Jerry Pickard

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, after listening to the debate today, one really wonders where we start in this story. From my point of view the fact is that Canadians think that the health care system needs change. I as one Canadian and all of my colleagues believe the same. Before I go very far, though, I want to make clear that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South, a very eloquent speaker. I want to make sure that he gets his time in.

Every Canadian believes that the health care system is in disarray. We have heard in Ontario, the wealthiest province in Canada, of people sitting in hallways unable to get service or to get a hospital room. We have heard of a shortage of doctors. We have seen small communities that do not have doctors. We have seen emergency rooms overloaded and unable to handle the calls coming in. We have seen flu epidemics and the doctors system unable to deal with that.

We at the federal level have been very concerned about that, particularly just after we decided to transfer $11.5 billion more to the provinces so that they could deal with these emergency situations. It is my understanding that many of those dollars ended up in the coffers of the Ontario government.

The Ontario government saw fit to take the money and spend a bit of it. It put $700 million into a bank account to raise interest rather than deal with the emergency for which the money was set aside. It drew the money out of the federal account and put it in a bank account to raise interest. When we are worried about an emergency we should deal with the public fairly and meet its needs.

As a result I think it made many of us on this side of the House wake up. We woke up to the fact that the provinces run the health care system. They control the hospitals and medical spending. They control the institutions that train doctors. They have an opportunity to move an agenda which they are not doing.

My colleagues across the way are suggesting that we should transfer $1.5 billion from training areas and put it into health care. I would guess that is an honourable approach if $1.5 billion will solve the problem.

Many of us on this side of the House think there is another solution. We must sit down with the provinces to look at the problems in health care. We must decide how to train more doctors. We must decide how to provide more hospital beds. We must decide how research can take place.

The provinces are asking the federal government not to get involved in their administration. It is a tragic mess. The government will be blamed for not giving the provinces enough money, but they do not want to work with us in providing a system that will work across the country.

We on this side of the House believe very strongly that it is not just a money issue. It is far more than a money issue. It is an issue of proper planning and changing our approach. It is an issue of dealing with home care. It is an issue of dealing with drugs. It is an issue of dealing with doctors. All these issues must be discussed on a fair basis with the federal government, which is funding a tremendous amount of these costs. Yet once we turn the dollar over to the provinces we lose total control. We have no control at all.

Before we turn more money over I think it is critical that we sit down with the provinces to develop long term plans that will make sure Canada is going in a safe direction. We cannot look at the Ralph Kleins of this world who are creating their own disasters. They are pushing for privatization in the health care system which will inevitably leave the rich with the service and the poor with no service. We all know this.

We have been fighting the right wing element in the country for 50 years over these kinds of issues which says that we should give the service to the rich; if they can pay for it, let them pay for it. Then what does the poor get? What remains. No, that is not fair.

The Harris government is sending people for cancer treatment to the United States instead of spending the $700 million that is in the account on proper materials to provide this care. Harris is not a person to be trusted in this business. The frank fact is that our health minister has to sit down and work out a plan.

Let me turn to the Reform motion. It is an interesting one. Reformers are suggesting that we should take $1.5 billion and put it into health care. They are also suggesting that the $2.5 billion in the budget was not enough. The total money they are asking us to put in the budget for health care is $4 billion.

It was interesting to read the Reformer's solution 17 in their prebudget recommendations. They suggested that spending only increase by $1 billion in all programs in Canada. In other words, why after the election when people are talking about health care are they suddenly saying that we should spend $4 billion on health care alone when before the budget came out they had a position that the total spending on all programs in Canada increase by $1 billion? It does not make sense.

They asked for increased spending on the RCMP, increased spending on defence and increased spending on almost every federal program. They were asking us to put money here, put money there and put money over here. Now they are saying put $4 billion into health care when their whole approach was a $1 billion total spending increase in Canada. That appears to be a pretty big two-face to me.

Let us stop to think about the positions Reformers take. They come back week after week saying that their constituents told me to do this so they are jumping over here. Long term planning is something Reformers have never done, have never adequately faced the demands of and will never do accurately. That is why the Reform Party will never be the government of the country. Reformers bounce from pillar to post. They change with the drop of a hat. They never stay consistent with any of their policies, and yet they say that as somebody changes their mind their policies will change as well.

I have difficulty with what Reformers are proposing today. I have difficulty with one of my colleagues across the way stating that we have not put money into health care. Our total dollar spending in 1993-94 when we took government was $37 billion. This year with all expenditures put together it will be $39 billion. We have increased spending in health care and education by $2 billion since we have taken office. We cut initially but all the extra transfers coming back have increased that budget.

There is a twisting of the truth, and that is too bad. The reality is that federal and provincial governments need to sit down to work out the health problem in the country, and not do it by just sending money to the provinces.

