Murray Calder

[Health Care System, October 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up my comments from where I left off on October 28 and also inform you that I will be sharing the rest of my time with the good member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge who also wants to talk on health care.

As I said before, I am the chair of our national rural caucus and I would like to give the House a perspective of what we as rural Canadians experience with health care. Right now almost 30% of the population is spread out over 95% of the land area. There are proportionately more seniors in rural Canada. Rural Canada has only 50% as many physicians per thousand people as urban Canada. The average rural citizen lives 10 kilometres away from a doctor, compared to two kilometres for the average urban resident. Approximately 7% of rural residents live more than 25 kilometres from a doctor. Of the 16,000 people who live in the northern regions, two-thirds live over 100 kilometres away from a doctor.

I have talked before about how important it is that we get things as transparent as possible, and this is going to come down to a dollar figure. This is the issue I want to raise. First, did the federal government and the provincial governments ever split health care costs fifty-fifty? The answer is no. In the early 1970s, only doctors and hospital services costs were split fifty-fifty, and when costs of other health care services that the provinces chose to include in their insurance program, such as home care in some provinces, were added up, the federal contribution was about 40%.

Is it accurate to say that the current federal contribution to health care is 14%? Again, the answer is no. The provinces arrived at this percentage by counting some of the federal moneys and not others. They are not counting the Canada health and social transfer tax points, the equalization payments they receive from the federal government or direct health care spending by the federal government.

Next we would have to ask, what are tax points? Tax points were established in 1977. They are a direct transfer of tax collection to provinces. This means that the federal government lowered its tax rate and allowed provincial governments to raise their rates by the same amount. The result? More taxes flowed directly to provincial coffers. There was no change in the amount of taxes paid by Canadians. The change was the destination: from the federal coffers to the provincial coffers. Since these tax points were never transferred back to the federal government, provincial governments continue to benefit from them. In fact, in 2001-02, the tax points given to provincial governments amount to nearly $16.3 billion.

How much money does the Government of Canada spend on health care? Currently the Government of Canada spends money on health care in two ways: first, through transfer to the provinces and the territories which I have already partially described; and second, through direct spending and tax credits. Basically, that money goes directly to aboriginals, Inuit, Canadian veterans and the Canadian Forces. Transfers to the provinces and the territories are federal money transfers to the provinces through the CHST cash and tax points and through equalization payments.

Then transparency burns down to this, I believe. We must sit down with the provinces and come up with a fair, equitable, transparent system that we all agree to. Clearly to me and I hope clearly to the House, there is a heck of a lot of politics being played with this right now. Quite frankly, I think it is unconscionable to start playing politics with Canada's health care system, given the fact, as I have stated before, that by 2020-24, 25% of our population will be 65 and older. It is imperative that we get an agreement between the feds and the provinces as to how we are going to get this system running and running properly.

We have a Senate report and the Romanow report will be coming out. I would hope that these two reports will give us the basis, as a government at the federal level and governments at the provincial level, to come to some sort of agreement as to how this system is to work.

I would hope, and I will be watching, to be involved in the debate and negotiations as to how this will work.

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate with a lot of interest. The member across the way raises an important point which is key to what we will have to discuss here because eventually the debate will get down to the dollars.

As the chair of national rural caucus, our caucus has been debating the health issue in rural Canada at great lengths. We know first off that by 2024, 25% of the population will be 65 and older. It will start using the health care system much more than it has in the past. We know that a large number of people who are now in urban centres will retire back to where they originally came from, which was rural Canada. That will put a lot of stress on the health care system in rural Canada.

We must look at the funding aspect, which is accountability. We currently transfer money to the provinces through the Canada health and social transfers. Tax points and equalization payments are transferred to the provinces for direct health spending. When we take all that into consideration that is nearly 40%. Yet the provinces say that we only transfer 14%. If we are to have accountability, there has to be a transparent accounting system so we can see how much the federal government is putting into health care and how much the provinces are spending on health care. Currently that does not exist. Statements like this would not stand. We must come up with a better accounting system.

Baby boomers make up a huge part of our population, of which I am a part. Approximately 9.8 million of us were born between 1946 and 1966. That is a third of Canada's population. We are aging right now, turning 50, at the rate of 50,000 a year. We can see how this will translate.

