Lorne Nystrom

[Main Estimates, 2001-02, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, Mr. Romanow has been a friend of mine since 1967. I just spoke with him yesterday, and I am sure he will do an excellent job and make a valuable contribution like Mr. Emmett Hall did back in the 1960s.

[Main Estimates, 2001-02, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I did not say that the solution was to throw more money at it. We need more funding to sustain the system and make sure it is equalized across the country with national standards.

The Romanow commission is looking at ways of enhancing and making medicare more cost effective and beneficial for the Canadian people. There are efficiencies that I hope we can find to put into the system. However throwing more money into the system is not the answer, but we need enough money to make sure they system is sustainable in terms of the hospitals, salaries for doctors and nurses.

I think any independent analyst would say that the cutbacks were just too severe in 1995. It pushed many of the provinces deeper into debts and deficits. Many provinces closed hospitals and cut back on their systems. I think the government went too far at that particular time.

Part of the problem is extra federal funding, but part of the problem is making sure we are more efficient in terms of delivering a health care system.

[Main Estimates, 2001-02, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, my answer will be very short. I have nothing against paying down the debt. The debt has gone down from 71% of GDP to 55% of GDP, as the parliamentary secretary said. It is going down very rapidly.

I am talking about balance. There will be a tax cut of $100 billion over five years. There will be $21 or $22 billion going to health care and social services over five years, and a big hunk of money going to the national debt.

If we look at any poll, Canadians have said overwhelmingly that there is not a balance and that more money should go to health care, education, social services, infrastructure and the farm crisis. In other words, it should go into a people's agenda. That is the only place where I differ from the parliamentary secretary. It is a matter of priorities and balance.

[Main Estimates, 2001-02, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre who is the very eloquent spokesperson for the New Democratic Party on all matters concerning health care. I would not want to take more than half the time so that she has a chance to put our position on the record.

This is a very important debate we are having here this evening. I suppose there is nothing that defines us as Canadians in terms of our collective character and differentiates us from the Americans more than our national health care program. Canadians, when asked what they are proud of about Canada, will say many things but many of them point to health care and public health care is a very important part of that.

I want to say at the outset that I am very proud of the role my party historically played in terms of getting health care into the country. I remember the debates when I was a teenager. At that time there was the great doctors' strike in 1961 in Saskatchewan when health care came in. The premier at the time was the CCF premier, Woodrow Lloyd. The CCF of course was the predecessor of the New Democratic Party, the NDP. I remember the fear among a lot of people at that time when all the doctors in the province went on strike.

I remember the then leader of the opposition, Ross Thatcher, protesting that the legislature was not called back to deal with the issue. He actually kicked the doors of the legislature. In the political history of our province there is a very famous picture of the Liberal leader, who I would say was a very conservative Liberal leader, kicking the doors of the legislative assembly.

However, that was really the opening of the floodgates for national health care in the country. Not long after that we had the appointment by prime minister John Diefenbaker of the Hall commission under Emmett Hall. It recommended a national health care program based upon the Saskatchewan model, which was a publicly administered, single payer type of system in the province of Saskatchewan.

Under the prime ministership of Lester B. Pearson, and under Paul Martin Sr., who was a minister at that time, and through the pressure of Tommy Douglas and the NDP caucus in the House of Commons at that time, we finally got national medicare in the mid-1960s in Canada.

The Liberal Party first promised national medicare back in 1919. It took from 1919 until the mid-1960s to actually become a reality in the country. That is how slow these Liberals move, at a snail's pace or like molasses in January. It was the prodding and pushing and the role played by Saskatchewan that made this a very popular idea right across the country.

Finally the time came when the political support was there and the public opinion was there. The federal government finally moved, under what was a very progressive Liberal government under Lester B. Pearson, quite the contrary to what we have today. Today we have the most conservative Liberal government in the history of our country. I am sure we would all agree with that if we compare it to the governments of Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Trudeau. In many ways this government is more conservative than Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's Conservative government was between 1984 and 1993.

In the mid-1960s we finally got medicare in this country. We finally got a national program. We finally got a single payer system in this country that is now the envy of many people around the world.

What did the Liberal government do in its budget? In February 1995 it took an axe to medicare. It cut medicare and transfers to the provinces. It cut them so radically that every province in the country was suffering.

I am proud to say that the government of Roy Romanow, who is now head of the commission on medicare, was the only provincial government, contrary to what my friend in the Conservative Party said a few minutes ago, that backfilled dollar for dollar the loss of federal dollars from the provincial budget and the provincial caucus to maintain what we had in our province of Saskatchewan.

However, those cutbacks have hurt the system very severely. We had the health care accord of September 11, 2000, right before the election, which injected more federal money into health care, but even under that accord we are still well behind where we would have been if the cutbacks had not come in 1995.

Just three weeks ago we had a economic statement by the Minister of Finance. In that economic statement he announced that we had $15 billion in unexpected surplus in the country and that every penny of that surplus was applied to the national debt. If we had a system like some of the provinces do, where we had a special fund set up into which this surplus money would go, then those of us in parliament could have a national debate as to where that money should be allocated.

