1984-04-02

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 29, consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-3, an Act relating to cash contributions by Canada in respect of insured health services provided under provincial health care insurance plans and amounts payable by Canada in respect of extended health care services and to amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, at the point at which I was interrupted last week, I was beginning to say what I thought was significant about the Canada Health Act in terms of the history of medicare. I was saying why we feel it is important to support the Bill, regardless of its many flaws and the many things it does not do. The main reason for this, and this was said well by one particular witness, Dr. Robert Evans, is that this national consensus against extra billing and user fees has the possibility of finally putting behind us the debate about extra billing and user fees.
Something I have regretted for the last four years as health critic for my Party is that so much time had to be spent on the subject of extra billing and user fees when there are many other questions which have to be faced with regard to the future of our health care system. These two issues, extra billing and user fees, have dominated the political debate vis-a-vis medicare, and rightfully so. 1 am not complaining about that. 1 am saying that we are now at a point where hopefully we can go beyond arguing about extra billing and user fees and accept that these are practices which are regarded as unacceptable by all three political Parties. We should begin to face some of the other questions that remain as far as the future of our health care system is concerned.
1 acknowledge that this issue has existed since the beginning of medicare. The question of whether or not extra billing and user fees were or were not anomalies or violations of the spirit of medicare is an issue which has been ambivalent since the beginning of medicare. Now when we come so near to the end
of the debate on the Canada Health Act, we are saying that that ambivalence and ambiguity are finally resolved and we as the Parliament of Canada declare that extra billing and user fees are violations of the principle of medicare and that, as far as we are concerned, the debate on that issue is over.
I call on the provinces, particularly those provinces which have indicated opposition to the Canada Health Act, to respect the decision of Parliament and seek ways of eliminating extra billing and user fees in the provinces where these practices exist, and not to seek ways of getting around the Canada Health Act or making political hay out of whatever the provinces will argue will be the result of the Canada Health Act. It is important as well, not just federally but provincially, to go beyond the debate about extra billing and user fees and turn to some of the other questions.
There are two other things about this Bill which I think are important. Both of them are in the nature of what I would call conceptual victories or breakthroughs. These breakthroughs will not have any impact the day after the Act is passed but are important in the sense of reshaping our view of the health care system. The first one deals with the amendment to Clause 9 which uses the phrase "health care practitioner" and in particular talks about health care practitioners as being a group to which doctors, nurses and other health care practitioners belong. In this way, all of the health care professionals in the health care system are equal. They have different tasks but they are all health care practitioners, and that is the significance of the language in Clause 9 as amended.
Clause 9 as amended reads "other health care practitioners". This is the kind of wording for which the Canadian Nurses Association and others lobbied strenuously. I would like to take this opportunity to say how important a role those associations played in making sure that this kind of amendment was actually achieved. Their members would not stand for anything less and would not be satisfied with any token wording. They wanted it made clear that "health care practitioner" was a concept which, if it were to be included, must include everyone, and that is what they finally got from the Government. I am happy to see that the Government finally came around to that point of view and found a way to include wording such as that which is permissive in nature. It allows the provinces to begin to see the health care system in that way but does not require the provinces to do so. I think that that is a very important conceptual breakthrough in the Canada Health Act.
The second breakthrough has to do with an amendment which we proposed to the preamble to the Act. To the paragraph which indicated how we could expect to achieve further improvements in the well-being of Canadians, we had added

April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act
the notion of "collective action against the social, environmental and occupational causes of disease". It seems to me that the next big success that we will achieve with respect to health care in the country will not come so much from advanced technology, although that will be important. The next big success we as a society will see will come when we begin to address collectively the social, environmental and occupational causes of disease. That will have the same effect as did the earlier massive success when, in this country at least, we addressed the questions of clean water and sanitary conditions and the various other ways in which we wiped out the threat of infectious disease such as it existed at one time.
I wanted to call that amendment to the attention of the House because I think we have now begun to admit that we need to go beyond the curative physician-dominated system that exists in terms of the health care delivery system, and even beyond the individual, preventive, lifestyle kinds of approaches which are now popular with respect to health care. Those approaches are crucial but they will not do the trick for the millions and millions of Canadians whose health is being threatened by the things that only we as a society can do something about. I think the amendment to the preamble is particularly important in that respect.
Another amendment that I should like to call to the attention of the House and which we were responsible for implementing, is the amendment to Clause 10 which deals with universality. It calls for the provision of all services on uniform terms and conditions. This would go some way toward preventing the development of a multi-tier health care delivery system in provinces which, for instance, collect health care premiums and where there might have been some inclination in the future to stream health care consumers into various forms of health care delivery according to whether they had paid their premiums or were on premium assistance. I believe this was at least being contemplated and probably is still being contemplated in the Province of Ontario. In these circumstances, certain kinds of health care consumers might be streamed into community clinics on the basis of the fact that they are receiving premium assistance or whatever, and others who have paid the premiums would be eligible for fee for service and more individualized service. It is not that we have anything against community health clinics, Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary, but we do not want to see them turn into a form of ghettoization for certain Canadians. We want the concept to be broadened and used effectively for the well-being of all Canadians. That was the intent of the amendment to Clause 10.
We suggested some other amendments which were not accepted. We moved an amendment regarding the setting up of a national health council to provide continuing attention to the future of medicare. We called for stronger penalties because we have our doubts about the effectiveness of the penalties as they now stand. We hope, as I said earlier, however, that the provinces will respond to this national consensus against extra billing and user fees.
We moved an amendment regarding the acceptable ratio of ward beds as against private and semi-private beds. We were concerned that with increasing emphasis on hospitals having to generate more and more of their own revenue, accessibility might be threatened, not through extra billing and user fees but through the availability of beds that could be afforded through the provincial plan and not through extra insurance. That was rejected also.
We moved an amendment regarding parliamentary accountability because we felt that, with respect to other program conditions for which the Act gives the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) discretion, too much discretion was being given to the Minister. We felt that there should have been a way of involving the House of Commons, and particularly the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in adjudicating whether provinces were actually in violation of the principles of medicare. That was rejected.
We moved an amendment about positive incentives for provinces that move quickly to clean up their act with respect to extra billing and user fees. We felt that the Act as it stands is too punitive in nature and does not include enough positive incentives for provinces that want to act in this respect. That was rejected.
In committee I moved the amendment that was suggested by the Canadian Association of Interns and Residents. That was rejected, although the Government brought forward an amendment which it claims meets those needs. Opposition Parties, however, are not satisfied with that amendment nor are the residents and interns, and only time will tell whether it actually meets the needs.
At this point in the life of medicare, Mr. Speaker, it will take some political will, some imagination, some going beyond the traditional positions that everyone cherishes with regard to his or her own approach to medicare in order to address some of the very difficult questions facing us in the years ahead. We will feel very soon the impact of important demographic trends with respect to the aging of our society. I believe we should be laying the infrastructure, the planning and concepts to deal with that problem now, not wait until it hits us like a two-ton truck. There is a lack of foresight, I believe, on the part of governments which do not want to face up to the need for long-term investment to be able to meet those needs. So we have that demographic problem, Mr. Speaker. We have a technological problem as well. We have more and more lifesaving, diagnostic and therapeutic advanced technology which uses up more and more of the finite source of funds. Unless we can find a way to get unlimited funds, we are going to have some very difficult questions to answer down the road as to the allocation of health care dollars. I am aware that whenever this matter is brought up, particularly by the doctors, there is a great deal of criticism, and justly so in that doctors often bring it up in the wrong context. They often bring it up as a way of trying to win an argument on another point, Mr. Speaker.
April 2, 1984

There are questions having to do with the allocation of health care dollars because there is not an infinite amount of money, and there will be difficult decisions to be made. They may not be made in the way in which the medical community would like, and, as I say, I believe it is often brought up in a misleading way by the medical community. Nevertheless, there are difficult decisions to be made about the allocation of health care resources. Canadians will have to pay more attention to how their health care dollars are being spent. We will have to find a way, as we did through medicare when we found a way to go beyond the allocation of health care resources by the marketplace, and we will have to find a way to go beyond the present system which lays itself open more and more to the charge that bureaucrats are allocating health care resources by political and fiscal imperatives instead of health care imperatives.
The answer is not, Mr. Speaker, as so many in the CMA and others would have us believe, to return to allocation by the marketplace. The answer is to find the political will to go beyond both the marketplace and fiscal and political imperatives and find a third way in which we can face up to those difficult decisions about the allocation of health care dollars. At the same time as we want to go beyond the present system, we must resist the temptation, as we do in so many other areas of our economic and political life, to see, in the inadequacy of the present state of affairs, a reason to go back rather than ahead. I believe that is something, Mr. Speaker, which we should keep in mind.
There will have to be on the part of the federal Government a willingness to reopen the whole question of the funding relationship with the provinces. There must be a willingness to go back to the table and say, "We have all these other problems we have to meet, how can we meet them together?", rather than having the stubborn attitude that, "We provide a certain amount of money through block funding and that is it. We will put conditions on that money"-which I support- "but that is all we are going to do".
1 believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare and future Ministers of National Health and Welfare, will have to be willing to sit down with the provinces and renegotiate that funding relationship so we can have a full-fledged financial partnership with respect to medicare.
There are many other questions we will have to face but I do not have the time to go into them. There will be the question of transportation in northern Ontario, for instance, and other remote parts of the country where people do not, in a sense, have equal access to hospital care. They must spend a lot more money than people living in urban centres to provide their families with the kind of hospital care which may be recommended by their physicians. These are all questions and conditions which impede the realization of the original vision of medicare. There are things which are still on the agenda, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, with the passage of this Act, we can put the debate about extra billing and user fees behind us and trust that provinces will see the wisdom of this and act in the very
Canada Health Act
near future to eliminate extra billing and user fees so that the spirit in which we in this House approach this Act will be infectious and we will see that kind of co-operative attention paid to our health care system from here on.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Member would advise the House whether this Bill in any way prevents doctors from practising outside the system? In other words, can they practise outside the provincial medical system and send their bills directly to their patients?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat the question just to make sure I have it correct. Can doctors opt out, bill their patients and then have their patients bill the plan? Is that what you are saying?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Can doctors opt out?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Doctors can do anything they like so long as they do not extra-bill their patients. That is my view and that of the parliamentary task force, on which my friend and I both sat, of what constitutes extra billing. Extra billing is when patients are charged more than the plan will pay them.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Will the Member advise me where in this Bill a province is prevented from reimbursing a patient for money he may have paid to a doctor? Let us say that a doctor practised medicine in California and the patient saw him there, or an Ontario patient went to Quebec and saw a doctor and paid him directly. Could the patient be reimbursed? If the patient went to the Mayo Clinic in New York, could he be reimbursed? Indeed, could he be reimbursed if he saw a specialist in Ontario and the specialist said he did not practise state medicine, "If you want to collect from the province and the province does not pay you, fine, I do not care. You pay me".
Would the province be prevented from paying that patient something toward the bill?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member understands the Bill.


Miss Begin:: No, that is obvious.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Bill does not prevent anything. It simply says that if extra billing occurs, there will be a dollar for dollar penalty. I have explained what constitutes extra billing. What the Bill does is to provide for a penalty for extra billing to the extent that it exists in any particular province. How particular provinces decide to regulate, eliminate or control, or whatever they decide to do with extra billing, will be the business of the provinces. I am sure the Hon. Member would not want me to make recommendations on how individual provinces make judgements in the particular cases he brings up.


Mr. Hudecki:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to express my concern at one aspect of the Bill which has not been addressed as it should be. The Hon. Member who has just spoken is an

April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act
expert in various aspects of the Bill and I would like to hear his opinion.
As he well knows, medical advances are so rapid that it is essential to develop a system of training to give extra attention to these various advances, which will reflect themselves in better care. That aspect has not been addressed in this Bill. We think in terms of quantity, geographical distribution and universality, yet we do not think in terms of quality of care. This requires an extra effort on the part of the graduate physicians and doctors who have spent x-number of years in conventional and in specialized training, often at their own expense. The Bill does not address itself to supporting these people, giving them the extra help they need to get that training and practise it efficiently. Without that category of physician there will be a deterioration of medical services in this country. In the various speeches I have heard the Hon. Member make, I have not heard him address himself to that particular issue.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the nature and quality of the training that physicians receive is not something over which the federal Government has a great deal of say. The Hon. Member is a physician himself and knows that, to a great extent, physicians are a self-regulating monopoly. However, there is a lot of public money spent on them. There is a great investment made by the public in medical schools. I do not have the numbers at hand, but I am sure it is a phenomenal amount of public money which is spent to train physicians. Some of them then turn around, in their own peculiar way of saying how grateful they are, and say that they do not feel they can make enough money here, and so they go to Houston or some place else.
I think great improvements could be made in the quality of care, Mr. Speaker. We must first identify more clearly what we mean by care. Care is not only the precision and insight with which physicians make judgements. Care has to do with how many nurses are on the ward, the conditions in which patients live out their days in hospitals, what kind of services are available in the home, and how humane the total health care system is. We have to consider those areas in addressing quality of care. It seems to me that physicians have some way to go in order to catch up with that view. They must begin to treat a person more as a whole person and less as a case study.


Stanley Hudecki: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is showing a little bit of ignorance toward what constitutes quality care. First and foremost, a great deal of the training that physicians and surgeons must take is not taken in Canada and is not taken with the help of public funds. That type of training is not available in this country. Most of these people will go offshore or to the United States and will spend years of their time in training. They will do it at considerable personal expense. There is a tendency for breakdowns in their families as a result of being separated from them.
With regard to the quality of care, the humane aspect does not show itself in some of the procedures which are practised.
Time and again the essential part of the treatment is the skill of the physician in acquiring the new techniques and approaches. The follow-up care is in the hands of the rest of the team.
Therefore, there are two factors here. The first is that the quality of care is achieved without financial assistance from the federal Government, at the expense of the individual doctors. Second, in most situations the doctor must be the person in charge who must take the overall responsibility, something which cannot be done by other members of the health care team.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on third reading on Bill C-3, the Canada Health Act, it is important to state at the outset that our contribution to this debate, both at this stage and throughout the study of this Bill, is based on the principle that the Progressive Conservative Party, from the very beginning of the debate on a national health care system, has supported just such a system, namely a national health care system. It is important to remind the House and the Canadian public that this is the case. It dates back to 1956 when at a national convention the Party in fact moved a policy principle in which the Party committed itself to a national health care system to be achieved in co-operation with the provinces. That system was to be one of which Canadians could be proud and which it was within the resources of Canadians to afford. Those principles established by the Party in 1956, Mr. Speaker, are the principles on which this Party stands today. It is from that basis that we complete the debate on the health care system.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that it was only a few years after that conclusion of the Party in 1956, during the Government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, that the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act of 1957 was passed. In 1962, the medicare system came into Saskatchewan. This was done through the co-operation of the Saskatchewan Government of Mr. Tommy Douglas as well as of Prime Minister Diefenbaker. These two gentlemen both gave tribute to the contribution that was made at that time.
I make those statements at the outset, Mr. Speaker, to allay the suggestions made by some people that the Progressive Conservative Party is not in favour of a universal national health care system. The record not only supports that, it substantiates it. Having made those comments, I hope we can go on to real issues rather than continue to address issues which in fact are not issues at all.
Before us we have a Bill which has been largely amended through the committee process. It has seen a number of amendments brought forward by the Government, by our Party, as well as by the New Democratic Party. I believe the Bill before us is more realistic in terms of the health care system than the Bill which we addressed at second reading. When I use the word realistic, that is the sense in which I use it.
The Minister is in the House today. I would like to thank her for the kind comments she made during her participation
April 2, 1984

in third reading. Even the preamble of the Bill was changed after second reading. This remains in front of the national agenda on health care. I will quote in part the amendment to the preamble. It reads:
-that it is not the intention of the government of Canada that any of the powers, rights, privileges or authorities vested in Canada or the provinces under the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly named the British North America Act, 1867), or any amendments thereto, or otherwise, be by reason of this Act abrogated or derogated from or in any way impaired;
That simply means that the Government is concerned that the Bill in part could be seen to be moving into or at least affecting the constitutional jurisdiction of the health field which is within provincial rights. I do not have the right to speak for the provinces. I do not know if the provinces will take this Bill or provisions of this Bill to the courts. It is important to note in the House today that that amendment was brought in by the Government, I suggest, because of the Government's own concern and fear that parts of this Bill could be seen by the courts to be involving the federal Government in provincial jurisdictions. The reason I raise this matter is that it is at the very heart and nub of what I believe the health care system should be. It should be a system based on co-operation and recognition that the provinces have the primary responsibility for health care delivery systems. It should be based on the recognition that the federal Government has a responsibility to maintain that the five principles of medicare which we support are not only kept intact but that the system does not violate them in any way. As we look at the action of the provinces, it will be very interesting to see whether or not Bill C-3, the Canada Health Act, will be challenged in court.
What is of greater significance is the amendments to Clause 3 and Clause 4. Clause 3 is entitled "Canada Health Care Policy" and there were substantial sections of Clause 3 removed by the Government through amendment. In fact, the words that it removed were, "It is hereby declared that the Canadian health care policy should be designed and administered: (a) to encourage effective allocation of the nation's health resources: (b), to facilitate the provision of adequate health services throughout Canada".
Surely no one could quarrel with the statement that the health care system should facilitate the provision of adequate health services throughout Canada. One must raise the question as to why the federal Government feels it necessary to remove those words from the Bill which is called the Canada Health Act. 1 think the answer is quite straightforward. I stated earlier that although the Bill does not address the Canada health system as I would have liked it to, I believe that the amendment that the Government then moved is more significant and makes the Bill more realistic because Clause 3 states that:
-the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.
Let us go to Clause 4, which describes the purpose of the Bill. It reads:
______________________________________2607
Canada Health Act
The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions that must be met before full payment may be made under the Act of 1977-
Those words are significant in the sense that the Minister had to recognize, through the amendment procedure, that what the Canada Health Act was really addressing was not so much the future of health care as what she was going to put forward in the Act, that is, financial penalties for extra billing and user fees. The national agenda should have been to consider the question of what we see in national health care services in the future; what those services should be; what model should best be brought into being through co-operation with the provinces while keeping in mind the provinces' primary responsibility; and finally addressing the question, difficult though it may be, of how we allocate resources both human and financial to meet the health care system of the future.
I suggest that, unfortunately, the opportunity to do that was greatly restricted by the scope of the Bill and, in fact, the amendments restricted the Bill even further. Members present in the House today who sat on the committee would agree with me, I believe, that there was hardly an exception to the fact that as witnesses appeared before the committee they would address the matter of extra billing and user fees and then go on to say what they thought should be the national agenda. The national agenda was: What do we do about an aging population; what do we do about technology; what do we do about preventive health care; what do we do about co-operation with the provinces, and what do we do about resources. Those are the issues with which the House must deal. Unfortunately, this Bill does not do so.
Having said that, while amendments which we brought forward were rejected by the Government in many cases, the principle of our amendment was accepted by the Government in other amendments. I mention only a few to make the point. One concerns the health care practitioner. I want to point out that the concept of the health care practitioner is now part of the Canada Health Act in Clause 9 and the definition clause. I also want to state very clearly to the public and the provinces that this does not impose an extra financial burden on the provinces. I suggest that it is no different from Section 4(3) of the Medical Care Act of 1966 in which, for example, there were services not covered through the insured services, such as optometrical services, which the province could in fact provide in part through an insured service with the province only. They were never covered through the federal-provincial financial transfer system.
Since we have flagged that the health care system is a system consisting totally of health care practitioners, it is important to note that the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses' Association and other professionals who are familiar with the health care system realize that we must move toward a more holistic approach both to medicine and to the health care professional. When talking about a holistic system, we must consciously put forward the fact that the health care system should address the other concepts of preventive health care. While I believe it will always have illness as its primary

April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act
orientation, since the health care system obviously must address illness, it should not be restricted only to the concept of addressing illness.
I believe that the amendment respecting the health care practitioner does give the provinces and health care practitioners an opportunity to take an approach to health care resources, that is professionals, finances and the philosophy of holistic medicine, without imposition on the provinces themselves.
I am sure that members of the committee and the House would agree that in terms of the Canadian Medical Association and amendments to Clause 12(2), I have spoken on it as much possibly as anyone. I should point out that the wording in that clause in the original draft Bill was that medical professionals had the right to reasonable compensation. What does reasonable compensation mean and how does one approach the question of reasonable compensation? I go back to Mr. Justice Emmet Hall who said in his report in 1980 that the health care system in fact could be eroded in the future if extra billing and user fees were allowed to continue or to expand. However, he never made those statements in isolation. He always added that if that were to take place through legislation there had to be a system whereby medical professionals would be entitled to reasonable compensation. Those two views were always tied together.
Those were his words in his report, and he reiterated the statement at the committee hearing of February 14, as can be found on page 510. He said, "Accepting that physicians have a right to be fairly and adequately compensated can be stated this way; no more, no less, and the state has a right to be concerned with the problem." I agree with the principles he stated, that there must be fairness and there must be a balance between recognizing professional independence and recognizing the fact that the public which finances the system has the right to services for which they have paid. There must aiso be recognition of the fact that the health care professional not only feels that he or she has been adequately compensated financially but also that psychologically and professionally society recognizes their contribution and their role.
Mr. Justice Hall goes even further in a press article, which appeared as recently as today, in which he states very clearly that medical doctors cannot dictate fees because, in a sense, as we get a national health system they give up in part a certain freedom in exchange for a health care system. But that is the dilemma and the conundrum.
I say to the provinces that the amendment which we brought forward is not binding on the provinces but it is at least a model, or they can now develop models whereby fee structures and fee disputes can be resolved. It is not my purpose, nor is it my right, to dictate to the provinces how this should be done. I simply put forward the principles once again. If the system is to work and if the people within it are to feel that they are making a valid contribution which is recognized by society, I commend that amendment to the provinces for further study.
The toughest question in health care is the question of cost containment. How do we address that question? It is clear that we have to state again that it is not within federal jurisdiction to address this question in isolation. I want to say to all Members of the House and to the Canadian public that when we talk about cost containment, we are not talking in the sense that we want to erode in any way the principles of medicare. It is for the reason that we want to preserve medicare that we must address the question of cost containment.
Let us take a look at the last two years. If one takes a look at the recession, one finds that the Gross National Product used for health care has risen dramatically. If one takes a look at the national deficit, 25 cents of every dollar collected from the taxpayers of Canada is used to service the debt. If we add that 25 cents of every dollar to service the debt, and if we take a look at our safety nets of health care insurance and unemployment insurance, systems which we want to maintain, the real question becomes: when will we get our economic house in order so that the systems and services Canadians want to have maintained can be paid for? That is the issue.
I would like to give a very practical example. I know the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) will make the case more strongly on the economic side, but if we were able to reduce the 25 cents by 5 cents to 20 cents for the servicing of the national debt, it would give us roughly $7 billion to $8 billion. The expenditures of the federal Government in terms of national health care are between $9 billion and $10 billion.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Every time you get up you ask the Government to spend more.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We are getting the traditional catcalls from the Liberals. When a person wants to address these questions, he has to address them, no matter what catcalls he gets and no matter what the difficulty. Additionally, we have to look at the cost of technology and demography. How do we do this? That is the question. I will put it to the House very bluntly and in a very straightforward way. We cannot do it in the federal House by imposition. The only way to do it, when we talk about a health care system which is a national plan and in which the provinces have primary responsibility, is to sit down with the provinces and look at the issues.
If there has been anything lacking over the last few years in the health care system, it has been co-operation. We have to return to co-operative federalism because we cannot impose from here, nor will we have a better system because we impose. The best way to do it is to get back to economic principles and increase economic activity. If we look at the statistics, as the economic recession deepened we got into more and more difficulty in the health care system. Surely the global answer is once again to establish an economic climate where people who are risk takers are able to invest and feel that their investment and their return will be seen as their right to invest in the economy. We must not look at the question from a reductions point of view. We cannot take an
April 2, 1984

ever increasing piece of the pie from the general paying public, but we should increase the size of the economic activity of Canada.
Those are very difficult issues. I would like to give another example. National voluntary agencies want to become involved in the health care system. Let us get them involved. Let us get them around the table to see how it can be done. I am referring to agencies such as the Victorian Order of Nurses. There are many suggestions one could make in this field, but my greatest suggestion would be to get on with some of the positive aspects rather than always to raise the question of how we do it.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member, my official critic in the Official Opposition, a question concerning the alleged underfunding of the system. I am sure the Hon. Member will excuse me if I do not have the details, but the figures are well known to all of us who worked on medicare in committee. In the years which followed block funding, years in which the federal funding went up to a national average of 58 per cent of the so-called medicare, extra billing and user fees started to grow instead of remaining at a low level as they had done for years, and thus the crisis we are in was created. How does he reconcile the fact that when we gave the most money extra charges were placed upon the patients? I do not understand his reasoning.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this debate has been going on for some time. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) goes back to the previous Budgets of her Government, she will note very clearly that in those Budget statements the Minister of Finance said that through reductions of the EPF the Government over the next period of the EPF would reduce its funding by $5.7 billion, that is $5.7 billion over what had been projected. If she goes to the last Budget, she will see that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said that through the rejigging of the system or because the inflation rate was lower, he found an additional amount of money. Then it came out that it was not only $269 million; there was an additional sum of money, in the area of $700 million, which was part of the system.


