Jerry Pickard

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is very important to look at those numbers, but I believe that when we say we can look at only at half the question and not the whole question, we do mislead to a degree the whole perception of what is accurate and what has been done.

However, I want to point out that in 1994-95 the cash and tax transfers to the provinces from the federal government were $29.4 billion. In 2001-02 the same transfers amount to $34.6 billion, an increase of approximately $5 billion, or a 17% increase, so while my hon. colleague mentioned that inflation has gone up 15%, in my book this is 2% above inflation.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to answer my colleague's question.

I think it is important to realize that as a confederation Canada has always made sure that the poorer regions, the regions under greater stress, the regions that need extra help, do get extra help. I would suggest quite clearly that the number of dollars in the health care system has increased dramatically. At this time, if we add the tax transfers to the cash transfers, $34.6 billion is being spent in Canada on those items. At the same time, we have social transfers to provinces that have more problems. Through departments such as Human Resources Development there have been and are programs to help people in weaker provinces, provinces with higher unemployment, provinces with difficulties.

Therefore it is not only the dollars that are going to the health care system to help Newfoundland and Labrador or to help Atlantic Canada, it is the dollars that go into all of our social transfers, the dollars that go into our stabilization payments, and the dollars that go into programming to make certain that all Canadians have access to services.

Quite frankly, I know there are some areas that have a little more difficult times than others, but over the years we as Liberals always have worked hard to defend those areas and make sure they got reasonable payments.

[Supply, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege for me to get involved in the debate today. One of the problems we all face in health care is trying to deliver in a timely and efficient manner a service that has increased dramatically in cost while attempting to deal with the multitude of problems Canadians see.

Through discussions I have had I believe most people in Canada wish to see a health care system: first, that they can count on; second, that delivers the service in a timely and efficient manner; third, that makes sure doctors and nurses are available where they are needed; and fourth, that offers people affordable access to the prescription drugs they need.

Canadians are finding major problems with health care. A large group of people do not have the health care services that should be afforded to them. In the area I live in thousands of people are without a family doctor because there are not enough doctors to cover all families. People go to clinics or hospitals for health services and they receive them. However there is a doctor shortage in rural Canada and in smaller cities. We do not seem to be dealing with the question as well as we need to.

There are many reasons for the doctor shortage. First, we do not have a proper number of facilities to train health care professionals. A great deal of change needs to occur in our training and approval process to make sure we have adequate health care professionals be it doctors, nurses or technicians.

Second, 10 to 15 years ago dramatically incorrect assumptions were made which led to the crunch on doctors and nurses today. Many older doctors in Canada had gone on and on with their practices and never retired. In estimating how many doctors we would need in the year 2002 it was not taken into account that many of these doctors would take retirement. As a result we are short in that field.

We did not take into account the number of specialists we would have in the system. Those who specialize in obstetrics or various illnesses have been taken out of the general practice system. As a result the numbers of doctors to carry on family practice has been limited dramatically.

A new phenomena today is that there are clinics in many areas. Many doctors operating in clinics may not be able to handle the long term illnesses of seniors or people with cancer or other debilitating illnesses which require long term care. As a result family doctors are being more heavily burdened with patients who have long term illnesses that take up a dramatic amount of time.

I do not think anyone anticipated the high cost of drugs and medication. If we look at our medical costs today we need to add up not only the costs of hospital care, clinics, family doctors and specialists but the extremely rapidly growing cost of medications. These add to the system as well.

What has happened between the federal and provincial governments is a fight over who pays the bills. In the House today this is one of the areas we are managing. However I hope the debate does not stay limited to who pays the bills and whose responsibility it is. Although these are important questions for all of us it is more timely and important to look at critical issues in our ridings that Canadians face and that we need to deal with.

In my riding of Chatham--Kent Essex there is a young man who requires bone marrow transplants. He is a 24 year old gentleman by the name of Patrick Oxley. Last summer he was diagnosed as requiring a bone marrow transplant. His sister is a perfect match for him but over a six month period the operation did not occur. He has been sent back to the Windsor and Chatham area. The doctors have suggested they will not go on with the operation. This young 24 year old man has no future unless an operation occurs because the disease is deadly.

In my estimation and I believe in the estimation of all Canadians the situation is not appropriate. It is not an issue that can be sloughed aside. We must deal with issues of health care costs and immediate on time delivery so young men like Patrick Oxley will have an opportunity in the future.

