Roy Cullen

[Health, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Public Health.

It is common knowledge that provinces and territories across Canada have varying levels of coverage for immunizations. In my own Province of Ontario, many parents cannot have their children vaccinated because they cannot afford the fees.

Now that federal funding has been allocated to assist the provinces and territories with immunization programs, when will the government provide these funds so that Canadian children will have equal access to vaccinations?

[The Budget, March 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2004 provides a great opportunity for our government to highlight our fiscal record since 1993.

This includes one of the best performing economies in the industrial world; seven consecutive balanced budgets, the first time this has happened since Confederation; over $52 billion in debt repayment, and this repayment translates into annual savings of $3 billion that can be used to fund the priorities of Canadians like health care and education; tax cuts of $100 billion that are still flowing today; a debt to GDP ratio that is projected to fall to 42% this year from a high of 68% in the mid-1990s; inflation has been held in check resulting in low interest rates; and a strong record of job creation in Canada, over two million jobs since 1993.

I believe that our government's track record is a good indicator that public funds will be properly managed in the future.

[The Budget, March 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a nation as blessed as ours should always aim higher and reach further. Canada is in a position to be able to launch a new decade of achievement, and we began that journey with our new government's first full budget.

Tabled yesterday, budget 2004 lays the foundation for a better future for all Canadians. This government has some very specific goals to create an even greater country, one that will give more Canadians the opportunity to succeed, to enlarge their ambitions and to pursue their dreams.

Tabled yesterday, budget 2004 lays the foundation for a better future for all Canadians. This government has some very specific goals to create an even greater country, one that will give more Canadians the opportunity to succeed, to enlarge their ambitions, and to pursue their dreams.

We have a responsibility to make sure our children and grandchildren lead even better lives in an even better land. This is the goal we have set for ourselves. A nation as great as ours should be able to reach it, and with this budget we are striving to do so.

[Customs Tariff, March 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but pay attention to the remarks from the member opposite with respect to the export of raw logs.

It seems to me that in many cases, according to the information I have, the destinations for these logs have changed significantly over the years. In years gone by, many of the raw log exports from British Columbia, for example, were destined for the Far East and to Asia because of the attraction of some of these large spruce trees with a very fine grain which were used for decorative purposes in Japan and other parts of Asia. They commanded a very rich premium in the market.

In British Columbia there are strict rules about the export of raw logs. The percentage of raw logs that is exported in raw form in terms of total production in British Columbia is somewhere around 6%. Nonetheless, it is a contentious issue in British Columbia and indeed across Canada. In fact, the federal government has the final sign-off in terms any export permits.

However, it seems to me that over the last few years the export markets have changed for raw logs out of British Columbia to Asia. Many of the raw logs now are finding their way to sawmills in the states of Washington and Oregon. I find that quite disturbing.

In fact, I have raised it with our minister on this side that it is a concern to me. I am told by IWA Canada that those raw logs are keeping five or six sawmills sustained in the states of Oregon and Washington at a time when we have many sawmills here in Canada that have shut down or where production has curtailed.

Is the member aware of that trend? Does he have any thoughts on that?

[Supply, March 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the very informed remarks of my colleague from Kitchener Centre, and prior to her, the member for Toronto--Danforth. It was refreshing to hear the positive stuff.

The government has recognized the mistakes made with the sponsorship program, and the government is dealing with it. I listened to the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands and the member for Cumberland--Colchester. They rattled off some events in our financial history of which we are not that proud. In fact we would rather they had not happened, but they did. It is a big organization. The government spends $180 billion a year.

There seems to be an absence of some other events in our financial or fiscal history that the members opposite seem to be ignoring, for example, the elimination of a $42 billion deficit in three years. My colleague was right. When we were at a level of a $42 billion annual deficit, $150 million every calendar day was leaving Ottawa. We have eliminated that in three years.

The government has paid down $46 billion against the debt, and that is saving all of us over $3 billion every year in perpetuity. Those are funds that can be redeployed to other areas.

We have had one of the strongest economic growth performance records among the OECD and the G-7. Perhaps the members opposite have forgotten that.

We have had strong job creation, in fact stronger job creation than in the United States. We have had low inflation during all this period, and low interest rates. Many Canadians can afford to buy homes now, and are buying homes.

We have had the largest single tax cut in Canadian history: $100 billion.