Monique Bégin: What does that have to do with my question?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 will get to your question. When we look at block funding, what the Minister had said for so long, which was rejected, was that the provinces were diverting money that they were receiving either for health care or for post-secondary education. They were diverting it into other fields of provincial responsibility. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall very clearly stated that there was no evidence to that effect at all.
If one takes a look at the manner in which health care systems developed in the 1960s and onward, for example, one finds that the average inflation rate during that decade was approximately 4.5 per cent, but health care costs were rising at an average of 12.2 per cent. That built-in cost is now within the system. Additionally, there have been without any question other factors which have added to the cost of the health care
Canada Health Act
system well beyond any escalation of cost sharing from the federal Government or, as we now call it, block funding.
The question the Minister has to relate more directly is, what percentage of their provincial budgets the provinces are now expending for health care as against previous years? If we take a province such as Alberta, it pays more to date per capita for health care than any other province. If we take a look at provinces in Atlantic Canada, over 50 per cent of their total provincial budget is now transfer payments. The point I am making to the Minister is that in each case those provinces are spending between 25 cents and 30 cents of their total budget on health care, and that is rising. The ability to afford more is the serious question which those provinces and we in the House have to address.


Monique Bégin: The Hon. Member has not answered my question. In fact, he used a completely irrelevant standard of measurement; he offered it without explaining it. It has no relationship to the portion of a budget which the province puts to medicare. By the way. the Hon. Member never spoke of medicare; he kept referring to the total health Bill. That is not what the feds are in, and it is not the purpose of this Act. That is why I referred him to medicare. He did not answer my question. Why is it that extra billing and user fees rose at the very moment that the federal share was well above 50 per cent? Second, does the Member not know that in the case of Alberta the share of its budget is larger for medicare because it decided to build small hospitals in every town and village? That is their responsibility. Unfortunately, it is a problem.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, here again is the philosophical difference between the Minister and myself. The provinces have a responsibility and a constitutional right to set up a health care system which they feel is the best model for their province. That is their constitutional right and responsibility. Having said that, this is the other part of the debate where the Minister and I are at fundamental odds; she likes to keep on restricting her version of health care.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Answer her question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is the best speech you have ever made. Too bad it was so limited. The Minister says we should only discuss medicare, only discuss doctors' fees and active care hospitals. There is the whole point. Do we want a health care system restricted in that way? I thought I made the point about looking at the matter in the larger context. What have we done for mental hospitals?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. I hate to cut off the Hon. Member, but questions and comments should be relatively short to give everyone a chance to participate. The Hon. Member has had a good time for response. He will have another opportunity.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope that I can at least answer the question.

April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. The ten-minute period for questions and comments is to allow all Members to participate. The questions and comments should be relatively short. The Hon. Member for Provencher has had two interventions during this period which have been relatively long in proportion to the time spent on the questions. I just draw this to his attention. He will have a chance to respond to another question in a minute.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) mentioned in his most recent intervention the question of philosophical differences. He has talked about co-operative federalism. What do you do in the case of the Minister of Health in Alberta who makes it quite clear that there is nothing to negotiate? His view of extra billing and user fees is an ideological one. For him extra billing and user fees is part and parcel of a free enterprise view of reality. You have ideological choices. They choose to have user fees and tax the sick rather than have a gasoline or sales tax. That is not a question of economic necessity but a question of philosophical preference. How do you sit down and negotiate philosophical preferences? It seems to be a political question that the Member is avoiding.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that if she wants to restrict her narrow vision to health care she can say yes, she is at 50.3 per cent. When you look at the total health care Bill, she is at best at 40 per cent. If she had sat down and discussed both issues from that point of view, rather than just hung on to that one narrow aspect, which she has always done, we would have a better health care system.
With regard to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), I thought he himself answered his question best. When he was asked earlier by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South whether the Bill outlaws extra billing, he said no, it does not. What the Bill does is to use the federal spending power to withhold certain sums against the matter of extra billing and user fees. He recognized in committee, and I believe he recognized it in his speech today as well, that while there are political differences, the provinces have a right to set up the health care system. What the federal Government and we through this Bill have responsibility for is to maintain the principles in order that that universal system is maintained.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. The ten-minute period for questions and comments has expired.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I join late in the debate on this Bill. Unfortunately, it was not possible for me to participate on second reading or in committee. I regret that. However, I believe that the committee did a first-class job. This Bill by and large fulfills the requirements that the parliamentary task force on fiscal arrangements set out with respect to the medicare and health care system and the federal Government's responsibility in that system.
You, Mr. Speaker, will personally remember being a part of that task force and our considerations on the various criteria,
in which the federal Government participated, in health care programs in Canada. I refer again to Clause 7 of the Bill where the five criteria of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessability are set out. A number of people have suggested that it is not the federal obligation to look after and ensure that there are these criteria, but I asked my constituents that question. I asked: "Do you believe that the federal Government has an obligation to ensure the existence of a national medicare and hospitalization system and insist on specific national standards, and does it have the right to penalize provinces that do not comply with national standards?" My constituents answered 72 per cent yes and 21 per cent no. Despite what Colin Brown has indicated in the large advertisements of the National Citizens' Coalition, the Act has a good deal of public support. This Party supports this Bill.
It is very important that matters such as user fees be banned. In the task force we studied the question of user fees and how hospitals, in order to discourage people from using their facilities, charged a fee. That fee either had to be so large as to be punitive and therefore hurt the poor and the sick, or be so small as to be negligible and, therefore, a fee that would not deter anybody, and one that would be used up in administration. When we were in Whitehorse, we found that the hospitals, under the auspices of this Minister, were directed to have a user fee for emergency services. The study of that user fee indicated that the entire fee was used up in the administration of trying to collect it. That was a rather foolish type of fee which, thank goodness, no longer exists. This Bill bans that class of fee.
A great deal has been said with respect to extra billing. In our tours of the country, we found certain situations in certain provinces, particularly in Saskatchewan which at that time was under a New Democratic government. That province not only allowed its doctors to collect from the medicare system, but to charge extra to the patients. The doctor had it both ways. He could bill the system and bill the patient. That was an extra type of fee. The same situation existed in a number of the maritime provinces. That kind of billing is improper. To rely on the system, to look after all your credit headaches, all of your problems, and then charge the patient an extra $2, $5 or $10, whatever the patient can afford, is to set up a double system of medical care.
I referred earlier to the activities of the National Citizens' Coalition, which had the temerity to ask, "How would you like your open-heart surgery done by a civil servant?", or, "How would you like your baby delivered by someone who delivers the mail?" It suggested that this Act would somehow destroy the ability of persons to see a doctor. I say, nonsense, Sir.
Earlier on in today's debate, I asked if this Bill in any way required that a doctor sign up or be committed to the medicare system. In fact, it does not. Nowhere in this Bill does it say that a medical practitioner must practise within the provincial medical system. He is entitled, if he can qualify, to practise
April 2, 1984

any way he wants and to practice within the hospital system in the way he already practises. He is entitled to send his bills to his patient in the normal course of events. He is not recruited, conscripted or forced to belong to the Ontario system, the Manitoba system or any other system.
Having said that, Sir, there is nothing within this Bill that in any way prevents the provinces from reimbursing to the level of the medicare fees in that province the patients who go to see doctors who do not belong to the system. Nothing in this Bill prevents that from happening. It may be said by some that that is a form of extra billing, but how in the world can it be extra billing if the doctors do not even belong to the system? How can a doctor extra-bill the system if he is not even part of the system, any more than a doctor who works at the Mayo Clinic or a doctor who practises in Florida or a doctor who practises in another province is part of the system? Indeed, as far as the other provinces are concerned and as far as doctors practising out of the jurisdiction are concerned, the concept of universality and portability contemplates the reimbursement of fees paid out by patients to doctors by the provincial system.
Doctors who do not belong to the system do not bill the system. Therefore, their bills can in no way be treated as extra billing. That billing is not extra to anything if the doctor is not part of that system. The real political question is whether or not this Minister would try to say that if a province reimburses a patient for seeing a doctor who does not belong to a system, that province was in some way evading the provisions of the Canada Health Act.
Before I discuss that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss a question which I put to my own constituents. I will read into the record the question I put to my constituents. The question was: "About 14 per cent of Ontario doctors are opted out of medicare. These doctors bill their patients directly. Do you believe that patients of opted-out doctors should be able to collect from the provincial Government that portion of the fee billed to them by their doctor that would normally be paid directly to the doctor if the doctor had not opted out?"
In answer to that question, 67 per cent of my constituents said yes and 26 per cent said no. I suggest to the Minister and to any provincial Minister who might be involved that they might have a very difficult time saying to someone who went to the Mayo Clinic or to a specialist who was not interested in medicare that he could not be reimbursed for his expenses. Any government which indicated that would be in serious trouble indeed.
However, the Act does go a long way toward making sure that universality exists. The provisions of the Act specifically indicate that the service must be comprehensive. That means that people should be able to find medical service that is in accordance with a provincial universal system anywhere in the province. To that extent, if a province would not operate on the basis of having medical service generally available, then, in my view, it would be in default of its conditions. It would not be in default by opting out or by imposing extra billing but by not making sure that there were medical practitioners generally
Canada Health Act
able to offer services to those who are entitled to rely on medical service without the payment of an extra bill.
In that sense, Sir, I think the committee did an excellent job by introducing the concept of reasonable compensation through the amendments which require a type of arbitration to determine the fair fees medical practitioners should charge for their work. The arbitration of fees as conceived by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall is a kind of arbitration that protects not only the practitioner but also protects the public. I think that the committee, in introducing that concept of arbitration, has provided a worthwhile service to medicare.
One of the major concerns we all have is about the rising cost of health care. That cost is rising because of a number of factors. The first factor is the enormous amount of new technology that is coming on stream. The Minister has indicated that she pays for 50 per cent of the medicare system, but does she pay for 50 per cent of the health care system in the broad sense? The answer is no. In the Province of Ontario she pays for perhaps 38 per cent or 40 per cent of the health care system.
A good part of the payments for the health care system are for technology and for making people healthier in non-traditional ways. This is part of the health care technology that exists, and as that technology carries on and as people, because of that technology, live longer, the cost of health care will rise dramatically. We must come to grips, either federally, provincially or as a nation, with the cost of health care. Obviously, if we carry on as we do, we could well reach the point where health care takes a far greater percentage of our income and our national productivity than might be appropriate for a growing country.
One of the suggestions I received to deal with that issue was to take a look at some of the tort liability concerns of doctors. The Minister will know that following what has happened in the United States, medical practitioners are gravely concerned about being sued for malpractice. Often lawsuits are brought even though the doctor has probably done almost everything conceivably possible required to do a first-class job. Whether it was a first-class effort or not, it can be seen in a considerably different way in hindsight than it was seen in foresight.
Second, we must deal with the whole question of the tort liability of a doctor for negligence. I hope that the Minister will do something in terms of negotiations with her provincial counterparts. Perhaps she could have the provinces pass some sort of legislation that would restrict the liability of doctors to cases in which there is absolute gross negligence. This is the kind of step that might seriously reduce some of the costs of the health care system. When doctors pay enormous fees for medical malpractice insurance, those fees must be passed on as one of their costs of doing business. It must obviously be passed on somewhere in their fee structure.
Third, the payment system itself under medicare tends to encourage medical practitioners to perform more services than they might otherwise perform if the medicare system were different. There is a fee for attendance at a doctor's office and that fee is minimal. However, patients seem to have the feeling

April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act
that doctors are cramming in more people per hour in order to receive a reasonable hourly return. The same thing applies with respect to extra tests and procedures. Doctors tell me I can be sued if I do not take all the tests they order. There seems to be a feeling that the present payment system militates in favour of more services and therefore more fees-the more services rendered, the more fees collected and the higher the doctor's income.
A constituent suggested to me that provincial governments could reward people who did not see their doctor. At the present time, in the course of a year most of us see a doctor. If a rebate or some sort of benefit were paid for not using the system or only using it in a minimal way, the number of usages could be cut down. Perhaps there could be a tax rebate or a medical fees rebate or, in Ontario, an Ontario hospital insurance premium rebate or even a rebate to those who do not pay premiums. The Minister knows that there has been an enormous explosion in the use of the system and that that has created overcrowding in hospitals and in doctors' offices. It is part of the cost we face in making medical services more or less free.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to address the question of portability. One thing has been omitted from the Bill that I had hoped to find there, and that is, some type of clearing system organized by the federal Government for the payment of interprovincial medical charges. For instance, if I go to British Columbia and need to see a doctor or go to a hospital, there is the possibility that I might not pay or that the Ontario Government might not pay or that the Ontario Government would only pay an Ontario fee, which is not necessarily a British Columbia fee. The system should provide that a doctor in British Columbia would bill a central system and be reimbursed directly. The central system would then collect from the province. This problem was mentioned to us by doctors when we were on tour. I hope that the Minister will be able to work out a type of central clearing system for interprovincial billings for medical and hospital services with provincial Health Ministers. Doctors or hospitals who render service to a tourist should not feel that they may not be paid, and that has been the perception in the past.
On balance, we believe that this is a very good Bill and we are prepared to support it. We believe that efforts by the National Citizens' Coalition to castigate the Bill are wrong. If people read the Bill and understand it, they will appreciate that it is an attempt by the Government to come to grips with the concept of universal health care. That is not an easy concept and it will have to be worked on. Anything that is perceived as being free is abused, as we all know very well, but surely this Bill will not result in my gall-bladder being removed by a bureaucrat.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, when I first heard the Hon. Member talking about his support for universality in the Bill, I thought that after he had taken a survey of his constituents he had also taken a trip to Damascus. As I listened, however, I discovered that he stopped in Beirut and was shell-shocked.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. His colleague, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) has indicated that his view of medicare is that it is constitutionally a provincial responsibility and that the provinces should be able to build whatever hospitals they want wherever they want them and provide whatever services they want and that automatically the federal Government should pay 50 per cent of the cost. I should like to know whether that is the Hon. Member's view as well.
The Hon. Member commented about doctors making unnecessary tests. I should like to ask him who should decide which tests a doctor should order. Does he suggest that some citizens are entitled only to second or third class medical care? Who is going to make that decision? Will it be the doctor or some bureaucrat, as he said?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope it is not the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) who makes the decision about who gets second-class treatment. I am sure we would all get second-class treatment according to his analysis.
The Hon. Member knows that the provinces are jurisdictionally responsible for the delivery of health care. He knows that as part of the Established Programs Financing Act, going back for many, many years, the federal Government has spent money, originally up to 50 per cent, on the cost of supporting certain services.
The Hon. Member knows that the present Bill provides for a formula for paying block funds to provinces. He knows that, in the broad sense of health care, it is not 50 per cent, but that when we impose conditions we may have to look at the extent of that funding. I suggest that the Hon. Member ought to be hearing from his own constituents. If more conditions are imposed on the Province of New Brunswick than they presently have, then New Brunswick is probably going to need more funding in order to meet those conditions.
I do not know very much about Damascus and I do not know very much about Beirut, and I certainly do not know what they have to do with medicare. Surely the Hon. Member is not suggesting that it is Liberal policy that the Liberal Government will step in and run every hospital and clinic in the country.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by commending the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) for making the remarks he did about the inadequate, to say the least, nature of the arguments put forward recently by the National Citizens' Coalition. I think that criticism of their views by the Hon. Member will have more credibility with that group than any criticisms I might make as a New Democrat. I commend him for having set the record straight for all those who are in the habit of giving the views of the National Citizens' Coalition more credibility than I am. The Act does not do what they claim it does.
April 2, 1984

The Hon. Member mentioned the fact that extra billing has existed in Saskatchewan from the very beginning. That is true, Mr. Speaker. I would ask him to recall, however, that the provision for extra billing was worked out in the middle of one of the hottest political debates that Canada has ever seen-it happened in the middle of a strike by doctors in Saskatchewan.
The government of the day did not do it willingly or because it believed in extra billing; it is something that was worked out in the heat of the moment. It is too often used in a spurious political way to suggest that even New Democrats, or at that time the CCF, are in favour of extra billing. They are not and I should like the Hon. Member to set the record straight.
1 am glad to see that the Hon. Member is consistent on other matters. He was a member of the parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements which made a lot of the recommendations which appeared in the Canada Health Act. I think that is one of the reasons why he can speak so favourably about the Bill. It is one of the few instances in this place when recommendations have actually appeared in legislation.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the argument is that the Government of Saskatchewan allowed extra billing because it was in the middle of a strike and in the heat of the moment. I did not know that Members of the New Democratic Party or the CCF settled their principles that easily, gave away their principles that easily, but they certainly remained in that fashion in Saskatchewan because it made sense to them in that province, that is why. It made sense because they knew that if they did not allow some way in which those specialists with extra skills could get something more for their extra skills, they would have problems in their system. Therefore, they went for this extra billing system. I believe their system was wrong. The Ontario system makes a doctor who decides not to belong to the system opt out completely and take the total credit risk for all his patients. He does not know whether his patients will pay him or not but he cannot bill mother province, if he opts out, for any patient. He opts out for all. That makes, in my view, much more economic sense, and I was surprised that Saskatchewan did not go for that. It went for the system of just letting people charge extra on top of what is already a good fee paid to the doctor by the province.


Stanley Hudecki: Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to raise two issues with the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). One issue has to do with his concept of opting out. There is one province, the Province of Quebec, which will not allow a physician to opt out and collect money from the insurance plan. A non-participating physician in that province expects to receive full pay from the patient without being reimbursed in any way. Second, inasmuch as the Hon. Member is a member of the legal profession, I wonder what his thoughts are of the concept which was brought forward by one of his judicial experts. That instead of having malpractice insurance, which is a growth industry among lawyers, there would be a system of medical injury compensation in which a
Canada Health Act
central board would adjudicate as to whether or not there actually was malpractice and definite damage to the individual.
Malpractice insurance, as the Hon. Member pointed out, is a very serious problem. The costs of it have been escalating dramatically. Currently, there are three risk groups: neurosurgeons, orthopaedic surgeons and obstetricians and gynaecologists, and they are now paying $2,000 a year. In the next two or three years it is expected to be as much as $5,000 a year. That matter must be considered and I would like to hear the Hon. Member's thoughts on the credibility and the suitable utilization of a system somewhat similar to a compensation board.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not feel competent to comment on the Quebec system. There are many other sociological differences between the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario, and to comment on how doctors operate in Quebec would perhaps be unfair. I might have my thoughts on it, and the Hon. Member, perhaps, has some thoughts on it as well.
With respect to medical injury compensation, I believe it is a bad move. I believe that what we ought to encourage provinces to do is to restrict the tort liability to gross negligence. I feel that when a person goes to a doctor and has an operation, if there is a mistake in that operation, well, that is the way it is. Unless one can prove the doctor is absolutely grossly negligent, there should be no liability. The same applies when you see a doctor on a consultative basis. Surely to goodness you cannot judge these things after the event. If one wants to go into a compensation scheme, one is going to find that the malpractice insurance was cheap because the news cost will involve a whole series of bureaucrats, a great big office, some type of a board system. All one has to do is to look at what it costs employers today in our Province of Ontario to pay workmens' compensation. The medical malpractice insurance is cheap compared to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The period for questions and comments has expired. Debate.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in this debate in, I suppose, a kind of mixed mood. For two years I was responsible as the spokesperson for the Conservative Party on the issue of health care. I travelled the country and attended committee meetings and over the two years I learned a great deal which I had not previously known about the health care system in this country. One of the first things 1 learned, Mr. Speaker, is that in some sense we have never had a health care system in the country. In reality, we have 12 different systems, one in each of the ten provinces, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Something which bothered me about the thought pattern of the Minister, as I listened to her in the House of Commons and in committee, is what I believe to be a fairly deeply held conviction on the Minister's part that there should be a single health care system in the country. I find that bothersome, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act
Speaker, perhaps because of my scientific background. It seems to me that when you have a single system for something as important as health, you increase the likelihood of making major mistakes. If everyone is going to be treated in the same way, then you must pick the way to treat them. If you pick the wrong way, Mr. Speaker, the mistake can be a real beaut. When you have 12 systems, perhaps dedicated to similar principles and going at problems in slightly different ways, you have in reality an opportunity system. In an opportunity system, you can learn from each other. In that kind of diversity, Mr. Speaker, I believe that over time you will find more wisdom. You are free to use your best judgement about something. Someone else's judgement from time to time may be better than your own and you can learn from that and build a stronger system.
Today we are debating something called the Canada Health Act. I really feel that a patient out there, an ordinary Canadian, would be hard pressed to read this piece of legislation and come to the conclusion in any sensible way that it is going to do a great deal for the health of Canadians. In reality it is misnamed. It is a health financing act. It is something which could have come from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and been defended in the House from that quarter. Perhaps that is the part which makes me feel the saddest, because we are really not dealing in this Act with the health care system problems of this country. Will any patient in this country be better off the day after this Act is proclaimed? Will their treatment be any better? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the answer is no. Does the Act guarantee better treatment for our patients in the future? Does it make a major contribution to better health care for patients in the future? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we would be hard pressed to find in this piece of legislation that kind of direction and change. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Patients care about health care. It has been my experience that health care professionals care about health care. I believe that provincial politicians care about health care. Hospital boards and federal politicians care. Everyone in the system cares. They would like to work together, I believe, to produce a better system in the longer term.
We are not dealing today with comprehensive legislation which has been dedicated to the improvement of health care in Canada, and I believe the blame for that must lie with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). It is owing to her personal inability to work co-operatively with the players in the system. This legislation, dealing essentially with provincial jurisdiction, has not been agreed to by the provincial governments, the major players in the system. I believe this legislation was conceived, developed and brought forward to this Chamber primarily to assist the Liberal Party of Canada in gathering the votes of Canadians. That was its motivation, Mr. Speaker.
We all know that out of motivation which we might consider less than adequate we sometimes get good things. There is some good in this legislation because there has been a great deal of fear created in the minds not only of senior citizens
particularly, but of low income people generally, that they were going to be denied access to the health care system because of financial charges of one kind or another. However, I believe the Minister, in part, deliberately created that fear. Now we have legislation which should reduce that fear. If we as Members of this Chamber create a problem, then we have the responsibility to take whatever action we can to reduce the problem.
Earlier this day, Mr. Speaker, we heard about increased costs of the health care system. I have just come from a weekend convention in a province where there is a great deal of concern about that and a sense of bewilderment about where those increased costs are coming from. Each of us who studies the issue can find reasons.
I can remember standing in this House in 1980 and 1981 and asking questions of Ministers along the following lines. It is pretty well a demonstrated fact that for every 1 per cent increase in unemployment you get about a 5 per cent increase in stress related diseases. That manifests itself in the form of wife battering, alcoholism, heart attacks and so on. Through this Government's policies we have increased unemployment by over 4 per cent. It therefore follows that through those same economic policies we have increased stress related diseases by 20 per cent. In our health care system those diseases are expensive. That, I believe, is where a large part of the increases in health care costs in this country are coming from. They come directly out of the Minister of Finance's portfolio in the federal Government.
We should not be surprised at the increase in stress-related diseases, Mr. Speaker; it was predictable. I stood in this Chamber and predicted it on more than one occasion. I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the former Minister of Labour, now Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia), the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), in one form or another, what they were going to do about the increased costs. The most common answer was that the prediction would not come true. There was no relationship between increased unemployment and increased incidence of stress-related diseases. It is 1984, Mr. Speaker, and it is now demonstrable that in fact these increases have been occurring. There is increased utilization of the health care system, which correlates well with the increased unemployment and increased economic hardship.
If the federal Government, and in particular the Minister of National Health and Welfare, want to take credit for doing something about the health care of Canadians, I do not think it will wash. We had the predictions going back to 1980, and we now have the record to look at. There has been no increased federal commitment to paying the bill for those increased health care costs. The federal Government, through its economic policies, has increased those costs but not its contribution. That leaves the Government in the best possible political position, because it does not have to take the political heat in meeting the increased need for services. It will push it off on the provinces.
April 2, 1984

The provinces have the responsibility to deliver the service and they have been scrambling the best they know how to handle those increased costs. Then the federal Government comes along and says that they have been doing it wrong. It does not tell them how to do it, it does not provide useful and positive suggestions for the future. It just tells them they have been doing it wrong. This issue, perhaps more than any other in the four years of this Parliament, should bring maximum concern to federal voters.
Any time you deal with health care, you deal with issues of life and death. Education and health care are two very large service delivery areas which the Canadian Constitution puts in the hands of the provinces. Unemployment increases the incidence of stress-related diseases and therefore increases costs in the health care system. But it also increases pressure on the educational system. Unemployed people choose to spend their time, if they can afford it, going to school instead of sitting around looking at the television set. Given that, the provinces have to face increased demand on the two largest budgetary items because of federal Government policies.
In that climate and over that period of time, what has the federal Government's response to those increased responsibilities and demands been? Cut back the funding! Make the formulas less generous. Make the transfer payments less adequate.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, in the closing stages of our debate on Bill C-3, it is time to put on record some information which may be useful to the new Members of Parliament who will be coming to the Chamber after the next election.