There are people in the United States who are willing to operate on Mr. Oxley. The price tag is $100,000 U.S. The community of Chatham--Kent Essex is trying to draw together funds and donations to send Mr. Oxley to Michigan for an operation. Our health care system should be looking after this young man. When he had a perfect match several months ago it should have been dealt with. It should have been a high priority for the Canadian health care system.

Others look on this with a great deal of criticism and stress. If we are not delivering service to Canadians we are missing the real traditional value of the Canadian health care system. It must be dealt with at a federal-provincial level and at all levels.

As an example I have pointed out that thousands of people in my area do not have family doctors because of the shortage of doctors. This means there are many problems in the system. How do we handle the problems? The federal government has taken a strong position in trying to deal with the issues. It has appointed an independent person in the name of Roy Romanow to go across the country, look as carefully as he can at the health care system and come back with recommendations for improvement. The federal government is taking the preliminary steps required to search out the problems.

Mr. Romanow has pointed out clearly in his approach that he is addressing the key themes he has organized his work around. He wants feedback from professionals and everyone across the country on how Canadian values can be reflected in the health care system and how we can do so within the Canada Health Act.

We need to look at sustainability and funding, both important elements in where the health care system goes from this day on. We need to look at quality and access. These issues are not only important today. They will be important to all Canadians in the future. We need to look at leadership, working together and responsibility. We have a responsibility to all Canadians for our health care system.

One of the problems we have as Canadians is the guidelines in the Canada Health Act. The guidelines are not administered by the federal government. The federal government's role has been to work with a health act which ensures all Canadians have basic access to a health care system and certain types of services.

The federal government's role has also been to help finance the costs of health care across the country. Whatever is said and done it is important to realize that all governments, provincial, territorial and federal, must ensure the principles of the Canada Health Act are carried out. We must ensure all Canadians have an equal opportunity for good, decent health care. One of the fundamental privileges of living in Canada is access to good medical care, a privilege which has been built over the years by our forefathers and other people in the country.

The debate comes down to finances. That is a crass, hard way to look at health care. We must stop and think about the fact that we are missing something in the whole debate. If the debate is only about transfer payments to the provinces, agreements that have been made in the past, or blaming one government over the other we miss the important tenet that health care is for Canadians. All Canadians deserve the best health care possible. We must devise plans to move forward in the future.

I mentioned that the Romanow commission was one response the federal government had to move the agenda forward. It is a means of getting input from Canadians and coming up with an agenda to deal with health care, drug costs and all the issues that will be important to Canadians in the future. Over the short term we cannot say Mr. Romanow's report will have a major effect. It is not due until next December.

What have we been doing in the shorter term? It is important to point out to all Canadians that we worked with the provinces in last year's negotiations to put extra dollars into the health care system. In our 2001 budget we confirmed federal spending would be $23.4 billion more over the next five years than it had been for any period up to that point. We came up with an agreement which all provincial health ministers and premiers supported. It was supported by our Prime Minister, the House of Commons and the Minister of Health of the day. We attempted to inject a larger number of dollars into the health care system to make it go further and be healthier on a short term interim basis, the five year base, while giving us room to operate and find out what we need to do.

In his comments and direction Mr. Romanow said there were no sacred cows in the process. He said everything will be up for debate. He said everything will be there to make sure we have a system which will not only be functional but will deliver services to Canadians as need be.

We added $23 billion to bolster the costs of health care. What was the response from the provincial governments? I found it a bit problematic.

The response from the Harris government was “You're not giving us enough money”. It had just finished negotiating a deal with the federal government in which all provinces were included and the first answer from the premier of my province, Ontario, was that there was not enough money. He was not saying “We will match the funds that are going into the system” or “We will do everything we can with the resources that have been provided”, but was suggesting that Canada was not paying its full share.

I guess we can always look at different arguments and different points of view. I heard my former colleague, a gentleman from across the way, suggest that we cannot go back to a 1977 agreement and talk about tax points when we are talking about funding of health care. I do not know why we do not look back to the past and see how funding has occurred and look at the types of changes that have occurred in the funding of health care to see if we are being fair, adequate and honest with the Canadian public.

It is my view that when we reduced cash transfers to the provinces and handed them another vehicle by which they could raise that much money, plus it took into account increases over the years, we gave the provinces tremendous extra leeway in operating their own systems independently and doing it without as much need for cash transfers from the federal government.