We recognize the problems. The members opposite talk about the numbers, such as with HRDC. Remember the difficulties we had there? I am sure my colleague will remember that. The figure of $1 billion was mentioned. Of course politically it is quite attractive to throw out the figure of $1 billion. I think it was something like $6,000 which was finally reconciled as being a problem.

Does my colleague from Kitchener Centre think the members opposite are simply forgetting these milestones in our economic history, which are recognized worldwide, or are they deliberately hiding those facts because they know it makes partisan sense for them to do that?

[Mitchell Sharp, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay respect to Mitchell Sharp and his remarkable life of public service.

Mitchell Sharp began his career in public service during the second world war when he joined the Department of Finance as director of economic policy division. Sharp notably helped negotiate Newfoundland's entry into confederation in 1949.

In 1951, Sharp moved to the trade department and after working briefly in the private sector he was drawn back to public service when he was asked by Lester B. Pearson to organize a Liberal thinker's conference in 1960.

This marked the beginning of his great political career. He was elected to the House of Commons in 1963 and served in cabinet for nearly 15 years. Even though he left politics as an MP in 1978, Mitchell Sharp continued to serve the government for another generation.

I invite all members in the House to join me in recognizing the brilliant career of a great man who served his country so well and who was respected by all Canadians.

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not, off the top of my mind, remember every motion that was brought before this chamber but I suspect the problem with the previous motions was the same problem that we are having with this motion in that it is riddled with factual inaccuracies.

Why would anyone on this side of the House, in fact why would anyone on either side of the House support a motion that is riddled with inaccuracies?

If we had a motion that said that the federal government should continue to show the strength and priority that it attaches to health care, because that is the reality, then I think we would probably find members on this side of the House supporting that. Such a motion might urge and encourage the federal government to do even more. I am sure a motion like that, which would really be more accurate, would have the support of this side of the House.

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the comments made by the hon. member for Joliette.

I think we need to understand that when we get the premiers together in a group there has been the attitude that they need to come up with some kind of unified position to beat up on the federal government to get more money.

I am encouraged by recent moves to change that style and to create a more constructive environment. The provinces are recognizing that there is a lot of work they need to do. Yes, the federal government and the provinces do have to deal with some funding issues but that does not mean the premiers meeting to come up with a single message, which is to beat up on the federal government for more money. I do not think that is very productive. I think the federal government rightly sees through that type of action.

If we look back to 1993 when our government took power, we were faced with a $42 billion deficit. To deal with that deficit, we had to cut programs, services and a lot of other things. This was very difficult but Canadians rallied around and we accomplished our mission.

In having to cut back on programs, the federal transfers to the provinces were affected but considerably less than the direct federal programs. The transfers to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education were a priority for the government but we had to make some cuts. We did. The deficit was eliminated in three years. We have paid down $46 billion or thereabouts in debt. That is saving Canadians over $3 billion a year. That $3 billion a year can be redeployed to health care, to the criminal justice system, to education and to a whole range of priorities, which is what the government is doing.

As a result of those actions we have good sustainable growth in Canada.

[Supply, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member for Joliette for giving us the opportunity to have a debate on health care funding. He sits on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Usually, he shows a good understanding of economic and financial issues and he is good with numbers. This time, however, he has failed miserably.

I am glad the member for Joliette brought this to the House of Commons, but after that he fails on a number of counts because he is attempting to confuse Canadians.

We know full well that the goal of the Bloc Quebecois and the member for Joliette is not to have a useful debate on health care policies, but rather to try to convince Quebeckers that they would have a better future outside the Canadian federation. However, they will never succeed in achieving that goal.

First, the member talked about the commitment to split health care costs fifty-fifty. That never existed. This is a myth perpetuated by the Bloc Quebecois and many other opposition parties. There was a commitment early on to cost share insured expenses, insured health costs, through the hospital system and through the medical services plans. However, since then we have had a huge growth in prescription drugs and in home care so the fifty-fifty percentage is just not valid.

Second, as has been pointed out by many of my colleagues today, including the parliamentary secretary, the member talked about the contribution of the federal government but conveniently ignored the tax points.

In 2003 the tax points amounted to $17 billion in the CHST. The member conveniently forgot also equalization. Equalization for all the provinces amounted to $10 billion per year. I find it strangely ironic that the Bloc Quebecois member for Joliette said that Quebec had been seriously disadvantaged. As my colleague, the minister of state, pointed out, the province of Quebec receives some $4 billion to $5 billion of the $10 billion in equalization. Some disadvantage that is.

