1984-04-09

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate a few changes in House business for this week. Since we did not complete debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-12 last week, rather than having an opposition day tomorrow we will be dealing with the third reading stage of Bill C-12. The allotted opposition day will be on Wednesday. Therefore, 1 designate Wednesday of this week as an opposition day and on Thursday we will most likely debate Bill C-24. The back-up legislation for today is the Divorce Act.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 2, 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. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on third reading of Bill C-3, the Canada Health Act. I would like to begin by saying how proud I am of the history of my province in the area of health care. The history goes back many years. In the 1920s we had free treatment for tuberculosis. In the worst of the hungry thirties we had municipal doctor plans, many of which started out at the request of the doctors because the people had no money. In the mid-1940s we had provisions for the complete care of the mentally ill. In the area I am from in Saskatchewan we started the Swift Current health region No. 1 which covered the entire southwest corner of the province. Through this program doctor and hospital services were provided starting in 1948. This served as a model for the entire medicare program in Saskatchewan which followed in 1962. We started our province-wide hospitalization plan on January 1, 1947.
Those were turbulent times, Mr. Speaker. Bringing those programs in caused great political battles and debate among
the entire population of the province from the 1940s up to and including 1962. However, we proceeded to implement programs that led the entire country for many years. Anyone who would tamper with those programs now would do so at their political and economic peril.
We have a right to be proud of that pioneering history because we were one of the poorest provinces in the country when we started those programs. In the 1940s the province was bankrupt as a result of a terrible debt going back over many years, especially during the Depression years. Yet the people of that province decided that the health of the people and the care of the ill took priority over money that was owing to banks or bondholders and other things that were not as urgent. The great majority made that decision willingly. Over a period of 20 years, people like Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd, Tom Bentley, Allan Blakeney, Bill Davies and others like them brought about a growth of health services that was unprecedented in any province in the country. I should also have mentioned that Saskatchewan established the first air ambulance service on this continent.
[DOT] (mo)
With that kind of background, those of us from Saskatchewan naturally support legislation concerning the health care of the ill and preventive medicine in all of Canada. It is the right of every citizen to have access to health care, whether it be curative or preventive. People will have beds available to them when they are sick. That access to health care must not be restricted. People must not have their access inhibited or prevented due to financial barriers.
For almost 40 years 1 have listened to the Liberals talk a good fight about health care. Long before I was born, beginning in 1919, they were promising a national health plan. They spoke much about it and again talked a good fight. Throughout the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, we have known mostly Liberal federal governments and Liberal provincial governments. Besides talking a good fight they set a record for foot dragging. While we feel that this legislation can be supported, it is still insufficient. It is a further example of half-hearted Liberal Government efforts. The Government is still talking a good fight.
I am pleased that the Conservatives in the House are prepared to support the legislation, as I believe they are. However, we see that Party working on both sides of the street. While the federal Conservatives support the Bill in the House of Commons, they are against it in the provinces. Provinces like British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, which all have Tory governments-although it is a different name in British Columbia