[Health Care, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Mike Harris says that health care funding is inadequate. That tax cut tyrant has made a disaster of the social programs in Ontario. He prefers to put money in the pockets of millionaires rather than tend to the sick and needy.

Last year's federal budget and this year's budget have increased cash transfers in the amount of $3 billion annually. That is a 25% increase in cash transfers. But it does not stop there. There is $3 billion next year, $3 billion in 2002, and $3 billion every year beyond. That is a strong response.

In the long term our health minister has asked the provincial ministers to meet and develop a strategy. When an agreement is reached, the federal government will be there with added funding.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Under Mr. Trudeau, exactly. That is not a problem. When we have a mortgage on a house, it might be a mortgage of $25,000, which is all right, but we have to realize that it was Michael Wilson and the Conservative government that took that small mortgage of $168 billion and made it $500 billion plus.

We have to realize that in eight short years those turkeys put this country's finances down the tubes and they are willing to stand here today and blame someone else. They are the most inefficient and incompetent people I have ever seen.

I sat on the finance committee and talked to them every day. They chuckled to themselves. I remember when they threw Don Blenkarn out as the chair of the finance committee because he disagreed with what was going on.

When we stop and think about the stupidity that went on, it is not hard to say that they have nowhere to go. All Canadians know it. They sat here and filled this whole side and half of the other side. They had a huge majority government and ended up with a telephone booth of two. They are now trying to come back with 10. Canadians know what they did. The Reform knows what they did too because the Reform called itself a different name. The same policy, different name ran west.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to respond to the member's question.

I know he does not have the facts straight because he was not here. When one is not here I guess we can understand how one can be fed that garbage in the dark and not understand what really happened. He is right. We did have a debt of $168 billion under previous governments.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to say that I am sharing my time with the member for Durham. I am sure that the member for Durham and myself are nothing but proud. We are very proud of this budget. We think this is a great budget, and there is no question about it.

The House needs a touch of a history lesson. I remember in 1993 when my distinguished colleagues opposite were in the position of running a government; a government that was running a deficit of $42 billion; a government that in eight short years had tripled the debt in this country; a government that had unemployment at 11.5%; a government that did not know which way to go.

It was so bad that its members divided into three groups. Some members did not want to be called Tories any longer, so they decided to be Reform. Others decided they did not like what was happening in the Tory Party, so they called themselves the Bloc. The Tories remained with two people in the House.

When we stop to look at that historical time, we say thank goodness that a reasonable, well informed government came to the House to straighten out the ship. Quite frankly, it was the current Prime Minister, the Liberal cabinet and the Liberal government.

In a few short years nobody expected us to eliminate the $42 billion deficit, but that is exactly what we did. We did that and we did it by doing certain things: by reducing the public service, by cutting spending dramatically and by making sure that we were more efficient in everything we did.

Each and every person in this country knows that if a person has a budget, a family, a mortgage and a job, everything cannot be done. Everything cannot be completed in one year. We tracked budget after budget, first, to get the economics right, to get the trade moving in the country, to encourage business and to encourage programs which help all Canadians. That is exactly what we did.

Now we come to a parting of the way. We have managed well. The economy, the GDP in this country grew so well that we were number one in the G-7 countries last year. We know there is absolutely no question that the tax revenue in this country is high, and we are now able to share with Canadians.

Quite frankly, at this point in time I want to say thanks. I want to say thanks to every Canadian who has been supportive of us, to every Canadian who has bitten the bullet and to every Canadian who has put forth a tremendous effort to make sure we were supported in getting this ship going the right way. That has been the case. Every time I am in my riding there is not an individual who says “You guys are not doing a great job and the finance minister has not done a fabulous job at finance”. They are all supportive. They look at the trade missions that our Prime Minister has made and the increase in the economy and say it is just fabulous.

We come to a budget where we, as the Liberal Party, can say thanks to all Canadians for biting the bullet and we can return to them some of the tax dollars that have been increasing.

The indexing of the tax system is a major move which will return to low income Canadians, to families with children, a great benefit over the next four years.

Yes, it will not happen in one year. It will happen over four years. But the reality is that over the next four years those Canadian families will receive a 21% tax cut. We will see the average Canadian get a 15% tax cut and low income Canadians with families in the neighbourhood of 18%. Yes, tax cuts are there, but at the same time, not only are we de-indexing and putting tax cuts in place, we are moving into programs that people in the country have told me are important.

I just heard some members going on about health care. I am really surprised that they do not understand what is being done with health care right now. I am really shocked that they do not realize that the Minister of Finance's announcement yesterday put $3 billion more into health care this year. This is $3 billion more than what was there last year. Cash transfers last year were $12.5 billion. This year they are $15 billion. This year we will have the highest transfers to the provinces in the history of the country. There is no question about those facts.