Mr. Fisher:: Liberals all.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Liberals all, says a backbencher on the other side. Hopefully, if it is Liberals, Mr. Speaker, it will be a different bunch with minds of their own, a willingness to learn about the issues and an ability to hold the Cabinet accountable. That would be a major change.
I would like to put on the record some of the things we must be concerned about in the future when we get a Cabinet which cares about something more than politics, which really cares about the health care of Canadians. Let us remember the concern with charges. Canadians are concerned that money may stand between them and their access to this system. That is what extra billing and user fees are about. A great many doctors tell us that the system is underfunded. That is variable from place to place, but there is evidence that there are not enough hospital beds. There are parts of the country where there are not enough well trained professional people. There are problems of underfunding. The nurses tell us there are some problems with the models we use and that we might be more effective and more efficient if we changed some of the models. Let us not forget that piece of advice and many others.
The provinces tell us we are going to go bankrupt unless we find better ways of controlling the costs. They may not be totally accurate, but there is a concern there to which politi-
Canada Health Act
cians of the future should pay attention and about which they could learn more. There is a common sense concern of patients as well as of medical professionals. They tell us that one of the reasons the system is having increased financial difficulty relates to administration. In so many fields of endeavour in Canada we put bigger and bigger proportions of expenditures into administration. Health care and education are two major examples. A smaller proportion of the dollars go into direct service and a larger portion goes into administration. Let us look at some of those issues.
If we really care about the issue of accessibility, let us tackle the problem of geography in this country. The quality of health care in a major Canadian city is of a different order than it is in some of our far-flung geographic regions. The quality of medical care which my children and family have enjoyed is a great deal different from the quality of health care on most Indian reservations even today. We have differences in accessibility which relate to geography, Mr. Speaker.
We have differences in accessibility which relate to consumer knowledge of how and when to purchase and when to go to a hospital. We can do a great deal more to educate our population in basic understanding of their own health so they know when and how best to access the health care system. We have a basic accessibility problem every time someone has to go on a waiting list. The more serious the concern and the longer the waiting list, the bigger the problem. That is a priority problem if we really care about accessibility.
I know my time is running out and the last problem I would like to speak about is the issue I raised a week ago, that is, the issue of the availability of well trained, committed professional people. We do not have as many as we need in 1984 in some places but, by and large, we have them. I suggest to the House that we had better be careful with the legislation we pass because we may not have them tomorrow. So long as we as a society tell our best, our brightest and our most educated that we value their choosing a profession in the health care field, we will continue to have them. If, in a legislative sense, we tell them that we do not value that choice, then the best, the brightest and the most committed will make another choice. That is the long-term danger in the inability of this Chamber and this Cabinet member to work with the provinces and with the profession to produce the kind of system we all need, want and should have.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, after having listened to the last three Tory speakers, I am not sure whether or not they support this Bill. I would like to put a very direct question to the Hon. Member who just finished speaking. Does he know what the Bill does? Does he know what the intent of the Bill is? Does his Party support this Bill or does it not? If it supports it, why is it delaying its passage?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What do you mean by delaying the passage? What a turkey.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Oh, come on.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can remember all three of the questions. Let me begin with the last one. I do not think we are delaying the passage of the Bill. In the four years I have been in this Chamber this is the third or fourth day that we have discussed health care in this country. I think that speaks volumes about the Liberal Party's concern about health care in this country. They control the public agenda. I hope we go to a fifth day because I think it is an important issue.
The Hon. Member started by asking me if I knew what this Bill does. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a Member in this Chamber who knows what this Bill does. I do not know if there is a Canadian alive who knows what this Bill does. We have made the decision to support this Bill, imperfect as it may be. We will support it because we think it may do more good than harm. I suggest to the Hon. Member that if he has confidence that in the long term it will do more good than harm, then he has overstepped reality and gone into some kind of Alice in Wonderland wishful thinking. We hope it will do more good than harm. We believe it will probably do more good than harm. We will be standing up and supporting it. However, Mr. Speaker, we wish it dealt with the health care problems of Canadians.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a word of advice to the Government. It would be well advised to muzzle the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) who coming in is very late in the game and making submissions in this debate which are completely unwarranted.
I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). He pointed out the health consequences of unemployment. I assume that is the reason his Party chose to support the amendment to the preamble moved by the NDP which calls for recognition of the social, environmental and occupational causes of disease. It seems to me that there is something curious or ironic in the Member's argument. The position of his Party is traditionally that economic activity ought to be unfettered and that what it causes is simply there and must be dealt with separately. Our position has been that economic activity must always be made accountable for the social, environmental and occupational dimensions of whatever that activity may be. In the interests of intellectual consistency I ask him to consider whether the argument he has just made is an argument against the kind of marketplace economics which his Party so frequently advocates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Calgary West has 30 seconds in which to answer.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, in both of our lifetimes we have never seen a free market. We have a market continually fettered by government. That is our basic quarrel with much of what has been going wrong in the country. We believe that the social costs, including unemployment and stress-related diseases, have been caused by politicians who reach for too much control. It is the move of the Liberal Party in the direction of the New Democratic Party philosophy that has caused most of
the social consequences in this country. That is the tragedy, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, once again, and for reasons best known to the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan), it is considered timely to launch a public campaign designed to draw attention to the fact that Canada may be harboring a number of Nazi war criminals and their collaborators.
Our legal statutes are not designed to deal with such crimes, particularly if they were committed in other countries, and, according to the Minister, no foreign country can be persuaded to request extradition in connection with a number of cases presently under investigation.
The Minister announced that deportation is being considered, a process which would have to be preceded by stripping the accused of their Canadian citizenship. This implies that we have two types of citizenship in this country, one that is inherited by birth, and another less valuable class which is obtained by choice.
As always, such public campaigns cast dark shadows of doubt and suspicion on the entire ethnic community in whose country of origin war crimes were committed. No one should ever permit memories of these hideous acts to be erased, but at the same time we cannot permit ourselves to be reminded of these events by acts of revenge directed against entire ethnic communities, many more members of which were victims of these crimes than were perpetrators.
I call on the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) to examine the role that Canada can play in dispensing justice with regard to these crimes, but I also call on them to dispense only such justice which is in our tradition. This would require that police inquiries be discreet, and that any persons against whom allegations are made be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
April 2, 1984



HOUSING


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this Liberal Government has demonstrated its strong commitment to meeting the needs of low and moderate income households through its funding of municipal and non profit housing programs. Unfortunately the Ontario Progressive Conservative Government does not share this commitment to assisting needy Canadians.
This year, with no warning, Ontario's Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing slashed the number of new non profit housing allocations from 250 in 1983 to 25 in 1984. This occurs at a time when the Ottawa Non-Profit Housing Corporation has a waiting list of 1,600 households requiring suitable and affordable housing.
The refusal of the Ontario Government to consult with the CMHC or municipalities over allocation of social housing units has played havoc with municipal budgets and has adversely affected the planning and staffing of Ottawa's NonProfit Housing Corporation.
In light of this irresponsible use of federal housing assistance, I join with Mayor Dewar of Ottawa and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in calling for increased municipal consultation and control over the distribution of federal social housing units.
The municipalities of Ontario are better served by a Government committed to housing the low and moderate income earners not served by the private market in Ottawa. The present federal Government will maintain its commitment to providing affordable, suitable housing to these groups. To this end, I believe we should revert to a system whereby each municipal non profit housing corporation deals directly with the CMHC and a responsible and responsive federal Government.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY CALL FOR ELIMINATION OF LOCKAGE FEES

Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, in April of 1959 the St. Lawrence Seaway opened with considerable fanfare and much expectation. Its opening marked the realization of a 400 year old dream. Over the years the canals were dug and the locks were built, overcoming the natural obstacles to navigation. Construction was spurred on by the desire to make this waterway the most economical route to move goods to and from the very heart of the North American continent.
The area affected by the St. Lawrence Seaway is larger than all of free Europe, and contains nearly one-third of the combined population of Canada and the United States. It is a tremendous market and a dream worthy of our earlier generation. Now, 25 years later, that foresight and spirit of enterprise are lacking.
In the earlier years traffic growth on the Seaway exceeded predictions. Seaway tolls kept increasing, and to force carriers to build larger ships, lockage fees were imposed.
In 1982 traffic declined to its lowest level since 1974. Twenty per cent of the cargo carriers did not even leave port in 1983. Traffic forecasts for this anniversary year are even less encouraging.
The economical advantage of this great waterway has slipped away. The key to long term improvement in the Seaway will be the elimination of the lockage fees and a substantial reduction in the tolls that are charged. Only then will we be able to look forward to a happy fiftieth anniversary.

[ Translation]



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post Corporation's current plan to act as middleman in the retail trade is, to me, perhaps the most vicious attack ever made in this country against free enterprise. The Canada Post Corporation will never be able to realize its high-sounding objectives which include making the Corporation a profitable concern. Has a business ever been able to make its main line of business viable by depending on sidelines? Take Hydro-Quebec, for instance. If it were not able to make a profit on its main line of business, which is to sell electric power, could it keep its business viable by selling french fries on the street, Mr. Speaker?
I am just trying to say that the Canada Post Corporation will never succeed in making a profit by trying to set up sidelines and especially ones that are going to help destroy small businesses and small businessmen. Mr. Speaker, I hope this plan will be roundly criticized in the House, because most Members on this side of the House are opposed to this brilliant plan by the Canada Post Corporation.
I hope that on this side of the House and across Canada, in Chambers of Commerce, for instance, people will denounce this plan.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, Menasco Canada Limited deserves to be ostracized if it opens a new factory in Oakville after laying off 365 workers at its Ville Saint-Laurent plant last October. The employees of this multinational branch worked under a collective agreement from May 1979 to February 1982. When negotiations to renew their
2618

April 2, 1984
contract failed, employees signed a service contract with the CSN in order to receive technical assistance. Despite the presence of a mediator, negotiations could not continue because management went back on several points that had already been conceded. On July 11, 1982, Menasco locked out 365 workers, while admitting that there was no dispute with the union. Management then decided to move outside the province to show its opposition to the new provincial anti-scab law. Menasco is showing contempt for the interests of its employees, many of whom have between thirty and forty years of seniority, and it is doing so while taking advantage of interprovincial rivalry.
There is no financial incentive for transferring the activities of this factory to Ontario. Menasco is simply blackmailing both workers and governments. Once again, a multinational branch is showing its complete lack of interest in problems that affect the lives of its workers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.



EDUCATION


Stanley Hudecki: Mr. Speaker, the role of the university in society has always been to provide the milieu and the environment for learning, exploring, and creating. Another function is to provide the manpower to meet the spiritual and material demands of an ever-changing and complex world. Modern universities must also adapt to accommodate an increasing enrolment and adjust their curricula to the needs of the time in order to provide a balanced educational experience.
Currently the Province of Ontario is contemplating, through a commission set up by the province's Minister of Education, to exercise greater control over its universities, to reform them administratively, and to alter the format of a wide based general education.
1 am very concerned that the Government of Ontario might be tempted to push most students, through alterations in university curricula, into specialized careers at the expense of a more generalized type of education. We do need specialists, there is no doubt about that, but we also need generalists with a broad based education, who can amalgamate the basic knowledge of many specialties.
Our society will be relying more and more on generalists with a background in critical thought to act as co-ordinators and leaders in our society. The Government of Ontario must recognize this, and not sacrifice the quality of the humanities and social science courses in our universities.



NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, today's appearance by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mac-Guigan) before the panel of judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, where he will present Canada's case in the Gulf of Maine boundary dispute with the United States, focuses our attention on the dismal record of the Liberal Government in achieving internationally recognized and secure maritime boundaries for Canada. The Government has not only failed to establish agreed upon boundaries between Canada and the U.S.A. in the Gulf of Maine, but has also failed to resolve the Juan de Fuca Strait, Dixon Entrance, and Beaufort Sea disputes between the two countries.
Failure is not confined to negotiations with the U.S.A., but also is apparent in our relationships with Denmark over the Lincoln Sea, and with France over the St. Pierre-Miquelon area. Inconsistency of stance is apparent. For instance, the Government argues in favour of an equidistant line in the Gulf of Maine, but rejects it in the Beaufort Sea.
The effort to date has not been good enough. We must resolve these disputes so that Canada's borders will no longer be open to question, and fishermen and offshore resource developers can be sure of their rights and obligations.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, today the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) is beginning a trip to Central America. I wish him well. At the same time there is a possibility of military operations sponsored by the United States consisting of maybe 35,000 men. When the Secretary of State goes to that particular area I would like him to be conscious of the historical, cultural, economic and religious realities. They are very different from those we know in Canada. I would like him to remember that each country is unique and has a personality of its own. Also, I would like him to know that the situation in each country is different.
I believe Canada can have a great deal of good influence in that part of the world. This was what the subcommittee studying the question of Latin America brought forward, that Canada can be a good neighbour, and that just and peaceful solutions to the problems of that area will be worked out so that there will be self-determination, not intervention in the lives of those countries.
I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will denounce in clear terms that there can be no military solution. While he is there I hope he will see not only political people but church people at all levels of life, and refugees, and that he will talk to non-governmental groups. I wish him well. His is a
April 2, 1984

difficult mission. As the first Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs to visit that part of the world, I wish him all success. May each step on the way be marked by clear and concrete initiatives in support of justice, development, and peace.



THE LATE LUIGI BARZINI

Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something about Luigi Barzini who died over the weekend in Rome at the age of 75. Mr. Barzini was in many ways a modern renaissance figure. He was an author, journalist, and a playwright. He was an urbane, witty, intellectual member of the Italian Parliament. His books include the world-famous The Italians, a controversial portrait of his fellow countrymen; Nuova York; Evasione in Mongolia; Americans are Alone in the World; The Europeans, a 1983 study of the nations making up the Common Market; The Communists Have Not Won; and Moscow, Moscow. In my view Mr. Barzini was a major world figure whose passing diminishes us all.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am sure he realizes that the unemployment rate today is 11.3 per cent and that 1,476,000 Canadians are unemployed, compared with when he came to office four years ago when there were
967,000	unemployed, or an unemployment rate of 7.5 per cent. We are 509,000 worse off today. The Budget predicts that we will have an unemployment rate of 10.9 per cent for this year, 10.1 per cent for next year, and so on.
In view of these facts, can the Minister of Justice be believed when he says that there will be full employment in Canada in five years or less if he is elected Liberal Leader and Prime Minister? Can that be believed? Has the Minister of Justice outlined to the Prime Minister his new policies and approaches which would bring about full employment? If he has done that, why has the Government not followed those approaches and policies? Why is the Prime Minister so stupid when the Minister of Justice is so bright? Should the Prime Minister not change the Minister of Justice to the portfolio of finance if he has the answer to these employment problems? What is holding up his promotion?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the stupidity is in the question of the
Oral Questions
Hon. Member. He has heard repeatedly the facts stated by the Minister of Finance, that we have been creating jobs in Canada at a rate in excess of all our competitors, particularly the United States. That record is there to be examined. I notice that the Hon. Member always goes on to other questions when the Minister of Finance makes these points. The Hon. Member from St. John's should use what little intelligence he has left to look at those figures and see if there is something wrong with them. If, in fact, we are creating jobs at a faster rate, then he should see that the policies advocated by the Minister of Finance are not in conflict with what apparently the Minister of Justice is proposing. He will want to continue the good record of the Trudeau years and create ever-increasing jobs.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Prime Minister has not answered the question. He has a brilliant Minister of Justice who can bring about full employment, but he refuses to use him. It does not take much intelligence to use a genius if you have one in Cabinet.


UNEMPLOYMENT FORECASTS-MINISTER'S ALLEGED STATEMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice has said that he does not accept the Government's forecasts of 10 per cent unemployment for years to come. He does not accept them. He thinks they are incorrect. He thinks they are stupid, or he does not accept them, in any event. How can the Minister of Justice continue to stay in the Prime Minister's Government when he does not accept the forecasts of the Department of Finance? Is the Prime Minister going to accept him when he does not accept the Prime Minister, his Minister of Finance, and his forecasts? How long can this kind of chaos continue in the Government of the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should not show such emotion about forecasts. We know that the ones he made when he was Minister of Finance were considerably off base. Our Minister of Finance has said repeatedly that forecasts are only that, forecasts, and they have to be readjusted from time to time. The Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for Outremont, has not pretended that his forecasts are infallible. On the contrary, I have heard him repeatedly in the House tell that Member over there with his obtuse mind that forecasts are not infallible. But his mind is so obtuse that he tried to put two Ministers in contradiction when there is no contradiction.


John Carnell Crosbie: The lame duck Prime Minister cannot even quack any longer.
1980 ELECTION STATEMENT


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question. The Minister of Justice

April 2, 1984
Oral Questions
said: "Everyone who wants to work should be able to find a job." That is what he said on Saturday. The Prime Minister said on January 12, 1980, when he was seeking election: "We endorse the right of every Canadian to have a job." There are
1,476,000	Canadians who know how the Prime Minister meets his promises. They are without jobs. Does the Prime Minister think that his Minister of Justice is doing exactly as he did, promising anything to get elected to a certain position? Is that what he is doing, or is the Minister of Justice going to be required to tell the Prime Minister how to meet the promise he made four years ago, completely ignored, and has not carried out yet? Which is he going to do, if either, or are they both doing exactly the same thing, fooling the electorate, showing their contempt for the 1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed? Which is it going to be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the indignation of the Hon. Member is not a little bit synthetic, as is his whole person. I did not read the speech, but apparently we have a Minister who is promising to create jobs. This creates indignation in the heart and mind of the Hon. Member opposite. I have repeatedly heard him criticize the Minister of Finance. I have heard him weep crocodile tears about the unemployed. I have not heard one single constructive suggestion from that Member. All he does is stand on his feet and wax indignant about what other people say and do, and does not do a darn thing about it himself.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In The Globe and Mail of Saturday last the Hon. Member for Kitchener is quoted as making certain serious charges concerning the reputation and character of Mr. Bruce MacDonald. He said that Mr. MacDonald abused his power by circumventing the Cabinet and ministerial control. He went on further to charge that the abuse occurred as a result of making major policy decisions without consulting the Minister of National Revenue and the Cabinet. Is the thrust of what the Hon. Member for Kitchener said correct? If it is, why has he been put into the Privy Council Office? If it is not, will he repudiate the Member for Kitchener?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to dissociate myself from these comments altogether, and I would like to point out to the Hon. Member, as the Right Hon. Prime Minister said last week, that Mr. MacDonald was a very sound and very efficient man who has shown a great deal of competence in directing a very difficult Department.


QUOTA SYSTEM STATEMENT
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. There was a further allegation made by the Hon. Member for Kitchener in the same interview in which he said:
Mr. Bussieres was not aware of quotas being used. The Government was not aware. Then, after all the facts were provided and Mr. Bussieres ordered a halt to the use of the quota system, the Department apparently carried on and just decided to "call it something else." This was disregard for a Cabinet order.
Is that also incorrect? Was the statement made by the Member for Kitchener incorrect?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Hon. Member read the many answers I have given to these questions, and he will be able to judge for himself.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Like most Canadians he is probably sitting up, night after night, filling out his tax return. He is probably asking the same question-what are Canadians getting for their tax money?
The Prime Minister will know that billions of dollars of taxpayers' money each year is given to corporations in the hope that that will create jobs. However, our figures indicate clearly that in spite of the billions of dollars in tax concessions, and billions of dollars in additional tax deferrals, the corporate sector is not producing jobs any longer. By and large, that is being done by small business in the private sector, as well as public sector job creation. Will the Prime Minister explain how he knows that the billions of dollars being spent on concessions to the corporations are being well spent and are resulting in job creation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a judgment that is made from year to year when the Minister of Finance examines the tax base and the use to which it is put. I recall that the Minister of Finance of this Government in the fall of 1981 had proposed a lot of reforms that would close loopholes and ensure that higher, or fairer, taxes were paid by those at the upper end of the income bracket. Unfortunately, we did not have the support of the NDP. They are, as usual, always against the Government, even when it is proposing progressive legislation.


INCREASE IN PERSONAL TAXES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Prime Minister reflects on those Budgets
April 2, 1984

that were introduced which resulted in increased taxes to the average Canadian taxpayer. At a time when our recovery is very much in need of more consumer spending in order to enable corporations to make the necessary investments in new plant and equipment, would the Prime Minister explain how increasing taxes to the average Canadian family by a range of $200-5300 this year, as a result of the Budgets he referred to, will assist in the recovery?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member heard the budget speech and the debate around it. We know that the NDP would not accept that we attach a certain importance to the size of the deficit, but when the Minister of Finance introduced his Budget last year he said that we would tend, over a period of years, to bring the deficit down incrementally. That is the decision that was taken in last year's Budget, and it is being carried out now.


EMPLOYMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, having three sons, will be well aware that in the next few weeks hundreds of thousands of young Canadians will be coming out of secondary schools, colleges, technical schools, universities and trade schools, seeking summer employment. The corporate sector, by and large, has told us that there will be very little summer hiring this year. The federal Government's programs for job creation will provide jobs for 2 per cent or 3 per cent of those young people seeking employment to enable them to continue with their studies.
Does the Prime Minister not consider this to be a most serious issue facing Canadians, especially young Canadians today, and would he do as he did with his peace initiative, for which we are very appreciative, and provide that same kind of initiative to finding ways and means of providing for Canada's young people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that was done when the figure of over $1 billion was allocated to create jobs and employment and retraining for young people. In addition, when we established the Minister of State for Youth, the Budget allocated another $150 million in order to place increased emphasis on the need to create jobs in the youth area.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Since the release of the Amnesty International Report on Archambault, a dark cloud of suspicion hangs over Canada's international reputa-
Oral Questions
tion as a protector of basic human rights. The Minister's response to two questions ever since this occurred has been what can only be described as a cover-up. In view of the fact that his correctional investigator has still not reported with respect to his in-house investigation, are we to assume that the Solicitor General simply wants to put this matter out of sight and out of mind, hoping that the whole question will go away, or, after giving the matter serious consideration, will he agree to the proposition of having a full and public judicial inquiry to determine exactly what transpired at Archambault, in the interest of penal institutions in this country?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will recall that the Amnesty International Report called for a full, impartial, independent inquiry. The office of the correctional investigator appears to fulfil the requirement of Amnesty International's conditions. That officer is now engaged in a full, independent, and impartial inquiry. If I were to take the suggestions of the Hon. Member, or some of the other suggestions I have been reading, and put pressure on the correctional investigator to produce his report when I want it, or when the Hon. Member wants it, we might have had it a very long time ago. However, he is working at his own pace. He is working without pressure from me as to time, content, or direction of his report. I would urge the Hon. Member, and all Hon. Members interested in this very important question, to let this independent servant of the inmates do his job at his own pace.