April 9, 1984
Canada Health Act
where that Party is trying to outdo the Tories-have medical premiums, or deterrent fees, extra charges or extra billings to various degrees. The shameful irony of it is that the three wealthiest provinces in the country charge premiums. In Ontario, the fee is almost $700 a year per family. But the dear Tory Government in Toronto is magnanimous. A person earning less than $6,000 a year qualifies for premium assistance. If that is not abysmal, the actual practice and experience is that those people either do not know about this assistance or will not apply because they do not want to go through means tests for their health services, nor should they. No one, rich or poor, wherever they live in this country, should have to go through any kind of examination concerning their financial wherewithal. Many years ago Canadians decided that the nation as a whole through the national and provincial governments would cover the costs of health care and the citizens of the nation would share in those costs. Surely that is right, proper, decent and civilized.
M5)
I said this legislation is insufficient because we do not believe the dollar for dollar penalty will work. Provinces will find no hardship on a dollar for dollar basis. For every dollar collected in deterrent fees, extra billing, or medical premiums, will mean they are penalized a dollar in federal contributions. That same dollar will have already been collected from the patient and put into the treasury of the hospital or the doctor's pocket. That is not much of a penalty. I think the penalty could be a dollar for a dollar for the first year in any province that still allows extra billing, extra charges and premiums and then it should increase to two dollars for every one dollar. If provinces were still allowing extra billing after two years, then in the third year the penalty should go to three dollars for every one dollar. I know there will be those who will say this is coercion by the federal Government, forcing the provinces and whatnot, but as long as you have that many Tory Governments in Canada, they will have to be pushed, coerced, and if necessary financially forced.
A dollar for dollar operation is not in itself only insufficient but something should be done on the opposite side of the coin which would then alleviate or head off any possibility of force or coercion, or whatever you want to call it, from Ottawa. There should be a provision in the Health Act for incentives for provinces. There are many other things needed, including home care, some nursing, special nursing, chronic care beds, level three and four care beds, midwives, paramedics and ambulance services, both air and ground. If provinces expand and move into all these other areas which are by and large unavailable to many people, as well as into preventive medicine, the federal Government can and should be saying to the provinces: "When you do that, instead of getting 50 per cent of the costs you will get 51 per cent; and if you do more, you will get 52 per cent". This sort of thing should apply to at least the poorer provinces, the have-not provinces. In fact, it should apply all the time. The wealthier provinces would not need to be treated as generously, although they could be.
Surely it is some kind of social tragedy that in every city across this land there are waiting lists as long as your arm for beds for the chronically ill and the elderly. All of us have experienced constituents who call, write and plead to get into a senior citizens' home. We hear particularly from families of people who need level three and four care as well as from those who need chronic care.
Even in Saskatchewan, to our shame, we have some extra billing. 1 spoke to a good friend of mine the other day, Allan Brown, who is over 65 years of age. He said he did not mind if I used his name. He was a member of the Saskatchewan legislature for 16 years, until 1960. He is a severe diabetic. He is now blind in one eye. He is due for an operation tomorrow on the other eye; they hope they can save it. It is an operation for cataracts. He has the old age pension and he has a small MLA's pension for which he did not become eligible until 1970, when he reached the appropriate age. That is all he has. He has to stay with another couple. He goes to see the eye specialist. He is in there 20 minutes or 30 minutes and he has to pay $55. That is what happened last week. He will get back $20 or $25 of that from the Saskatchewan medical services plan, but the other $30 or $35 or whatever it is comes out of his meagre income.
People should not be treated that way. No government with any kind of conscience, no Parliament with any kind of conscience, would allow any citizen in those circumstances to be treated that way. There is no excuse for it. If it meant raising the budget $1 billion per year, so what? It is money we owe ourselves. There are thousands of families in the country who have to raise as much as $10,000 per year for special and private nursing. There are thousands of families every year who have to find up to $1,500, $2,000 or $2,500 a month to keep a parent or a grandparent in a home for the elderly at level three or level four. If those kinds of costs were shared by all Canadians, surely it would be the right and proper thing to do. In a nation such as ours, while we have done well and made great advances in health care, we have much more to do. Many thousands of beds are taken up when they could be used by people who are much more severely ill.
I will never forget the royal commission on health care in Saskatchewan. Members of the commission went to Europe back in the mid and late 1950s. They found that home care and midwife services were available to everyone in a little country like Holland. We could be doing that. It would take some of the pressure off the hospitals.
What about paramedics and ambulance services? An ambulance driver who is a friend of mine told me that in many instances in the City of Regina it would be safer and quicker to take a taxi because the paramedics are not well enough trained. Many procedures for which they are trained they are not allowed to do. Surely that is inadequate.
We could relieve some of the pressures on hospitals and medical practitioners if these kinds of services were in place and in most instances operating under the supervision of
April 9, 1984

medical practitioners, and if the costs were shared by all people through their taxes at the provincial and federal levels. That is the kind of national Health Act we in this Party would like to see; that is the kind of Act this Parliament should be passing.
It is strange that in the Province of British Columbia, the government is proposing to amend its services, so that it can coerce or restrict the numbers of doctors it will pay under the medical care plan. Their reasoning is that this would encourage more doctors to go to isolated and rural areas. That is a backwards way of doing it. Extra payment could be made to those who have to establish in rural and isolated areas. They could even be provided with interest-free loans for offices and office equipment until they get established.
[DOT] (M25)
These are the kinds of things that need to be in a national Health Act. That is what this Parliament and this Government should be dealing with. There is no doubt that the people of this nation would support it en masse. They would be willing to contribute through the income tax system, if it were a little more fair. At least to some degree it is tax based on ability to pay. No one who is financially handicapped would have any barrier to access to the best curative and preventive health treatment available in this country.


