Lorne Nystrom

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, those are typical Liberal tactics. That is why I speak so much about reforming the parliamentary electoral system so people can have input, so there is proper debate and proper participation in how we spend the money that belongs to the taxpayers of the country.

When we debate an issue of importance like health care for a few minutes, they get upset because we are going to stall things. That is the same party, by the way, that has promised a home care system and pharmacare in this country. Where is pharmacare? Where is home care? We should be raising those questions in the debate today.

I remember my grandfather telling me years ago that the Liberal Party promised medicare in 1919 and fought for it. It did not come in until the 1960s. It only came in after it was started in Saskatchewan under the leadership of the CCF and Tommy Douglas. Can we believe the Liberal Party? That is its track record.

We need serious parliamentary reform in this country so we can hold ministers accountable, so we can have proper debates and so the people of the country can have their voices heard. If we do not do that we will find ourselves sleepwalking right into a crisis in democracy. We are seeing that today with the snap election call coming on Sunday by the Prime Minister. We are seeing it in the way he brought Brian Tobin, the premier of Newfoundland, into cabinet without a seat in the House of Commons. That is really shameful and cynical political behaviour on the behalf of the Prime Minister of Canada.

We know it is a fact that the Liberal Party does not want this election campaign. The cabinet has been advising against it. The caucus has advised against it. The Liberals' own pollsters advised against it and yet the Prime Minister is trigger happy and wants to call an election campaign. Is that democracy? Is that the kind of system where we have checks and balances, where ordinary people's voices can be heard, where people are empowered and where we have a democratic system? Should one man be able to call an election whenever he wants regardless of what is happening in the country and regardless of what bills are before the House of Commons? My answer to that is no.

We have a country where the Prime Minister appoints the head of the army, the head of the police, the head of the supreme court, all the justices, all the senators, all the cabinet ministers and makes every major appointment in government without any proper checks and balances by the House of Commons. This is something that should be changed. We need a political system that is democratic and that empowers people.

Finally, we need a change in the electoral system to bring in a measure for proportionate representation where everybody's vote counts and votes are not wasted. That is the kind of agenda we need in this country.

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, did I hear the parliamentary secretary correctly? Did he say that in the next few days we will have 30 more MRIs in the province of Saskatchewan? Is it a commitment on behalf of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance that in the next few days there will be 30 more MRIs? If that is the commitment, would he please get up and tell us that is a commitment by the Government of Canada. If it is not a commitment, then why does he say it?

He is complaining that I spoke for about eight or nine minutes in the House of Commons. The government could have put money into the health care system in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000. However, the government cut back its funding of the health care system by billions and billions of dollars making people suffer and making sure that hospitals closed from coast to coast in this country. Now he complains that we speak for 10 or 20 minutes in the House of Commons. Where is his common sense?

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the bill before the House today, the bill that is putting more money back into health care. I want to state the obvious, which is that even with the additional money, we will still not be back to the levels we would have been at if the government had not touched the bill in the first place back in 1995 in the budget of the Minister of Finance.

When the history of this period is written, we will find that there has been no government that has taken as much money out of social programs, particularly health care, as the conservative government across the way. I say conservative because it is more conservative than the Conservative government was when it comes to restricting programs for people.

Now of course we have an election campaign that is about to be announced. The Prime Minister will drop the writ this weekend for November 27. One wonders what that campaign is all about.

I think this campaign is more about the Prime Minister's fear of the Minister of Finance than his fear of the opposition parties. He is afraid of the Minister of Finance and afraid of a rebellion on the backbenches of the Liberal Party.

Here is a government whose cabinet has recommended no election this fall. Here is a government whose caucus recommends no election this fall. Here is a government whose pollster has recommended no election this fall. Here is a government that knows the Canadian people do not want to waste $100 million to $200 million on an election campaign this fall. Here is a government that is only three years and a few months into its mandate.

Here is a government that does not want a campaign, but there is a Prime Minister who wants a campaign because he is afraid of the Minister of Finance and a rebellion in the backbenches of the Liberal Party. That is what politics has been reduced to.

