House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was fact.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Conservative MP for Kootenay—Columbia (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2008, with 60% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 9th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer those questions. As the member will probably recall, today we will be going to the world money markets to borrow $100 million. What is it for? Is it for human resource development or medicare? No, we are going to the world markets today to borrow $100 million to pay the interest on the money we have already borrowed. If that is not bogus I do not know what in the world is.

The reality is that while the member may be correct, and I am prepared to accept what he has said about Fortune magazine's saying this is a good place to invest, and truly in Canada with the resources and the people we have it is a good place to invest, but I remind him the bond rating agencies have downgraded the Canadian/U.S. denominated debt and we have been put on watch on our Canada bonds.

If we are in such good shape, I wonder if they too are concerned, as we are, about the fact that today we will borrow $100 million to pay interest on money we have already borrowed.

Dealing with the issues the member raised I find, as my leader has from time to time, that perhaps if we speak a little slower and perhaps get to smaller words sometimes we can manage to get our message to the people on the other side.

I was talking about the fact that this bill is a continuation of the process of the centralization we have had in Ottawa since 1968, since the time of Trudeau, when the giant sucking noise Canadians heard was all of the money, all of the power, all of the decision making being drawn into Ottawa. This bill does absolutely nothing to change that situation. It is the continuation of the centralized decision making process.

I say to the member who, after all, has a responsibility to the affairs of the House, the House has continued since we reconvened in the middle of September to do nothing but housekeeping things. Rather than coming forward with this kind of a bill, why are we not getting the reports that have been promised from HRD on UI, on pension? Why are we not getting those things? I suggest it is because the government is devoid of any ability to bring us those things.

Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 9th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my Reform colleagues and I were elected on a platform of real change. It was change that would revolutionize the power and prosperity of Confederation, change that would put an end to the burden of constitutional wrangling which has plagued this land for generations, change that would release Canadians from the oppressive weight of deficit spending. These sentiments were echoed all across the country, particularly as we led up to the referendum on October 30. Canadians are not happy with the way their government operates and they want it fixed no matter where they are in Canada.

Today we are addressing Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development. One would hope that a responsible government would listen to the wants of the electorate and do everything in its power to accommodate them. However, this bill perpetuates the centralized grip that Ottawa maintains on programs which would be administered much more effectively at the local level.

Each province and region in Canada is distinctly different from the other. Demographically speaking, there are more differences between the provinces than there are similarities. Each province has identifiable characteristics which are unique to its own situation. These differences supersede language, culture and self-determination demanding economic prosperity through natural resources, employment, education, training, social services and housing. The Ottawa bureaucracy has historically implemented a unilateral blanket of policies which falls short of fulfilling the individual needs of the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, if you were going to purchase a helmet, would you purchase a generic helmet or would you purchase a helmet that was customized to your size and function? You would not purchase a cycling helmet to play hockey. Why? Because it is not suitable. While a cycling helmet is quite effective for cycling, it is not effective in protecting your health and livelihood even if you are a referee in a hockey game.

The same can be said for human resources development programs. It is imperative that social programs meet the specialized needs of a given province or municipality. Who better to determine that criterion than the province itself or the people in the communities?

This bill pays lip service to decentralization. For example, clause 20 of the bill gives the minister the power to enter into negotiations with groups, including provinces and municipalities, for the administration of services under the Department of Human Resources Development. Although in theory this practice can be seen as a movement toward privatization, in reality it continues to exist unchanged as a centralized body subject to the exclusive decision making practices of the minister. It is lip service.

The parliamentary secretary for HRD earlier in debate said that the federal government works as a partner. The minister is the decision maker for that partner. It is that partner which has removed $7 billion from this social envelope to which I say, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

Since the time of Confederation the federal government scribed, debated and implemented laws which were perceived to be in the best interests of the nation. Over the past 128 years Canada has emerged as a nation comprised of diverse communities to which the archaic macro political practices of the past no longer apply.

Canada needs legislation which is flexible enough to accommodate Canadians from Corner Brook to Cranbrook and everywhere in between. It is time to end the centralized purse string control which Ottawa has over the Canadian taxpayer and over the functions that are covered by this act.