ALLEGATIONS OF INHUMANE TREATMENT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has already drawn the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with what happened after the Archambault riot. He has made that conclusion and stated it on the floor of the House of Commons. He justifies it by saying that since charges of torture did not arise until months after the riot, it is indicative that such charges were fabrications.
How does the Solicitor General account for the items in the Amnesty International Report which pointed out that in a press conference on August 5, 1982, four lawyers were in contact with prisoners who brought forward allegations of serious and inhumane treatment? In fact, how does the Minister justify the situation when Professor Lebel has indicated that there were allegations of torture taking place within the institution? How can the Minister draw the conclusion that nothing is wrong? Will he now change his mind and hold that public inquiry so that the people of Canada can make the right decision?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the contents of the testimony given by the inmates' lawyers a few weeks ago, after the riot and murders at Archambault. I am aware of those allegations, and they were accepted by Correctional Service Canada. The allegations I referred to as being hard to believe were

April 2, 1984
Oral Questions
those that were made since then and which have become increasingly serious as a start was made with visits to the prison and establishing commissions of inquiry. Those are the allegations I referred to as being very improbable.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious matter which I would like to raise with the Prime Minister, who is returning to his seat. A report published in the Halifax Mail-Star indicates that Michael Kirby, the former clerk of the Privy Council, has accepted a nomination to the Board of Directors of National Sea Products Limited, a company that has obtained and will receive millions of dollars in public funds under a contract with the Government of Canada. Whatever laws this may contravene, there appears to be a clear violation of the Prime Minister's own rules prohibiting former office holders from acting for commercial corporations in relation to matters with which they were involved which, in the case of Mr. Kirby was the restructuring of the Atlantic fishery.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the activity of Mr. Kirby, who is now a member of the other place? Will the Prime Minister see that the rules respecting conflicts of interest that apply to former office holders are enforced? Surely we do not want to see another act of moral bankruptcy committed by a former officer of the Crown.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no, I was not aware of that. I will look into the facts. I would imagine that the facts have been slightly and no doubt unintentionally distorted by the Hon. Member. I understood him to say that Mr. Kirby had been Secretary to the Privy Council. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. He was for a time involved in federal-provincial relations and, I believe, in the Prime Minister's Office, but I will inquire about the facts.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of record that on April 28, 1982, in response to a question put by me in the House, it was reported that Mr. Kirby was Secretary to the Cabinet for federal-provincial relations at that time. That was less than two years ago. The guidelines to which I refer clearly apply to office holders who have been out of office for less than two years.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister to give serious consideration to the guidelines to which I have referred. I would like him to give serious consideration to the fact that former office holders must avoid any indication that they are giving access to
privileged government material arising from their past employment. I would ask the Prime Minister to undertake to enter into an immediate investigation now. If the guidelines are being violated, or if any of the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act or other statutes are being violated, will he take immediate action to stop this nefarious activity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is my understanding that the Greek Catholic Archbishop of Jerusalem, Monsignor Cappucci, was scheduled to begin a speaking tour in Canada this week but has been denied an entry visa to Canada on the grounds that his questionable Israeli conviction for arms smuggling categorizes him as a terrorist.
The Government should be aware that the Archbishop's outspoken criticism of Israeli harassment of both the Christian and Muslim populations of Jerusalem, harassment which has seen the Christian population of Jerusalem diminish from
45,000	to 8,000, made him a prime target for a possible frameup by the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence organization.
I would ask the Minister to determine how the Department of External Affairs can justify this visa refusal when it interferes with the rights of Canadians to the free flow of information, and when, last year, the Government allowed into Canada General Sharon, the architect of a grotesque act of international terrorism, the invasion of Lebanon, and the man who was personally responsible for several flagrant and well documented breaches of the Geneva Convention?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, I would like to say that the refusal of the visa for the Archbishop is consistent with the longstanding policy of refusing to admit to Canada those who have been associated with acts which are directly related to the perpetuation of violence, regardless of their political views.
With reference to other people, I would like to make it quite clear, and the Hon. Member may be aware of the fact, that the PLO representative at the United Nations has been admitted to Canada on four occasions that I know of, but, on the other hand, we have consistently refused to admit to Canada members of the Jewish Defence League who have been associated with acts of violence from the point of view of the

*


April 2, 1984

other side. I think I would have to say that the court conviction on a matter relating to an act of violence is the key factor in the refusal of the visa.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who will, no doubt, be aware that the Canadian public and the media are becoming increasingly favourable to an acknowledgment on the part of Parliament of the wrongdoings inflicted on Japanese Canadians in the course of the last War and after the War, notably expropriation and forced relocation. The Prime Minister will no doubt also be aware that the Special Committee on Visible Minorities just last week made unanimous recommendations with regard to an acknowledgment of the wrongdoings, a look at the War Measures Act, which was the Act that allowed those wrongdoings to occur, and the beginning of negotiations for compensation.
Will the Prime Minister undertake to introduce a resolution with regard to the acknowledgment of the wrongdoings, the re-examination of the War Measures Act, and the beginning of negotiations with representatives of the Japanese-Canadian community?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make that undertaking because I have not yet read the report of the committee which was tabled just last week. Knowing the people who worked on it, I know it is a serious report and I would certainly want to read it before making any decision. It would be a decision of Cabinet, and the matter has not been raised there.
If the Hon. Member is interested in my personal opinion, which is open to the possibility of change after reading the report and hearing the arguments, I am not inclined to envisage questions of compensation for acts which have perhaps discoloured our history in the past, if other means of redress are possible. I am not quite sure where we could stop the compensating. I know that we would have to go back a great length of time in history and look at all of the injustices which have occurred, perhaps beginning with the deportation of the Acadians and going on to the treatment of the Chinese Canadians in the late 19th century. I do not believe in attempting to rewrite history in this way.
On other occasions I have personally expressed to Japanese Canadians the regret that I feel about the terrible acts which happened to them. There is no justification for them after the
fact.
To me this is in the category of those who want to rehabilitate Riel. Riel stands as he stands. I do not see that there is
Oral Questions
much to gain by trying to apologize for acts of our greatgrandfathers and their great-grandfathers.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder if we could at least have a commitment to an early date to get a resolution, if Cabinet does agree to it. We are concerned when we hear that there cannot be any discussion of a particular injustice until all injustices are dealt with. This certainly would take time that we would not want to contemplate. People are concerned that this not go on and on. If the Prime Minister has not discussed it in Cabinet, certainly the recommendation has been made over the years. My Party has raised this issue.
I wonder if we could at least have a commitment that we will get a resolution on the matters with which we can proceed. It is true that compensation is a matter that would have to be discussed, as to amount and kind, collective or individual. The community itself is not agreed on that. We could go ahead, however, with an acknowledgment on the part of Parliament, which we have not yet had, and we could go ahead on an agreement to re-examine the War Measures Act-that is within our power-to see that the Act is within the spirit of the Charter of Rights.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the War Measures Act is concerned, the Charter of Rights does supersede it in its own language. I am certain that the kind of actions that we regret would not be justified or condoned by the courts in the future. Therefore, we have brought in redress, for our time and for the future, to the most unacceptable type of acts which have happened in the past.
Returning to the question of compensation, as the Hon. Member knows, we are going back to the earliest part of our historic times in Canada and we are beginning to look at the question of treaties with the aboriginal peoples. We are negotiating settlement of those treaties. I do not know if the next step will be to jump over a few centuries to the Japanese Canadians, or if we should not stop at the deportation of the Acadians on the way, and realize that there is not too much to gain in Canada by trying once again to correct the economic consequences of unjust acts committed in the past to whole groups, rather than trying to be just in our time. I find it more important to be just in our time, for instance, by giving jobs with the money to the people who are unemployed now, rather than trying to use that money to compensate people whose ancestors in some way have been deprived.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. The Department of National Revenue has started an advertis-

April 2, 1984
Oral Questions
ing campaign which is costing the taxpayers $300,000. It is called "Tax Tips". He admitted last week that over half the returns are already in. Does he think that it is a wise expenditure of taxpayers' money to have 10 separate ads in one day in a 14-page newspaper like the Brampton The Daily Times?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is worthwhile, even if, as the Hon. Member pointed out, many taxpayers have already filed their returns. It is worth it because we want to ensure that taxpayers have as much information as possible, information that it easy to understand and that is relevant to cases they may encounter. All this is to help them complete their tax returns satisfactorily and obtain the maximum refunds to which they may be entitled.


GUIDES TO INCOME TAX FORMS
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister admit that this is the first time in six years that the Department has advertised. Will he also admit that if simple explanations were put on the tax forms sent out to every taxpayer who pays taxes, this kind of waste of the taxpayers' money-10 advertisements in a 14-page newspaper for Revenue Canada twice this week-would be unnecessary?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Hon. Member when he says it is a waste of money. I am sure that to the Progressive Conservatives, especially considering the comments we have heard in recent months, helping the Canadian taxpayer is certainly a waste of time.
That is not the policy of this Government, however. On the contrary, we are of the opinion that helping taxpayers file their returns correctly and obtain as much money as they are entitled to receive under the Income Tax Act is something that is worthwhile and that should be done.
Now the Hon. Member has suggested we could have another form for taxpayers whose financial situation is not as complex as that of other groups. It is an interesting suggestion that deserves further consideration.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He knows that one of the prerequisites for the War Veterans Allowance is to have served in a theatre of actual war. For
many years Newfoundland has been accepted as a theatre of war for the purposes of the Act. I understand that the Minister has now added Prince Edward Island to this select list. I wonder in what way he feels that Prince Edward Island is a theatre of war, and if he intends to extend that classification to other islands.


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I correct the Hon. Member's assumption. The Minister did not extend it to Prince Edward Island. There was an appeal under the War Veterans Allowance Act and the War Veterans Allowance Board found in favour of veterans who enlisted in Prince Edward Island, served in Prince Edward Island, and who had to travel over dangerous waters.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my reading of the Act is that when changes are made to such things as entitlement, they have to be approved by Cabinet.


REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF VANCOUVER ISLAND
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to quote from a letter that the Minister sent out recently, in which he made the following statement:
-service during World War II in areas beyond the territorial limits of North America is considered to be service in a theatre of war. The distance between Prince Edward Island and mainland Canada at its narrowest point is over six miles. During World War II, a person who in the line of duty following enlistment proceeded beyond the three-mile limit, would have for a portion of his journey been in an area that is considered to be a theatre of war.
Why is Vancouver Island not included as a theatre of war? It is an island that was actually shelled during World War II, and it has been in a war.
Would the Minister promise to get in touch with all veterans' organizations and advise them of this change so that they will know that the regulations are not going to be as strictly enforced as they have been in the past? Will he review the applications onthis matter that have been turned down?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And remember Yorath Island near Saskatoon.


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker, certainly a veteran who served on Vancouver Island is entitled to make application under the War Veterans Allowance Act on an appeal if the case has been turned down. To date the findings of the War Veterans Allowance Board on those types of cases have already been conveyed to the district offices all across the country.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canada
April 2, 1984

Post Corporation. Can the Minister inform the House whether he has had any explanations from the Corporation regarding its plan to act as middleman for a private business in the retail trade?
Since elected representatives are often blamed for crimes they did not commit, would the Minister consent to senior officials of the Canada Post Corporation giving explanations to the people's elected representatives regarding this plan to do business through the Corporation?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, actually, tomorrow I shall be meeting the President of the Canada Post Corporation who will report on this new experiment.
As for the possibility of Corporation officials testifying before a Parliamentary Committee, I believe the Corporation's estimates are regularly referred to a Standing Committee and that the President and the Chairman of the Board will be appearing next month.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Labour. It deals again with the matter of changes to the Canada Labour Code. On January 29, 1982, I asked his predecessor, the Minister of the Environment, when changes to the Canada Labour Code affecting worker safety and occupational health would finally be introduced. I was told at that time that it would be very soon. I wonder if this Minister can give us a definition of "very soon"? Two years and two months have passed by since that question was asked and we still have not seen any legislation in this House. When is the Government finally going to act to protect the lives and safety of workers under the federal regime?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I intend to table a Bill as soon as possible, and I can assure the Hon. Member that "soon" means a much shorter period of time than the one to which he was referring.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure of the definition of the word "soon", because on January 29, 1982, it was "very soon". On June 16, 1983, it was "soon". What does "soon" mean this time?
While the Minister is on his feet, could he assure the people who work for the Government itself, the federal government
Oral Questions
workers, that they will finally be given equal legislative protection under the Canada Labour Code as is given to those workers who are under the private sector? In other words, will the Government give its own workers the same legislative protection which exists for workers in the private sector?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, to me "soon" means "a few weeks".
As for the assurance the Hon. Member is requesting, I may refer him to the solemn commitment made by the Government in the last Throne Speech and to information that has already been given in the House by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General may not know that it was reported in the Vernon Daily News on March 29 that convicts in one British Columbia prison would soon be allowed to watch kiddy porn and other sexual material. This "arousal" therapy is part of an ambitious new treatment scheme Ottawa is planning for offenders at Agassiz Mountain Prison. It was reported that federal consultant, J. Campbell, said, and I quote:
If their sexual preference is little girls, we show them pictures of little girls.
Will the Minister tell the House whether this is really a policy and program of his Department?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I can tell the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to general viewing of material inside institutions the same rules apply which apply in the surrounding community. The standards of censorship which apply in a province, apply also in the institutions. However, I believe the Hon. Member may be referring to a sex therapy program called "Sexual Aversion Therapy", which is a type of treatment being developed in some of our institutions under carefully controlled circumstances, and only in our psychiatric penitentiaries, to try to straighten out inmates who have criminal sexual behaviour.
The Hon. Member may find that program amusing, or he may become indignant about it, but I would urge him to look into it and consider the options which are available for straightening out inmates who are in danger, on release, of committing criminal sex acts.

April 2, 1984
Oral Questions CANADA LABOUR CODE


INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, my question, directed to the Minister of Labour, is supplementary to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Churchill. When the Minister indicates that the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, long promised by him, will come forward within a couple of weeks, may I interpret that to be an undertaking that first reading will be given to that Bill before the Easter recess?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot give that guarantee. If it is not done before the Easter recess, I hope it will be soon afterwards.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Broadcast News reported in March that the National Automotive Trade Association, which represents 5,000 gas station owners, says that Canadian motorists are paying 6 cents a litre, or 27 cents a gallon, too much.
My question stems from the fact that I believe people in the Ottawa-Carleton area are getting a hosing on the price of gasoline. Can the Minister tell us why gasoline in this area costs 47 cents to 51 cents a litre, when one can drive to Toronto, Hamilton, or Peterborough and buy it for as low as 29 cents a litre? Is the price being held up by the combines in this area in order to be closer to the inflated price of gasoline in Quebec?
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that is quite an outrageous charge which the Hon. Member makes. But then I am accustomed to his outrageous charges. I have told him, time and time again, that the question of the price of gasoline is being looked into very thoroughly by the oil inquiry. While I also regret very much that the inquiry is taking such a lengthy time, the Hon. Member must appreciate that it is a very complex issue. When the inquiry is complete, we will get to the bottom of the situation and, hopefully, have recommendations upon which we can act.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The people out there buying gas do not have as much patience as the Minister, who can wait eight years to table a report from the Prices Commission.


PRICE CHARGED TO DEALERS BY PETRO-CANADA
William Henry (Bill) Domm: My supplementary question is this: while Petro-Canada is selling gasoline to its dealers, its company-owned operations, at as low as 29 cents a
litre, why is it selling to the independents in Peterborough at 40 cents a litre?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that particular question should be better addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would remind the Hon. Member that I expect to be tabling new competition legislation this afternoon which I hope he will support, which will very effectively deal with some of the practices which he describes.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture in his capacity as Acting Minister of Transport. The Minister will be aware, I am sure, that under the provisions of Bill C-155, the Governor in Council was to have appointed, on or before April 1, 1984, a committee of not less than three and not more than five people, to examine all matters relevant to the method of payment under the provisions of the legislation. In checking with the office of the Minister of Transport this morning, I found that that announcement has not been made. Could the Minister of Agriculture enlighten the House why the announcement has not been made, and when we might expect an announcement with respect to the naming of those people?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say why they were not announced by that date. I do know that discussions have taken place about the appointments, so I would believe they would be made very soon.


PROVISIONS OF LEGISLATION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this is a serious breach of the legislation, would the Minister take that into consideration and appeal to his colleague and, indeed, to the Prime Minister, to obey the law?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as noted and talk to my colleague about it.


POSSIBLE IMPORTATION OF PRODUCT FROM PLANT RELOCATED IN MEXICO
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have one question to address to the Minister for International Trade. Will the Minister investigate all of the conditions surrounding the decision by Allen Industries to close its plant in Stoney Creek, Ontario, and to open a plant to manufacture a similar, if not identical product, in Mexico? Will he deter-
April 2, 1984

mine whether it is the intention of Allen Industries to export that product from Mexico to Canada and, if so, will he take steps to put an end to this?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I will investigate for the Hon. Member the situation which he describes and determine the extent to which it falls under the jurisdiction of my Department as compared to that of the Department of Industry. I will give an answer to him when I obtain it.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister will know that the child tax credit, $343 to a woman for a child if she is in need, is the kind of payment which is the subject of the tax discounters, Bentax and H. & R. Block. It is the women who are in need who are selling off their child tax credits. What representations has the Minister made to the Minister of Revenue to cease that practice? What legislation is she prepared to introduce to the House to make sure that that child tax credit is spread over 12 months, or perhaps paid quarterly to these women, so they will not be induced into selling off their right to support for their children, a situation which is now taking place to the extent of at least a half a million women in this country alone?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under active consideration. I have consulted with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Revenue, and we are currently looking at ways in which we can improve the system so that people can receive their child tax credits quickly, thereby bypassing the tax discount rebaters. We are also looking at a number of other measures so that, by the next taxation year, the matter should be well under control.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the Minister tell this House why it takes from three to four months for women to receive their child tax credit, which represents the basis of all the money coming to them or their families?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member can generalize,
Order Paper Questions
because in the vast majority of cases, tax returns from people who can claim the child tax credit are received very early and processed as quickly as possible, so that people who are entitled to the child tax credit can receive their money as soon as possible.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from a number of registered nurses and registered nurses assistants from the City of Owen Sound, Ontario, in support of the position taken by the Canadian Nurses Association and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario regarding the proposed new Canada Health Act.


Judith A. Erola: for leave to introduce Bill C-29, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 324, 626 and 652.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	Did the Department of National Revenue have any guidelines for defining (a) "charitable organization" (b) "non-profit organization" for the purposes of administering the Income Tax Act and, if so, in each case, what are they and did these guidelines suggest or require the appraisal of an organization's activities as well as its stated purposes (i) before an organization was granted (ii) during the period in which the organization enjoyed charitable or non-profit status?
2.	Did the Department review the application of these guidelines and, if so, what did this review entail and was it continual?

April 2, 1984
Order Paper Questions
3.	Did the Department review the charitable status of the Fraser Institute, registration number 0438911-59-27 and (a) if so (i) when was the review begun (ii) what was its scope (iii) was the review completed and, if so, on what date and, if not, when will it be completed (iv) will the findings be made public and, if so, on what date (b) if not, will the Department review the charitable status of the Fraser Institute and, if so (i) on what date (ii) what will be the scope of the review (iii) will the findings be made public and, if so, on what date?
4.	Did the Department review the charitable status of the Fraser Institute in the past and, if so, in each case, (a) on what date (b) what was the scope of the review (c) what were the findings?


Pierre Bussières: 1.
(a) A "charitable organization", is defined in paragraph 149.1(1 )(b) of the Income Tax Act. Guidelines on charitable purposes and objects can be found in Part 1 of the Department's Information Circular 80-10 on the subject of registered charities.
(i)	When considering an application for charitable registration, the officials in the Department are required to determine if both the organization's constituted purposes and its activities are charitable.
(ii)	Registered charities are required to file, annually, both an information return and a public information return, each in prescribed form and containing prescribed information. This information is subject to review by the officials in the Department to determine if the organization continues to meet the requirements of registration.
(b)(i) and (ii) (As it applies to non-profit organizations). A non-profit organization is defined in paragraph 149(1 )(L) of the Income Tax Act. Guidelines have been issued by the Department of National Revenue in Interpretation Bulletin IT-496 dated February 18, 1983.
2. (As it applies to non-profit organizations). The appraisal of a non-profit organization's activities as well as its stated purposes cannot be made in advance of or during a particular year but only after the end of the year, (see paragraph 10 of IT-496)
(As it applies to charitable organizations.) Continual review measures are carried on by the Department to ensure the guidelines are applied consistently and equitably. To this end, determinations with respect to all applications for registered charitable status are carefully reviewed on an ongoing basis by senior officials before being finalized. Also, the annual returns are subject to review each year to ensure that registered charities continue to comply with the requirements of the Income Tax Act.
3 and 4. Due to the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act, no information may be divulged concerning the Department's actions in respect of any taxpayer, including those exempt as registered charities, nor may any information obtained by or on behalf of the Department for the purposes of administration of the Act be communicated. The Act provides for an exception to those provisions in the case of a registered charity only in that the Department may release to any interested person a copy of the organization's Public Information Return.


Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris): In the Fiscal year 1983-84, to date, what amount did the Department of National Revenue collect from the federal sales tax on building materials?


Pierre Bussières: In
the fiscal year 1983-1984, covering the period from April 1, 1983 to January 21, 1984, the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, collected $492,915,579.94 from the federal sales tax of 5 per cent levied on construction materials and equipment for buildings under the Excise Tax Act.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are any exempt staff employed by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names?
2.	Do any of the staff mentioned in Part 1 receive income, financial assistance or other benefits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other benefits?


W. Bennett Campbell: (a) and (b) Executive Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Private Secretary Clerical Support Clerical Support Clerical Support
(c)
Pierre Guimond Tom Douglas Leo Callaghan Brian McGuire William McKinnon Kelly Watkins Andre Pelequin Julie Henter Dianne Smallwood
2. No.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-3, an Act relating to cash contributions by Canada in respect of insured health services provided under provincial health care insurance plans and amounts payable by Canada in respect of extended health care services and to
April 2, 1984
[Stage Direction]
amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Health Act will accomplish a number of things. As the traditional supporters of medicare, indeed as the originators through our predecessors, the CCF, we are very glad to see the improvements brought about in this Bill. It will address the crisis in medicare of extra billing and user fees.
It is true that medicare has been under threat, partly because of federal expenditure cutbacks on medicare, partly on account of provincial cutbacks, and partly on account of ideological reluctance to deal with medicare issues on the part of some of the provinces. We have seen the threat of moving to a two-tier system with specialized, quality care and a range of services available to those who can pay for them and for basic services for those who are not able to pay user fees and extra billing. In other words, we are moving to a system entirely contrary to what was originally envisaged, that of quality care for all in a truly universal system.
This two-tier system, which we are trying to correct with the legislation before us, is an inefficient and expensive system. What will happen is that people who are unable to pay the extra bills will have to go to a system of private insurance to do so. Unions will negotiate private insurance schemes to cover the services for which a person has to pay extra. Then we would have a system in the public sector covering the basic services and one in the private sector, with its additional layer of administrative costs as well as the costs reflected in profits, because this would be run by the private sector on the basis of whatever money they could get out of the system.
The United States has this kind of two-tier system with a very large profit-oriented private sector, and we know the results are that health care services are expensive. They pay a higher proportion of their GNP for medical costs than we do and fewer people are covered. Therefore, the system we have developed in Canada is one that we can really be proud of. It is an excellent system which stands up very well in international comparisons and which is a relatively efficient and cost-effective system. Naturally we think it can be improved and we have introduced amendments, some of which have been accepted and some of which have not. We want to have it even more cost-effective and responsive to people's needs. But, by and large, it is a good, efficient and effective system. We have a good system, we want to face the crisis, confront the two-tier system, address the crisis and solve it.
This is a better Bill, Mr. Speaker, as a result of a number of amendments introduced by the NDP caucus. We fought for them, and some of them were accepted. We did not get all we wanted but we brought a couple of extremely important provisions into the legislation at committee stage. We want to see our medicare system become a truly health care system. It should not just provide treatment after the fact, but also should include preventive services, including the services of paraprofessionals for the quality care they can offer.
Canada Health Act
In light of that we asked for a number of amendments, and let me quote one. The door has been opened with the following improvement in the wording:
The health care insurance plan of a province must insure all insured health services provided by hospitals, medical practitioners or dentists, and-
This is the addition:
-where the law of the province so permits, similar or additional services rendered by other health care practitioners.
In other words, the provinces may bring into their system additional health care professionals and they may have expenses covered by our new Canada Health Act when it is passed. It will encourage a province to make use of other health care professionals. This means that we will be getting better care and a better range of options for people to enable them to make decisions about the kind of care they want. Health care professionals other than doctors usually provide their services at a somewhat lower fee, so we will end up with the best of both worlds. We will have more cost-efficient medical care and care which people want. They will be able to choose what they want and will get savings in costs in the overall system.
We hope that paramedical services, nurse practitioners and other professionals will come in as well. The nurses have lobbied very extensively for this and the New Democratic Party has supported their endeavours and will continue to support endeavours to include these health care professionals in our system. We had hoped to get general inclusion of these practitioners, but at least we have the door open so that we will be ready to accept them when the provinces allow them to come in.
We have a broader concept of health accepted in the legislation by an amendment to the preamble, which reads as follows:
-that Canadians can achieve further improvements in their well-being through combining individual lifestyles that emphasize fitness, prevention and health promotion with collective action against the social, environmental and occupational causes of disease, and that they desire a system of health services that will promote such physical, and mental health and such protection against disease;
That is a good philosophical statement which tries to show where we want to go and that health care is not only the avoidance of disease but also the promotion of health through prevention good nutrition, better lifestyles, exercise and cleaning up of occupational health hazards. All of these things are part of it. This is something to which a whole community can contribute by taking collective action to improve the environment, the air we breathe and the working environment.
The New Democratic Party continued to press for other amendments, which I am sorry to say were not accepted. I would like to mention a few of these to show the direction in which we would like the Canada Health Act to go. One of the most important of these is a provision for the escalation of penalties. One of the most important functions of this Act is to provide for penalties so that the federal Government can respond to extra billing and user fees of a province, not just by cutting them off completely, which would not be acceptable to

