Debates of March 10th, 2005

Foreign Credential Recognition Program

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for her intervention and explanation of some of the difficulties with a lengthy amendment. It was read and the vote will be deferred until Wednesday, March 23, when we come back after the next break week. Therefore all parties will have time to consider it. It is not out of order to do it this way but I agree that it is unusual.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the amended version of the motion was provided to the whips of all parties earlier this afternoon but I do not know if the whips forwarded it on to all MPs. As far as we know it was provided to the Bloc Québécois because I spoke to the whip of the Bloc Québécois.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Again, just to be clear, procedurally everything was followed in order. Information does not need to be given to whips or to anyone ahead of time. Anyone can propose an amendment. It was proposed and it was done in order. My best advice, however, in private members' business especially, is to ensure the information is fully shared ahead of time so problems do not result.

Because of the standing orders, this vote has been deferred until March 23 and at that time we will have a standing vote to decide whether that amendment should actually pass.

However I do urge all members in private members' business to consult broadly when large amendments such as this take place because it does make it confusing for all members to try to follow the intent of the mover and the amendment.

The time for private members' business has expired.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, on behalf of the constituents of Prince Albert, to speak to the matter of equalization.

Prior to the last election campaign the Prime Minister made a very major commitment to the province of Saskatchewan and western Canadians. He said that since 1867 there has been a perception that Ottawa has too often favoured parts of eastern Canada while ignoring the interests of western Canada.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister said that there was a good deal of reality to this sort of perception. He promised that under his administration this matter would be addressed, that this would not happen under his new government. He basically said that if he could not address that perception and that reality in western Canada, he would see himself as a failure as a Prime Minister. He went on to say that he would literally move heaven and hell to make sure that western Canadians felt that they were being treated fairly in this Confederation of Canada.

The Prime Minister recently eliminated the energy revenues from oil and gas from the equalization formula for two Atlantic provinces, the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. I am not critical of that. I think many commentators have said that non-renewable resources should be removed from that formula because it causes more problems than it helps.

The unfortunate part of that decision is that the Prime Minister is dealing with a national program. That promise was made in Newfoundland. It was made in respect to a national program, equalization. It was made in the heat of an election campaign. When he made that promise he was not only making that promise to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, he was making that commitment and promise to every Canadian and every province in the country.

What did the Prime Minister do after the election? He did the very thing for which he was critical. He made a change to a program that addressed a concern in the eastern part of the country while ignoring any sense of justice by applying the same principle to provinces in western Canada, in particular, the province of Saskatchewan. This is a serious injustice.

This is what an independent commentator had to say on the question of equalization. Tom Courchene, a professor in Ontario, said that the formula has had an absolutely brutal effect on the province of Saskatchewan. He said that it has the effect of actually making Saskatchewan poorer. Let me give an illustration. When Saskatchewan receives a dollar from light crude oil, it actually loses $1.20 in equalization payments. Theoretically, the province would be better off shutting off the taps and not producing oil and gas.

It is a very punitive type of formula and it is most unfortunate. When we compare the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan over a 10 year period, we see that the annual difference in equalization payments between those two provinces is $800 million, and Manitoba, by all objective indicators, has a higher fiscal capacity than Saskatchewan. The cumulative effect on Saskatchewan is terrible. It is very unfair and the Prime Minister has broken another promise.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, equalization tries to measure fiscal capacity among a variety of provinces so that reasonably comparable public services can be provided from province to province so that Canadians have some form of equal access.

The natural resource revenues for Saskatchewan are about 16% of Saskatchewan's revenues to be equalized and impact heavily on its level of entitlements. In recent years Saskatchewan's financial capacity has benefited in particular from the strong rise in energy prices. This has resulted in lower equalization entitlements even to no equalization in 2003-04 and hence has made Saskatchewan a have province.

In one of the annexes to the budget, the last time Saskatchewan was in a deficit was in 1993-94. Its deficit at that time was $272 million. When we became the government in 1993 the federal deficit was $42 billion. As I understand it, in 11 budgets in a row Saskatchewan has actually been in a positive frame. In the last one, which is 2004-05, the number is $289 million to the positive. Saskatchewan's turnaround has been quite substantial.