We balanced. Yes, the $2.5 billion that went into the budget is added with the budget last year which put in several billion more. This is something that the opposition is not really taking into account or dealing with in a fair way. We have to know the facts. The facts are that we have increased the budget in health care by $3 billion in transfers to the provinces this year.

I think that the best spin doctor in the country, Mike Harris, was really misleading people in Ontario when he had his press conference today. The fact is, Mike Harris is getting more money than ever before.

The interesting point I noted a couple of days ago was when Dalton McGuinty, the Leader of Liberal Party in the Ontario caucus, pointed out very clearly that Mike Harris did not spend all the tax dollars that he got last year. He got a transfer of $1.5 billion of which he only spent $800 million. Half of that money is still sitting there and he is out complaining. What a deception to the people of Ontario. What a bad policy decision he made.

Quite frankly, I put Mike Harris in exactly the same bracket that I put Brian Mulroney. I will tell the House why. When Brian Mulroney was here he pumped up our debt, pumped up our debt and pumped up our debt. Well Mike Harris in Ontario has pumped up the debt, pumped up the debt and pumped up the debt to where right now Ontario is $19 billion further in debt than it was before. He is certainly a bad example to speak to Liberals about policies and directions that we need to follow.

I have one other issue that I wish to cover and I see that I have two minutes to do it. Something that is extremely important to the people in my riding is infrastructure: infrastructure funding for highways, infrastructure funding for municipal services and infrastructure funding for low income housing. There is no question that when I look at this budget, we are delivering those dollars big time.

Anybody sitting across the way knew that today was the day of the budget questions to the finance minister. What did members opposite do? They shrivelled in their seats. They were afraid to ask the minister questions. Each question they asked they looked pitifully bad.

This is a good budget. People across the country have said that it is a good budget. The finance minister knows it is a good budget. These guys were chicken to ask questions today on the budget. That is an interesting point.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, where are the rest of the hon. member's members?

[Veterans Week, November 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Veterans Week will offer Canadians an opportunity to honour the sacrifices of our veterans.

I wish to pay tribute to the more than 1.4 million Canadians who stood in harm's way to safeguard our freedoms and liberties, and in particular, Chatham-Kent born Pilot Officer Leslie Peers, who gave his life during World War II while assisting the French resistance fighters.

Last July, Canada and its allies gathered in France for a memorial service. This was the first time in 55 years that a Canadian delegation set foot on the gravesite to officially commemorate the valiant efforts of Pilot Officer Peers and his six crew members.

This weekend will be another first. French resistance fighters are presenting to the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 28 in Chatham-Kent their battle flag. I am told that no French battle flag has ever left France unless taken by an enemy in battle.

Canada stands proud. The bond between Canada and France endures. We remain very proud of our veterans.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think it should be stated here and now that those agreements which have been worked out with the federal government, the provincial governments and the producers are in place to help producers. There is absolutely no question that it is not just the federal government which is part of the AIDA program.

The reality is that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food in this House announced $900 million for the farm community. As I understand the facts, another $600 million will come from the provinces. As a result, $1.5 billion will go into agriculture this year.

The reality is, as one of my colleagues pointed out to me, that very close to half of that money will go to the western province of Saskatchewan. The reality is, there are large payments and there is support going to western Canada. There is no question, that is in place.

Sometimes people can say that what is being sent is not enough, and that is reality. However, it is a fair amount of money if one stops to think about $1.5 billion.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out early in my comments, oftentimes there are disastrous issues that happen in pocketed areas of Canada. I also mentioned the difficulties which western Canada is experiencing today. There is no question that we have a sliding of price in the commodity market and there is no question that they have had difficult weather to deal with over the last year. However, let us not say that a whole industry is in trouble because of one sector of that industry. What I am trying to say is that Canada's agricultural industry is steadily improving. There are opportunities for young people.

In my riding there is a tremendous number of dollars in agriculture and people are working very well. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to find agricultural workers in my riding. We are looking for more and more workers all the time. There is a strong element of agriculture in the country. The unfortunate part is that colleagues across the way narrow their perspective to look at one very small issue.

I am not underplaying the fact that it is important to those people who are affected; I am underlining the fact that members opposite do not look at the entire picture. They only look at a very narrow section of Canada. They have not spoken of Ontario in the time they have been talking today.

[Supply, October 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate having the opportunity to debate this very important issue on farm income.

The federal government is committed to a strong, healthy, viable agricultural sector. Looking at the sector as whole it is exactly that, a strong, healthy and viable sector. That may surprise some people because that is not what we have been hearing in the news lately. One of the things I hope to do today is to give my colleagues and those who are listening a better understanding of this whole farm issue. It is very complex. It is not a simple issue, as many people have tried to say.