April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act
the Canadian public and which would make too many people suffer as a result, but to give greater flexibility. The New Democratic Party is concerned that the dollar for dollar withholding of subsidies for health care would not be adequate to discourage extra billing and user fees on the part of a province. We proposed that the withholding of dollar for dollar hold only for the first year of the penalty, that it go up to $2 for every dollar allowed in extra billing and user fees in the second year, and in the third year that it escalate to $3 for every dollar misused in health care expenditures. Our feeling is that these more adequate penalties would give the federal Government more clout in dealing with the provinces and would still give it adequate flexibility.
An important amendment, which was unfortunately ruled out of order, is that moneys which are withheld as penalties, apart from those that would be returned if the province cleaned up its act, got rid of extra billing and got the money back, should be redirected to provinces which are complying with the Act. These moneys would be used to facilitate research, innovation and service development in areas of alternative health care, delivery systems and preventive and medical health promotions. The idea is that if provinces are not living up to the spirit and letter of the Canada Health Act they should be penalized and lose this money. We do not want this money to go just anywhere. This money is supposed to be devoted to health care. Let us put it where it would do some good. Let us give it to the provinces that are complying with the Act and that would put that money into special innovative programs that would be of benefit to all Canadians. Let us allow the provinces that are living up to the spirit and terms of the Canada Health Act to get some benefit from that. That benefit would not be confined to their own citizens but would have effects throughout the country. People in other provinces would see the good things that happen as a result of these innovative programs.
Another amendment on which the Conservatives voted with us, but which was unfortunately defeated by the Government, was that no penalty would come into force until passed by Parliament. This would provide for public debate before any penalties were actually meted out. Therefore, it would not be a matter of Cabinet discretion only, a matter which would be dealt with privately and secretly, but it would be a matter for open, public debate. When the Canada Health Act is being violated by a province we certainly need public debate. That would perhaps be an effective way of dealing with it. It would certainly help to get the issue before the public so that people in the provinces concerned would know very clearly what was happening.
We lost an amendment to ensure an acceptable ratio of ward to private and semi-private accommodation in hospitals. We are very concerned that there be quality care in our hospitals and that this quality care be available not only to those who can pay extra to get semi-private or private care. Good quality care ought to be available to all Canadians, even if they cannot afford the extra costs to get private or semi-private care. Unfortunately that amendment was not passed.
We are at a very important juncture in our health care system. I would like, therefore, to spend a few minutes looking back as well as forward to see the unfolding and how the different ideas were brought into medicare in Canada to give us some idea of what are the next steps we should be taking. I am proud to do this because it was my colleagues in the old CCF, and later in the NDP, who pioneered most of the elements of the medicare system. In 1945, with a very new CCF Government, Saskatchewan was the first to introduce medical and dental care for all old age pensioners and for mothers' allowance recipients and their families. That was a very small beginning for the people most in need, but is was a noticeable beginning for our system. In 1945, a federal-provincial discussion on tax arrangements to facilitate an extension of this program was unsuccessful. It was not until very much later that there was another important and comprehensive amendment to medicare.
In 1948, the Saskatchewan CCF Government introduced an experimental government-sponsored medical care plan in one region of the province. This included a full range of medical services and dental care for children under 16. The following year, again under the CCF Government, Saskatchewan became the first province to introduce comprehensive government-sponsored hospital insurance. This is one of the most costly items in our health care system. In 1957, the federal Government passed the Hospital and Diagnostic Services Act, which provides for federal cost sharing of hospital services. It was only a few years later that all provinces took advantage of this.
In one province we can see the pioneer work being done beginning in the 1940s. It took quite a long time before other provinces and the federal Government became convinced to act. In 1961, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall was appointed to chair the Royal Commission on Health Services. This, of course, was the commission that recommended our full medicare system. In 1962, Saskatchewan became the first province to introduce a comprehensive provincially sponsored medical prepayment plan and fought it out with a doctors' strike. If it had not been for the courage of the CCF Government in Saskatchewan we would not have medicare today. In 1964, the Hall Commission reported, recommending a comprehensive medical insurance plan. In 1966, with a minority Government, the Medical Care Act was passed providing for 50 per cent federal cost sharing. By 1971, the last province, New Brunswick, joined the medical care plan. We can see the beginning of medicare in 1945 in a CCF province, and finally in a Conservative province in 1971. While the last province with a Conservative regime joined medicare in 1971, in 1973 the NDP provincial government were introducing more innovations. In 1973, Manitoba introduced Canada's first universal pharmacare program for seniors and universal nursing home care. In 1974, Manitoba with an NDP government became the first province to introduce a government dental care plan for children. Also in 1974, Saskatchewan with an NDP government became the first province to offer no cost aids to the handicapped.
April 2, 1984

Again we can see that Conservative provinces have come along rather more reluctantly while CCF and NDP provinces were very much in the forefront in bringing in innovations.
There is much discussions now of a national consensus on medicare. I am certainly pleased to see that all three Parties support the current Canada Health Act, but it is very clear in this national consensus that some are active members and leaders in fighting for medicare while others are rather slow converts to the cause and are rather reluctant in seeing the benefits of having a comprehensive medical care system. While the Conservatives are not in the forefront of supporting medicare, they are not fighting it. Unfortunately, there is some backlash against medicare on the part of the National Citizens' Coalition.
I suppose all Members of the House have been receiving, as well as seeing in the newspapers, a lot of nonsense on the issue of medicare. They are very misleading statements on the part of this so called National Citizens' Coalition. I want to mention a few of them and point out what is so ludicrously wrong with the kind of propaganda they are putting out. For instance, they ask, "Do you really want someone who has been forced into adopting a civil servant mentality doing open heart surgery on you or delivering your baby?" They state:
Waiting lines for surgery are going to get much longer and because literally thousands of highly educated and talented specialists will be reluctantly driven out of our country there will be fewer doctors. Those who are left will be eventually reduced to clock watching.
More Canadians will die because they can't get the life-saving health care they need, when they need it.
When they say that doctors will be turned into a bunch of civil servants, I would like to point out to anyone who is interested in this kind of claptrap that this is simply untrue. How a person is paid does not determine whether that person is qualified, experienced, able, dedicated or conscientious. People can be all of these things and indeed even be civil servants. It is quite possible.
I have lived in other countries where there are actually civil servants who are doctors and where health care is indeed of extremely high quality. It depends on their training, experience and dedication, which is quite independent from how they are paid.
I am sorry to hear statements like this being made because it is a scare tactic which might give people the wrong impression. I know that this body is not dealing with the real problems before us concerning the health care system, which is extending it to include paraprofessionals, the issue of midwifery and home births, and the issue of community health care clinics. These are all ways of improving our health care system.
This group also seems to be very reluctant to note that having a profit motive in medicine can be a danger as well. They say that people would not want a civil servant operating on them, but I would not want somebody operating on me who is in it strictly for profits and will recommend the most expensive intervention because it is the most profitable. There-
Canada Health Act
fore, there are dangers as well in having too much of a profit motive in the medicare system. We have seen evidence of this in other countries. There are many useless operations being done in the United States where there is too much of a profit motive.
To conclude let me just say that we have gone a long way to get to this Canada Health Act. I am pleased to see it and will certainly vote for it. I want to assure the House that the NDP caucus will continue to work and be in the forefront of reform in Canada's health services to see that Canadians get the kind of health care they want.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten minute period for questions or comments. If there are no questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) on debate.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to review Bill C-3, which enacts the new Canada Health Act, in the context of all the history that has preceded the introduction of this legislation in the House of Commons. Let me begin by characterizing the new Canada Health Act in this way; if a government has many crises relating to unemployment, such as rising interest rates and all those matters which affect Canadians in their day-to-day lives, and it cannot solve any of those crises, then it may be advisable to create a crisis that affects each and every Canadian that it can then pretend or purport to solve.
Essentially, that is what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and the Government have done in bringing in Bill C-3, the Canada Health Act. The Government has said that there is a problem with health care across Canada, that we are losing universality of our health care system. But the Government tells Canadians not to worry because it will save them from this threat.
I have talked to members of the medical profession, including surgeons, nurses and everyone involved in the health care system. They never saw the problem in that way. No one ever asked me to go back to Ottawa to try to preserve the universality of our health care system. What I was told time and again was to go back to Ottawa and make sure that the Government of Canada fulfills its commitment to Canada's health care system by providing adequate funds to preserve and advance the health care system that we now have in place.
There is not a professional in the health care system who does not see the problem of medical care as involving funding. In other words, the problems that exist in the health care system are the result of underfunding. It is as simple as that.
But what happened? The Government wants to forget about the facts and deal with the perception. It wants to deal with the idea, which it has built up over a period of time, that there is a problem. This has been done particularly by the Minister of National Health and Welfare with the little pamphlets she has sent out in the mail to innocent Canadians. These pamphlets, which they read while opening their cheques or waiting in long line-ups at the banks, tell them that there is a problem. If people are told about it long enough and read about it long

April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act
enough they will eventually believe that there is a problem and believe that a piece of legislation is necessary to solve that problem.
That is what we are doing here. We are dealing with a myth, a ghost. We are trying to deal with a piece of legislation that purports to solve a problem that does not exist. While the Government is not very smart, it is not totally stupid and has introduced a couple of concepts to help create this myth which it has developed over a period of years. It used two words that have become anathema to many Canadians. The two terms which it has developed are extra billing and user fees. Those great evils of the health system, extra billing and user fees, are used as though extra billing and user fees were totally unconnected to the problem of underfunding of the health care system.
I do not believe that anyone on either side of the House of Commons or in any of the provincial chambers across the country wants to have user fees or extra billing for patients who are the consumers of the health care services. We all want a totally free system, but the problem is how to pay for it. Where will the money come from to pay for the system? Those provinces that do not have the wealth and resources that are required to pay for the system must, in some cases, resort to user fees or some other method of collecting medical fees. The common method is extra billing.
To make the claim that extra billing and user fees are evils in themselves, unconnected with the government funding of Canada's medical health services, is a pretence. It is a worse than a pretence, it is a fraud because there is an illicit motive behind it. The Minister of National Health and Welfare who presides over this massive health system knows better. She must know that the only reason for having user fees and extra billing in any of the provinces in Canada is to raise money to help provide the health care services that are part of the system. Yet she isolates them and says that they are evil and an attack upon universality. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In this House of Commons we are constantly fighting the Government's attempt to create perceptions instead of presenting the facts. This is one more case, and we have to fight it. However, the trouble and the difficulty is that we, like everyone else in Canada, want the health care system preserved in its entirety and improved. We all want that. What is this pretense of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) that there are people out to attack Canada's health care system and that we on this side of the House want sick Canadians, not well Canadians? That is as ridiculous in reality as it is in the speaking. There is not a grain of truth in that, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows it, as does every Member of the House.
The problem is with the quality of health care in Canada. It is as simple as that. What kind of a health care system do we want? What kind of medical personnel do we want in our hospitals? What kind of equipment do we want in operating
rooms when we go in for surgery? What kind of hospital beds do we want? Do we want automatic hospital beds or ones that crank up? All these things are part of the system. They have to be decided in each and every instance. But what has to be taken as the general guide is: Do we want a health care system which is the equal of any of the advanced nations in the western world or, for that matter, in the eastern world or in the whole world? If we ask that question of thinking Canadians, they will respond immediately by saying, "We want the best possible health care system. Give us the best possible health care system in the circumstances and then we as Canadians will find ways to pay for it".
I happen to have a long exposure to the matter of health care in Canada. I was a junior solicitor in the Department of the Attorney General in Nova Scotia in the late fifties when hospital care was introduced. I can tell the House that that was a traumatic experience for the then Stanfield Government of Nova Scotia, because Mr. Stanfield and his colleagues in his Cabinet knew that hospital care would be an enormous expense for the Province of Nova Scotia. In 1984-85 that is proven by the fact that the Province of Nova Scotia spends 24.5 per cent of its total budget on health. One quarter in every dollar spent by the Government of Nova Scotia is in health services. Mr. Stanfield knew in the late fifties what a burden hospital care would be on the people and taxpayers of Nova Scotia. He thought long and hard about it, but Nova Scotia opted in because it was recognized that there was nothing more important than the health of its citizens. There is nothing more important to Nova Scotia than that the province have healthy citizens. That can be said of every part of Canada. There is nothing more important than the personal health of individuals.
As you get to my age, Mr. Speaker, you realize more and more every day that you value among everything you might possess your own personal health. Once again let me underline the fact that nobody is here to hurt in any way, shape or form our health care system. The problem is: How do we finance it and at what level do we operate, that is to say, at what level of patient care?
Notwithstanding the statistics presented, there has been in fact a decrease in funding emanating from the Government of Canada to the provinces. That is simply stated in the table provided by the Province of Nova Scotia which shows very clearly that the transfer payments from the Government of Canada in 1984-85 were 40.6 per cent of the revenues, that is the total recoveries of the Province of Nova Scotia. In 1983-84 that figure was 43.5 per cent. It is going down. They can come up with whatever numbers they want in the House of Commons and elsewhere, but the fact of the matter is that federal contributions to the provinces, particularly the Province of Nova Scotia, are going down.
Let us not fool around and juggle statistics around trying to fool people. It comes out at the other end. There is a bottom line. The bottom line is in the hospitals, the doctors' offices and everywhere else where we have to pay for health care. The dollar bills are not there. We can see it in the cracked walls, in
April 2, 1984

the rusty equipment and everywhere we go. I have to say to members of the Liberal Party who insist in the House that the Canada Health Act is an improvement that they should travel to the hospitals and to the outlets of health care, and they will see that there is no improvement. The evidence is very clear and cogent that the health care service in Canada is degenerating. It is going down. There is not a professional medical person practising in Nova Scotia who would argue against that.
Someone said that this is really a matter of political power, that this has nothing to do with health or health care services, that it is simply the Government of Canada exercising its pre-eminence in the health care field, as it has pushed people and provinces out of the energy field, the resource field and every other field which it seeks to occupy. Under the British North America Act there is a theory of occupied field. The Parliament of Canada can come in and occupy a particular field in the interests of all Canadians. But our Government is not doing it that way, directly, and saying, "We want the health care field totally under the control of the federal Government". It is just doing it in this almost nefarious way, saying, "We have the dollar bills. We have the strength. We are the ones who do not have to provide health care". The federal Government does not have to treat a patient. It does not have to provide a hospital bed, but if it is to do it, it wants total control. The only way to do that is through legislation of the purse-strings, and that is why we have this Bill before us. If the provinces give up in this fight-and they are apparently giving up for reasons I will mention-then the federal Government is in complete control.
Let me tell the House about one of the saddest features of the Canada Health Act. I have some 25 years of personal experience in this behind me. Do you know who that is? It is the so-called hero of Canadian medical care, Dr. Emmett Hall, in his older age. I have the greatest respect for our senior citizens, but the fact of the matter is that Judge Hall is a retired judge of the Supreme Court, retired because of reaching the mandatory age limit. Does that mean his judgment is suspect? No, not in all cases, because some of our citizens of that age have keener minds than many of us. But in the case of Judge Hall you have to suspect something, and I want to put that right on the floor of the House of Commons. Judge Hall has said-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We are starting to suspect you.


Howard Edward Crosby: -that time goes by for all of us, as younger Members will find out. He says that the medical profession in Canada cannot become a law unto itself. Judge Hall said, and listen to this-


Monique Bégin: Why did you mention his age? What does that have to do with it?


Howard Edward Crosby: -that the medical profession has been granted a monopoly to practise medicine to the exclusion of all others. Thank God the Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot practise medicine. Thank God somebody has said that
Canada Health Act
medical practitioners are the only ones permitted to practise medicine. What kind of nonsense is that from the father of medical care, that the medical profession has been granted a monopoly?
It reminds me of a cartoon which I saw-and I address this particularly to the Minister of National Health and Welfare- of a sick lady lying in bed and an obvious witch-doctor standing at the end of the bed, and the husband saying, "It is the only person who would take housecalls". That is what is happening here when you pretend that the medical profession has some kind of monopoly. Oh, they are going to take us, just because I cannot practise medicine, just because the Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot practise medicine! This group which has been granted an exclusive privilege will take advantage of us! What nonsense. What an utter sham. It is totally ridiculous. I cannot believe that it is happening.
The medical profession has not been granted any monopoly. The medical profession is made up of the people who by training over a long period of time have proved their capability and capacity to perform certain acts connected with what we call the practise of medicine. There is no mystery to it. If one wants to be a doctor, one goes to medical school. One qualifies, obtains a diploma and certification and becomes a doctor.
Judge Hall is a doctor too, but not that kind of doctor, thank God. I want to say that I think this is one of the worst things in this whole debate. Somebody at the level of Mr. Justice Hall, the father of medical care, so-called in Canada, said that the medical profession has a monopoly to practice and they are using it against the people of Canada. Enough of that nonsense. Some of my best friends and close associates are medical doctors.


Monique Bégin: Nobody would have thought of that.


Howard Edward Crosby: There is a remark from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am supposed to feel embarrassed because I know some people in the medical profession. Why would I feel embarrassed? That is one of the proudest claims I can make. I have a great many friends in the medical profession. I see them socially and otherwise. I am proud of them. I do not think there is any higher calling in our society. How do you like that, Mrs. Minister or whatever you are called.


Monique Bégin: It is Madam.


Howard Edward Crosby: One of those medical doctors, who happens to be a provincial public servant of many years' standing, the head of one of our best medical institutions in Nova Scotia, has written this speech for me. It is a personal message from him to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He said in his letter:
I want you to express these views in the House of Commons.
His views are so well expressed that I will simply quote what he said. He said:
As proposed, I am concerned that Bill C-3, the Canada Health Act, will threaten the availability and quality of medical care in Canada, that it will

April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act
cripple a health care system that has been recognized as one of the best in the world and will interfere with the economic professional freedom of the medical profession.
This is from a medical doctor in Nova Scotia who has been an employee of the Province of Nova Scotia for years. He goes on to say:
The Canada Health Act is supposed to amalgamate, update and more clearly redefine the conditions of current federal legislation and the Medical Care Act of 1966. These have been legislative instruments by which Ottawa has provided funding for provincial health care programs, but if the Minister of National Health and Welfare's proposal is accepted, it will do more than that.
Here are the specific points that he lists. He said the Bill will:
Convert Canada's high quality health care insurance program into state medicine,
Make the serious under-funding of the situation even worse,
Reduce the ability of hospitals to meet the needs of communities they serve, Reduce the financial flexibility of provincial governments and their ability to finance health care,
Widen the disparities and the availability and quality of health care service that exists between provinces and communities,
Deny patients the democratic right to buy health care services that they need or want beyond those provided by the state,
Interfere with patients' rights to obtain health services from physicians and hospitals of their choice-
Deny physicians the right to deal directly with their patients to establish the value of our service and thus reduce our economic freedom.
In short, what he says and what I agree with is that the Act is a sham. It is a device to get federal control. It is a device to contend that the Government of Canada, under the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is solving the health care problems of Canada.
Everybody is put in a difficult position. We support the health care system in Canada. We support medicare. We support hospital care for all Canadians. Only a few months ago I had occasion to require care in hospital. I told the Minister of National Health and Welfare about that. I wanted, as all Canadians do when they enter hospital, the best care possible; otherwise you will pay for it afterwards. That is what Canadians want. They want the highest quality of health care. Our duty is to provide the opportunity for all Canadians to get the best possible health care that the system can deliver. That is our purpose. We cannot do that if we simply obstruct the Canada Health Act before this Parliament. We cannot do that by just blocking it. We can expose the errors of the ways of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We can expose her attitude and the contempt that she shows for the deliverers of health care services. However, to vote against the Bill that provides health care for Canadians is another matter.
I want to end on one note in the case of Nova Scotia just to show everybody in this Parliament and elsewhere what kind of a person we are dealing with in the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Nova Scotia medical practitioners receive 85 per cent of the approved fee. They have received that fee since medical health care was introduced. It is part of an agreement they made with the province and with the Government of Canada. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is simply revoking that and saying that that historic fact
goes out the window, "you get whatever you get and that's it". She calls that extra billing. She is wrong about that and she is wrong about most everything else she says about medical care in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There is a ten-minute period for questions and comments.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member could give us the name of the doctor he quoted so freely in his speech? If he is not prepared to do that, under the Standing Orders of this House, because he quoted the letter almost verbatim, he should be required to table that letter.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies. You put me on a rack and I will not give you the name of the doctor who wrote to me. If there is a rule in this House of Commons that can require you to deliver confidential material, I tell you that I am not going to obey that rule. I made it clear that I have received a communication. I believe I have the right to refer to it and speak about it. I will make this concession to the Hon. Member. I will ask the doctor if he has any objection to providing a copy of his letter to the Parliamentary Secretary. If the doctor consents, I will be glad to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I should tell the Hon. Member that there is no such rule, so he will not be called upon to disobey the rules.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, will the Hon. Member tell us why in referring to Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, before his derogatory comments concerning Mr. Justice Hall, he prefaced them by saying he was retired and somewhat up in years? I do not quote him exactly, but I think the reference is clear.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I think the references are clear. I do not believe that anybody has given medical practitioners a monopoly. That is not the nature of the law at all. If Mr. Justice Hall thinks they have been given a monopoly, all I can say is that he is wrong.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made an unwarranted attack on Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. I submit he took out of context what Mr. Justice Hall had to say about a monopoly. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall was talking about expanding our present medical and hospital services. He talked about paramedics, home nursing, midwives, nurses, a whole host of things in the area of preventive medicine. Up until now, the medical profession has had a monopoly on most of that. The Hon. Member could not carry water for Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, who is the father of medicare and hospitalization in Canada. He brought in the royal commission report; it was him, Tommy Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd. By the way, it was not the Hon. Member's Party, although Mr. Justice Hall was a supporter of that Party. He was never a supporter of our Party. It was Mr. Justice Hall who helped father this program in Canada and who calls for the expansion of it. The medical profession does have a monopoly. They have too damned much say. They have a monopoly licensing authority and a monopoly
April 2, 1984

union. The Hon. Member owes an apology to Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, and he had better make it now.


Howard Edward Crosby: If I owe anyone an apology, I will apologize. However, I will start with the allegation that I quoted out of context. I quoted from a newspaper which was delivered just one week ago. I will now quote from a newspaper report dated December 10, 1983, in which Mr. Justice Emmett Hall was reported as having spoken before the Health Coalition of Nova Scotia, a group financed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to lobby for her Canada Health Act. That report quoted Mr. Justice Hall as saying:
A physician is not only a medical person ... he said.
"He has moral and social obligations as well as self-interest... the medical profession is a monopoly created by the state ... the state will prosecute anyone who is not licensed to act in that field"-
Let me ask the Hon. Member what that means.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Just to be clear, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) but questions are supposed to be directed to the person who made the speech.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member if it was not correct that the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), appointed Mr. Justice Emmett Hall to do a review of our medicare and hospitalization system, as a result of which Mr. Justice Emmett Hall made a certain number of recommendations to do away with what he calls the monopoly of the medical profession over the other services that can be provided which are presently governed by, ordered by, prescribed by or requested by a member of the medical profession. That is what Mr. Justice Hall was talking about. Is that not correct?


