House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2011, with 38% of the vote.
Petitions March 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by thousands of grandparents from throughout southern Ontario.
The petitioners request that parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision, as supported by Bill C-340, regarding the right of spousal parents, grandparents, to have access to or custody of the child or children.
Sons Of Italy March 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, founded in 1905, the Sons of Italy have been a vital cog in the Canadian dynamic. Several chapters are in Ottawa today from disparate parts of the country to celebrate the achievements of Canada and to recognize the participation of Italian Canadians in the development of the country.
Italian adventurers and entrepreneurs accompanied voyageurs in the 17th century, fought alongside Montcalm and Vaudreuil in the 18th century, and in the 19th and 20th century Italian Canadian settlers immersed themselves in the agricultural, mining, forestry and transportation industries in emerging Vancouver, Trail, Canmore, Calgary, Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal, Sydney and elsewhere.
Their descendants have become respected entrepreneurs, professionals, academics, jurists, doctors, politicians—leaders in strengthening the fabric of Canadian society. Their Canadian experience has always been marked by a sense of personal responsibility, sacrifice, self-reliance and civic duty, no matter the challenge or the hostility.
I join all colleagues today in saluting the representatives of the Sons of Italy, some of Canada's most valuable, dedicated and energetic pioneers.
Health Care March 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, this past week Reform members have had the unbelievable gall to suggest in the House that the government is less than fully committed to Canada's publicly funded health care system. Reform must be thinking of its own pathetic history when it comes to health care.
Let us examine for a quick moment the record to see which party has been demanding that Canada adopt the two tier American style commercialized health care system. Which party's most recent policy book calls for “the complete rearrangement of the costs of health care insurance, such as basic deductibles, medisave accounts, choice of insurance coverage, and complete coverage for catastrophic illness”? Reform of course. Which party's leader has said that “we want to remove those sections of the Canada Health Act that deny provinces the flexibility to require some Canadians to pay at least a portion of their health costs”? Reform.
The Budget February 18th, 1999
So where were our colleagues from Quebec? They were there in cabinet, still asking for a lot of money for Quebec, as Canadians. That is where they were.
The Budget February 18th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I am really surprised. I am almost upset that the Quebec members are not prepared to admit that we are going to give Quebec $1.4 billion today—
The Budget February 18th, 1999
Madam Speaker, what the hon. member really meant was, do I take any pride at all in the fact that a Liberal government could get the provinces together, including the NDP provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, and at the same time Ontario, and get them to agree that we needed to establish fiscal responsibility and give them in return complete control over a budget that involved health and give them the opportunity to administer those funds as they see fit? Should I take pride in the fact that my government is capable of meeting the priorities of Canadians by working with provincial governments of all political stripes? The member might be surprised. My answer is yes.
The Budget February 18th, 1999
It exceeds their wildest dreams. Wake up. Look at the numbers. Call the universities. Call the doctors.
Members opposite should ask their own physicians face to face if they are doing something with $550 million additional moneys for health and they will tell them yes. Ask them if this is money well spent and they will tell them yes. And if they then ask them shall we cut more taxes, they will say no. Why? Because the money that we spend this way collectively brings us greater results. Greater results where? In meeting the priorities of all Canadians, all men, women and children of all ages from all provinces.
If we are going to meet the priorities of Canadians everywhere, not only do we do this, but we take a look at the information system. That is at the base of making evidence based decisions which will lead to better administrative systems in health, which will lead to better outcomes, which will lead to more research, which will lead to services that will produce the healthy society Canadians demand, need and want.
We are going to spend $328 million in that area, and the opposition asks “Why? It might infringe on somebody else's jurisdiction”. Wake up. The people in the other jurisdiction found out two weeks ago and said they wanted us to do this, they needed us to do this and in fact they demanded that we do it. Did we meet their demands? Of course we met their demands.
First nations everywhere have been at a disadvantage. All members on this side of the House recognize that. Some members on the other side are willing to admit that maybe a problem exists. But our cabinet reacted to reality and said yes there are problems, let us address them. How can we do it? We have already put a mechanism in place. Can we put the money there? Shall we find it? How much do we find? How much did the Prime Minister and cabinet find? What did the health minister look for? He looked for and saw $190 million over three years to ensure that we meet the health needs of all aboriginal communities. The opposition said no, we should not do that.