I remember being elected and coming here in 1988. The buzz at that time was that we should make all transfers to the provinces on tax points. People were talking about not giving any cash transfers to the provinces any more but taking the whole cost of our social transfer, putting it onto tax points and allowing the provinces to operate independently. An obvious problem with this is that then the federal government gives up its responsibility to make sure all Canadians have fair and equal access to service. That is a problem.

I understand our colleagues from Quebec saying they would like all the transfers to go to Quebec, they would like Quebec to have a totally independent system and, as a result, they want to eliminate the federal government from health care. However, at the same time who guarantees that all people in all provinces get equal treatment in this country? Who would guarantee that all Canadians would have access to equal treatment in this country? That is problematic. That needs to be dealt with. It cannot be left to 13 or 12 independent bodies to decide how service is delivered, because we all know some areas are wealthier than other areas and therefore the wealthier areas would be able to afford a service that the poorer areas could not. That is not the Canadian way. That is not fair to all people. It is not what we see as a principle of health care in this country: how large one's wallet is and how much we can afford to make sure we deliver the service required.

Many issues have to be dealt with and I believe all issues within the health care system are critically important, but it seems to me that when people criticize someone they should have certain kinds of capabilities of analyzing what has happened in front of them. I do not know if most people realize that federal funding for health care in Ontario, and I am using the province of Ontario as an example at this point, is at an all time high. We have never funded health care in Ontario as much we do today. Federal funding for health care across Canada is at an all time high. People may argue about how it is being done, and that is true, but federal funding is at an all time high. I think it is important to realize that over 91% of the total increase in Ontario's health care budget this year comes from federal transfers, from the federal government. That is a pretty heavy cost for the federal government.

I believe the Ontario government has a problem. It has not looked very carefully at funding programs. It has directed its concerns toward tax cuts. Several other provinces may be looking at tax cuts as well, but generally we have to make certain that the basic services are there before we do tax cuts.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Bob Friesen, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, looks at the budget as a positive move. He states:

We are pleased to hear Mr. Martin recognize the work that federal and provincial governments, alongside industry, have done to develop a long term plan for Canadian agriculture. We are pleased to see a firm commitment to this process put in writing in this federal budget. The door is open for governments and industry to move ahead with building a new, integrated and financially sustainable agricultural policy.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment. I do not know what terrorists are floating into Canada today. I do not know that anyone in the House knows of terrorists floating into Canada. The budget would fund technological equipment to be used at our borders to secure and check passengers.

I had an opportunity to look at what was happening in the port of Vancouver. Customs officials informed us what kind of equipment they needed. There were some positive vibes about the possibility of having radar equipment or other technology they could use to identify containers coming into the country.

The member asked about unemployment numbers. We get the unemployment numbers for every area in the country on a quarterly basis. If you do not read them that is your problem. They are produced by HRDC. We see them there--

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. It is important to realize that Canada stands very well.

I talk to a lot of industry people. I talk to leaders at Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. They tell me that the greatest opportunity they have is in Canada. Our low interest rates provide good job opportunities. Our health care system makes Canada an excellent place to be. The productivity of our workers in their plants is excellent.

There is no question when we look at what is happening in the workplace in Canada that our workers are the best. I would argue that with anyone in the House. Our interest rates and production quotas from Canada to the United States make those companies want to exist here. The only major barrier is access to a seamless border. We must ensure we maintain a seamless border.

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has done a tremendous job analyzing what needs to be done and moving that agenda forward. I compliment the Government of Canada. Every minister has looked at the budget very carefully and have made sure that it answers the questions which need to be answered.

Quite frankly, we seriously negotiated and worked on an agreement with people who required help, and I am referring to the provinces and the health care agreement that was made. There were very serious discussions and work in order to come up with a five year program. That five year program cost the federal government $23 billion more than what it would normally put out. The federal government's commitment to that program was not for one year. It was not a short term one but a long term one.

What we have heard from the opposition for many years is that we cannot just look at one year ahead, that we have to create stable funding. We hear that we have to create an agenda which shows everyone the direction in which we are going and which gives them support to institute programs over a longer period of time.

That is what the health minister and the finance minister did last year. They put in a program in health care which very carefully put money in the hands of the provinces. This year alone that agreement delivers $2.8 billion more into the health care system. There is no question the federal government this year alone will spend the highest dollars in health care than it has in any previous year. Some $35 billion will be transferred in health care and CHST payments to the provinces this year.

