care system is not the answer.

The challenge is how wisely we spend the money we put into the health care system so we can use the money for the socioeconomic and other issues that determine health. It is one of the big challenges we have to look at when we talk about health care.

Let us look again at the third party using money as a criteria for effective and efficient health care services. If we talk about that then we are talking clearly about the fact that if one cannot afford the health care system and more money has to be thrown at it then people must pay for the health care system. Therefore, we are back to this hidden or not so hidden agenda the third party is talking about which is in fact finding a way to get the user, the person who is sick, to pay for their health care.

It is a not so clever plot to say the system needs more money, the system needs more money, the system needs more money. Then we are going to have to say that if we are going to balance our budgets, and we cannot find the money from government, let us charge the people, the ill. Let us tax them. That is what is so underhanded and so disturbing about this motion, the whole concept that is underlying what we are talking about here today.

It is a typical mentality that comes from people who espouse a south of the border policy on health care. We look at the United States and the kind of health care it gives. Yes, there is a two tier system there and yes of course people are allowed to buy health care but it is based on one criteria, the pocketbook. Those who can afford it can have unlimited access to health care. Those who cannot afford it, we see what the outcome is.

At the moment the United States is sixth among the developing countries in its health care outcomes. It does not have the health care outcomes of a developed country because those who cannot afford it, with poverty being the major determinant of health, those people are sicker.

That is the way the Reform Party would have us go and it concerns me. In fact, if we give the rich unlimited access to health care what we see is that the number of interventions and the amount of laboratory tests are greater as a percentage of users in the United States than it is in Canada. The people who are using them more are based purely on the people who are in a

high socioeconomic bracket. In other words there are people who are having care and interventions.

Open heart surgery is one example. The rich are getting more open heart surgery. It does not fulfil the criteria of whether they need it or not. The fact is they want it, they want to buy it and they are getting it. I do not consider that to be good medicine and I do not consider it to be good health care. I do not think we want that situation in this country.

Let us look then at the solutions the third party recommended. The solutions it talks about are core services. We all know on reading the Canada Health Act and if we understand the principles of medicare, that the definition of medically required services is a provincial jurisdiction. The provinces have to define medically required services. This is a good thing. The provinces are where the regional disparities lie. Different provinces have different health care problems. Different provinces have different needs.

We talk about bottom up care. It is appropriate to have the provinces deciding. That is what we have tried to do when we have discussed how we give the provinces more decision making in health care. It is to allow them to provide appropriate services for people where they need it, when they need it and how they need it. They know that better than the central government.

We believe our role to play as the central government is to bring about and co-ordinate what it is we see within the principle that those medically required services are based on clear clinical guidelines. This is why the health forum was set up. The health forum is dealing right now with how we define, how we look at outcomes. It is dealing with how we look at what is the care and the criteria necessary to provide those outcomes so that we are not guessing as the hon. member for Macleod would have us do and set all sorts of criteria for who should get it and what a core service is.

The hon. member for Macleod has decided that a core service should be something that is on a list of items. A core service is not an item. If we take for example the item of ultrasound for pregnant women and say that only one ultrasound will be done on a pregnant woman, that does not make any sense. Some pregnant women clinically require more than one while others only require one.

We need to look at clinical guidelines when we talk about core services, not whether the item is a good idea or not, not to generically define items. That will not give us good care.

Nor should it be like the hon. member for Macleod said to the Calgary Herald when he defined who should get health care and who should not and that if a woman in her past history had been promiscuous and had her tubes blocked she should not have a tubal ligation paid for by the government. What sort of subjective, moral, paternalistic health care system are we talking about here when we want to define core services that way? That concerns me a great deal.

We also hear terms like private insurance. We all know from the United States and Robert Evans of UBC has shown us very clearly that multiple insurance systems and multiple payer systems are more expensive. They are more inefficient and in fact do not create the right kind of outcomes.

The United States has multiple payer systems. The administrative costs are 25 per cent of the health care costs. Recent studies have shown in the United States that if that 25 per cent on administration could be rolled into a single payer system, there would be enough money to give health care services to the 37 million Americans who do not have it right now. If the money spent on Massachusetts Blue Cross alone could be decreased in administration there would be universal health care in the United States.