If we had polled the Canadian people as to whether or not they wanted all of that $15 billion put into the national debt or whether they wanted some of that put into health care, education, the farm crisis, infrastructure or the aboriginal problems in this country, I am sure that the Canadian people would overwhelmingly and massively have told us to spend a huge portion of that on the health care and educational problems the ordinary people of this country face. However, that did not happen. It did not happen because that is not the priority of the government across the way.

When it comes to debating the estimates, debating supply, it is very important for us to remind the government and the ministers across the way that they made a decision, first, to cut back radically on health care, putting many strains on the system and putting many parts of the country into crisis. Now, when we have the funds to do better, when we have this $15 billion surplus, the government chooses to put every single penny of that surplus to paying down the national debt. That is on top of announcing last fall before the election, in another economic statement, that there would be tax cuts of $100 billion for the Canadian people, many of those tax cuts helping wealthy people and the big corporations of this country that do not need those cuts.

Again, a large percentage of that money should have been spent in health care and education and on the human deficit in this country. In 1995 when those cutbacks were made, when people fought against the deficit that had been run up, mainly by the Tories, by accepting the cutbacks in the social programs, there was the creation of a human deficit in Canada. Now that we have some fiscal dividends it is the people of this country who should reap some of those benefits through health care programs, education and social services as we fight and combat this human deficit.

The two biggest failures of the government across the way are the environmental record of this country and the gap between the rich and the poor, which is once again growing instead of narrowing. A large part of that is due to the cutbacks in social programs in Canada and health care is a very important one.

Where do we go from here? I think we have a very good system. We have a very important system. We have a system that many Americans would like to see emulated in that country. Some 40 million Americans are not covered by health care or medicare at all. We have a system that is based on the concept of a single payer, that is, the provincial governments, with the help of the federal government, pay the health care bills in the country.

There is the system of public administration. In that system of public administration we know there is some flexibility in terms of some things being private. Hospitals will sometimes privatize or contract out the food service, the catering service, the laundry service or some other services. However, it is important within that context that everything be publicly administered.

Unlike the member from the Canadian Alliance in Alberta, to me this debate is not irrelevant in terms of public versus private. It is extremely important that we keep a public system, a single fare system and have it publicly administered on behalf of every Canadian. If we do not, we will create a chequerboard health care system with the richer provinces having a better system than the poorer provinces. We could end up like some countries in the world, such as the United States, where wealthier people, because of the thickness of their pocketbooks, have access to a better health system than the ordinary citizens.

It is extremely important that we keep that system publicly administered in a single tier system for every Canadian.

We also have to develop a pharmacare program so that the price of pharmaceutical goods and drugs is not a deterrent for people when combating an illness. We also need a good home care program. In both these cases the federal government should provide some leadership.

I conclude by saying we have to maintain national standards for home care, for daycare and pharmaceutical care. Within those national standards we have to have the flexibility of the administration of a system by each province that fits their unique characteristics.

[Main Estimates, 2001-02, June 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I have a very quick question for my colleague in the Alliance Party.

Where does his party stand on some of the controversial issues such as deterrent fees and user fees? What role should the federal government take to make sure those things do not happen in Canada? Is he in favour of national standards for health care whereby we are treated the same from coast to coast to coast?

He is from Alberta where there was the experience of bill 11 and all the protests in his province. It would be interesting to know where he stands on some of those issues.

[Points Of Order, June 12th, 2001]

It almost happened in 1984.

[Summit Of The Americas, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It has now been about two months since the FTAA conference in Quebec City. I recall the Minister for International Trade saying on a number of occasions that he wanted to release the text of the FTAA.

Where is that text? When will he release it to the Canadian people? The people of this country have a right to know what is in the agreement.

[Transportation, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if someone has stolen the Minister of Finance's tongue today. He is not responding to questions.

I will ask him again. Every year the Minister of Finance collects some $5 billion on excise taxes and GST from gasoline and diesel fuel and yet puts very little of it back into public transit in Canada, which reduces smog and is good for the environment.

Will the Minister of Finance now initiate a tax credit or tax exemption on public transit passes, which would be great for the environment? Why does he not show that leadership and show it now?

[Transportation, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Canada is the only industrial country in the world where the national government has not made a serious financial contribution to public transit. Under its transportation equity act in the United States, the federal government there is now contributing some $10 billion Canadian per year to public transit.

Will the Minister of Finance now follow the lead in the United States and make a substantial contribution to public transit in this country? He has had seven long years to show some leadership. Will he show leadership on this issue now?

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will say a couple of words at this stage of the debate about immigration and Bill C-11 that is before the House today.

Our party, through our critic from Winnipeg North Centre, has moved at the committee stage some 80 amendments to the bill. I will make a couple of general comments and observations about the bill.

We have somehow along the way lost our vision in terms of immigration and the value of immigration to this great land of Canada. Many of us in the House are either immigrants or sons or daughters of immigrants. My father emigrated from Sweden in 1910. My mother's parents both came from Britain at roughly the same time. I am a first generation Canadian on my father's side and a second generation Canadian on my mother's side.