It is critical when we look at a program or a problem that we have the statistics and information to back that agenda. Roy Romanow is looking at the health care system across the country. The federal government as well as the provinces know that alterations and changes are required to the health care system. To be responsible and move that agenda forward, we funded a program for a five year period. We sent a task force out to discover what further needed to be done in order to enhance health care in the country.

There is no question that is a very responsible agenda to move on. It is one that will pay off for Canadians not only today but in the future.

It is a misrepresentation in my opinion if it is said that there are no new dollars in health care. We are adding $2.8 billion this year alone to health care in the provinces.

Sometimes in the debates and discussions, there are very different viewpoints of what is happening. Those have to be pointed out here.

As well, when it is said there are no tax cuts, I recall the largest tax cut ever created over a five year period. It was not just for last year, but for last year, this year and the next three years. A five year period of time has been set for tax cuts. Canadians will receive the benefit of those tax cuts over that five year period. To suggest that this year there are no tax cuts is wrong.

We have to keep things in perspective. A year ago no one would have ever suggested that Canada needed a budget for terrorism, a budget for safety, or a budget for air transportation. Those are new because of what happened on September 11.

As a result the minister and the government responded strongly. They looked at police and military services and at the requirements at the border, realizing that we must have a seamless border allowing goods to flow back and forth between Canada and the United States in an appropriate and proper way.

The minister and the government looked at our immigration policy and responded by making certain that the safety of the nation was put in place. At the same time they took into account the perspective that we must not only be safe but our neighbours must see that we are moving in the strongest way toward making this nation safe.

It is extremely important that trade from Canada flows to and from the United States in a seamless fashion and flows well. If we do not appear to be in that state, which works hand in hand with our American counterparts and delivers goods and people safely, then we will have major business problems.

The United States uses more products manufactured in Canada on a daily basis than Canadians do. We sell most of our resources to the United States. That partnership is extremely important to both countries. There is about $2 billion of goods flowing back and forth between Canada and the United States every day. We know how significant that is to the Canadian economy. We must reinforce that and make it our chief priority. The government has taken into account that as a secure nation we stand to lose what we have in the commerce that goes on in this country.

A House of Commons task force has gone across the country looking at the problems and has presented reports to the government. The government has reacted to those reports in a stern and careful way.

Extensions to agreements with the American government have been carried out. The American ambassador, trade representatives and the U.S. president have all met with their respective counterparts making certain that questions are answered. This goes back to the whole idea of security and moving forward with the budget. There is no question that has to be a chief priority.

I would like to talk about economics too. We have low interest rates. Infrastructure programming would add $2 billion to the economy. We would take steps to make sure that work programs go forward. We know that on a financial basis workers would be given opportunities in this slower time and people would be able to buy goods and services they would otherwise not buy.

The $100 billion tax cuts would help the average person put more dollars in his or her pocket. The initiatives made in the budget and in the previous year would come together to ensure that Canada would be the safest nation in the world, not only physically and financially but also economically. That is what this is all about.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was that anyone could get off a plane and walk free on the streets with no problem at all. These gentlemen need to bring forward information with regard to what is happening.

When people get off a plane without documentation they are fingerprinted and there is a security criminal check. When they get off a plane without information there is a medical check and they are searched to make sure they do not have other bits of information. If there is any thought at all that people will not report back for a hearing they are detained.

That is true in every case. Quite frankly this is a way of saying the members do not agree that the people in our system do their jobs.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a real problem with the question and the way it was put forward, not because it is not an important issue for Canadians but because of the insinuations it makes.

My colleague stated that immigration officers do not want to be bothered. Quite frankly, that is anything but true. I have met with people on the immigration board. I have met with immigration officers, many of whom are neighbours and friends of people across the country. They are there to protect our borders. No one in the House should make a blanket statement that immigration officers do not do their job. That is ridiculously wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves for doing that.

Liberals detain people. There is absolutely no question. The hon. member for Dauphin--Swan River, the critic for the opposition party, appeared before the committee working on Bill C-11 to talk about the bill. He tried to weaken the bill the Liberals put on the floor of the House in June. These were his words:

An officer shall not detain a person who is not a Canadian citizen for a term of greater than six months.