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


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, when the NDP was in power in Saskatchewan, there was a system whereby doctors would collect from the patients at the door, sort of a gatekeeper, and then bill the balance, or whatever they could collect, directly to the plan. The doctor was able to collect not only from the plan but could extra-bill the patient if he thought that was appropriate. Why did Saskatchewan allow that to exist? Is this particular statute necessary to correct that defect in Saskatchewan?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the practice of extra billing was just getting nicely started in 1981. Discussions and meetings were going on between the government of that day and the medical profession of that province. Unfortunately, extra billing is still in place by some but not all doctors. Some try to make a rough guesstimate of the financial wherewithal of their patients. If a doctor thinks a patient is poor, he does not charge extra. I know my doctor does that. He does not charge the extra amount, but he is guessing.
It is getting worse. More and more are doing it. It was the intention of the then government of Saskatchewan to try and negotiate and put an end to extra billing. You can bet that if we were still in power and the negotiations had not succeeded, we would have ended it. We never had any doubt about the wrongness of extra billing. There was a debate in my Party in 1981. We demanded of our Party and the government of that day to try to negotiate a settlement so that there would be no extra billing and, if that was not successful, to bring in
Canada Health Act
legislation to prevent it. Unfortunately we were defeated, but we will be back again and then we will prevent it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure they will get back in again. Actually it is a disappearing act they are following. After 20 years' experience in running the Province of Saskatchewan, why did the NDP Government there allow the kind of extra billing that took place in Saskatchewan? It was a rather peculiar system whereby a doctor could collect both from the plan and the patient. He had two sources of funding. Why was that allowed to exist? It still exists in Saskatchewan. Indeed, that is where extra billing was founded. Does the Hon. Member think it important that we have this Act passed in order to stop that practice in Saskatchewan, this being the only way to stop the kind of extra billing which occurs in that province?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this Bill will stop that from happening. I hope it will but I doubt that it will.
I just had a note handed to me, Mr. Speaker, which indicated that perhaps I made an error in my speech. Premiums are not subject to the dollar for dollar penalty. Only the user fees and extra billing are. I made a mistake by saying that. However, we want premiums to be abandoned.
I would like to say to my friend, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), that in order to put an end to things like the disgraceful and outrageous doctors' strike of 1962 of which I was just reminded and during which I was present, included in the Saskatoon agreement of July, 1962, at the behest of Lord Taylor was a provision to allow a doctor to extra-bill. Up until 1981, it was very rare for a doctor to extra-bill.
From 1964 to 1971, the then Liberal-Conservative Government of Saskatchewan imposed deterrent fees and raised the hospital and medicare premiums. In 1971 when our Party returned to power, medical and hospital premiums were abolished and deterrent and user charges were abolished. We were very proud of that. There are no premiums in Saskatchewan and I am sure that the present Conservative Government would not dare to reinstate them.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to elaborate on why provinces such as British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario are the provinces which are in a sense leading the way in the imposition of user fees, extra billing and premiums as well. I ask that question because it seems peculiar to me that in terms of making a case of funding, the three richest provinces in Canada would lead this particular initiative. I wonder if the Hon. Member has some observations to make about this point.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I did mention those provinces early on in my speech. I can only conclude that the reason those governments do these things is that they do not really believe in universal health care. If those provincial governments did believe in it, they would not be doing those things.

April 9, 1984
Canada Health Act
While I say that they do not really believe in it, they do not dare do away with universal health care because it would be so politically unpopular that those governments would be thrown out on their ears. Therefore, they try to get away with as much as they can by way of premiums, extra billing and user fees.
Another reason for this is that those provincial governments have a typical Liberal-Conservative-Reagan-California syndrome. It is called restraint, cutting back and holding down the deficit. That is the main reason for this, Mr. Speaker. Those provincial governments will tax the sick and impose extra charges even on those who can least afford it if they think they can hold down expenditures, cut back on the deficit and show restraint. It is the "buy them a shovel" syndrome. Liberals and Tories have always been like that. Some Liberal and Tory members even think that the old age pension is destroying our incentive to work.
1 have lived through too many Grit and Tory operations, both federally and provincially.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: And you will live through more.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I know what Liberal and Tory members are like. When they stand up in this House, Mr. Speaker, they are the great defenders and supporters of health care. Their arguments would wring tears from a jury full of bankers. However, take a look at the Tory Governments in seven provinces, Mr. Speaker. They are all the same breed of cat. I do not care whether they are in the federal House or whether they are in the provincial legislatures: a Tory is a Tory is a Tory, is a Tory.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: 1 shall recognize the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on a very short question.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, if the penalties on the provinces as per the Act were to be enacted, will that not be double taxation or in fact double billing, and is that not just as bad as the double billing against which the Member speaks so loudly?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the beginning of the Hon. Member's question. Would he be good enough to repeat it?


Gordon Edward Taylor: I will be glad to repeat it, Mr. Speaker. If penalties are enacted against provinces and additional taxation must then be secured from the people, is that not double taxation and double billing, and is that not equally as bad as a doctor double billing patients? Is it not even worse when a government does it?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how that could be considered double billing or double taxation if the costs of those physicians or hospital services or services outside the hospital were entirely borne by the revenues of the province and the federal Government and user charges were not allowed. I would be perfectly willing to pay a portion of my federal income tax and a portion of my provincial income tax to the hospital, medicare and other health services in Saskatchewan. I and all of the other citizens of the province are perfectly willing to do so because if we keep the people healthy, they keep on working and they keep on paying taxes. For those who cannot work, society owes them the best of health care.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, it is with somewhat less than pride and pleasure that I rise today to speak on third reading of Bill C-3, the Canada Health Act. I think one must acknowledge that any Bill which has succeeded in further dividing and separating the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures is indeed to be deplored. We have seen nothing but increasing separation of the two levels of government because of this Bill. In addition to that, it has caused an alienation and separation between governments and physicians, members of one of the most revered professions in the country. I think that kind of effect is most undesirable.
The Bill has been called the Canada Health Act but that is somewhat of a misnomer because it has little if anything at all to do with health care other than the fact that it imposes certain penalties if provinces do not comply in certain ways with respect to the banning of extra billing and user fees. I recently received a most interesting treatise from an obstetrician-gynecologist in Stratford, Ontario, whom I know reasonably well. He is anything but a politician. He is a very serious person who thinks very deeply and whose position on a political issue is based entirely upon his convictions regarding the issue as a whole.
He has likened debate that he has heard occurring here in the last couple of months to a chess game. He said that it is a game and a struggle between the forces of a collectivist society and those of a free society. He continues the analogy by suggesting that physicians, patients and indeed even the federal Minister responsible are nothing but pawns in this game and struggle between the forces of collectivism and the forces of a free society. He suggests further that Canadians are being manipulated by forces they do not understand and that this will have unforeseen consequences. I think we can all agree, as we reflect over the last three or four months, that the Bill was introduced following a very well orchestrated public information campaign conducted by the Government.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Propaganda!