I wanted to say those words in the debate today because the Prime Minister has been trying to fast track absolutely everything so that he can drop the writ come Sunday of this particular week.

Some of my friends in the Liberal Party—and there is one behind the curtain now—are quite embarrassed by the Prime Minister in terms of how he is trying to engineer an election for his own purposes because of his fear of the Minister of Finance.

The Prime Minister of course is bringing in the premier of Newfoundland to be a minister in the government. The premier of Newfoundland is not a member of parliament and, God help us, not even a member of the other place, the Senate.

The Prime Minister is setting a really dangerous precedent. He did this with the minister for trade and the minister for intergovernmental affairs a few years ago. He put them in the cabinet and called a byelection to get them elected. They were not even members of parliament but were given cabinet positions. The same thing has happened with the premier of Newfoundland. He has been put in cabinet and is not a member of parliament.

The last time I remember that happening before this Prime Minister was back in the days when, I believe, the leader of the today's Conservative Party brought in a fellow named René de Cotret and put him in the cabinet. He later ran in Ottawa Centre. I think it also happened when former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau appointed Pierre Juneau way back in the 1970s or early 1980s.

Here we have a Prime Minister in the modern age taking someone who is not elected. He has done it three times. He is setting a very dangerous precedent by putting three people in cabinet with no election, without going to the people. I do not think that should be done. If someone wants to serve in the cabinet, he or she should be elected to the Parliament of Canada. The Prime Minister has not done that.

We should have a very healthy debate about all these issues. They are all very important. I believe we should have set election dates. We should have elections every four years unless the government falls on a confidence vote. We should have a set parliamentary timetable with a set time for a throne speech, a budget and a beginning and an end to a session so that the Prime Minister cannot manipulate the timetable for his own partisan political differences.

Some of the people most frustrated with this are the Liberal backbenchers themselves. When they walk out of the House they tell me how frustrated they are with a Prime Minister who runs a one man show with the support of one or two ministers and a few bureaucrats in his office, including one of my friends who I see across the House here today.

The system has to change. We need a government and a parliament that listens to the people of Canada. If we had that we would not have had the big cutbacks in health care in 1995 to begin with.

There are Liberals hanging their heads in shame. Their government has cut absolutely billions of dollars out of health care. They were a bunch of nervous nellies who were afraid of a Leader of the Opposition at that time who was advocating massive cutbacks in health care and in social programs. The Liberals cut back more than any other government in the history of Canada. They should be very embarrassed by their government's position.

Someone across the way said that it would be a dinosaur who would advocate more money for health care. I do not know where some of those Liberals have been but they should talk to the ordinary people in this country. Canadians want an investment into programs for people. They want the social deficit eliminated. They want the opportunity to have health care regardless of their incomes. Those are the things Canadians want but the government is cutting back on them.

Health care came into this country through a courageous fight many years ago waged by people in Saskatchewan. It began back in the 1940s with hospitalization and in the 1960s with health care. It was people like Tommy Douglas who brought health care into the country.

If we look at the Canadian population we will find that there is no program as popular in Canada as health care, yet we have Liberals across the way laughing about it, saying that it is an old-fashioned thing, that it is out of touch, a thing of the dinosaurs. I wish they would get up in the House and say that publicly rather than just heckling.

Last week I was talking with a number of people in the inner city of Regina who were very concerned about losing health care. They were very concerned about the government's massive cutbacks in all social programs. They were concerned about the government putting all the money on paying down the national debt while forgetting to invest in people and paying off the social deficit.

Where are the great progressive Liberals, those great left wing Liberals who used to stand in the House and advocate programs for people, advocate the redistribution of income and wealth in the country, advocate a vision of a country that is based on sharing, co-operation and greater equality? Now they seem to be Alliance people in a hurry. There is not much difference between the two parties in terms of their tax programs, paying down the national debt and forgetting about the fact that we need money and programs for the people.

There will be a choice in the election that is coming up. There will be a couple of different visions in the election. There are two parties, the Alliance and the Liberals, that share a very similar vision as to how they want to organize the economy. There is an argument as to whether or not they should put more money into the debt and deficit or put more money into helping wealthy people pay down their taxes.