I am not suggesting that the sector is without challenges. Some farmers in pockets throughout our country, in western Canada in particular, have had many problems to face this past year. Farming is affected by weather and the marketplace, and sometimes, as we have witnessed in the past year, both factors collide at one time.

In this case the farmers' bottom line has felt the impact of a whole range of circumstances coming together at one time. The crisis in the Asian and Russian economies and the downturn in Latin America caused some markets to shrink. Declining commodity prices and an overproduction of wheat in the world also had an impact. We experienced at the same time difficult flood conditions in one region and drought in another. Needless to say, the effect on income to farmers, particularly those in grains, oilseeds and hogs, was severe.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has responded to that situation and is continuing to work to put the tools in place to assist the producers, especially those who are most in need.

There are a number of tools which were put in place by this government to help producers through difficult times, as the minister of agriculture has pointed out in his remarks. However, often the challenges farmers face throughout the country are as diverse as the commodities they produce. As the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech earlier this year, a government that pretends it can be everything to everybody is a government that in the end will do nothing for anybody.

What a government can do is create conditions for a productive and competitive agricultural sector as a whole. That is what this government has done and that is what this government will continue to do. While doomsayers would have us believe that there is a crisis in Canadian agriculture, overall and across this great nation the agricultural sector is strong.

Overall Canadian farmers are among the most productive and efficient in the world. Farm production has been going up and so has farm net worth. Overall farmers have adjusted to constantly changing international markets. Their success is obvious when we look at our export numbers. Agricultural exports have risen from $13 billion to $22 billion over the last five years and even with the economic challenges of this past year they will be up slightly from 1997, which was a record year. Horticultural crops, special crops and red meat all had increases last year.

Trade is most important to growth in this sector. About half of the average farm gate income to Canadian farmers is the result of trade. That is why the government is working on the international front to bring order and stability to world markets and to provide better access to world markets. Despite the commodity market challenges, the outlook for Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector is positive.

Our industry has also met the evolving demand for specialized processed products. Our exports of value added products are surging. In fact, they grew by almost 9% last year. Processed goods means processing plants and jobs, jobs that add to the sustainability of our rural communities.

The industry itself has a lot of confidence in its own capabilities. Already Canada has about 3.3% of the world's agri-food trade. The Canadian Agri-Food Marketing Council, or CAMC, has set a goal to increase that to 4% by the year 2005.

CAMC, which is made up of agriculture and food representatives, has also set a target of increasing processed agricultural exports over and above bulk commodity exports. By current indicators, there is no reason to think the goal will not be met.

Our supply managed commodities are faring well. Farm cash receipts for chicken, for example, went up about $250 million from 1995 to 1998 and were about $1.3 billion last year. Egg receipts have increased slightly, while dairy receipts grew by $299 million to close to $4 billion for that same period.

Furthermore, for many commodities that have been affected by weak prices there are signs of gradual improvement, with indications that prices have hit a cyclical bottom. Red meat is doing extremely well and feedlot levels are at an all time high.

The worst situation a farmer can experience is foreclosure. It is the last thing anyone wants to see happen. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada provides a financial review to producers through the farm consultation service and, for a stay of proceedings, financial counselling and mediation through the farm debt mediation service. These services have been extensively communicated to producers and creditors. While there is some increased activity at this time under these programs, applications are not at a high rate across Canada. Fortunately, we are not seeing thousands of producers experiencing financial difficulty, although there are reports which say that is happening.

The Government of Canada knows how important the agriculture and agri-food sector is to Canadians in general. The Canadian agriculture and food industry accounts for close to one-tenth of Canada's gross domestic product. It employs 1.8 million people either directly or indirectly. I would say that is a pretty solid business.

It is an industry that is varied and offers many interesting careers for young people. While we know the hard work of Canada's farmers helps to drive the entire economy, it is becoming more obvious that there is a wealth of other rewarding and worthwhile paths available to young people in this sector as well. Graduates from Canada's agricultural colleges and universities have jobs lined up before they graduate and there are even signing bonuses for some who are graduating. This is another sign of an industry that is strong and growing.

Canada has a worldwide reputation in agri-food products. It is unsurpassed anywhere in terms of high quality and safety. No matter where we go in the world, when people see a label with the red maple leaf, it is recognized for its quality, which is second to none. We continue to build on that reputation with team Canada missions and exhibitions at international food shows and by attracting buyers and investors to Canadian industry as we will be doing when we host the North American Salon international de l'alimentation.

The agriculture and agri-food industry has gone through a great deal of change over the last decade and has proven over and over again that it can meet the challenges and tackle the opportunities presented to it as it moves forward in the new millennium.

There are certain areas of the overall sector that are facing difficult times and the federal government is providing those producers with the tools to overcome these difficulties. Success is not a solo effort, nor is failure. By working together, the industry and all levels of government, this industry will continue on a path of growth and success.