Quite frankly Alliance members cannot stand today and say that was not the case. They jump on the bandwagon when they should not. They create fear where it is not and they do not take responsibility for past actions. That is a shame, but that is the Alliance.

[Supply, October 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of a secure border is a very major issue for all Canadians. It should not only be secure but also perceived to be secure. We trade mostly manufactured goods with our southern partner in the United States. The products that cross that border amount to $1.5 billion a day. We need a seamless border which allows goods to travel back and forth with no problem at all.

A manufacturing corporation which has a large engine plant in Windsor made a statement last week to show how important the seamless flow of goods and merchandise is across the border. It said that when an engine leaves the engine plant in Windsor it is important that no blockage at the border occur because in two hours they expect under the delivery system that they operate on the engine to be in a truck going off the assembly line in Detroit. That is the kind of just in time delivery system that is required if our Canadian industry is to be compatible and operating with our American partners.

It is very clear that our borders are significant to all trade. We cannot avoid to bottleneck everything at the border. How do we strike that balance between security and business opportunities to make certain that everyone survives and survives reasonably well?

It is imperative that we look at our system of immigration and refugees and state things that are accurate. When I look at some of the facts pertaining to our border, they are not what I hear every day.

Canada and the United States share some 8,800 kilometres of border. In Canada we employ more inspectors and people at the border than our U.S. counterparts. Canada has 350 citizenship and immigration inspectors and 2,400 customs inspectors while the United States at the same time has approximately 1,500 in total. The number of people who work at Canada's borders are nearly double those in the United States.

Many statements have been made by politicians in Canada and in the United States that Canada is a haven for terrorism. That is absolutely not true. Let us look at terrorism and what happened tragically on September 11. Canadians did not go into the United States and create that danger. However we have to look very carefully at border operations between Canada and the United States. Certainly some changes need to occur.

Senior bureaucrats in the United States have commented that most of the western border crossings do not operate on a 24 hour basis. They were talking about North Dakota. Three out of fifteen border crossings operate on a 24 hour a day system. That means the other 12 only operate from 9 until 5. The only thing that stops anybody from crossing the border is a red cone in the middle of the road. That is not the protection we expect between Canada and the United States.

Our border has been very open. It has not required security. The U.S., with 2,000 and some people at the border, did not see Canada as a problem before September 11. The U.S. has eight times as many people at the Mexican border than at the Canadian border. That means it saw a major problem between Mexico and the United States but did not see the same problem between Canada and the United States.

I find difficulty with some of the irresponsible comments that have been made at this point in time. There has been a lot of irresponsible finger pointing and rhetoric that does nothing to enhance our opportunities in Canada or our business opportunities abroad.

I find difficulty with the suggestion that we do not make sure that when immigrants or refugees land in Canada they are brought into an inspection area, fingerprinted, questioned and checked. If for any reason a person coming into Canada shows evidence, as the former speaker has said, of being a danger to the country, a terrorist threat or someone who might not appear at future hearings, the person is detained.

We do not just open the borders and allow anyone to come in. Health and criminal checks are done on every person who makes an application. People cannot just fly in, go abroad or do whatever they wish. That is not the case. However this is the message I hear from various people, and it is a pretty unfair message.

In my area where crossing the border is so important car traffic has been down by 60% since September 11. In southwestern Ontario small restaurants and businesses that depend on cross-border traffic, tool and dye companies and our whole tourist and manufacturing sectors are finding these times very difficult. Plants are laying people off and having brief shutdowns. The backups at the borders are as long as two hours in some cases. At other times traffic flows through relatively easily.

If an American thinking about coming over to Windsor for supper knows there will be a potential two hour backup at the border and another hour backup going home, he will not use the Canadian facilities. Our business is suffering dramatically as a result.

Canadians must be reassured that the country is safe. I give the commissioner of the RCMP a tremendous amount of credit. When he met with the immigration committee last week and with the Senate briefly, his number one message was that Canada is the safest country in the world.

We make certain that people coming into Canada are checked carefully. Our sharing of information with officers around the world, be it Europeans, Americans or anyone else, is extremely good. Through CSIS and the RCMP we have access to all kinds of records of people from every nation of the world so that we can check carefully.

We are well known for training people and making sure the immigration and RCMP officers at our borders are highly trained and skilled. That does not mean we have a perfect system. However we are putting a great deal of money into improving it through the terrorist bill.