When we talk about health care and about multiple systems, we are talking about greater costs. We are talking about defining who can no longer be insured because they are now chronically ill.

In the United States someone who is chronically ill becomes uninsurable. Even if that person has millions of dollars to buy insurance, he cannot buy it. That person has to pay out of his pocket. That is okay if he has millions of dollars but someone who is a middle income worker cannot.

The other term "benefactors to pay" as I see it is a nice term for user fees. We are hearing all these little words that have been put in so that it sounds wonderful. We are talking about a two-tier system that in this country does not define what we see as health care.

When we talk about health care we are talking about looking at how we can save money on health care costs. Recent studies at the University of Ottawa and Judith Maxwell have told us that we can save $7 billion a year in health care costs if we do some real things. For example we could shift from hospital based care to community based care. We could look at how we set clinical guidelines for care. We could look at how we help the determinants of health so that the socioeconomic factors that create illness in people are decreased.

There are many things we can do to decrease health care costs without changing the five principles of medicare, without having to make people who are sick pay. The only way the third party can see for solving the problems is to define core services with the kind of hidden agenda it is defining. Reformers are talking about user fees and multiple insurance systems.

What is wrong with that solution is that every system of health care in the world is based on some sort of rationale. The rationale in this country has to do with clinical need and that is the way we want to keep it. I do not ever want us to see where the rationale for our health care system is the pocketbook. There-

fore I strongly speak against first and foremost the problem which is not factual and also the solutions put forward this morning by members of the third party.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member put forward an eloquent speech, wonderful rhetoric. It shows a depth though of the superficiality of the understanding of what health care is all about and what the five principles of medicare actually mean.

I would not like to add any further rhetoric but to say that with this lack of understanding would the hon. member like to explain to me what he understands by the meaning of the term "core services". He bandies it about and uses it a lot. I would like to know from him what he means by core services.

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks a very interesting and a very pertinent question. It is one in which we are very interested at Health Canada, mainly because it has to do with the issue of the health of Canadians and of Canadian women.

Before I speak any further on the issue, I want to tell the hon. member that the issue of the number of services delivered has to do mostly with provincial governments and the medical profession. Therefore, that is not something I can comment on. At the same time, I can tell the hon. member that variations by region and by area may sometimes have some very valid reasons in specific interventions in health.

Be that as it may, the federal government is very interested in overall health care servicing: the type of services we get and the quality of services given across the country. We are working with provincial governments and with health care providers to find out how it is we can improve the quality of care and the appropriateness of service.

For example, the Minister of Health has just given money to the Canadian Medical Association to provide Canadian clinical practice guidelines. We need to look at the appropriateness of care to set clear guidelines and priorities for care so that we are

doing the right things to the right people at the right time. This kind of thing is what we are interested in dialoguing on, an evolving evaluation of care, et cetera.

With respect to the issue of women's health, that is of great concern to us. The minister has committed herself to looking at health issues. We have not done enough research and enough work on women's health issues to be able to assess hysterectomies, the validity of them, when they should be done and how often they should be done. We are going on very old data. We need to set up centres of excellence for women, which we are committed to, which will investigate, do the research, get the data and look at the appropriateness of care for women in this country.

I am glad the member asked the question because we believe it is something we need to look at. We have already embarked on the kinds of dialogue we need with the providers and with the provinces to ensure that we provide appropriate care in this country.

[Canadian Cancer Society, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is April and spring is here, at least in British Columbia. The daffodils are in full bloom and so is the Canadian Cancer Society's fundraising campaign.

Since 1938 the Canadian Cancer Society has tried to eradicate cancer and sought to better the lives of people suffering from this terrible disease. Cancer research has resulted in many breakthrough treatments over the years. In 1979 the five-year survival rate for childhood leukaemia was 17 per cent. Today, thanks to advancements in research and rehabilitation, it is 83 per cent. The Canadian Cancer Society also helped to fund the recent discovery of a breast cancer gene that will enhance prevention.

Despite our small victories, the fight against cancer is not over. In 1995 alone 126,000 Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer and 62,000 will die from the disease.

Therefore, this April I urge all Canadians to give generously to the Canadian Cancer Society volunteer who comes their door. Together we can give not only money but hope to the thousands of Canadians suffering from cancer.