Bruce Halliday: Yes, propaganda. The Government spent funds on that propaganda even before the Bill was tabled in the House. It was attempting to influence people to suit its own wishes, long before it had the courage to bring the Bill in.
The Government was really using the opportunity to build up a relatively insignificant problem in the country. Actually, the problem of extra billing was decreasing, not increasing, but the Government built that problem up and then brought in the Minister as the proverbial white knight in shining armour to take care of the situation and try to correct it.
The Government obviously saw this as a political opportunity that it could not miss. It was seen as a chance to enhance
April 9, 1984

its prospects at the next election. We do not know whether the Government's failure to consult the professions or the provinces was deliberate, although I suspect it was. The Government thought that would serve its purpose in the long run because this failure to consult was expected to offend the provinces, and it has. Knowing that eight of the provinces have Conservative Governments, the federal Government thought this would entice the Official Opposition to vote against Bill C-3. The Bill is nothing but an encroachment on the powers of the provinces and the Government thought that the Official Opposition would rush to the aid of the provinces as a result. Such was not the case; as some of my colleagues explained earlier in the debate, we on this side have been more committed over the years than have the Liberals to the issue of medicare.
We have no difficulty supporting the five basic principles of medicare. Indeed, we have been supporting them since the mid-1950s when the Diefenbaker Government introduced the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Service Act. We have no difficulty with the principles of the Bill but we have difficulty with the way it was put together initially, the way it has been implemented and with the lack of consultation in general.
The basic purpose of the Bill is to remove all financial barriers blocking accessibility to medical care by Canadians. We all agree with that. It has been done by removing the direct private billing features, and the direct funding that came from the private sector whether by way of extra billing or by way of user charges.
It is interesting to go back and see how the Act was written when it was introduced on first reading. The purpose of the Bill was described as being "to advance to objectives of Canadian health care policy". It went on to give the penalties that would be invoked if necessary. Originally the Bill said that the Government was going "to advance the objectives of Canadian health care policy". On the basis of that, dozens and dozens of witnesses who appeared at the committee expressed a desire to enhance the health care policy of the country. They were sent away completely depressed and dejected because when they got here they learned that the Government was trying to change its mind. It was not interested in the future of health care in the country but was only concerned about the narrow issue of invoking penalties if a province did not conform to a federal Government request. It had no interest at all in improving the health care status of Canadians.
I have listened with some bewilderment as the debate has unfolded. When the Bill was given second reading on January 16, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said, as reported at page 427 of Hansard, that parliamentarians should pay great attention to it "because we are fixing the rules of the game of medicare for years to come". However, when appearing before the standing committee, she repeated again and again that she did not intend to change the basic rules of medicare. On September 7 in Halifax she told the provincial Health Ministers that the object of the federal proposals remains the same-to protect, renew and improve
Canada Health Act
medicare. At the same time, however, she has insisted that she does not want to change it.
With this Bill, have we changed medicare? Have we changed the rules? What exactly have we changed? It is evident that something has been changed, as proven by the acrimony from the profession and the provincial governments surrounding the Bill that has been heard recently.
Doctors say that the Act will change the basic rules governing their professionalism; that it will have the effect of diminishing their professionalism and eating away at their independence. They generally regard it as being another step in the direction of state control, toward what has been termed by some people as state medicine, which one cannot blame them for despising. Their arguments are well known and do not have to be repeated at this time. Suffice it to say that the change is not a welcome one. Indeed, for them it represents a decline in the greatness of what has been perhaps the world's most envied health care system.
What about the point of view of the provinces? How do they view the Canada Health Act? Certainly they see it as more than what the Minister calls "a consolidation of the previous Bills" and "a clarification of the rules of the game". While this sounds innocuous enough at first glance, it has been clear from the beginning that each and every province has expressed either its outright opposition to or its serious skepticism and reservations about the Bill.
This has not been due to any great desire or predilection for extra billing and user fees or to an ideological opposition to universal health care. Generally speaking, the provinces find opposition to the Canada Health Act not so much in its substance as in its more subtle implications. In the Canada Health Act they see yet another example of federal usurpation of their constitutional and jurisdictional responsibilities.
Our Constitution clearly gives the provinces responsibility for health care in Canada. There was a good reason for this and it pertains today: the health care system, in order to help the people for whom it is intended, must reflect those people's cultures, their customs, their needs, their priorities and their economies. Thus, as the Minister recognized in her third reading speech last week, in Canada there have evolved 10 or perhaps 12 different health care systems, each reflecting the particular needs and priorities in any given province or territory.
One of the most interesting things we have noted in the debate, particularly in the representation from witnesses at committee stage, was the appearance of provincial Health Ministers at committee. They showed a genuine pride in the health care plan of their particular provinces. They were rather reluctant to see these draconian measures being forced upon them by the federal Government. In the health care field as in almost any field of endeavour, one has to recognize the important fact that people must have pride in their work. Those Ministers have pride in the plans in their provinces and the professionals who appeared before the committee have pride in the work they are trying to do on behalf of their profession. Yet we saw this all being challenged by Bill C-3.