I would hope that when the Romanow and the Senate report come out they will directly look at how we work with the provinces and the accounting system for the money that is being transferred from the federal government to the provinces. Last year we saw some high tech money that was supposed to be put into MRIs and CAT scans spent by some of the hospitals on low tech equipment like lawnmowers. I am a Kinsman, a life member of a service club. If hospitals were looking to buy low tech equipment for which the federal government has allotted high tech dollars, they should go to their local service clubs in the community and get the money that way.

I want to stress the fact that we must have a good accounting system. The federal government and the provincial governments must get together and negotiate how the accounting system will work or we will constantly be in the same trouble we are in right now. When we get into the shortage of doctors in rural Canada, we can look at things like telemedicine and nurse practitioners.

[Petitions, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present the following petitions whereby the petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to outlaw all materials that promote child pornography.

[Agriculture, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Earlier this month the minister announced $600 million of the transition money will be moving into the farmers' NISA accounts.

What I would like to know is how is that proceeding and how can the farmers get that money as soon as possible.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 23rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way gave a very interesting speech. I have always looked at the Canada pension plan as a three legged stool. We have one leg, which is CPP and CPP disability. The second leg is OAS-GIS. The final leg is the RRSP.

Right now only about 34% of the population utilizes the RRSP program of which one can shelter the interest that is made on that through a cumulative process and it is not taxed until it is finally taken out.

I wonder if the member could enlighten us as to how we could encourage the population of Canada to increase that 34% utilization of the RRSP plan.

[Census Records, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there are about 7.5 million Canadians engaged in genealogy. This is one of our most popular hobbies. Thousands of genealogists, historians and medical researchers have asked the House to allow access to the post-1901 census records.

I was delighted last week to hear the House leader say that the government plans to introduce legislation this fall to allow researchers access to these records after 92 years. This move is very welcome. I note that 162 members of the House are now on record as supporting their release.

The census records up to and including 1901 have been a very valuable source for researchers. These are available on microfilm through archives and libraries across the country. I urge the government to ensure that later census records be just as accessible to researchers.

[Canadian Wheat Board, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade. Earlier this year the U.S. trade representative warned that the Americans were considering WTO action against the Canadian Wheat Board because of illegal trade practices. It now looks like the U.S. will be ready to file in the next few days.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade update us on this important issue for Canadian wheat farmers?

[Infrastructure Program, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the secretary of state for rural affairs.

I have been discussing the infrastructure program with many of my municipal councils across my riding and I know councils across the country are interested in this for development of roads, sewers and water.

With these discussions, I wonder whether the secretary of state can bring us up to date as to what is happening with the infrastucture program.

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill C-5, the species at risk act. As the chair of the national rural caucus this is something with which the rural caucus has been very involved.

Before I go into my speech I would like to take the time to help the member for Red Deer. I understand he has a television show to do on this subject tonight. I listened to his facts and some of them are wrong. This all hinges around clause 64 within the bill.

Subclause 64(1) basically gives direction to the minister for compensation and subclause 64(2) now states that a governor in council shall develop regulations for compensation. The confusion for the member for Red Deer was the fact that Motion No. 109, had it carried, would have changed the word “shall” to “may”. The rural caucus found that totally unacceptable.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, the member for Kitchener Centre, can verify the fact that we repeatedly went after her on this issue of “may” versus “shall”. I commend the minister. I believe he had three meetings with the rural caucus on the issue and the parliamentary secretary had a couple more. Two of the members of the rural caucus who were very active in this included the member for Churchill River, who was very concerned about the issue, and the member for York North.

The minister saw fit to listen to our arguments on Motion No. 109 and withdrew it. The rural caucus was very appreciative of that because it helped us out very much on the compensation aspect. I believe it has taken us in the right direction.

The people of rural Canada have been heavily involved in the development of the legislation that we are considering today. They support Bill C-5's emphasis on stewardship. They have had a big role in the formation of our policy in this area and for a very good reason. They know how important stewardship is because they have acted as stewards for generations and generations.