Howard Edward Crosby: How do you know what he was talking about?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I ask the Hon. Member if it is not correct that Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, in the context of his remarks about the monopoly, was perfectly correct and that he is calling for an expansion of the kinds of people who provide medical and health services. Is that not what Mr. Justice Emmett Hall recommended to the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I think I could make my position very clear without the distortions of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) or any other Member in the House. Mr. Justice Hall, as I said very clearly in my speech, is the so-called father of medical care. I walked around Nova Scotia with Mr. Justice Emmett Hall when he went there to study medical care and to write the report that he eventually published. No one has to tell me about Mr. Justice Hall.
I am trying to point out that over a period of time, Mr. Justice Hall changed his view. He suddenly got the idea that the enemy of medical care was the medical profession. This is a very hurtful view. He said that the medical profession has a
Canada Health Act
monopoly. The medical profession does not have a monopoly. That is not what a monopoly is. He has repeated it time and time again and fostered the whole idea that the medical profession is doing this or is doing that. In the newspaper article to which I referred before, Mr. Justice Hall is quoted as saying:
"When the state gives a monopoly of that kind ... gives the right to deliver an essential service, the state becomes automatically involved."
That is simply not true, Mr. Speaker. I cannot help it if Mr. Justice Emmett Hall said it, or a prince or a pauper said it; it is simply not true. I am trying to say that that kind of mistaken attitude leads to a great many other false conclusions, the most important of which is that the medical profession does not have certain rights. Those rights, if taken away, must be taken away in a fair manner. A provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that if one takes something away, one must give something in return.
In the case of the medical health profession in Nova Scotia, the Canada Health Act has taken away the medical practitioner's privilege that existed under the law of Nova Scotia to bill for the difference between the 85 per cent of the approved fee and the approved fee. That privilege may be wiped out because of the Canada Health Act. It may be wiped out by a recommendation of Mr. Justice Hall who said that these doctors had a monopoly and that the state was involved so the state could take it away.
I do not accept that kind of philosophy. I do not accept it and I am sorry to run into conflict with the father of medical care, but I stated my position very clearly. I will argue it before any group. I do not agree that the medical profession has the kind of monopoly suggested by Mr. Justice Hall, and I think that that is the cause of a huge problem in Canada, a problem that will plague us for decades to come.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is the conclusion of the 10-minute period for questions and comments.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the interchange between the last two speakers, I was reminded of the fact that, indeed, the medical profession cannot be a monopoly because there are so many fast operators in other areas of Canadian life. I think the point of view expressed by some Hon. Members of the NDP and, indeed, of the Government Party is testimony to the fact that one can operate in several ways. One can operate from a level of political concern and a sense of justice, or one can operate from a position of trying to gain political advantage.
I have several major points I would like to make. Before beginning, I would like to confirm, as have all members of the Conservative Opposition, the fact that I will be voting for this Bill because there are many principles embodied in this Bill which we feel are important. As described by the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), medical care is a sacred trust which first began in the days of John Diefenbaker and Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, something that we as a Party very firmly believe is important to the mainstream of Canadian life,

April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act
and something which is the responsibility of all governments to provide to Canadian citizens.
I am certainly not a disinterested party in this debate. Indeed, I can remember in my first days of medical practice the great relief that existed when it was made clear that a patient who required hospitalization had hospital insurance, and the frustration and difficulties that were encountered when a patient was not able to be brought into hospital for what in many cases was necessary treatment because he could not afford to pay a hospital bill. These are things for which we have a responsibility as a Government across Canada.
There are two main issues that arise. We have established the principles of universality, reasonable accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability of benefits and non-profit administration. These principles have been established, but they have been added to by the Act we are seeing now, and this identifies one of my major areas of concern.
This morning when questioning the Hon. Member for Pro-vencher who entered into debate on this Bill, the Minister indicated that the provincial Governments had created additional health care costs for themselves because they were providing medical care facilities to small communities they administer throughout the provinces. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that this identifies very clearly something all of us should pay attention to, and something all of us should take note of for the future. If this indicates that the Minister of Health feels that that is not an appropriate expenditure, then she indeed is the one who is threatening the type of health care that we in Canada have come to expect and would like to see in the future.
We are not dealing with downtown Toronto, downtown Montreal or downtown Quebec City. We are dealing with the small rural areas of Canada where Canadian people are employed in areas of low population density, or in the farthest reaches of our territories. It is those people for whom we must provide care of the highest level possible. The Minister indicates that she would be critical of a provincial Government that was attempting to provide that level of care, and she has clearly indicated that where it is her repsonsibility she has not provided that care.
The visibility factor as it is dealt with in the Bill indicates in general the Minister's approach to the health care scene. She has included in the Act a requirement that the federal Government be more visible. For the most part, if we are able to do good deeds it would be nice to be recognized for them. But if we require recognition in anticipation of good deeds, and if that becomes a premise for bringing forward legislation, then that is a sad testimony to the type of government we have in Canada.
The Minister has spent $3 million to advertise the Canada Health Act. We understand that it takes between $25,000 and $50,000 to support one life, and beyond that it strains the level of care that we are able to provide. Indeed, we lose lives because we cannot provide the necessary support systems. Mr. Speaker, $3 million would potentially have maintained 60 Canadian lives. Yet that is what the Minister has spent on advertising this program, separate from anything to do with the actual delivery, administration and provision of health care to Canadians. That is the style of government we have in Canada. It is a style of government which is geared to maintaining power; it is a style of government that is non-productive and does not get to the heart of many issues that need to be dealt with.
The second major point I should like to make is one that I probably feel more strongly about than do many other Members. That is not to say that I feel I can explain or understand it completely, or that I will be an expert on it; it is only to say that I speak from probably a perspective that is important to consider at this stage of the debate. This concerns the future of the medical care system in Canada.
A mentality is developing that concerns me greatly, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister has any interest in the health care system in Canada she will be interested in it as well. A mentality is developing in the medical profession based on the insecurity, the concerns and the grievances it has with the Minister and with governments at all levels when they do not maintain contracts, when they impose settlements, when they arrive at conclusions separate and apart from the considerations that have been brought forward, when they put the profession in the position where it feels it no longer has the rights and freedoms it needs-the professional freedom, the freedom as Canadians to live and practise medicine in Canada in a way that they believe to be in the best interests of their patients and their country.
I do not offer this lightly, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members opposite may smile and I know I can be accused of self-interest, but it is a mentality that is growing. It is a type of mentality that prompts my colleagues to say to me "Why don't you provide us with full state medicine? Why should I get up at five o'clock in the afternoon-we all know that government offices usually close between four and four-thirty in the afternoon, so why should I go on a call at five o'clock, or six or seven or eight o'clock at night if I am going to be managed by a bureaucracy, with all the obligations and none of the benefits?" That is the mentality that is spreading in the profession. It will be expensive for Canadians in future in terms of the type of medical care they can expect and will receive. I have not got an answer for that because I cannot answer for the Minister's intentions in the Bill or how she intends to operate the system across Canada from a central bureaucracy, when the Government cannot even meet the requirements of individual communities. I do not know how the Minister is going to manage that, but I can understand the concern of the professionals.
This is not really a concern for politicians, Mr. Speaker, and certainly not for the Minister who will always get the level of health care that she wants. It is not a concern for me either because I can look after myself. It is a concern for Canadian citizens. Their destiny may well be integrated into a system that is being run by people who do not have personal involve-
April 2, 1984

ment and whose dedication has been struck away because of abuse and the level of control that may be exercised by this or some other Minister. We all hope that will not happen. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a growing mentality in the medical profession in Canada today. It is the sum and substance of the letters I have received, and the personal conversations I have had.
Those are the two major points I would like to contribute to the debate, Mr. Speaker. Other Members have spoken of the broad general concerns and major issues of financing, and attitudes which they can describe much better than I can. I will close with a specific question I asked some of the Minister's constituents in the Province of Quebec when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. We have seen the Quebec medical system evolve, and I have worked with people in the system and some of my colleagues have trained in the system. At the Committee hearings I asked this question: "Is the medical care system in Quebec better or worse than the one in Ontario?" The answer is on the records of the Committee, Mr. Speaker; it is worse in Quebec than in Ontario.


Monique Bégin: That is another discrimination. Can you explain?


Gary Michael Gurbin: That is testimony to the system as it has evolved in the Province of Quebec compared to the way it has evolved in Ontario. That comment was made with obvious regret by the physician who represented a group of physicians from that Province at the Committee.
I again offer my support to those principles of the Bill which I think are important to all Canadians, Mr. Speaker. I shall work with my Party to overcome in the future those problems about which I have expressed general concern.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin). He is the second Tory to accuse the health system of Quebec of being worse in quality than the one in Ontario. I should like to ask him if he could back up with facts and references, that unacceptable and untrue statement. For example, does he know of the Montreal General Hospital, the Royal Vic, McGill University Faculty of Medicine, the University of Laval, the University of Montreal et cetera. Does he not know of the existence of these top institutions of health, and they are top in Canada? There is nothing dirty because they are in Quebec. The Hon. Member should learn about his country-


John Horton McDermid: That is not what he said.


Monique Bégin: -instead of throwing these accusations-


John Horton McDermid: That is not what he said.


Monique Bégin: -which are of the greatest dishonesty and of course which are totally false.


John Horton McDermid: Stop twisting what he said.


Monique Bégin: This is serious business.
Canada Health Act


John Horton McDermid: Start telling the truth.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, that was not my comment; that was my question. If the Minister can read-I do not know if she can read or if she can understand, but if she can she should refer to the evidence before the Committee meeting where the question was asked. I will undertake to send her a copy so that she may read it. However, I do not think she will understand, Mr. Speaker. As I came into political life, one of my colleagues became head of surgery at St. Mary's Hospital in Montreal, but he left Quebec, because of the system there, to practise in Ontario.


Monique Bégin: Because of the language or the system?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Because of the system. My colleague is originally from the Caribbean and was the head of surgery at St. Mary's Hospital. He left because of the system which he was doomed to failure because of the way it was being practised in Quebec. That has been emphasized time and again by people within the system. It is not the doctors who suffer, it is the patients. That is what the Minister fails to see, Mr. Speaker. Inevitably, the level of patient care deteriorates because of the lack of ability of those people working within the system to provide the level of care which those patients should have. That is the potential for all of Canada if the Minister continues on in her attitude, and that is too bad.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I would like to make a brief comment, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult to listen to the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) and not get the impression that there is a kind of schizophrenia in the approach of the Conservatives to this Bill. The Bill is designed to create in all provinces of Canada a similarity with the Province of Quebec, as in the Province of Quebec there is no extra billing. On the one hand, how can the Hon. Member try to make the point-


John Horton McDermid: He quoted.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I understand that, but you quote things for a purpose. He quoted the contention of the witness before the committee who said that the health care system in Quebec was worse than in Ontario, presumably because of some characteristic of the health care system in Quebec which distinguishes it from other provinces. One of the few things which does that is that there is no extra billing. Therefore, I ask the Hon. Member how he can on the one hand quote something which indicates that the health care system, which has the very characteristics the Canada Health Act is designed to bring about in all provinces, is in a bad situation, and at the same time indicate that he is going to vote for the Bill? I do not understand how he can say one thing and do another, or perhaps I misunderstand the Hon. Member.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the implication of "schizophrenia" implies there are two possibilities when, indeed, I do not know whether there is any philosophical consistency in any of the approaches of the New Democratic

April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act
Party. What I would like to clarify, first of all, is that I never even mentioned extra billing. What I am talking about is a level of bureaucracy which is trying, from its vantage point, to tell a doctor where he can practise or how he should practise and under what constraints. It is trying to say how the system will work. For instance, as a very specific example, if a consultation were required under the system as it was practised-I do not know if it is the same way now in Quebec- this might mean that a patient could well be exposed to radiation through an entirely new set of x-rays just so an additional consultation could be undertaken on behalf of that patient. That is the only way that a specialist would be able to be considered financially, if you will, for a consultation on behalf of a patient. Those are the types of things which happen.
Those impositions, such as telling a doctor where he can or cannot practise, are every bit as important as anything like extra billing. If the Hon. Member wants to talk about extra billing, I can talk about that as well. However, I suggest to every Hon. Member in this House that the biggest example of extra billing we have anywhere is taxation, because all we are doing is taking it with one hand and laying it out with the other hand to get elected.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I believe if the Hon. Member is concerned about allegations with respect to credibility, he has no one to blame but himself. I would ask the Hon. Member to clarify the record by indicating where he got the $3 million figure he used for advertising, because the Department's records indicate $1.1 million, none of which was not used for television or radio advertising. It was used for posters and commercial health forms and inserts.
I would also like to have the Hon. Member refer to the blues of this morning. He will find that the Minister did not refer to a general over-abundance of facilities in the country. She was referring to one province, Alberta, and not the country as a whole.
I would also like to ask the Hon. Member to tell us which Hon. Members on this side of the House were smiling when he, in his opinion, was making an important point in his speech. I do not recall any Hon. Members smiling in any kind of fashion at the Hon. Member, certainly not with pleasure.


Gary Michael Gurbin: If the figure of $3 million was wrong, then I will easily apologize. If the $1.1 million is correct, then that only indicates a level required to support 22 Canadian lives rather than 60. I do not believe it changes the basic point I was trying to make. However, I will apologize for the inaccuracy of the figure.
In terms of whether it is the Province of Alberta or any other province, the province has the responsibility to the citizens-


Monique Bégin: That is not the point.


Gary Michael Gurbin: That is very much the point. The people in my area of Bruce-Grey who are living in a certain environment
and who are involved in activities as Canadians in a province of Canada, have every right to expect to receive health care at levels which are the same, as far as possible, as those in high density downtown urban areas. That is a principle which I fear is jeopardized by the attitude of the Minister because, I believe, the sensitivity, to start with, is certainly not there. It is hard enough at the provincial level to relate to the individual concerns of a small community, let alone try to do that at the federal level, and we are talking about countless communities across Canada. We cannot manage what we are doing here now.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a factual question. Could the Hon. Member tell us if, in his riding, the people have unfettered access to general family practice and to specialist services without extra billing? In other words, if someone becomes sick, can that person be admitted to a hospital in his area, and be given anaesthetist services without having to sign forms saying that he realizes there is extra billing involved? Can a woman find an obstetrician and gynaecologist quite easily who offers these services? Are there choices or do people have to drive great distances to find doctors who are opted in? I would like to know the answer to that question, because I have heard that people in rural areas sometimes have limited choices. I wonder if the Hon. Member could give us some background on that?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the question because I believe it goes right to the heart of the whole issue. I believe the short answer, which I would like to clarify at some other time, is that in the community I personally lived in, yes, indeed, to a level which is beyond most other communities in that area, and that is the second part of the answer. There is no extra billing. I did not extra bill as a physician. In fact, when I started practice we often got paid in kind. So I know where the beef is sometimes. I do not believe that is really what the Hon. Member wanted to ask, with all due respect. There is no extra billing there but there are many physicians who would rather, because of the professional comfort-forgetting for the moment about their personal lives- have the security of working in an area where they have the backup of specialists. Those are things which we are evolving in the smaller communities as much as possible. When we can support the infrastructure which is important in a local hospital, and when the community at large feels that that is something we should work for, we do that. We have been able to do that, but we have done it with some difficulty because we have a bureaucracy which has its own level of control, whether in putting in an operating room, or providing another anaesthetic machine, a capital expenditure program, or whatever it is. At one more level, with the lack of sensitivity which comes when you have to do that, there are increased dangers, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have here a rare opportunity to get some insight on this Bill from a
April 2, 1984

practicing physician. Therefore, would you ask the House for unanimous consent to continue this discussion a little longer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I do not think the rules allow for an extension of the ten-minute question period. Of course, the House can do whatever it wishes with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for continuation of this ten-minue question period?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Then before I recognize the next speaker-


John Horton McDermid: The socialists do not want to be informed.


Monique Bégin: Misinformed, you mean.


John Horton McDermid: They never listen to the doctors.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Bilingualism-Minority rights in Manitoba-Inquiry respecting introduction of resolutions in Parliament; the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz)-Fisheries (a) Great Lakes sports fishing-Importance to tourist industry, (b) Minister's position; the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Labour conditions-Unemployment in Burnaby, B.C.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-3, an Act relating to cash contributions by Canada in respect of insured health services provided under provincial health care insurance plans and amounts payable by Canada in respect of extended health care services and to
Canada Health Act
amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this much trumpeted Bill, the Canada Health Act, is about to come to a close. I rise with rather mixed emotions to participate in third reading. There have been questions and answers with respect to the Quebec model and whether or not it is desirable. I agree that Bill C-3 appears to adopt the Quebec model as the national model. But I suggest that there is more to that Quebec model when the medical practioners in Quebec come before our committee and say, "Please do not adopt that model as the national model". There is more to it, they say, than user fees and extra billing.
As Hon. Members know, the Bill before us bears little resemblance to the Bill we debated at second reading. The great Canada Health Act in its preamble and in its objects and purposes has really been stripped to the bare bones. Witness after witness appeared before us in committee and quickly passed over the reference to user fees and extra billing. They went on to comment about those things which concerned them the most. They suggested numerous changes and improvements which could be and should be made to our medicare system, which has been said by both sides of the House to be the best medicare system in the world. But those witnesses had read the preamble and the original draft of Clause 3 and Clause 4. They were certain that although this particular Bill, Bill C-3, concerned itself with extra billing and user fees, there would surely be a second phase or a second Bill coming along to remedy the wrongs they wanted to put right. The amendments will clearly dispel the illusion they carried through the earlier readings and at committee.
Really, Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that before this Government embarked on medicare reform it would have entered into negotiations and discussions at length with both the medical profession and the provinces, whose responsibility it is to deliver the services and find the money to pay for them.
But what about the doctors? Much has been said at the outset of medicare about the fact that doctors would not become functionaries of the state. That was clearly stated. That great man, Mr. Justice Hall, said a few weeks ago that there was no present crisis and that it was still not the intention of the system as we know it today that doctors become functionaries of the state. There was a possible concern about an erosion down the line if, for instance, extra billing and user fees were to continue to grow. But whenever Mr. Justice Hall spoke of user fees and extra billing, he kept it in balance because he was concerned with the professionalism of the medical practitioners and about continuing the adequacy, or, as some people call it, the reasonableness, of compensation.
I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether there still is, but there was earlier, the time to carry out the kind of consultation necessary to ensure the continued availability of the best medicare system available to Canadians. But no, this fixation on user fees, this Minister's abhorrence of extra billing, has moved the Bill forward until we see it before us on third

April 2, 1984
Canada Health Act
reading gutted to the point where nothing is left save penalties to be imposed on provinces which might permit extra billing or user fees. What is left in its place is a shallow piece of legislation which ignores the pressing concerns those witnesses brought before us for our consideration.
At the heart of any discussion of medicare is funding, that is, cost containment in relation to the quality of medicine delivered to Canadians. Canadians want and expect the best medicare system their Government can provide. But, as I pointed out at the time of second reading, what can Canadians really afford to pay with respect to this social assistance program, the most desirable one perhaps of all social assistance programs in this Government's legislation? The cost of our health care system is running today at about $30 billion a year, $22 billion of which comes from the public sector. This would put each taxpayer's annual medicare tab-check it out, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary-at $2,200. Drugs, for the most part, dental bills, eye glasses and so on, will be added to that amount.
Staggering though these costs may be, it is still not enough to support the kind of medicare system that we would like to have and that we are asking for from day to day. Therefore, alternate sources of financing are being sought. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has rejected altogether the use of extra billing and user fees to close that gap. Well, we on this side agree and we will support the Bill. We agree that extra billing and user fees are not desirable, nor are they generally acceptable. Nonetheless, now that the Minister has said she will not accept user fees or extra billing, what will she accept? The Minister has little to say with respect to assisting the provinces as they are faced with a cost of increasing needs for health care. It is a long time since 1977 when we entered into block funding. Times have not stopped and we are not stagnant at the level of medicare of 1977. Province bashing by the Minister or anyone else does not serve our national interest when it comes to Canada's medicare system. A Government committed to the best possible health care system cannot be helped when it gets into province bashing or bullying everyone around the block. One is left to ask what the commitment of the Government to medicare is.
I remember participating in the sports pool debate and Bill C-95. The Government wanted the necessary legislation passed so that it would get the necessary funds to conduct medical research and so that the beneficiaries of fitness and amateur sport and the arts and cultural council would receive the millions of dollars which would follow therefrom. There is a commitment by Government to the welfare of Canadians. That was a real commitment for medical research. I hardly need to emphasize the importance of medical research and the promotion of physical activity among Canadians. Over the long term these two aspects represent perhaps the best chance of reducing health care costs. Huge benefits would also follow from an emphasis on medical research and on an improved medical fitness improvement program. Those benefits would flow through to our economic side when the record spending of
this Government is considered. Yet consider the contrast in pouring the billions and billions of dollars into medicare and the less than $8 million spent on fitness programs under the Fitness Canada umbrella. That has been the legacy of not one but four Ministers of Fitness and Amateur Sport since 1980.
Additional funding for medical research and fitness and amateur sport is not only necessary but should be a priority. Even if the sports pool ever gets off the ground, this is no way to respond to that need. Quite frankly, it is an insult to those who have a real concern for the future of the health of Canadians. That the Government can continue to tell Canadians that health care is a priority when medical research and fitness and amateur sport programs such as these are left to the whims of the lottery buying public is simply a continuation of the Government's fiction. No one can plan on a secure or long-term basis what number of Canadians will purchase what number of tickets in the next draw, nor should anyone have to. From the standpoint of those directly concerned with the success or otherwise of the sports pool, the ineptitude displayed by the Government in establishing a sports pool corporation is even worse. It has been quite a spectacle, Mr. Speaker. The Government wants to establish a betting pool on professional sporting events, so no effort is made to reach an agreement with the sporting groups regarding scheduling of baseball or hockey. No contact has been made. Their own advisers tell them they should be able to go ahead, and there is no one to stop them. They are going to face litigation in that respect.
The Government wants to maintain the existing lottery agreement with the provinces, so no effort is made to negotiate a settlement by which the sports pool could complement rather than destroy that agreement. Now the provinces are entering into a court case with the federal Government on the sports pool. Finally, the Government claims to want to operate a sports pool, but it absolutely refuses to enter into an agreement undertaking that it will not go back into lotteries or will not enter some electronic get rich quick scheme tomorrow, the day after, or next year. Meanwhile, medical research and the other sports pool beneficiaries go begging. As I mentioned earlier, it is a rather nebulous commitment to the health and well-being of Canadians when you consider the development of that piece of legislation.
The debate on Bill C-3 could easily have led to a reappraisal of medicare if the Government had entered into negotiations, discussion and co-operation rather than heading into a confrontation with respect to Bill C-95 and now Bill C-3. The new Canada Health Act should be addressing the future. The emphasis should be on prevention, research and physical fitness. There is no foresight or direction in this new Bill, just as there is none in the Government across the aisle. That, Mr. Speaker, is the tragedy confronting the House at third reading of Bill C-3. An opportunity has been lost. An opportunity has been thrown away. Bill C-3 looks backward rather than forward.
I would like to see, as would all Canadians, a commitment by the Government to address the funding problems which have led to the symptoms of extra billing and user fees. Unless
April 2, 1984

those funding shortages are met, we will truly have a medicare crisis. Crisis is not too strong a word to use. Medicare must be as good as we can make it for all Canadians, and it must also be fair and equitable for the medical profession. Physicians' incomes have not kept pace with inflation nor with salary increases in other professions. Dentists, lawyers and accountants have all seen their incomes rise much more quickly than those of doctors. Comparative shopping will soon demonstrate the degree of latitude available to those professionals. Physicians, on the other hand, have not such latitude. Their fees are established by schedules negotiated with the provinces. When a doctor was dissatisfied with the fee schedule, extra billing was allowed to him or her, as the case may be, and an adjustment could be made. Medicare was available to Canadians and was not yet eroded or in a state of crisis. Bill C-3 puts an end to extra billing but is not clear on the matter of how physicians will be compensated, as Bill C-3 Clause 12(1 )(c) states. In fact, doctors will have no alternative but to work for their schedule of fees. This is easier said than done. Pressure from many sides, especially from the taxpayers, will be exerted to trim costs or to hold the line. With extra billing gone, doctors have lost the mechanism for registering dissatisfaction with the schedule of fees. In our opinion, it was incumbent upon the Government to find some means of adequately assuring medical practitioners of that reasonable compensation.
So it is with user fees. Like extra billing, user fees rose to a position of concern when costs began to increase in the daily operation of facilities. Public funds have now been stretched to the limit. How is a hospital to pay its bills? We in Ontario have already experienced the option of cutbacks in the number of hospital beds and holdups in expansion plans. Indeed, some of those expansion plans have been shelved. Each cost-cutting option reduces the quality and availability of medical health care. Has the Minister fixed levels of care beyond which the provinces might not slip, and, if they do, what does the Government propose to do and how will it intervene?
I see that you are signalling to me to finish, Mr. Speaker, but let me say that the Government has been careful to point out that Bill C-3 is merely a consolidation of those two earlier health Acts. It is no wonder that one is left to question the medical commitment of the Government. In its concern for accessibility, the Association of Interns and Residents wanted to receive the assurance in the legislation that they would be able to opt in in the provinces that licence them so that accessibility to medicare would continue to be guaranteed to them.
I will close by saying that the Minister had hoped to make an election issue out of this piece of legislation. That plan has backfired rather badly. I hoped that the Minister would be in her seat because I could ask her at this point why she is continuing to use preserved medicare as an envelope stuffer when the time for representation has long since passed.
Borrowing Authority Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten minute period for questions and comments. There are only a couple of minutes left, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacLellan) wishes to ask a short question.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) referred to the per capita cost of $2,000 per person if all the benefits are provided.
I would like to know how he arrived at that figure. If we provided everything that one could expect under medicare, it would still be only $1,200 per person. How did he arrive at the figure of $2,000?


Joseph Lloyd Reid: The Parliamentary Secretary was not listening. I said there was $2,200 for every taxpayer. When one considers the number of taxpayers and divides the costs in the blue book Estimates, it results in a figure of $2,200 per taxpayer.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. It being 4:45 p.m., pursuant to Order made Friday, March 30, 1984, it is my duty to interrupt any proceedings now before the House and to put forthwith every question necessary for the disposal of all stages of Bill C-21, an Act respecting Borrowing Authority.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 28, 1984, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment of Mr. Darling (p. 2292).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Mr. Darling, seconded by Mr. Blenkarn, moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House holds the opinion that the granting of an authority for the borrowing of a sum greater than the amount required to meet the government's needs to the end of the current fiscal year is objectionable in principle and this House therefore declines to give second reading to Bill C-21, An Act to provide borrowing authority."
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

April 2, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Messrs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
[ Translation]
The question is now on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On this division, there might be a disposition of the House, should you seek consent, to have the same votes apply as though they had been taken and so recorded in Hansard.