April 9, 1984
Canada Health Act
There is no doubt that pride in what one or one's group does is one of our most valuable resources. As legislators we must take very great care not to diminish this pride either through legislation or the way it is being imposed-such as in the case of the Canada Health Act, without consultation.
[DOT] (M50)
While we can all accept the basic aim of the Canada Health Act to promote more fully health care accessibility, universality, portability, comprehensiveness and so on, a great deal needs to be said about how the Act was brought about in terms of the way it is being imposed on the provinces and the professions. As a result of this we have seen an alienation of the physicians of the country and the adverse reaction of the provinces to what the Government is trying to do. As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be able to predict some difficulties as we move ahead into future plans for the health care system in Canada. We are going to see difficulties with the provinces and the physicians as we, at this level, attempt to improve the status of health care in Canada. It is difficult to sustain pride in what one is doing, from either a provincial or professional basis, if rules and policies are being imposed from another level of government, namely from Ottawa.
One must also admit another very important point, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to have a functioning, successful, high quality health care system, it is mandatory that there be acceptance of the plan offered to the country as well as enthusiasm for that plan by the provinces, the physicians and the health care deliverers of all sorts. There are two basic components to a health care delivery system. There are the receivers of the services, whose perceived needs we have addressed as best we can. We have forgotten the providers, namely the provinces and the health care practitioners. The federal Government has completely forgotten those people in the way it has imposed this Bill.
There are a number of matters of concern which this Bill does not address, Mr. Speaker. As legislators we must look a little further down the road than is the case in Bill C-3, the Canada Health Act. All that is being addressed in this Bill is penalties. We must look at the fact that Canada is faced with demographic trends of horrendous size in terms of the changes in the proportion of older people in the community and the fact that that automatically involves many times more of a burden on our health care system than we have had heretofore.
In addition to these demographic trends, Mr. Speaker, there is also the very expensive trend of new technology. There is probably no field in our day to day existence now which is growing more rapidly than the technology field in medical care. Yet there is nothing in this Bill to address that. If anything, Mr. Speaker, they have done the very opposite in this Bill. This Bill actually takes about $100 million away from the medicare pie that has existed up until now. It takes that away by banning the infusion into the system of about $100 million in extra billing and user charges. If the Bill is adopted by the provinces, that will have to stop.
We are in an era in our society where medical technology is moving ahead in leaps and bounds, yet we have nothing in this Bill which signifies a willingness on the part of the federal Government to help support those extra costs. We heard from nearly all the witnesses that came before the committee that underfunding was one of the major shortcomings of our health care policy at the present time. We see nothing in Bill C-3 that is going to improve this problem of underfunding in any way.
We must look ahead in a few other ways as well with respect to the health care system. We must acknowledge the fact that while underfunding is a significant problem it also ultimately deals with accessibility to medical care or health care in general. The Minister has argued that she wants health care to be accessible to all Canadians. We all agree with her on that. She has picked out the small area of extra billing as one which she feels has obstructed that accessibility in some cases. She forgets to realize that underfunding is also causing a lack of accessibility by virtue of long waiting periods for, and the unavailability of, beds. There are still geographic barriers in existence in the country. We have antiquated equipment in our hospitals. We have insufficient money to fund residency training programs and so on. All of these problems are going to affect the accessibility of Canadians to health care in the future.
I would like to conclude with a couple of thoughts about the future of medicare in Canada as I see it as a result of Bill C-3. We have destroyed our relationships with the provinces. We have further destroyed relationships with professional groups. We have taken away the professionalism that existed with professionals heretofore. The Government has refused to accept Justice Hall's recommendation for compulsory arbitration. It has put in a watered down version of the amendment we proposed. The amendment will not be appropriate to guarantee physicians the rights they deserve vis-a-vis appropriate remuneration. It is obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not adopt a different route than the Minister has been taking, the day will eventually come in Canada when we will have to have two-tiered health care in the country. The Minister herself said she will go off to the United States if she has to to get hers. Others will have to do the same thing.
I believe I can best conclude by reminding the House of an old saying: "Only a fool cannot learn by his own mistakes, but a wise man learns by other people's mistakes". Mistakes have been made around the world. The United Kingdom is one of the best examples. In fact it was a British statesman who said: "We must have a safety net below which we will allow none to fall, but above which there shall be no limits to the height to which a man may rise".
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we in Canada are embarking on a program in our health care system that is going to deny Canadians their right to advance to that height which they want to achieve in the health care system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions or comments.
April 9, 1984