Tax dollars are squandered in order to sustain the massive national central bureaucracy which is not in touch with the needs and wants of Canadians in Corner Brook and Cranbrook. The constituents in my riding, like all other ridings across this great land, pay taxes for essential services. Let us look at this sum as though it were just one dollar.

That dollar is sent to Ottawa where the cost of the massive bureaucracy does little more than deplete the amount of that tax dollar. By the time it is sent to the province through transfer payments, that dollar probably is worth about 80 cents. A similar vacuous process takes place at the provincial level where duplication of bureaucratic intervention does little else than spend tax dollars without cause or consequence, the resulting factor being that the original tax dollar collected from Joe Public is returned to the community as only 60 cents. This is one of the many reasons our country is in such a sorry financial state.

There are considerable benefits to downloading the collection and implementation of essential service taxes from the federal level to the local level. Look at the simplification of collecting, administering and dispensing benefits and essential services at the

level at which the services are received rather than meddling at the federal level.

The most obvious advantage is the omission of expensive and extraneous bureaucratic intervention. The administration of taxes at a local level would ensure the transparency and accountability that Canadians have come to demand from their public institutions. Closed door deals and political patronage are not welcome.

This bill proposes there is room for the commercialization or privatization of these services by allowing the minister or his appointed representatives to enter into negotiations with the provinces and other parties. But surprise, surprise, the final decision will be at the discretion of the minister, not the public. This is a problem because the minister receives advice from the federal bureaucracy interested in its own self-preservation.

Reform is calling for the decentralization of federal powers in these areas. Decentralization means that the provinces, regions and municipalities decide based on their own needs when, why and especially how the funds are to be administered. Downloading gives Canadians a higher return on their tax investment while empowering them to be able to decide how their tax dollars are going to be spent.

This concept is obviously scary to the establishment. Traditional federal institutions will be quite opposed to relinquishing any power. So too is the federal Liberal government whose mandate is based on the inflexible centralized power which has existed since Confederation.

Bill C-96 does nothing to remedy the problems which are evident to everyone except this Liberal government. Canadians are calling for real change, not minuscule housekeeping activities.

Bill C-96 as I have stated, continues centralization in spite of the cosmetics. There is a lot of lip service in the bill to the idea of decentralization and changing where the decisions are going to be made.

Reform by contrast offers protection to pensioners for OAS and for CPP which is completely unfunded and which will run out of funds within a very specified period of time. Reform looks to decentralization and the efficiencies that would occur from that decentralization putting power back in the hands of Canadians where it should be. This government continues to tell the lie that the government will do it. Its spending habits are such that the government can no longer be counted on to do it.

The country at this point is in a unique position to make changes. Canadians are demanding change, but more important, Canadians are demanding change now. Vacuous housekeeping bills like this one do absolutely nothing to give the change Canadians are asking for.

Canadians want a decentralized power structure which empowers citizens, not politicians. Canadians do not want Bill C-96 and neither does the Reform Party. We saw Canadians come together in strength in Montreal. We saw an outpouring of healthy Canadian nationalism. What they did not want was status quo legislation like Bill C-96.

Canadians are looking for leadership. I say to the Liberals: You can lead or you can follow, but if you are not going to lead, get out of the way.

Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 9th, 1995

They would not learn anyway.

Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 9th, 1995

Elect them again.

Department Of Human Resources Development Act November 9th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I was interested that the parliamentary secretary in his vision of the new Canada said that the federal government works as a partner. Some partner. This is a partner that just finished removing $7 billion from the social spending envelope. What kind of a partner is that?

All the words that the government keeps coming up with are nothing more than the platitudes of speech writers. Would he care to enlighten us as to who wrote his speech?

Indian Affairs November 8th, 1995

Why did you not say that yesterday?

Department Of Health Act November 7th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I was particularly touched by the comments of the member for Parkdale-High Park about his friend who on coming back from Florida was not able to find suitable medical treatment in Toronto. He had to go to Saskatoon and unfortunately it was too late.

Few issues treat all of us the same but the issue of health is one of them. All of us are concerned about health not only for ourselves but also for our families, friends and neighbours.