Mr. Pinard:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we agree provided it is made very clear that the motion will carry.


Mr. Speaker:: In other words, the vote will be exactly the reverse of the vote on the amendment and will be applied to the motion, is that correct?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Speaker, I was not present for the first vote but I wonder if my vote could be included on the second vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the vote of the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) to be added?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. MacLaren) which was agreed to on the following division.
April 2, 1984

(Division No. 36)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chenier
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Dawson Dc Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Benjamin
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bradley
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Cook Cooper Cossitt (Mrs.) Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Deans Dick Domm Elzinga Epp Fretz Gamble Greenaway Gurbin Hargrave Hawkes Hnatyshyn
Dupras Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gima'icl
Gingras
Gourde
(L6vis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Howie Huntington Jarvis Jelinek Jewett (Ms.)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Knowles
Lawrence
Malone
Mazankowski
McCain
McDermid
McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
McMillan
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
MacBain
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Masse
Masters
McRae
Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portclance
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan Yanakis-126.
Nielsen
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche St. Germain Sargeant Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Speyer Stewart Thacker Towers Vankoughnet Wenman Young-75.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 58, I declare the motion carried. Pursuant to Standing Order 58,1 do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.
Borrowing Authority Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Clause 2-Borrowing Authority
The Chairman:: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Mr. Lalonde:: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 12 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"whole twenty-four billion, five hundred and"


Eymard G. Corbin: Order, please. Moved by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) that Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 12 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"whole twenty-four billion, five hundred and"
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 2 as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Eymard G. Corbin: Shall the Bill as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Eymard G. Corbin: Shall I rise and report the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Mr. MacLaren moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
April 2, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? Pursuant to order made Friday, March 30, 1984, now?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, at this point perhaps the House would agree to allow the whips to check the lobbies without ringing the division bells?


Mr. Turner:: We are all right!


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roy MacLaren: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Ian Deans: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it is not carried on division. We said no.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
April 2, 1984

Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As part of the arrangement which led to the agreement yesterday under which we have disposed of this Bill, it was generally understood that Private Members' hour would be extended by any time taken up voting. I would suggest, therefore, that we run to 6.30 p.m. with Private Members' hour.


Yvon Pinard: If necessary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PRIVATE BILLS   UNITED GRAIN GROWERS LIMITED
Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State) moved: that Bill S-10, to amend the Act of incorporation of United Grain Growers Limited, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, United Grain Growers Limited was incorporated under a general act of incorporation passed by the Government of Canada. This Act has been amended eight times since 1911, as need was demonstrated, the more recent amendments being passed in 1967 and in 1976. Due to its uniqueness, this association must apply to Parliament each time it requires an amendment. The United Grain Growers has a membership of 93,540 persons. There are 79,052 membership shareholders and 14,458 Class "A" shareholders.
The purpose of S-10 is to increase the authorized share capital by $20 million, from $25 million to $45 million in shares. It is also to increase Class "A" shares which one individual may hold from 5,000 to 15,000. The United Grain Growers wishes to have the authority to pay additional share dividends, raised from 3 per cent to 5 per cent. It wishes also to have the authority to declare dividends on a quarterly or semiannual basis instead of on an annual basis only.
This company is unique and does not come under blanket corporations. It has 36,947 members in Alberta, 32,921 members in Saskatchewan and 19,499 members in Manitoba. This amendment is to allow the company to take care of expansion, provide working capital and to provide greater dividends to the grain growers of the western provinces. I urge the House, therefore, to approve the passage of Bill S-10, which was approved in the Senate.
United Grain Growers Limited


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party, I support the Bill which has just been introduced by my good friend, the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael). My understanding was that this Bill was going to come up a little later this week, and there are a number of our Members who wanted to participate in this debate. However, having regard to the fact that there is some urgency, we certainly would not want to delay the passage of this Bill, although we want to ensure that it is properly considered.
I share the view of my hon. friend that the United Grain Growers has a very outstanding record of service and performance to the grain industry, the agricultural industry and, indeed, to the producers. United Grain Growers is the oldest farmer-owned commercial organization in Canada. It was established in 1906 and it has for more than 75 years been part of the western agricultural scene. It has moreover, Mr. Speaker, been accredited as a very objective spokesman for the agricultural industry, not only for the grain producers but for agriculture as a whole. I believe although it is primarily interested in the grain handling, purchasing and transportation aspect of agriculture, its operations and its interest extend far beyond those perimeters.
It was very interesting during the course of the Crow debate to note the position taken by the United Grain Growers on behalf of agriculture as a whole. I believe we all recognize that it approached this subject with a broader point of view that simply from the standpoint of the grain producing sector, recognizing that the livestock and processing industries are all integral and vital parts of the total agricultural scene. I believe that when we look at the organization as a whole, we must recognize that it is very much a part of the western Canadian agricultural scene. I feel it is also fair to say that it really is bound up in the economic, social and rural fabric of western Canada.
The Hon. Member has pointed out that there are some 96,000 members owning some 500 licensed elevators. Something which I think has to be noted is that this company has pioneered in providing service in the areas of the north, for example, the Peace River district and the northern parts of the provinces. It has clearly provided a service where previously the service had not been all that good. As an organization, it has seen fit to move into those areas where others have not been quite as prominent.
I believe when one looks at the fact that it is an organization which covers very broadly the three Prairie Provinces, and when one looks at the membership as provided by a document given to me by the Hon. Member for St. Boniface, one sees some 36,000 of the shareholders reside in Alberta, 32,900 in Saskatchewan and 19,499 in the Province of Manitoba, with some 4,000 other members. This clearly reflects the western agricultural scene.
I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether it is the intention of the House to proceed with this Bill.

April 2, 1984
Senior Citizens Advisory Assembly Act


John Leslie Evans: We could defer it to Thursday if you want, and go to another Bill right now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that we could defer this Bill until Thursday. I certainly have no objection to that. As far as I am concerned, we are into the Bill. If it is the disposition of the House to continue, we have Hon. Members on this side who want to speak on it. On the other hand, if the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting it would be more appropriate to leave it to Thursday, I certainly have no objections in that regard. If there have been some consultations and an understanding between the House Leaders, I could discontinue my remarks and we could go on to some other matters. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a rather strange way to be negotiating House business. I thought that is the reason we had House Leaders' meeting. I would like to have given a little more thought to my comments, but I will certainly accede to what I understand to be an informal agreement, as long as I have the right to continue my remarks if and when we resume the debate.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I believe there would be unanimous consent to defer further debate on this matter until Thursday, during which time negotiations can take place to see if Bill S-10 could not be dealt with expeditiously. If there is unanimous consent, we could move directly to Bill C-224, which I believe Members are prepared to debate at this time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned the Bill could pass now. If it is preferred that it go until Thursday, we are agreeable to that. I had the pleasure and honour of the House accepting a private Bill of mine a few years ago, and this is one of the few occasions on which it might happen. We are ready to do it today or Thursday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbauit):: There is a request that consideration of this Bill be deferred until Thursday. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbauit):: Agreed and so ordered.
Shall all orders and items preceding Order No. 73 be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine) moved: that Bill C-224, an Act to contitute a senior citizens advisory assembly, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to discuss my Private Members' Bill C-224. In listening to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, he said we would extend the hour "if necessary". When he says that, I hope that is an agreement for at least the subject matter to be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee.
First of all I would like to thank Harold Brown, a fine outstanding senior citizen of Winnipeg, who informed me of the silver haired legislature in Florida. This assembly debates bills affecting senior citizens, making recommendations and amendments before a bill is considered in its final stages by the Florida State legislature. This has proven to be an efficient and effective means by which senior citizens are able to more directly form and reform the legislation which constitutes their standard of living. Because of Harold Brown's knowledge of this senior's parliament, I was, with his input, able to draft the Bill based along the same lines as the Florida silver haired legislature, and similar to the popular Canadian Youth Parliament.
The Bill has received a great deal of support from all, including, I am pleased to say, the federal Liberal Government and the NDP. I would like to thank everyone who has endorsed this proposal, and I would like to make special mention of the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang), the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) all of whom have made known their support for my Bill.
I am exceptionally thankful and grateful for the support I received from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). She stated in a recent letter to Harold Brown that she wanted him to know that her Department will, as it has in the past, give priority to any attempts which will enable older Canadians to voice their concern.
It has been made apparent that all Members of Parliament from all Parties are aware that communication between the federal Government and senior citizens leaves much to be desired. Because of the possible all-Party agreement to be given to this Bill, I am optimistic that we as a concerned united group will today provide Canada's older population with a clear avenue to increased participation in the future development of policies affecting their welfare. I believe all Members of Parliament, through their close contacts with seniors in their constituencies and through regular visits at senior citizens' homes, realize that a large number of our older population are not living at an acceptable standard and there is an urgent and immediate need for improvement.
There are today well over two million senior citizens in Canada. In the year 2031, roughly 21 per cent of the population will be senior citizens. Currently a prime problem is senior citizen housing, more specifically affordable senior citizen housing. Other major difficulties include the rate of pensions as opposed to the cost of living, increased health care needs, facing and dealing with fast-paced technological changes,
April 2, 1984

confusing and complex new government regulations and available programs, and of course the old problem of cutting through government red tape. With the seniors' population increasing at approximately 3 per cent a year, the need for a direct line to the federal Government has never been greater.
Bill C-224, an Act to constitute a senior citizens' advisory assembly, could, with the support of all Members of this House, become this open and direct line of communication. It would be made up, naturally, of senior citizens who could collectively make representations to the federal Government on a regular basis, sharing with us their experience and judgment, which would no doubt enable us to deal more effectively with the issues affecting them. The following goals reflect the intent of my Bill to form a seniors assembly:
(a)	to provide an educational opportunity for the elderly to learn through participation in legislative activities;
(b)	to increase the level of participation and involvement of retired professionals that may have no prior or continuing contact with older adult programs;
(c)	to develop a collective awareness among older persons with regard to needs, issues and policies that are of concern to themselves and their cohorts;
(d)	to stimulate community organization involvement with groups of older adults; and
(e)	to provide a stronger base for influencing policy which reflects the self perceived needs of the older population.
Should this Bill be implemented, the Minister would establish a board for the purpose of constituting the assembly. This board would be responsible for recognizing senior citizen's organizations and allocating membership in the assembly. Procedures would be prepared to call and conduct national meetings. No remuneration will be received from the Crown for either the services of the members of the assembly or the board as they relate to the seniors advisory assembly.
Similar to the workings of the Youth Parliament, the seniors assembly would meet annually in Ottawa during the recess, in the House of Commons or Senate Chamber. Here debate could take place and recommendations made. Unfortunately it appears that there is a definite lack of interest and concern for the thoughts and feelings of senior citizens, particularly by the federal Government. Their views are all too often ignored and their recommendations are disregarded. We have before us a great wealth of wisdom being overlooked. However, I believe that if tapped, all Canadians, as well as the federal Government, can benefit from this opulence of experience.
I can accurately state that many of the residents of personal care homes in Winnipeg-Assiniboine are ready, willing and able to offer their services. The Heritage Nursing Home, Holiday Haven, Oakview Place, Manitoba Odd Fellow's Home, Tuxedo Villa and West Park Manor, to name a few, are occupied by people who know what the problems are, and can offer expert advice and solutions if only given the opportunity. Bill C-224 is that opportunity, Mr. Speaker.
Senior Citizens Advisory Assembly Act
In the spring of 1983 Harold Brown circulated a questionnaire through the Manitoba Seniors' Journal in an effort to determine the view of seniors regarding different aspects of the seniors' Parliament. For example, one question asked whether the basis for a seniors' Parliament should be provincial or federal. The results were very close to a tie, indicating 46 per cent provincial and 54 per cent federal. Two answers suggested both. Another question had answers showing that seniors are overwhelmingly against seniors' nominees having political affiliation. Eighty-four per cent were against, feeling that seniors would fare better as seniors rather than as Party representatives. Regarding election procedures for the seniors assembly, 66 per cent were for using federal or provincial election procedures.
The most controversial question showed 60 per cent suggested an elected member should receive a nominal sum plus expenses, while a very positive 40 per cent suggested that members should receive out of pocket expenses only. A major fear is that the pay would reach large figures resulting in appointments to the body, thereby lessening the strength of the entire assembly. In addition to this, 84 per cent felt that Government grants should cover the cost of the seniors' Parliament, as is the case with youth and women's Parliament. It is believed that an assembly of this nature would gradually evolve into being the authentic voice of seniors, fully representative of all of them from all of Canada. It would be of benefit to all Canadians, Mr. Speaker.
As every Member here is aware, there are a number of organizations representing seniors citizens across Canada and all are attempting to do one thing. That is to improve the condition for seniors. I have heard from organizations such as the United Elders Association of B.C., the Senior Citizens Action Now Association of Saskatchewan, the many seniors' organizations of Manitoba including the Manitoba Society of Seniors, the St. Andrews over 60 Group and the 1600 Recreation Club. As well I have heard from the Quebec Provincial Executive Council for the Rights of the Retired and the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation. Each organization has the common objective of assisting senior citizens in Canada.
We hear of far too many instances where senior citizens are treated as second class citizens and are barely able to make ends meet. These people have made great contributions to this country over the years and are now entitled to much more than we are giving. However, to be able to meet their needs, it is essential that we know their needs. Because of the tremendous support I have received from the Members of this House, Liberals, NDP and of course, Conservatives alike, I am very hopeful that this will receive the endorsement of every Member in this House who is genuinely concerned about the plight of senior citizens. Many Members have already supported this proposal in writing. I would like to express my thanks for that. However, it is my desire that on behalf of the senior citizens of this country every Member will confirm their endorsement of

April 2, 1984
Senior Citizens Advisory Assembly Act
Bill C-224 today, or at least have the subject matter referred to the appropriate standing committee.
With an issue of this magnitude, affecting thousands upon thousands of individuals, it is only right that Members put their political affiliation out of mind for one moment and bring to mind the urgent requirement for a seniors' Parliament. It is the responsibility of every Member of this House to represent to the best of their ability the interests of their constituents. In adopting this Bill or its subject matter the people of Canada will realize that their individual needs are being recognized and, most importantly, being acted upon. All senior citizens in Canada join me today in requesting the support of the House in its entirety to enable them the opportunity to collectively represent themselves to this Government.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to spend too much time speaking to this Bill because the merit of the Bill itself speak quite eloquently to the need for such a measure proposed by the Hon. Member. It gives me some pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-224, an Act to Constitute a Senior Citizens Advisory Assembly.
Anyone who has examined or paid any attention to the problems senior citizens have in our society would be quite willing, and indeed enthusiastic, to give their support to this particular measure. It is quite true that there are numerous organizations in the country which represent seniors' groups and which, to one degree or another, are quite vocal in their advocacy on behalf of seniors and their rights in society. One real need which exists is that seniors to be involved in the process of decision making which affects their lives directly, rather than the simple paternalistic approach that has been used toward seniors by people in authority, people in Government and politicians in the past. This particular Bill provides a unique mechanism to provide for that kind of input.
I thought the need was spelled out very well in the Canadian non-governmental organization's report on aging which was presented to the Minister of Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in preparation for the world assembly on aging held in Vienna in Autumn of 1982. I would like to quote in part from that particular report because I think it says it all. It said that a prime target emerged during the discussions that took place on this report itself. It said:
It is the matter of involvement of senior citizens in affairs in which they have a stake. Seniors must be involved in the development of policies and programs which affect them. This applies to all levels of government, social agencies and senior centers. The past and present relationships, in general, consider older persons to be consumers rather than partners in the action.
Acceptance of seniors as partners in the decision-making process requires a reeducating of politicians, officials, professionals and older persons themselves.
Our discussion-participants say this partnership must be a goal if the status of older persons in Canadian society, is of importance.
No government has the right to decide on the lifestyle or way of thinking of older persons, but it must help them improve their quality of life.
If this Bill were to be accepted and the provisions within the Bill made a reality it would go a long way to accomplishing what seniors obviously desire in this country, that is to have real input into the decisions being made which affect their
lives. As I said previously, I think the mechanisms provided in this Bill would go a long way towards accomplishing that.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on Bill C-224. This Bill would establish an advisory assembly of senior citizens to assist the federal Government in developing policies and providing services for Canada's ever increasing number in this segment of the population.
I would first like to say I am in complete agreement with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) concerning the need for input from older Canadians with respect to the development of policies and programs which affect them. However, let me hasten to add that the Government has always made a concerted effort to obtain the opinions of seniors concerning their own needs and the development of policies and programs which address those needs. Thus, I am proud of the many initiatives taken by the federal Government over the years to help our older citizens.
One of the most dramatic examples of public participation, including that of the elderly, has been the process of reforming Canada's retirement income system, sometimes referred to as the "Great Pension Debate". Since the early 1970s, when several reports identified major shortcomings in both public and private pensions, there have been inumerable briefs, reports, conferences, seminars, workshops and task forces to discuss these problems and recommend changes to alleviate them.
Briefly, Canada's public pension system consists of the Old Age Security Program which currently provides a pension of $266.28 per month to everyone aged 65 and over who meet residency requirements. An additional pension, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, is payable to OAS recipients who have little or no income from private sources. Currently, the maximum GIS is $267.33 per month at a single rate and $206.11 per month at the married rate. If the spouse of an OAS recipient is over age 60 but not yet 65, she or he may be entitled to a spouses allowance, an income tested benefit which is equivalent to OAS plus GIS at the married rate, currently $472.39 per month. Thus, a single elderly person is currently guaranteed an income of at least $533.61 per month. A couple, one of whom is aged 65 or over and the other at least 60, is guaranteed $944.78 per month. These guarantees are increased quarterly to increases in the consumer price index. Also, several provinces have income tested programs which would provide additional guarantees to many GIS and spouses allowance recipients.
The other major public pension programs are the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. These are earnings related plans to which virtually all employed persons in Canada contribute. Benefits from these two plans are fully indexed annually to increases in the CPI. They provide for retirement pensions as well as protection against death and disability. Currently, the maximum retirement pension is $387.50 per month.
April 2, 1984

Governments also provide assistance with respect to employers sponsored pension plans, which cover roughly one-half of Canada's work force, by allowing the employee and employer each to deduct up to $3,500 per year in contributions from taxable income. Finally, for those who do not belong to an employee pension, a deduction of up to $5,500 per year is allowed for contributions to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan.
During the last six years the federal Government has provided three major forums for Canadians of all ages to express their views concerning problems in the pension system and to suggest ways in which it could be improved. These forums were the Special Senate Committee on Retirement Age Policies in 1978, The National Pensions Conference in 1981 and the Special Parliamentary Committee on Pension Reform in 1983. In addition, the National Conference on Aging was staged in 1983 to examine and provide advice in respect of the many interrelated problems of aging, including retirement income.
I am happy to be able to inform the House that Canada's seniors responded enthusiastically in all of these forums. In addition, many briefs and letters were sent to various Ministers of the federal Government describing the retirement income problems faced by senior citizens and proposing a wide variety of solutions. In short, the participation of our older citizens in defining and solving our pension problems has been extensive and was invaluable in helping to reach the significant degree of consensus which has been achieved in respect of reforming our current system.
Major reforms now appear to be at hand but I would remind you that not all of the recommendations received were held in abeyance pending development of a comprehensive package of reforms. For example, many of the briefs and letters from seniors, organizations, as well as individuals, pointed to the inadequacy of income guarantees for those with little or no private income, particularly those living alone.
The federal Government responded to these recommendations by twice increasing the amount of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, in 1979 by $20 per month per household and in 1980 by $35 per month per household over and above regular indexing. In addition, two more increases in GIS are now scheduled as part of the pension reform package announced in the recent Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). On July 1 this year, GIS for singles and one-pensioner couples is to be increased by $25 per month. A second $25 increase will take effect on December 1, 1984.
More than 750,000 pensioners, three-quarters of whom are women, are expected to benefit from these increases. These increases plus regular cost-of-living increases in July, October and January are expected to raise the OAS-GIS income guarantee for singles and one-pensioner families from its current level of $533.61 per month to more than $600 per month by January 1, 1985.
Senior Citizens Advisory Assembly Act
Another important change to GIS will provide for additional benefits for pensioners who qualify for only a partial Old Age Security pension in order to guarantee them the same minimum income as other elderly Canadians. Initially some 3,000 pensioners will benefit from this change, nearly all of whom immigrated to Canada as adults. By 1990 about 25,000 pensioners will be receiving these additional GIS benefits.
Many of the problems which were identified during the pension debate were related to the inadequacy of the benefits which women by and large were receiving from the system. Moreover, while most of the problems in respect of inadequate benefits related to employee pension plan, several CPP shortcomings which adversely affected women were also identified. I am pleased to say that the Budget presented on February 15, 1984 proposed a number of changes which will result in women being treated more fairly under GPP in the future. In particular, survivor benefits will no longer be terminated upon remarriage, and credit splitting, currently available in the case of divorce, will also become automatic when the younger spouse reaches age 65.
The Budget also announced the Government's intention to begin discussions with the provinces this year on other CPP changes, including the provisions of a homemaker's pension, an increase in the drop-out period and greater flexibility in the age of retirement. However, as I mentioned earlier, the most serious problems in the retirement income system are seen by most to be in the private pension plan. In particular, private plans cover only about one-half of the labour force, leaving most of the remainder with inadequate arrangements to ensure that they have enough income in retirement. Private pensions are seldom adjusted fully to reflect increases in the cost of living, so their purchasing power usually declines dramatically during periods of inflation. Often it requires ten years or more of service before a worker who leaves a job prior to retirement can become eligible for a deferred pension. The spouses of plan members often are left with no benefits at all in the event that they become widowed or divorced.
The Budget proposes a number of changes to private pension plans in respect of these problems. To meet the widespread concern that coverage by employer-sponsored pension plans is inadequate, plan membership will be made compulsory for full-time and part-time employees where pension plans exist for a particular occupational group. Regular part-time employees may no longer be excluded because of their parttime status. In addition, I am confident that many of the smaller employers who do not currently sponsor pension plans will take advantage of the opportunity to make direct contributions on behalf of their employees to the new Registered Pension Accounts.
With respect to the declining purchasing power of pensions, proposed amendments to pension legislation will ensure substantial protection against inflation for employees under federal jurisdiction by requiring pensions-in-pay and deferred benefits to be adjusted annually by at least 60 per cent of the CPI increases.
2650

April 2, 1984
Senior Citizens Advisory Assembly Act
However, to ensure that this does not place too onerous a burden on plan sponsors, mandatory increases are limited to a maximum of 8 per cent and will be applicable only to benefits earned after the effective date of legislation. Of course, I am also confident that many employers will extend these increases voluntarily to benefits earned prior to the legislation coming into force.
Workers who for one reason or another change jobs will be assured fair treatment by improvements in vesting in portability of private pensions. That is, employees will have a right to benefits arising from employer's contributions as well as their own after two years of participation in the plan. Terminating employees will be able to transfer the value of these vested benefits into a new retirement saving mechanism called a registered pension account or an RPA. The RPA will be like a Registered Retirement Savings Plan except that there will be a penalty for cashing it in before retirement. Vested credits may also be left in the previous employer's plan or transferred to the plan of a new employer.
All of the changes which I have mentioned will increase the amount of benefit which women can expect to receive from private pension plans. However, additional changes are planned to ensure that women will also be treated more fairly in the future by increasing the proportion of private pension income which they receive. In that regard, all plans will be required to provide pre-retirement and post-retirement survivors' benefits. Survivor benefits will no longer be terminated on remarriage. Pension credits accumulated during a marriage will be split equally on marriage breakdown. Pension benefits will have to be equal for males and females retiring under identical circumstances.
Problems were also identified during the debate with respect to the provision of tax assistance to save for retirement. In particular, it was found that the amount of tax assistance received depended on both regular lifelong contributions and upon the type of plan to which contributions were made. That is, those unable to contribute in certain years because of other family responsibilities would not be able to make up those contributions later and persons contributing to defined-benefit plans were able to save much more than those whose only choice was to use RRSP's.
The proposals announced in the Budget will correct both of these problems. Tax filers will be able to carry forward any unused deductions and virtually the same amount of assistance will be available irrespective of the type of plan or whether or not the employer contributes. These reforms to public and private pension plans are expected, in the long-run, to increase retirement income by up to 20 per cent and to distribute benefits much more fairly than the current system.
In addition to the examples of pension reform and income security, there are many other programs, sponsored by the federal Government, which open the lines of communication and involvement between the federal Government and Canada's elderly citizens. One example of a highly successful initiative is the New Horizons Program which helps seniors to define their own needs and to develop and implement activities
to address these. New Horizons was established to help reduce loneliness among the elderly by encouraging participation in group activities. During the 12 years this program has been in operation, it has financed nearly 25,000 projects involving the participation of perhaps three quarters of a million retired Canadians.
In addition to meeting the primary objective, that is of reducing loneliness, the activities funded under New Horizons have addressed many previously unmet needs of both older and younger segments of our population. For example, many projects such as meals-on-wheels or the undertaking of home repairs for other seniors or the disabled have been of a service nature. By the way, this has been done in my own riding. The New Horizons program has also done a great deal to increase communications between seniors and the Governments through the development of seniors' networks, the establishment of headquarters and organizational structures, the provision of leadership training and the undertaking of membership drives.
Another example of a successful federal initiative to increase the involvement of seniors in identifying the problems of the aged was the establishment in 1980 of the National Advisory Council on Aging. During the four years which this body has been in operation, it has also had impressive results. For example, it undertook the preparation of the report on nongovernmental organizations to the World Assembly on Aging in Vienna, an undertaking which involved several months of extensive consultations across Canada. It has also prepared several other briefs and publications, participated in national and international meetings and established a reference centre which makes information on aging very much more widely available.
While the council has made an impressive start, it recognizes that much remains to be done. Consequently, its members have set for themselves an ambitious program for the future. Included in that program is the establishment of a plan to ensure that the concerns of seniors are adequately voiced and reach the ears of those who can do something about them. The issues of health, income, housing, education and communication and the followup to the second Canadian Conference on Aging are five issues which have been selected for immediate action by the council.
In summary, I would like to reiterate that the participation of seniors in developing and implementing the policies which affect them is a matter of the highest priority for the Government. Moreover, the committee of the federal Government to the objective of listening to the concerns of seniors has not only been met, but the Government continues to act to respond to these concerns through program changes such as GIS increases and pension reform as well as other initiatives such as New Horizons. Finally, the National Advisory Council on Aging performs very much the same function as the proposed assembly would have performed.
April 2, 1984