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) is a doctor in Ontario. Can doctors in Ontario who belong to the Ontario medicare system extra-bill, or are they required to submit their bills to the system and get paid only what the system allows? Are they allowed to extra-bill over and above what the system allows?


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, if you belong to the medical care plan in Ontario you may not bill extra. You have to be outside the plan as a practising physician in order to be allowed to extra-bill.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, if you are not in the plan, how do you extra bill the plan? You are not allowed to bill the plan, so how in fact do you extra-bill? Obviously you send your patients a bill, but do you extra-bill at all? Is there anything in this Bill that describes the Ontario system with doctors who are not in the plan extra-billing? Is this in fact just a great charade by the Minister with regard to Ontario? Does the system really affect Ontario at all? Is this system only a pretence by the Minister? Does it affect Ontario doctors who are not in the plan? Are they not entitled to continue to bill what they want to bill in Ontario? I suppose the Government can compensate patients if it wants to.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of misconceptions about the concept of extra billing. In actual fact there are two types of schedules in existence in Ontario and indeed across the country. One is a schedule of fees which is arrived at by a professional group. It is traditional for all professionals to arrive at a schedule of fees. Then there is a schedule of benefits which is payable by the plan. A schedule of benefits and a schedule of fees are two different things.
Extra billing only exists, by definition, if the charge is above the schedule of fees. Balance billing is a term that is used if there is a billing above the schedule of benefits but below the schedule of fees. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that there are very few occasions on which physicians truly extra-bill. There are about 3 or 4 per cent of billings in Ontario in which physicians bill somewhere between the schedule of fees and the schedule of benefits. That is not extra billing. There are only about 14 per cent of Ontario doctors who even bill in that area. Of that 14 per cent, they only bill for a small proportion of the total services they render. It is approximately 2 per cent to 4 per cent.
Therefore, the point being made by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South is well taken indeed. It is not a problem. As 1 said at the beginning of my comments, the Government has built it up as problem so that it could have what it believes to be a legitimate plank upon which to go before the electorate in the next election.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). 1 must say that I appreciated his comments very much. However, it was not clear whether he was speaking against the concept of introduc-
Canada Health Act
ing premiums and extra billing or user fees. I apologize for that vague interpretation on my part. Would he just clarify that for us?


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. I presume it was in one of my earlier presentations to the House during the debate on this Bill that I made it very clear that I, like the Minister and I believe everyone in the House, object very strongly to anything in the health care system that will be an obstacle to patients getting appropriate health care. I deplore any instances of patients being unable to get health care because of financial obstacles. If this Bill will correct that, it will be one good measure. However, we must not forget that for every good effect there are bad effects as well. I am afraid that the bad effects of this Bill will impose far more obstacles and a far greater lack of accessibility to health care than had ever existed with the few people who have had some difficulties because of financial obstacles.
I know that the quality of health care is already declining. I know that the hospital waiting lists are becoming longer and that we will lose good physicians in this country. They have already left some provinces, particularly Quebec.
We are in a situation where high quality and readily accessible health care is disappearing from Canada. I do not want to see that happen as a result of this Bill, even if it has one good feature. While I deplore the possibility of someone not getting health care because of financial obstacles, 1 think we are lowering health care to the lowest common denominator in this country.
An example of this is what happened in Great Britain. People used to go there 50 years ago because it had high quality care. After the introduction of the National Health Service, we never hear of people going to Great Britain for that superb care. They come to London, Ontario, for treatment of cerebral aneurysms or to Montreal or the United States for cardiovascular surgery. People no longer go to Britain because the quality has dropped. That is what 1 am worried about in this instance and that is the answer to the Hon. Member's question.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pose a question to the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) whom, I may say, was one of the most effective and hardworking members during the many sessions conducted by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. He made a tremendous contribution to the deliberations of that Committee.
This morning he raised a point which caused me a great deal of concern. He referred to the fact that we heard from innumerable witnesses who came to speak on the principle of the Bill based on the objectives and purposes of the Bill as stated at second reading and elaborated upon by the Minister. The two key areas that most of the witnesses addressed were the objectives stated in Clause 3, "to encourage effective allocation of the nation's health resources", and Clause 4, "to advance the objectives of Canadian health care policy". In other words, to look beyond the immediate needs or problems, whether they are great or small. In this case, the Bill only