The hon. member for Nickel Belt, who just spoke, said that our country is very proud of its health system. I agree with that. He also said our health service has greatly contributed to our wonderful quality of life. I also agree with that.

The problem, I suggest, is the fact that the Liberals seem to think that they have a corner on wisdom when it comes to health care, that only they have the answers. This is really unfortunate.

I have also listened to the postering of the Bloc Quebecois during this debate. This is the official opposition that the Liberals choose to have in this House of Commons, contrary to anything else they may say. All the Bloc can do is posture about the whole situation with respect to Quebec in this country. It seems to me a shame

when we are actually dealing with an issue that has something to do with all of us.

The member for Parkdale-High Park said we must build a health care system before it is too late. Unfortunately, with the greatest respect to that member and to the Liberals, I say that the status quo as it pertains to medicare as it is presently constructed is not an option and that is the whole problem. The status quo is not an option.

Someone earlier in the debate today said that the Liberals were committed to medicare and to seeing that there are no barriers to access. I suggest that one of the greatest barriers to access is the $7 billion that the Liberals are pulling out of this part of the program.

Let us take a look at health care. The health minister threatens the provincial governments if they choose to try and come up with some new solutions or some different ways of looking at things in the same envelope from which they are taking $7 billion over two years.

The province of British Columbia has decided that it has to take some action because it is being cut back so drastically by the federal government that it again is responded to by the HRD minister with threats.

All of us in the House have times when we have to sit in front of students who are saying, what about the funding for education? We have to say we are sorry but that is part of the $7 billion package that is being cut back.

I suggest that this is not an honest policy. The Liberals are saying they are committed to medicare and yet at the same time they are taking $7 billion out of health, CAP and education. It is just not honest.

The member for Nickel Belt brought up the issue of the forum. He speaks about having a frank and open dialogue with Canadians. What I am speaking to here specifically is that words can become walls because they can create a caricature.

It is the desire of the majority of the Liberal members to create a caricature. They are saying the Reform Party is opposed to medicare, is opposed to saving what the member for Nickel Belt has already said, that our health service has greatly contributed our wonderful quality of life. The status quo cannot be maintained and we are the only party in this House prepared to say that. Let us take a look at what the options are, as opposed to simply rolling back and pulling in the amount of money that is presently available.

The member for Nickel Belt asked the question, let us determine what is essential. What is essential? Are all medical services essential? In what situation is cosmetic surgery essential? In what situation is liposuction essential? In what situation is sex change surgery essential? There has to be a list saying what medical procedures are essential. What is going to be covered by the contributions of people paying taxes in Canada?

I would suggest with the greatest respect and honestly in honour of what the member for Parkdale-High Park had to say about his friend, we must bill before it is too late. I ask him and I ask all Liberals in the House to realize that they do not have a corner on wisdom. They do not have a corner on a desire to see health care maintained and enhanced. In fact, the Reform Party has a plan called medicare plus which opens up a whole new way of being able to get to the root problem. The status quo cannot be maintained. We must make changes and we are prepared to make suggestions for changes.

In summary, I respectfully request that the Liberals within the hearing of my voice today reconsider and realize that they do not have a corner on wisdom. Perhaps we, in the Reform Party, have a couple of ideas that are at least worthwhile considering.

Why will they not co-operate with us in getting into an open dialogue so that Canadians can have an opportunity to have input into this process so that truly we can build a sustainable health care system in Canada.

Indian Affairs November 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the minister may know that Mr. Wetelainen's father received $100,000 as part of this program. It is alleged that it came back to Mr. Wetelainen. This is a very serious matter.

I ask the minister one more time: Is he going to make a commitment today or can he inform the House that in fact there has been a criminal investigation of this matter commenced? If not, why not?

Indian Affairs November 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. He just finished speaking about the episode with the OMAA and said if these matters are true they will be investigated.

The House should know that the minister made a commitment on June 22 in public on Goldhawk that he was going to be investigating this issue. Has he investigated the issue, and what are the present results?

Department Of Health Act November 7th, 1995

I doubt it.