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I read Bill C-224, presented today in the House by the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), since in my riding, I represent a large population of senior citizens. There are at least ten senior citizens homes in Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, and since I often have an opportunity to meet the elderly, I am well aware of their needs.
Bill C-224 is aimed at improving communications between senior citizens and the federal Government. I would like to point out to the Members of this House that we already have two mechanisms within the federal Government through which we keep informed of the needs of our senior citizens. I am referring to the National Advisory Council on the Aged and the New Horizons Program. The latter, as Hon. Members will recall, was established in July 1972, to help Canadian pensioners set up their own organizations to provide for planned activities in their own environment. The primary objective of the program is to reduce the loneliness of many senior citizens and the problems that are so often a consequence of that loneliness.
Since no other country had ever attempted to set up a program of this kind, Canada has been a world leader in research in this field and in creating mechanisms aimed at helping senior citizens to deal with their own problems.
Although no one could anticipate to what extent senior citizens would take part in this kind of undertaking, their reaction has been more than positive. During the twelve years that New Horizons has been in existence, nearly 10,000 groups of senior citizens, representing about one-third of Canadian pensioners, have set up more than 23,000 projects. For thousands of these people, taking part in these projects has been an opportunity to acquire new knowledge and skills and to develop new interests. Participation has been a source of enrichment for many of our elderly fellow citizens, and it has enhanced their relationships with one another and with Canadians as a whole. Because of its success, the New Horizons Program is now being used as a model throughout the world. It has been studied by delegations from a number of foreign countries. Furthermore, it has given Canadians a new perspective on their retirement years. The projects set up by senior citizens within the framework of the New Horizons Program are as varied as they are numerous. However, most of these projects fall into one of the following general categories: service-oriented projects, educational projects, recreational projects, and Finally, general development projects.
I would like to give Hon. Members a summary of the kind of activities existing in each of these areas. Across Canada, senior citizens have tried to define certain needs they found were not being met satisfactorily, and it was to meet these needs that
Senior Citizens Advisory Assembly Act
New Horizons grants were used to launch their various activities. That is how some projects came to be, including day care centres for adults, home visits, home delivery of meals and renovations of housing for the elderly or the handicapped.
A good many of our senior citizens were unable to attend school during the years when they raised their family, and yet, given an opportunity, they become quite eager to learn. The New Horizons Program acknowledges these facts by funding many courses, symposiums and more or less structured workshops on a wide-ranging series of subjects. In addition, the New Horizons Program is the perfect vehicle to make the elderly increasingly aware of the importance of physical fitness. They are encouraged to get together and attend gymnastic sessions and engage in every kind of sporting activities such as swimming and dancing.
Thanks to funds provided under the New Horizons Program, our senior citizens have published over 400 books on the history of Canada. They have founded museums and restored machinery, tools, antiques, buildings, cemeteries, manufactured objects, paths and historic sites. They have retraced documents and historic etchings, turned out replicas of costumes worn at the beginning of the colony and, through such activities, they have given renewed significance to legends, languages, traditions and various forms of craftsmanship.
Mr. Speaker, the other organization which plays a key role in promoting consultation between the elderly and the federal Government is the National Advisory Council on Aging. We now have two programs which keep the various Departments up to date on the needs of senior citizens. The National Advisory Council on Aging is an independent organization funded by the Department of National Health and Welfare which is relatively new as compared to the New Horizons Program, since it was created by order in council only four years ago, on May 1, 1980. Still, the 18-member council- mostly retired people from every region of Canada-already has a great number of achievements to its credit. The National Advisory Council on Aging has very broad terms of reference, as expected in such an organization, to the extent that it is responsible for helping and advising the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) with respect to all topics related to elderly Canadians. That includes such activities as examining the needs and problems of older people, recommending ways to meet and solve them, consulting national, provincial and local associations concerned with aging, publishing reports and maintaining public debate on aging.
In her speech to inaugurate the Council, the Hon. Monique Begin, Minister of National Health and Welfare, emphasized the importance of extensive publicity to bring about a change in public attitude towards senior citizens and to enhance government policy on aging. The Minister also urged the Council to make every effort to identify and popularize the

April 2, 1984
Senior Citizens Advisory Assembly Act
results of research on aging and to establish a central information office on aging. In a relatively short time, the National Advisory Council on Aging, with a staff of only five employees, has already published four major publications, set up an information centre which offers a great variety of books on aging to all Canadians, taken part in several international conferences and had extensive consultations with senior citizens' associations throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, here is the list of the Council's publications. Its first report entitled "Action Priorities" draws the attention of the various Government Departments and agencies, senior citizens' associations and the general public to the most urgent problems which now beset Canadian senior citizens. The second report entitled "Aspects of Aging in the Canadian Population-A Collection of Graphs" is a book on demography published in co-operation with Statistics Canada. The third report on Canadian non-governmental organizations on aging was prepared for the World Assembly on Aging and presents the views of Canadian senior citizens and nongovernmental agencies working for the welfare of older Canadians. The most recent report, the fourth one, deals with gerontology. It is a collection of original writings of national interest reprinted and adapted for the study of the aging phenomenon.
The report written for the World Assembly on Aging is particularly important. It resulted from intensive consultations throughout Canada ending with a three-day meeting here in Ottawa in February, 1982. Over 100 people from the ten provinces and the Territories attended this meeting. These participants included senior citizens, professionals and academics working in the field of aging. The views expressed in this report were considered an important aspect of Canada's participation in the World Assembly on Aging held in Vienna. In addition, they provided a good basis for discussion at the Second National Conference on Aging held in Ottawa in the fall of 1983.
As far as the future is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the Council has recently announced its intention to develop an action plan which would include involvement strategies in the fields of health, income, housing, education and communication, as well as the monitoring of its initiatives following the Second Canadian Conference on Aging.
In short, the National Advisory Council has in my opinion already clearly shown its ability to hold consultations and develop policies to meet the concerns of older Canadians. In addition, based on its achievements to date and its ambitious projects for the future, I am convinced that its role as an agency to promote better communications and make recommendations for the development of policies will continue to expand in years to come. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what our Government has done to set up organizations responsible for improving its communications with senior citizens. In conclusion, the New Horizons Program and the National Advisory
Council already play a significant role and would make the creation of a senior citizens advisory assembly as proposed in Bill C-224 redundant.
[DOT]	(1825)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, on March 6 of this year, I asked the Right Hon. Prime Minister a question concerning the rights of the Franco-Manitoban minority. The House will recall that as a result of the political defeat of the provincial Bill to amend the Constitution of Manitoba, we have a constitutional deadlock today.
The turn of events in Manitoba was caused by, among other things, the refusal of the Progressive Conservative Party of that province to enshrine in the Constitution of Manitoba the right to have access, in both English and French, to the Legislature, the Courts, to parliamentary and judicial institutions, if you prefer and to certain government services.
The Progressive Conservative Opposition in Manitoba, using an approach that could be qualified as parliamentary terrorism, refused to come to the Legislature to vote on the Government's Bill. The result was that the Government was forced to prorogue the Legislature, and the language rights legislation died on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker, to many Canadians, both observers and interested parties, there was no doubt that the political solution proposed by the Manitoba NDP Government in May 1983 could have gained acceptance in a spirit of compromise and understanding. A number of reasons relating to political and electoral expendiency are responsible for this political defeat. For a whole year, the Government and the Franco-Manitoban population worked very hard to reach a political settlement. A number of those involved in this issue have tried to destroy instead of build, to retreat instead of advance, so that today, we have suffered a political defeat on this language question, and we now have a linguistic deadlock.
[DOT]	(1830)

The hornet's nest stirred up by the Manitoba language dispute exemplifies the degree to which a minority group is obliged to fight for its rights. An outside observer, with little understanding of Canada, or the law of this country, may be
April 2, 1984

forgiven for shaking his head in disbelief that the Supreme Court of Canada should be seized with the problem of a parking ticket. Evidently something more serious and fundamental is at stake in this case.
What this appellant and the other Francophones in Manitoba are seeking is the right to be treated as equals with their English speaking fellow citizens in the legislature and courts of that province which, as we all know, was founded in 1870 on the basis of equality of the English and French speaking population. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, the Franco-Manitobans are seeking no more than what is rightfully theirs. In no way are they tampering with the rights of any other citizen of that province. No one will be harmed, not the English, the Germans, the Ukrainians, the Indians or the Metis. No one will be harmed by extension of these rights to that minority.
A great deal of ink has been spilled over this affair in recent months. Journalists have argued the pros and cons. Our own Liberal leadership candidates have become directly embroiled in it, and politicians of all stripes in the three national Parties are busily patching wounds, plastering over gaps and shifting positions. Never before has a parking ticket received such rapt attention. Never before, Mr. Speaker, has so small a scrap of paper been so savaged by so many. Yet that scrap of paper, innocuous though it may be, symbolizes for many of us the status of the French-speaking minority in a province of Canada. Even if no one can argue the fact that the legislation in question, that is those two statutes, are indeed provincial, the issue at stake is beyond doubt of national importance and significance to Canada.
I have said this before, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to say it again. I am squarely in the camp of those who favour a reference by the federal Government to the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not want to see just the one or two laws which I have mentioned-the Highway Traffic Act, directly related to the parking ticket-declared unconstitutional. Rather, I want to see a judicial decision which resolves the larger issue of the validity of Manitoba's entire body of law. In response to those who say that a Supreme Court decision against Manitoba would result in legal chaos, I say rubbish. Various legal means are at the disposal of the Government to prevent such chaos from occurring. It is of supreme importance to see the principle established that our founding peoples, the English and the French, receive what is their due in this country.
When I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) those questions on March 6 and March 22 I was seeking to get information on two questions. The first question was whether the federal Government was going to intervene in the Bilodeau case, and if it was going to intervene, would it change its factum to reflect a reality. The present situation is that the federal Government is absolutely contradictory in its factum. On the one hand it says in its points of issue that it is the position of the Attorney General of Canada that the Acts of the legislature of Manitoba should be printed and published in both those languages, that is French and English, as a mandatory requirement. The paragraph which follows says that,
Adjournment Debate
however, it is also the position of the Attorney General of Canada that because of the doctrine of necessity, the Statutes printed and published in English only prior to 1979 are nonetheless valid. That contradicts the first paragraph.
I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary, who 1 know is a reasonable man and a good Parliamentary Secretary, if the Government will change that doctrine of necessities approach and eliminate that from its factum. I also want to know if a reference will be made from the federal Government to the Supreme Court on the whole question of the constitutionality of Manitoba's Statutes since 1870. I know there are certain consultations which have been taking place. I also know a decision is forthcoming. The Prime Minister told me that the Cabinet accepted it in principle. However, I would like to know the dates and what questions will be asked. Finally, in that same reference, will there be a question to the courts asking for-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Al MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for the continued interest he is showing for minority language rights across Canada. I would like to assure him that the federal Government is strongly committed to the protection and enhancement of such rights.
In 1870 the Parliament of Canada enacted the Manitoba Act to establish the Province of Manitoba. This Act is part of the constitution of Canada. Special constitutional protection was provided in that Act for the use of the English and French languages in the courts and legislature of Manitoba. In particular it was provided in Section 23 of the Manitoba Act that the Acts of the legislature of Manitoba shall be printed and published in both English and French. However, in 1890 the Manitoba legislature purported to abolish this constitutional protection and its laws were thereafter passed in English only. On December 13 of 1979 the Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the constitutional protection under Section 23 of the Manitoba Act in holding that the 1890 law was invalid.
The Hon. Member will also remember that an agreement was reached on May 16, 1983 by the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba to modify the Manitoba Act so that the Government and Legislative Assembly of Manitoba could fulfil their constitutional obligations in an orderly way.
The democratically elected Government of Manitoba has made all possible efforts to secure the adoption of the required constitutional resolution. Unfortunately, we are all aware of the political deadlock which led to the prorogation of the Manitoba Legislature.
In light of these events, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has already stated that the federal Government is exploring the avenues that are open to it and that he is discussing the

April 2, 1984
Adjournment Debate
matter with his Ministers. As indicated by the Prime Minister, a serious option is to go before the Supreme Court. I can assure the Hon. Member that this matter is under active consideration and that a decision should be announced very shortly.


FISHERIES-GREAT LAKES SPORTS FISHING-IMPORTANCE TO TOURIST INDUSTRY. (B) MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House a few days ago to pose a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) concerning the subject of enhancement of our fisheries resource in the Great Lakes. The Minister is aware, as I am, that this is only part of a larger question, the protection of our environment and conservation of our natural resources.
In my speech today I would like to touch briefly on the broader themes mentioned above and try to relate the enhancement of sports fishing to those themes. The Minister will know that Canada's reputation as a tourist attraction rests with its beautiful scenery, sparkling lakes and its clean air. It is becoming increasingly difficult to protect those resources. The dictates of economics are threatening to overwhelm the careful judgments of environmentalists. For example, the lower Niagara River is indeed a disgrace. This adversely affects the sports fishing which is the topic of my speech today.
We certainly do not wish to develop the reputation in the eyes of potential tourists as a country which is polluting itself to death. It goes without saying that environmental questions are very much linked to the tourism industry. Tourism is the largest single employer in Canada, providing jobs for over one million people in this country. Those jobs are on the line if our clean air and water are lost.
What about the acid rain question? Fish cannot live in water that is acidic. When the fish die a whole chapter of Canadian history dies with them, along with a host of companies which produce the equipment used by fishermen. For example, in Fort Erie, in my riding a fine line of fishing lures are turned out by Williams Gold Ltd. The Minister is aware of the problem, no doubt. He knows that our fisheries are being destroyed by overly acidic lakes and rivers. I would expect that he will make the appropriate representations on behalf of Canadians to ensure that the problem is looked after.
Sports fishing is a subject which deserves, in my opinion, much more attention on the national level. In fact, there are individuals and groups in this country who are lobbying very strongly for more positive ways of enhancing this very important sport, and I say more power to them. I just received a letter today on this very subject. The writer informed me that 95 per cent of the sports fishing stocking is done by the United States states bordering on the Great Lakes.
I am a fisherman myself and believe that there certainly are many ways to go about enhancing our sports fishing industry in this country, thereby indirectly improving our potential for attracting those very elusive tourist dollars which we need in
our country and indeed which seem to be slipping away into the United States because of the higher costs of vacationing in Canada. For example, gasoline is almost double the price here. Therefore, our fishing will have to be pretty good. We must make a concerted effort to publicize the fact that the Great Lakes sports fishery is a resource representing excellent recreational facilities.
With regard to the onshore facilities, provisions must be made to accommodate boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles in areas close to lakes and rivers with good sports fishing potential. Breakwaters must be built to protect marinas and appropriate markings placed for navigation. The onshore facilities are all for nought if a varied and healthy fishery is not present to attract anglers to the improved and expanded facilities which I have described. This should include hatchery facilities and equipment and manpower to undertake comprehensive stocking and restocking of our lakes. The federal Government should work with the provinces to encourage and assist in the restocking which is so imperative. All this takes money, but most of all it takes the political will of committed people at all levels of government.
I will be interested in hearing the response to my question in which I asked the Minister to identify any new programs which would enhance sports fishing on the Great Lakes. I would hope that any new programs would contain the elements I have mentioned. If not, I trust that he would give my suggestions serious thought, given that we are dealing with a resource of tremendous potential, if wisely used.
In conclusion, I call upon the Government to consider seriously means to improve the situation for Canadians and visiting fishermen alike. Briefly, such measures should include monitoring and preserving the quality of our air and water, expansion of facilities to accommodate tourists and tax cuts to ensure that prices are reasonable, and improved conservation and enhancement of our fisheries resources. By actively pursuing these goals, we can improve the quality of life not only for visitors but for those of us who are fortunate enough to live in this beautiful country, to enjoy the outdoors and to enjoy fishing.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the question of the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz). He has always struck me as being a Member who is sincere about his work. He has not disappointed me at all this evening. Personally, I share his concerns about sports fishing because of its great importance in the Atlantic area, certainly up in the Restigouche area which I have the honour to represent. The mighty Restigouche River and the Atlantic salmon which come up it to spawn and other activities which include sports fishing have been of a personal interest to me for years.
I am delighted to see that the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), is present in the House. I know he supports me in what I will have to say. Hon. Members
April 2, 1984

will know that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) is keenly interested in the total sports fishery questions across Canada. The Minister has been involved in an active dialogue with sports fishermen and recently sponsored a national conference on the subject. The sports fishery is recognized as an important element of the nation's tourist industry and has a great effect upon the economy. The Department is most interested in taking steps to ensure and nurture its growth.
The Department of Fisheries already has in place in Ontario programs of major significance to the sports fishery. Over 400 small craft harbour facilities are operated in Ontario. In Fiscal year 1983-84, over $17 million have been invested in new and improved facilities. The Sea Lamprey Control Program operated out of Sault Ste. Marie is fundamental to the continued existence of the sports fishery in the Great Lakes. Finally, our Great Lakes Research Branch provides much of the information used in identifying fisheries resource problems and developing solutions to them.
Hon. Members will also understand that the nature of the Department's activities in Ontario is different from coastal fisheries, since the responsibility for day to day management of the fishery has been delegated to the province. Thus, there may be considerable interest among members of the sports fishing public in activities similar to our Salmonid Enhancement Program in British Columbia which has been very successful, as is witnessed by the submission to which the Hon. Member referred.
However, the first move along these lines must come from the provinces. We know from past experience in the West Coast Salmonid Enhancement Program that it must continue and go forward. Much has been accomplished in rehabilitating fish stocks with the assistance and co-operation of the public at large. There is an important word in all of these matters facing the fishery today, co-operation. Such involvement has paid big dividends in British Columbia over the past years in terms of the awareness of the resource and support for action to deal with these urgent problems. As a direct consequence, all fisheries, including the sport fishery, will reap significant benefits in the long term. We would be pleased at any time to discuss with the Province of Ontario the very subject that has been raised by the Hon. Member here today, means with which we can move similar initiatives in Ontario.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-UNEMPLOYMENT IN BURNABY, B.C.
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on December 20 last, I raised a question with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) concerning the very high levels of unemployment in my constituency of Burnaby, B.C. I pointed out to the Prime Minister at that time that the latest figures showed that over
5,000	people were collecting unemployment insurance, and that many more were on welfare, their unemployment insurance having run out.
Adjournment Debate
For the past six months, I have taken the opportunity to canvass door to door in my constituency and listen to the concerns of the people I represent. There is no question, both as a result of that door to door canvass and as a result of mail I have received from my constituents and telephone calls to my constituency office, that by far the most important issue which faces the people of Burnaby at the present time is the question of unemployment, specifically jobs and job security.
I recently spoke at a high school in my riding to a group of about 100 students in Grades 11 and 12. I asked how many of them had a parent or older brother or sister who was presently out of work and looking for a job. Over half the students in that group raised their hands.
This issue is the overwhelming concern of the people I represent, and the response of the prime Minister to that question on December 20 was completely unsatisfactory. The Prime Minister said that we have short-term make-work projects such as Canada Works or Summer Canada Works. My constituents want meaningful permanent jobs. They do not want unemployment insurance, welfare or stop-gap employment. Instead of creating such permanent jobs, this Government's policies in many instances have the opposite effect, and destroy those jobs. For example, grants to assist large corporations in replacing labour with capital will effectively throw people out of work.
Comparatively, Canadians have an incredibly wealthy country. We have rich resources, energy and a skilled labour force. Many people ask what on earth has gone wrong that we cannot put this all together to ensure that we have a full employment economy. Instead, we have been de-industrializing in this nation. The manufacturing sector has shrunk. We are increasingly dependent on our resources as hewers of wood and drawers of water. We continue the madness of exporting unprocessed raw materials. The export of raw logs from British Columbia has increased dramatically. Coal and other raw materials are not being processed in Canada.
We continue to rely very heavily on imports of manufactured goods, mining, agricultural and logging machinery, instead of creating jobs by manufacturing that machinery here in Canada. We continue to ship our goods abroad on foreign bottoms instead of shipping them on Canadian ships. Not only do we have to begin the process of creating a strong and viable manufacturing sector in this country, we have to take a tough look at the structure of work itself.
Just last week a woman told me on her doorstep that she was 54 years old and had a number of friends whose children would love to be working right now but could not find work. She said she had been working for 30 years and would be quite prepared to give up her job as long as she had the security of a proper pension. We must look at creative possibilities for the creation of jobs such as early retirement of full pension, the question of the length of the work week itself and effective retraining programs.

April 2, 1984
Adjournment Debate
There are some who ask how we are going to finance all of those programs. We must effectively declare war on unemployment and make it our number one priority. In the short term, that means capital works projects, putting more money into reforestation, and the acceleration of municipal works projects, energy conservation projects and housing construction. It means putting people to work now. In the longer term, it means reindustrializing and the creation of a manufacturing sector.
The Prime Minister took the commendable initiative of promoting peace worldwide. I suggest that he and his Government now have an obligation to make their number one priority the creation of jobs. The people of Burnaby whom I have the honour to represent are demanding that the Government make meaningful job creation its number one priority. Until then, the Government is effectively condemning literally thousands of people to the economic scrap heap. As the Catholic bishops so eloquently noted in their report of a little over a year ago, that, Mr. Speaker, is fundamentally immoral. My constituents and the people of Canada deserve better.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: On behalf of the Minister, Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on December 20, 1983 concerning measures taken by the Government to offer permanent and worthwhile jobs to Canadians.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I might say that even during this period of financial restraint, the Government has earmarked an unprecedented share of its budget for job creation. Total funds allocated this fiscal year are over $1.2 billion and they will exceed $1.1 billion next year, enabling us to find employment for more than 600,000 Canadians.
The creation of permanent jobs is an objective of the Government, but that cannot be achieved overnight. The Hon. Member has said that young people swell the ranks of the unemployed; unfortunately, it is true that they have a higher unemployment rate because they lack job experience and training. Some employers are reluctant to hire workers without experience, and young people have few opportunities to benefit from on-the-job training.
To put a stop to this vicious circle, the Government has decided to combine its job creation programs so that its human resources initiatives would be united under one or two action strategies, and we now have two programs, Career Access and the Youth Job Corps, which meet this purpose.
The Job Corps, under which each project can be financed for up to three years, offers to those who suffer from any employment handicap the possibility of acquiring basic skills, of getting job counselling and of gaining actual job experience.
The Career Access Program complements the first one by offering employers subsidies so that they may hire people without experience and give them the opportunity to receive on the job training and acquire work experience. While both programs are not specifically aimed at young people, it is expected that they will make up the majority of participants during the next two years.
Two more job-creation programs, Canada Works, and the Local Employment Assistance and Development Program, as well as summer jobs for students will provide our young people with valuable work experience which should increase their employability in the eyes of future employers. During this financial year and the next, we expect that almost 344,000 young people will take advantage of direct job-creation programs.
Mr. Speaker, the government is strongly committed to helping the unemployed find the full-time jobs they deserve. The enormous funds earmarked for direct job creation and training under the Occupational Training Act, the numerous schemes announced in the April budget and the appointment of a Minister of State (Youth), in this case Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette, show that the government is determined to create jobs. I would ask the Hon. Member to advise his electors to go to the Canada Employment Centre and apply to the Career Access program aimed at young people and other groups at a disadvantage on the labour market.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order please! The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 7 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, April 3, 1984