I should note that one of the features of the equalization program is a floor that protects the provinces from a large annual decline which has been a response by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to the very issue the member raises, which is the fluctuation in the amount. Sometimes it fluctuates up and sometimes it fluctuates down.

Effectively the Government of Canada has bought the risk for equalization receiving provinces so that going forward they can know that their equalization floor is assured and that they can reasonably anticipate something in the order of 3.5% on an annual basis going forward for the next 10 years. That is something that Saskatchewan, assuming that it possibly slips back into a have not status, will benefit from, but as I say Saskatchewan at this stage is a have province.

The new equalization framework has set out Saskatchewan's entitlements for 2004-05 and 2005-06. Let me point out that its revenues from natural resources keep increasing. According to the latest estimates, non-renewable resource revenue is forecast to reach $1.4 billion in 2004-05, nearly twice the $700 million figure projected in the 2004 budget.

At this point Saskatchewan has been compensated for its crown leases which is something in the order of $120 million. As well, under the new framework it has additional equalization funding for 2004-05 which will bring the overall level of entitlements up to $10 billion. Of that, Saskatchewan's share will be $652 million. Therefore, $652 million plus the $120 million will be a significant sum. It is a shot in the arm to the fiscal capacity of the province of Saskatchewan.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said something that is correct. The equalization formula should measure fiscal capacity.

In this current year Manitoba is receiving $1.4 billion in equalization payments and Saskatchewan is getting $77 million. I am sure he can understand the huge disparity between them.

When we look at per capita income, Manitoba is $1,500 higher than Saskatchewan. The average family of four gets basically $6,000 more in income. Next year the growth is projected to be $1.6 billion in equalization payments for Manitoba. For Saskatchewan it is $88 million. Both of those provinces have about a million people. By most indicators Manitoba is slightly higher than Saskatchewan and has a better fiscal capacity than Saskatchewan has.

There is something seriously wrong with that formula. I wish the minister and the parliamentary secretary would understand the essential flaws in putting so much emphasis on non-renewable resources.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians can play these endless games of “I am more prosperous than you are”, and essentially that is what it boils down to, but I draw the hon. member's attention again to the annex in the budget. It does compare Manitoba and Saskatchewan over that period of time.

In 1993-94 Manitoba was running $431 million in a deficit position as opposed to Saskatchewan's $272 million in a deficit position. Since then, it has relatively run a parallel course, although at this stage Manitoba's surplus in 2004-05 will be $11 million whereas Saskatchewan's surplus will be $289 million.

For the purposes of equalization, clearly Saskatchewan is a have province. I do not know the formula well enough to say on the floor of the House of Commons whether Manitoba is about to become a have province.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in December I asked the Minister of Health what he would do about the doctor shortage in Canada. According to a Fraser Institute report, the shortage of doctors has increased exponentially since 1993, interestingly enough since the Liberals took office. When I asked the minister this question, he avoided a direct answer. Under the Liberal government, we have seen nothing but incompetence.

We just heard a Liberal backbencher bring forward a motion to have the credentials of foreign-trained professionals dealt with in a more timely manner. That is from a Liberal, and now we see this throughout the system. There is a crisis in our health care system for human resources, particularly doctors and specialists.

At the time there was a big issue about the fact that the government seemed to have no problem letting strippers into the country, but made it difficult for doctors to come to Canada. The few doctors who do make it into the country cannot get their credentials to practise the profession. This is one of the issues causing a major crisis in our health care system, and it is acknowledged by a member of the Liberal party.

The minister talks about it. Previous Liberal ministers have talked about this issue, and nothing has happened. The crisis has expanded under Liberal governance.

I would like to point out that the Liberals cut $25 billion out of the health care system in 1995. It is the Liberal government that is responsible for the health care crisis we have today. Now we hear that it is putting some moneys in from the health accord and that this will be done over the next 10 years, et cetera. However, let us not forget that the Liberal government caused the crisis in the first place.