The Alliance Party has a 17% flat tax that it is advocating in its second term, a flat tax that would be a big cutback for millionaires in the country. How much different is the Minister of Finance? A lot of his tax breaks have put a lot more money into the pockets of wealthy people in Canada as well.

I want to point out to the Canadian people that the Liberal Party across the way will leave a legacy of being the most conservative government in our post-war history: more conservative than the government of John Diefenbaker, more conservative than the government of Brian Mulroney and certainly more conservative than the governments of Pierre Trudeau and Lester Pearson.

[Veterans Affairs, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Earlier this year the minister was with me when he met first nations veterans, led by Grand Chief Howard Anderson. He knows that those veterans were discriminated against after the first world war, the second world war and the Korean war, in comparison to non-first nations veterans. I also have a private member's bill, as the minister is aware, advocating their cause in the House of Commons.

Is the minister ready to announce now that he will right this historical wrong and compensate these people who fought and died for our country?

[Canada Health Care, Early Childhood Development And Other Social Services Funding Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that concerns me about the health debate is that the Leader of the Opposition is now saying there should not be any national standards in which the federal government participates in setting, that the standards should be determined by the provinces.

If that kind of system were created, and he has said the standards should be determined by the provinces, we would end up with an end to national medical care. We would have a patchwork system that differs from province to province. We would have a system that is much better in wealthier provinces and poor in poorer provinces.

Would the leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party disagree with the leader of the very conservative reform Canadian Alliance?

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I notice there was no reference to the profits made by oil companies in the motion tabled by the Alliance party. I also notice that the Alliance is having a fundraiser in Toronto where it is charging $25,000 a table. I assume some of the oil companies will buy tables at that particular fundraiser.

The member was talking about grassroots Canadians and ordinary people. I want to know how many ordinary people will buy these tables at $25,000 a hit. That party does not represent ordinary people. It represents the rich and wealthy and the privileged in Canada.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member of the Conservative Party. Before I ask it, I congratulate the leader of the Conservative Party on his maiden speech in the House of Commons.

I notice in the motion before us today by the Canadian Alliance that there is no reference to the very excessive profits of oil companies. Would the member for Brandon—Souris agree that maybe there is a relationship between this oversight and the fact that Alliance members are having a fundraising dinner in Toronto where they are charging $25,000 a table? Of course they will be sold to the corporate elite. That is different from the grassroots approach of the former leader of the Reform Party, who would not dream of having such a dinner.

Would the member agree that maybe it is just a coincidence or indicate whether or not there is a relationship between this $25,000 a table dinner where grassroots Canadians will not be found, except those serving the dinner, and the fact that they make no reference whatsoever to profit in the motion before us today?

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Are they not the grassroots party?

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a short comment and then ask my friend from Calgary to respond.

Some of the problems we have today in terms of the price of home heating fuel and the price of gasoline for automobiles and so on are the very high profits of the gas and oil companies and the tremendous rise in prices by the OPEC nations.

It seems to be that in addition to a tax decrease, which I certainly support, on the other side of the line we have to make sure we have some energy review commission that would keep an eye on the oil industry to make sure that these price decreases are passed on to the consumer at the pumps or passed on to people in terms of home heating fuel cuts, rather than have the oil companies once again increase their prices to fill the vacuum.

In fact, the current Leader of the Opposition made a comment similar to what he said when he was a cabinet minister in the government of Alberta. Premier Mike Harris was also concerned that with a tax cut the oil companies would increase the price and the consumers would receive no net benefit in terms of that tax cut.

Would my friend from Calgary agree with the establishment of an energy review commission or some other commission that would keep an eye on the oil industry? I realize that this would be keeping an eye on his friends, but whether or not he would agree with that is a very important part of this debate.

[Budgetary Surplus, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question then goes to the right hon. Prime Minister.

This morning the Minister of Finance said he was advised by his friends on Bay Street as to what to do with the surplus. Of course, the surplus going to the debt would help his friends on Bay Street and that is exactly what the minister did.

I ask the Prime Minister, is this not a conflict of interest? Is it not a conflict of interest for the finance minister to give the money to an institution that would help his friends? Should the minister not resign because of that?