[Mining Industry, March 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we all believe that developing a strong economic base for this country is the key to global competitiveness.

As a British Columbian, I urge the members of this House to recognize the importance of the mining industry to all Canadians. The government's 1995 budget made a first step toward improving our mining industry's ability to maintain and create jobs for Canadians.

Besides providing 400,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada, mining sustains 150 Canadian communities and their one million residents, thus having a great impact on their daily lives in future.

Besides adding $10 billion to our annual trade balance, mining contributes $20 billion a year to the Canadian economy and accounts for 14.8 per cent of Canada's total exports. Mining is therefore a key engine for the export driven economy, jobs and growth benefiting all of Canada and not only those who live in mining regions.

Canada is seen by the rest of the world to be a country blessed with the wealth of natural resources. The interest and support of this House in developing an environmentally sound and sustainable mining industry-

[Firearms Act, March 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, not only is it an honour for me to speak to the bill, I am enthusiastic and I would like to applaud something that is long overdue. The bill addresses the health and safety of Canadians. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, health and safety are extremely important to me.

Guns threaten, guns injure, and guns kill. I understand that guns are an important component of life in many parts of Canada: for hunters who live in isolated parts of the country and for people who play some competitive sports. Guns are also very important to the tourism industry.

The bill is not intended to harm that group of people or to stop any sport or tourism or person who wants to hunt in any sporting way. The bill is something most responsible gun owners would support. The firearms act seeks to bring into line those people who by their irresponsible use of firearms create a bad name for law-abiding gun owners, which is why the bill is supported by 68 per cent of gun owners. Those who operate within the law and act responsibly in storing and using their guns see nothing to fear in the bill.

The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics and the Department of Justice have compiled a lot of startling data on the issue of guns. I bring them to the attention of the House today because they are what frightens me about the whole issue. Firearms cause suicide. Some 1,100 suicides a year are committed with guns, which means that 78 per cent of firearm deaths are suicides. In 1990, 300 of the suicides were committed by 15 to 25-year-old youths. People who commit suicide with a gun have a 92 per cent success rate, compared with only 35 per cent if other means are used.

As a physician and a mother this is totally unacceptable to me. It is alarming and it is sad. I know as many health and social workers know that suicide attempts by young people are often only a cry for help by very desperate and frightened youth. As a physician I have treated many of those desperate and frightened youth who would not be alive today if they had access to guns.

Firearms not only decimate our youth but firearms create other household tragedies. Firearms victimize women. Over 40 per cent of women killed by their husbands each year are shot. Every six days a woman is shot to death in Canada in her own home by a legally owned gun.

In March 1992 the Department of Justice showed that 78.3 per cent of domestic homicides in Canada involving the use of firearms were by legally owned guns. I stress that they were legally owned guns. We know that domestic violence is endemic in society but firearms transform violence into murder. One fit of anger, one violent rage combined with access to a gun, can result in a dead woman.

These are not the only disturbing statistics about violence with firearms against women. In 1993, 75 per cent of female victims were killed in a private residence; 85 per cent of the guns used to kill women were specifically rifles and shotguns; and 82 per cent of the rifles and shotguns were legally owned at the time of the shooting.

Is this the type of society we want to maintain, where women and children are not safe in their own homes? Is this the freedom espoused by those who oppose the bill? Is there any freedom at the end of a gun? I would argue that there is not.

Deaths by firearms are preventable deaths. Injuries by firearms cost our public health care system millions of dollars a year. Over 1,000 firearm related deaths and injuries are treated in Canadian hospitals each year. The cost of this is estimated between $15 million to $30 million per year. Therefore in my book firearms present a major health hazard; in the book of anyone interested in public health and safety. Even if the value of human life lost is not very important to the members of the third party, I am sure that the cost to the health care system might make them think twice because it is enormous. I believe $30 million a year is enormous. They did not factor into their recent budget the cost of firearms related injuries to the health care system.

One of the things that alarms me about firearms is that at the moment we do not have any data on the number of firearms in this country. Anyone who knows anything about public health will know data gathering is extremely important in preventive measures in health. The epidemiology of any disease or any health hazard, whether it be a virus, a bacteria, a poor sewage system or a gun depends on the amount of data we have.