April 9, 1984
Canada Health Act
addresses some $150 million out of a $22 billion expenditure. They wanted to look into the future as to what must be done to reform the health care system in this country.
Those were the policies and objectives that were stated at the outset. After all the witnesses had made their presentations based on those objectives, they were then withdrawn. I believe this was indeed cheating those witnesses and misleading them as to what the Bill was all about.
Would the Member address a problem which I now believe exists in the country, that somehow Parliament and the committees of the Parliament of Canada are seen in a light where we have not acted properly toward the people who came before us as witnesses? The Minister invited them to appear to speak on certain principles and then later changed the criteria to which they were speaking. How can we help redress the feeling which must exist that somehow these witnesses were misled? They were asked to address the long-term problem and then we were told that it can only concern a short-term matter. It is the long-term needs that are crying for attention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I am afraid that the lengthy comments of the Hon. Member have used up the ten minutes for comments and questions. Debate.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, in listening to the comments by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) and some other Conservatives, one is confused about whether they are supporting the Bill or opposing it. On the one hand they say they support it, but on the other hand many of their comments show that they are extremely critical of the Bill and many of its provisions.
As one of the few Members in the House who voted for the original medicare Act in 1966, I am pleased to support this Bill, not because it is perfect or because it deals with all health care problems-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Allmand:: The Opposition is a little sensitive to honesty. The Bill is essential to halt the erosion of one of the most important social programs ever adopted in Canada.
I consider my votes and other measures in support of medicare in 1966 as one of the most significant acts I have performed here in my 19 years as a Member of Parliament. If we speak to those older Canadians who tried to cope with medical costs before medicare, many of whom went bankrupt or lost their homes because of high bills, they will tell us what it was like before we had a medicare system and what a great relief it is to have this program since they no longer have to worry about their bills for medical care.
As many others have pointed out, the principal purpose of this Bill is to discourage or deter extra billing and user fees. Extra billing relates to those fees charged by doctors in addition to what is charged by the medicare system. This can be carried out in different ways. User fees are the fees charged by hospitals and other medical institutions in addition to what is provided by the medicare system.
We are told that last year these extra billings and user fees added up to approximately $120 million to $130 million, up approximately 20 per cent in the last two years. That is still a small percentage to the total costs of the medicare system but it is extremely important to ordinary Canadians because it will serve as a barrier to health care services.
As Justice Emmett Hall said before the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, the burden of illness, of accident and death is heavy enough without adding the extra burden of medical and hospital bills at that time. Medical care is no place for any kind of means test. No matter how prudent a citizen is in this country, he or she can never predict the seriousness or length of illness or illness resulting from accidents that might happen.
Of course, I believe our doctors and professionals must be compensated fairly and equitably. We owe a lot to our medical practitioners and institutions. There must be a system to assure proper compensation.
For this reason I welcomed the Government amendment in committee adding Clause 12(2) which sets out a system for conciliation and arbitration for medical practitioners under provincial jurisdiction. It is true that this clause is not obligatory, as some members of the committee wanted, but that is principally because that area is under provincial jurisdiction and none of the provinces would accept that type of amendment. On the other hand, they are ready to accept the type of amendment which sets out a process for consultation and arbitration for medical doctors and other practitioners which is not compulsory. It is my firm hope that most if not all the provinces will adopt such a system so our doctors can be fairly compensated.
As I think most Canadians realize, the delivery of health service in Canada is a provincial matter. The federal Government, through its spending power under the Constitution, is able to help finance medical care and hospital systems. They do that to approximately 50 per cent of the cost, and have been doing that for several years now.
My principal frustration with this Bill, Mr. Speaker, and with the present system, as I mentioned in committee on several occasions, is the deplorable situation in Canada with respect to chronic and long-term care, especially for the aged, which is a growing segment of the population. Not only is the provision of proper chronic care inadequate and in short supply, but some of it is a shame for a country as rich as Canada. As a Quebecer I must point out that it is as bad or worse in that province as in other provinces. Quebec has boasted that it does not allow extra billing and user fees, but this is not so for chronic care.
In committee, Mr. Speaker, I put on the record a letter I received from a constituent in Montreal. It is a good example of the type of user charges we are getting in Quebec and I want to put it on the record here. The constituent is a woman, now a widow. Her husband, prior to his death, was a patient in the Centre Hospitalier Thoracique de Montreal; that is the
April 9, 1984

Montreal Chest Hospital. In November, 1983 her husband received a bill for $850 for one month; in December, a bill for $383.88; for January, $797.02. It goes on, Mr. Speaker. I know of other cases where old people requiring medical care- they are not just those who have no one to care for them-are in overcrowded, poorly staffed nursing homes and certain chronic care hospitals. They must pay fees, and I have seen some bills amounting to $900 to $1,000 per month.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: This Bill does not address that.