For those listening to the debate, we should try to clarify the question on tax points. The federal government is contributing a huge amount. If we add in tax points, if we add in the federal government's direct expenditures in the health care system, which amount to $5 to $6 billion a year for first nations health, veterans health, health protection, disease prevention and a whole variety of other programs, the federal contribution is actually beyond 40%. That will grow as further investments are made in health care, which the government has shown very capably that it can do once the fiscal situation resolves itself, or is started on the right path.

In 1976, at the urging of the provinces and territories, the federal government ceded some tax points to those jurisdictions. This was not one or two percentage points in terms of tax. For example, in personal income tax, this was roughly 11 percentage points. In corporate taxes it constituted 1%.

In other words, the federal government said that for the taxpayer this will be transparent. The taxpayer will not really understand or see that there has been a transfer of tax revenues to the provinces and territories. However, the transfer was a huge amount of taxing capability. The rationale for that at the time was that the provinces were well positioned, they were close to the citizens of their particular provinces, they were well acquainted with their needs and aspirations and they were capable of delivering that kind of program.

This is not an inconsequential amount. Unfortunately, the tax points are always conveniently forgotten by all members and particularly by the Bloc Quebecois.

I find it also absolutely amazing that the member for Joliette talked about the federal government not putting any money into the health care system.

I would like to quote the member for Joliette, who said, on January 14, 2004:

--including the difference in spending growth in the federal and the Quebec health departments over the last five years. Ottawa, which has no responsibility with regard to health care delivery, has increased its spending by 78%, whereas the Quebec government, responsible for health care institutions and health care delivery, has increased its spending by 33%.

They have never been satisfied with what the federal government has done, which includes $34.8 billion to the provinces, a five year agreement that was signed just last year and more recently, the $2 billion that was taken from this year's budget to top off the CHST for health care.

Again I quote the member for Joliette. Here is what he said on November 4, 2003:

This is not an economic update. It is a political manoeuvre to allow Paul Martin to make the announcement himself a few weeks before the election. I cannot believe that Mr. Martin will not announce the $2 billion for health before calling an election.

Therefore, even if the government comes forward with a $2 billion investment, the cynical Bloc Quebecois will say that this is simply politics. We know that the top priority of Canadians is health care and our government is responding in that fashion and responding very well.

However, this goes beyond just money, and the minister of state pointed it out very well. We have to manage our health care system much better. We have an aging population. We have technology that is rapidly coming into play and that is creating opportunities to give Canadians better quality health care, to prolong their lives and to provide them with better treatment, but this costs money.

That is why our government says that it will insist on greater accountability, so citizens of every province can compare how their province has done, in terms of the value of the money that they have put into the health care system, against other provinces. They can compare how their province has done with waiting lists for emergency services and surgeries, and a whole host of other things.

There will be more accountability through the newly announced health council so citizens can ensure that they get value for their dollars. Yes, there will be more money put into health care by our federal government in the years to come, I am absolutely convinced of that, and by the provinces, but we need to ensure that we manage these costs prudently.

In the throne speech the government announced that there will be a greater emphasis on public health. In my riding of Etobicoke North we have a community health centre. The Etobicoke health centre provides a whole range of health promotion, health prevention and treatment to citizens. Therefore, it provides better care at a lower cost for our citizens. We need to look at that model. We need to provide the lower cost and better patient care solutions so we can move forward and have a health care system that is sustainable. We have many challenges ahead of us in the health care system.

Regarding the Bloc motion, it is healthy that we are having this type of debate, but unfortunately the only thing the Bloc Quebecois has succeeded in doing today is to again further confuse citizens, and that is very unfortunate.

Is it sufficient that the federal government contributes 40% of the total expenditures? Perhaps not. Perhaps we need to do more. Perhaps we all need to do more. However, to try to make this point about a 16% contribution, when the member from Joliette knows patently well that this figure is not even a close approximation of the truth, is a disservice to the citizens of Canada and to Quebecers.

With that, I certainly will be voting against this motion.

[Committees of the House, March 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-421, an act respecting the establishment of the Office of the Chief Actuary of Canada and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, and agreed on Tuesday, March 9, to report it without amendment.