There are very limited data right now on guns. We do not know exactly how many guns are in Canada. The gun lobby says there are 22 million. The Department of Justices says there are six million. It profoundly disturbs me that we have no real figures to answer this question. We know how many bicycles, how many cars and how many dogs there are but we do not know how many firearms there are. This is completely unacceptable.

This act will give us the database we need to take the preventive health measures we need to make this a safe and healthy society. By mandatory registration we will take the guns out of the closets and put them where we can find out exactly how many there are.

When police are called to an incident in a home they will know if they are walking into a risk or not. When police try to go to homes where there is domestic violence they will know whether they have to remove a gun because the woman in that house is in danger. Guns are lethal weapons and so it makes sense to have them registered, traceable and retrievable by our police forces in the case of use or abuse.

Some of my constituents have questioned the potential costs of this registration. I can understand that in a time of fiscal control we do not want to incur costs to the government. However, the justice minister tells us it will cost $85 million over seven years to register these guns.

To the members of the third party, I do not believe $85 million over seven years is too much money to spend on saving lives and decreasing disability, especially when balanced against the savings to the health care system. I hope even the members of the third party can figure out the mathematics of that simple equation.

Another concern raised by my constituents was they would be restricted from using firearms in the film industry, a major industry in British Columbia. I am pleased to say they can rest assured this new bill will not prohibit that.

Some other members of my community are concerned because they will not be able to export their replica firearms or that the investment value of their antique firearms will be decreased. Article 22 of this bill provides for the transfer, that is the sale, barter or donation of firearms, to persons who hold licences to acquire and possess that particular class of firearm. Their collections will not be devalued or frozen because they can continue to trade and sell their firearms with people who have the same type of firearms.

More important, in a democracy we must follow the will of the people. The majority of Canadians, 86 per cent of all respondents to a recent Angus Reid poll, said they support strong gun control measures, 68 per cent of whom are firearm owners. Eighty-four per cent of respondents support a total ban on military weapons, 71 per cent of whom are gun owners. Seventy-one per cent of Canadians support a ban on handguns, 54 per cent of whom are gun owners. It is clear Canadians everywhere think gun control is very important.

People talk a lot about the right to bear firearms. Nowhere is this in the Canadian Constitution. The responsibility to store, register and use firearms reasonably and safely is incumbent upon anyone who feels it is their right to own a gun.

Peace, order and good government are what the Canadian Constitution is all about and what Canada stands for. With this bill we will ensure that we continue to have peace, order and good government and that a cause of death and disability will be removed.

[Vision Awareness Week, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to bring to the attention of the House that March 6 to March 11 is Vision Awareness Week in Canada. This year's theme is "Hope is in sight: good vision and literacy, there is a clear connection".

It is a sad fact that many Canadians cannot read well simply because they cannot see well. One in six children has a vision problem that makes learning and reading difficult. If our children cannot focus on the chalkboard or on words in a book, how can we expect them to learn to read?

This problem is not unique to children. Three-quarters of adults with poor literacy skills also have problems with their vision.

The difficulty is that not all vision problems are easily detected. We know the earlier problems are detected and corrected, the faster we can get children and adults alike on the reading track and the faster they will be literate.

Awareness is the key. I ask my colleagues to join me and 2,800 optometrists in reminding Canadians-

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, although the member made a nice little speech prior to his question that I would like to comment on, I will respond to his question first.

The hon. member is asking me if I will opt out of the pension plan because he sees it as a way of being responsible. There are many ways of being responsible. I would like to look at the whole issue. I would like to see whether it is feasible to opt out or whether I choose to do so.

Reform of pensions is a fundamental and basic issue. It has been looked at. The Prime Minister was very clear when he talked about reforming members' pensions. We have had a report from a third party that talked about a lot of reforms to pensions and to MPs incomes that I do not see the hon. member discussing in total.

It is easy to cherry pick, to take one little part of a report and comment on it. You have to look at the whole. That has been a fundamental flaw in all of the third party's policies. Its members take a little piece of a narrow strip and never look at the big picture. They never see how it impacts, whether there is a domino effect or not.

The hon. member should look at the big picture sometimes.