Saskatchewan is a tremendous province that has been settled by immigrants. A lot of people from the Ukraine, Russia, Germany and many countries around the world came to Saskatchewan and founded the province in 1905. In doing so they joined with the first nations and Metis people who were there well before the Europeans and people from other lands came.

During those days, following the great national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier talked about the value of immigration and how we had to bring in skilled people from all over the world to build this great country with its vast regions, vast resources and lack of population.

We had that vision of the country for 50 to 80 years. We welcomed immigration as much as possible and tried to build this great mosaic of people from many lands and cultures along with our two great languages and first nations people. That was the whole vision of the country.

I remember the Trudeau years in the House of Commons. I was elected in 1968 when this vision was recharged. It started recharging during the Pearson years from 1963 to 1968. The vision was about what the country could be in terms of bringing in immigrants. The Official Languages Act, which was enshrined in our constitution, established the two official languages of Canada. In 1982 the charter of rights and freedoms enshrined in our constitution multiculturalism, which was a reflection of those who came or whose ancestors came from other lands; languages; and the rights of first nations people. These included treaty rights and a reference to the Metis people.

That was the whole dream, to create this big cultural mosaic. Canada became like a pearl necklace with all these beautiful pearls, all of them a bit different and all of them connected to form this great country of Canada.

Somehow during the Mulroney years and then continuing on through the most recent government, this dream and this vision seems to have been tightened up. We seem to be looking at obstacles to uniting families and bringing skilled people into the country.

During the committee stage our critic, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, moved several amendments to try to recreate the vision and the dream, which is what the bill was supposed to be. It was supposed to an overhaul and a revamping of the Immigration Act. We in our party believe it has fallen far short of doing that. Before the bill becomes law, we encourage the government to seriously consider taking a look at some amendments that would once again make our country more visionary in terms of immigration.

I would like to give the House a couple of examples. What we see in the legislation is the continuation of a landing and administration fee commonly referred to as the head tax. This is something that is repugnant in a modern day society and in fact came in a number of years ago because it was not part of our general practice in terms of immigration in Canada. The bill does not address the issue of a head tax and it should when we are talking about a major revamping of immigration laws.

There is a failure in the bill to expand the family class category. This is one of the amendments suggested by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre that would expand the family class category to include an immigrant's immediate family, such as brothers, sisters and grandparents.

This is particularly important when we look at provinces like Saskatchewan or Manitoba which have populations of slightly over one million people apiece. When immigrants come to Canada they tend to go to the larger centres, such as Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, and, to a lesser extent, to places like Ottawa. It is more difficult to get people to go to Saskatchewan or Manitoba. However, by changing the family class category it would be easier through family unification to get immigrants into smaller towns in rural Canada and to provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Atlantic provinces and so on. This was a suggestion made by our party and we believe these are some of the things that should be done.

The United States, Australia and in some cases western Europe are winning the battle to get more highly skilled and educated immigrants into their countries. We should look at being more aggressive in terms of getting more highly skilled and trained people into Canada because it would have a direct impact on our economy.

Canada is the third largest country in the world and yet its 30 million people are spread over various parts of the country. Canada is a country with vast resources and reserves that could be spent bringing in more people from around the world and creating a more dynamic and exciting country in the process.

Canada has the greatest potential in the world. It is still ranked number one by the United Nations. We should not be hesitant in revising the Immigration Act to ensure that we bring in more highly skilled immigrants and unify families. We should get rid of the head tax and all kinds of discrimination based on economics or whatever and create a great mosaic.

I spent much of last weekend in Regina going to what is an annual tradition in that city. It is called a cultural mosaic. This year there were some 17 pavilions celebrating the heritage of people from places like China, the Philippines, Hungary, Ukraine, Austria and Germany. There was also a francophone and first nations pavilion. This has become an event with tens of thousands of people lining the streets waiting to go into the pavilions to taste the traditional foods of these countries.

On Saturday night I could not even get near the Ukrainian pavilion because it was so popular. People were lined up around the block. There were hundreds of cars containing people who wanted to see the shows, the dancing and the traditions as well as looking at souvenirs from these countries.

This event has worked well in bringing people together in a celebration of a great cultural mosaic that Canada really is. This cultural mosaic has made us more tolerant as a nation in terms of preserving our two official languages and in terms of enshrining some rights for first nations and Metis people in Canada.

I urge the government to be a bit more generous in terms of the legislation and the proposed amendments.

In conclusion I would like to make reference to Alex Kuziak who is over 90 years old and lives in Yorkton. He was the first Canadian of Ukrainian descent to be a member of a cabinet in Canada. He was a member of the CCF cabinet of Tommy Douglas back in 1948 in the province of Saskatchewan.

I was here in 1969 when that act came in and there was a great division in the country over it. Mr. Kuziak was a very strong supporter of the Official Languages Act. What he said to me has always remained in my mind. He said that because our country was more tolerant of diversity and was open in terms of immigration of people from all lands, it made us more tolerant in other ways as well, including recognizing that Canada has two official languages.

There is a lot of wisdom in Alex Kuziak's words. He referred to diversity and how it made us a more tolerant, loving and caring nation in terms of how we treat all peoples from all over the world.