I do not understand those people any more, I really do not. They say that there are other issues. There are other issues and the government has been looking, it has been researching and it has been listening. That is a good word. Some hon. members might look up. It has been listening to the Canadian public. It says we need to spend an additional $287 million for prenatal nutrition programs, for food safety, for environmental safety, for rural health and for diabetes.
I ask all colleagues in this place, is that money well spent or not?
The Budget February 18th, 1999
The hon. member is absolutely correct. He has just proven that in politics one has to raise one's voice enough to wake the dead. Stones must hear the good message. I am glad that the stones opposite have also heard that the number is $3.5 billion today. It is an additional $8 billion over the next five years. That is much more than anybody had anticipated.
Yet what have we heard? The opposition said we took out $20 billion. That number was only $16 billion two weeks ago, and two weeks before that, it was only $6 billion. The amount of money that has been withdrawn has been growing exponentially as the opposition has seen the government meet the priorities of Canadians head on.
The Canadian government, through its finance minister, through its health minister, through the other cabinet colleagues, in co-operation with the provincial premiers of this vast nation has struck an agreement that would also ensure that those moneys would go directly to the citizenry. None of this bureaucratic in between let us manipulate this ministry hideaway. None of that sort of business. The business of the health of Canadians was going to be met by every single province.
Not only that, they agreed that the federal government ought to spend and in fact is spending an additional $1.4 billion. I cannot count that high but I can spell the number. It is a lot more than a million, $1.4 billion directly in health outcomes. What are they? This is what the opposition is lamenting. That is why I say it seems like this dark cloud is avoiding the silver lining. For health, research and development in the basic sciences, $550 million. Whether they choose to appreciate that or not, there is not a person in the basic science research and development community who does not think that this exceeds their wildest dreams.
The Budget February 18th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I paid careful attention to the budget debate on the monitor in my office and when I was in the House.
I do not mean to make light of interventions that colleagues make. I know they are studied and I know they are very sincere but I often think of dark clouds looking for that silver lining so that they can avoid it.
That in essence is the substance of the debates that I have heard from the opposition side so far.
I am especially struck by the desire to manipulate two contrary views, especially by one party opposite. On the one hand, the critic for health turns around and says that there are two words to describe what the contributions are and they are “not enough”. Then his colleague over to his right—and I mean that figuratively as well as geographically—turns around and says that we did not cut enough taxes and we did not take out more from that spending.
I do not know what it is that they want to do, but I want to remind colleagues that the Canadian public has been telling all members of parliament on that side as well as on this side that its priorities for government spending, government activity and government involvement in the life of all Canadians has had to be involvement in a health care system, a health care system that is at least from the federal government's perspective, constrained by what it can do jurisdictionally.
Canadians have asked all of us parliamentarians to look for solutions to ensure that the priorities of all Canadians, and again health is the number one priority of every man, woman and child in this country, be given the same status when we fulfil the most basic, the most important and the most significant functions of all parliamentarians in this House and that is to set a budget that establishes those priorities.
What do we have? People are whining that we are spending too much and doing too much to meet the demands and needs of Canadians everywhere. People have been saying that we have problems with our health system, notwithstanding the fact that in agreements with the provinces in the past we provided sustainable, predictable continuous funding. We gave the provinces the authority to go ahead and do what they would in establishing health priorities through their administrations. We moved back.
Notwithstanding that, the Canadian government recognized that it had to do something more directly for Canadians. In collaboration with the provinces, it struck a deal a couple of weeks ago, a social union. It is a reflection of the ability to work together with other jurisdictions. To do what? To meet the priorities of Canadians. In what area? In health. What were they looking for? Some said $2 billion would be more than enough to meet all the immediate needs. But no, the Government of Canada and the finance minister said we would give $3.5 billion today to meet the urgent and critical needs in health care.
What does the opposition say? “Not enough. It didn't go to my province. My province didn't get what it wanted”. Guess what? Wake up. The Canadian public got what it wanted, in fact it got more. Not only did it take the $3.5 billion—
Health And Safety February 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.
Last night a TV program highlighted bunk beds, the safety of their use and potential dangers inherent in their manufacture. I was surprised to learn that there does not appear to be any regulations governing their design and construction.
Is the department preparing measures to correct the problems so that parents can be assured of the safety of the use of this product for their children?