I was a farmer in my other life and I was taught by my father that if we were to see a killdeer's nest out in the centre of a field we would immediately stop the tractor, set up stakes and make sure the nest was not destroyed. I was taught that as a child and it has stayed with me as an adult.

Farmers and people in rural Canada are very good stewards and they were naturalists long before it came into vogue. That is the reality of the people who live in rural Canada.

This work is being done through small actions and huge projects but it all conserves Canada's rich, national heritage. We need to make sure that these people see that this work is valued, that it is essential and that it is at the very foundation of Canada's approach to habitat and species protection. If we delay, we send a message that this work is not good enough. No one here intends to do that. If we act now we let rural Canadians know that their contribution is the foundation of our policy on species at risk and habitat protection.

Let us not delay on that message any longer. Let us get on with it. Let us put federal species at risk legislation in place in Canada. It is the least we can do.

The proposed species at risk act ensures that there is involvement of the people closest to the species and to the land. That is something rural caucus fought for and received, and we thank the minister for that. This involvement stems from an overall co-operative approach. We did not just happen across this approach. In fact we set about developing it after much studying, many discussions and after an examination of what works and what does not in other countries and situations. We know that this one will work.

Fundamentally, we have to remember that our constitutional structure is such that we must work at all times with the provinces and the territories on any major policy.

There is a good reason for this structure and most everyone here would agree that it is one that is fair, workable and, above all, Canadian.

There are few examples as good as the development of the strategy for the protection of species at risk to show how well this system can work. There was co-operation among governments, co-operation that began many years ago, to set the stage for a successful strategy. That success can be found in the federal-provincial-territorial agreement called the accord for the protection of species at risk. Under this accord, we have all committed to protecting species, their habitats and to bringing in legislation and programs.

For decades the federal, provincial and territorial governments have been working together on wildlife management. Rural Canadians have been directly involved in this approach in many ways. This is not just for species at risk. All species benefit.

Stewardship, such as that under the North American waterfowl management plan, where provinces and territories have joined the federal government and their counterparts in the United States to preserve hundreds of hectares of wetlands and protect species of waterfowl. Farmers, hunters, landowners and conservation organizations have worked side by side to make this happen. Clearly we all have to recognize that species at risk is truly an issue of national concern and nobody can do it all alone.

We need this continued co-operation. We need to be able to lean over the fence between the federal government and the provincial or territorial governments. That fence makes good neighbours and it makes us partners. That neighbourly spirit brought us the accord in 1996, the accord that commits governments to legislation and programs. These are commitments that many of our provincial and territorial partners have met. These are commitments that the federal government must meet.

The accord formed the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council which has met a number of times and is working on an assessment and recovery planning that is so essential to meet the needs of the species.

The accord provides for the early identification, protection and recovery of all species at risk throughout the country.

Considerable progress has been made by the provinces and the territories in improving a legislative base for the protection of the species at risk in Canada since the endorsement of the accord.

Now it is our turn. The provinces and territories worked with us in developing Bill C-5. The proposed bill recognizes their contributions. Their support is absolutely critical to the success of the bill. We cannot protect species at risk throughout Canada without the provinces and the territories. It is they who manage most of the lands and the activities that affect the species and the critical habitat. They set the land management policies, direct the development laws and deliver many of the programs. Provinces and territories control a significant amount of land and many species rely on these lands. They have had many resources that we need to deliver the habitat enhancement and the protection, including the protection of wetlands and parklands.

Together we set a course for the concept of a safety net that ensures that no species will fall through the cracks before a government has failed to act. That safety net ensures that all species and critical habitat are protected everywhere in Canada. That is the work we need to do and that is the work we are doing.

[Member for Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my best wishes to the hon. member for Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington who underwent successful surgery earlier this week.

The hon. member was first elected in 1993 and his warm and caring nature has been a welcome addition to the House. His hard work and dedication to small business, agriculture and rural communities is both appreciated in his riding and through his work as the past chair of the Liberal rural caucus and currently as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food.

I would like to take this time to send our prayers and best wishes to the hon. member, his wife Rita and their daughter Kayla. I am sure all members will join me in wishing him a full and speedy recovery. We look forward to his return to this House.