The fact that the Liberals have refused to deal with this issue has caused a lot of suffering for many people in Canada. The fact that the Liberals chose to let in strippers rather than doctors suggests the government does not have its priorities straight.

When will the Liberals get their act together? We just a few minutes ago we heard from a Liberal backbencher that the government was not acting fast enough. That is not a surprise to Canadians. What will the government do to ensure that we have proper doctors and specialists to serve the public?

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think strippers and doctors are comparable in terms of the training that is required. If the hon. member thinks about that for a few minutes, he will realize that we are not talking about the same kinds of people.

There is no magic here in the response to the hon. member. It takes a long time to train a doctor. It takes a long time to train nurses, psychologists, pharmacists, and a variety of other people who populate our health care system.

Yes, we are arriving at a demographic crunch where the population is aging, including the currently trained professionals. We are faced with a situation where the demographic is going to drive new training and more inventive ways of dealing with those who have foreign credentials.

The member for Brampton—Springdale is right on the mark in the motion that she brought forward. In some respects, it is very complementary to what the government is doing. In the 2003 accord the government put up $85 million for this very issue that is of interest to the hon. member. We would anticipate the use of that money by the provinces for the purposes of training, in part, in anticipation that we will meet the so-called crunch that is coming forward.

However, members will recollect as well that in the negotiations between the premiers and the Prime Minister, there was a wait times reduction strategy put in place. That was $4.25 billion.

The hon. member would have enjoyed the conversation we had at the Senate hearing yesterday where we talked about this very issue, about how these moneys would be used, and in what manner they would be used. However, as soon as this bill receives royal assent, $4.25 billion will be available to the provinces, in part, for the very purpose that the hon. member thinks is appropriate. Thereafter, the sum of $250 million will be made available for every year after that five year period. So each province will draw its money as it sees fit.

In theory, there is no reason why, on the day after royal assent is received, a province could not draw down its share of the money to be used, in part at least, for the very issue that the hon. member wishes it to be used for.

However, members should bear in mind we also have something of a jurisdictional issue here as well because the Government of Canada does not train doctors. The Government of Canada does not train nurses or pharmacists. We simply, at its simplest form, put up a portion of the money, not all of the money, I would not argue with that, for the medical health care system. Clearly, nurses and doctors are best positioned to draw that money down and hopefully to respond to the concerns that the hon. member raised.

There are a number of challenges facing foreign-educated health care professionals entering the workforce. I am told that in this graduating year, and I cannot verify this, there are in fact more foreign-trained foreign-credential doctors graduating than are native born Canadians. We certainly recognize, on this side of this House, that we do not need to waste scarce human resources. We have too many people who are taxi drivers who have degrees in mathematics, physics and medicine.

If the hon. member gives some thought to it, he will find that the government is in fact working creatively toward a solution to his question.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that this member says the government does not do this or cannot do that. The fact is that the federal government should lead and leading is what this government is not doing. If proper policies were implemented and proper leadership was shown, this problem would have been anticipated and dealt with appropriately.

The member is right that strippers and doctors are different people with different skill sets. However, it seems that this government has been focusing on letting strippers into the country rather than dealing with training foreign doctors and allowing more doctors from other countries to come into Canada. That is a matter of record. Canadians know this. This government has not shown the appropriate policy approach.

I guess the only hope for Canada is to have a Conservative government because the Conservatives know how to plan. This government obviously does not.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of things about strippers in my time, but a skill set was not exactly one of the things that comes to mind immediately.

The member asks about a plan. If he read our platform, he would see the plan. If he read the Speech from the Throne, he would see the plan. If he read the budget, he would see the plan. If he followed the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the premiers in September and October, he would see the implementation of the plan.

I made reference to the $4.25 billion which really ramps up over 10 years to $5.5 billion in terms of a wait times reduction fund, but that is only part of the story. It is in fact a substantial increase to a base amount of $19 billion over the next two years to bring it up to the so-called Romanow gap. That money is available in part for the very issue that the hon. member wishes.

The government has responded with a very detailed plan and has put its money where its mouth is.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:43 p.m.)