William Warren Allmand: I know it does not address it because it deals with specific user charges and extra billing. She had no solution either, and that is why I am raising it in the House. This House and all the provinces must do something about it. It is interesting to note that the hon. lady is a Conservative from Ontario. The situation is just as shameful in Ontario under a provincial Conservative Government which has been in power for years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: These provincial governments try to justify these charges-


Mr. McDermid:: There was a Liberal Government in Quebec, too.


William Warren Allmand: Well, there is fault in many places and we have to correct it. These provincial governments try to justify these extra charges by saying they are necessary to cover meal and room costs. Well, that is a ridiculous argument. Most people in these chronic care institutions have an elderly spouse at home. They must still pay their rent, utilities and taxes at home. To say that they are being charged in the hospital or institution for food and lodging is like pretending they are on some sort of holiday at a hotel. It is a ridiculous argument. We do not take that approach with people in ordinary hospitals. We do not charge them for the food and room because we know it would be impossible for them to pay. Here we have a situation where people are paying $800, $700, $1,000 per month for longterm chronic care. That we should allow this situation to exist in Canada in 1984 is a national shame. It is basically a provincial responsibility but the federal Government must do more to encourage improvement.
I was pleased to note that the Minister, after discussions in committee, announced that soon after this Bill is passed she would seek talks with the provinces to discuss the wide range of matters not covered by this Bill. She assures me that chronic care is high on that list. I hope those discussions will be meaningful and lead to improvement. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we are confronted with certain very specific problems right now-the erosion of our medicare system by extra billing and user charges. Let us deal with this immediately and pass this Bill.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the Hon. Member had to say here and in committee. I was glad he joined the committee because we were both arguing about the
Canada Health Act
great need for chronic care facilities to come under insured services. One of the ways that might have been done was to take the term "health care practitioner" and give it a much more definitive backing than appears in the Bill. It is true we got the term introduced as an amendment, but not in the original amendment put forward in committee. The original amendment said that "health care practioner" means a person lawfully entitled to practise a health care profession in the place in which the practice is carried on by that person.
Had that amendment not been defeated by the Liberal members of the committee, it would have been much more possible for insured services to be directed to chronic care hospitals and the people who operate nursing homes and chronic care hospitals. Given that, why would the Hon. Member not have voted for that amendment in the first place?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote for or against the amendment because I was one of the five alternate members on the committee. But let me say that I listened to the discussion and I was not convinced that the amendment would have accomplished what both I and the Hon. Member wanted. She is very concerned about the same problem and she gave some very good examples before the committee as well. However, I am afraid most of the amendments I heard before the committee would only deal with the problem in a peripheral way. The problem is so great that for the federal Government, at this stage of the Bill, to accept certain peripheral amendments would have been very difficult with respect to the provinces because they would have to pick up about 50 per cent of the cost.
I am glad that the Hon. Member and others raised this in committee because it is a growing and serious problem which will require a special federal-provincial conference to deal with it. I hope there will be reason on all sides so we can deal with it. But I do not think the amendments put forward in the committee would have really solved the problem even though I did not have a chance to vote for or against them.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) on the erosion of medicare. I was in the provincial government when the federal Government approached the provincial government and offered to pay 50 per cent of the cost of medicare; I think that was back in 1966. For some time the federal Government paid 50 per cent of those costs. Later on the federal Government introduced a block system and suggested to the provinces that it would be better, instead of paying for isolated items, that the federal Government give a block sum of money, still understanding it would be 50 per cent of the costs. But later we found it was well below 50 per cent. In this Bill we come to the point where the federal Government is paying as little as 32 per cent of the costs of medicare. That is in my province; I do not know what the percentages are in the other provinces. Is this not an erosion of the plan?

April 9, 1984
Canada Health Act
Second, would the Hon. Member foresee a provincial government, since the provinces are getting far less than 50 per cent, passing legislation authorizing the province in question to deduct from taxation going from that province to the federal Government the difference between what the provincial government is getting from the federal Government in medicare and the 50 per cent cost of medicare? Provinces may have to introduce such legislation. Could I have the Hon. Member's comments?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, since I am from Quebec I am not that familiar with Alberta, but I am familiar with the Quebec system and with the national system. I cannot comment on the Member's allegation that in Alberta the federal Government is only paying 38 per cent or some such figure. I am surprised at that because on a national basis, despite the changes in the funding between the federal Government and the provinces, the federal Government is still paying approximately 50 per cent. In Quebec it is paying more. The system last year cost approximately $22 billion, and the federal Government was paying around $11 billion. There are variations with different provinces. I am surprised and doubtful that the variation with respect to Alberta is that great.
By the way, if we include a lot of other costs that are not included in the system that some provinces decide to fund, then the cost of the system-and this includes dentists, in some cases osteopaths and others-would be $30 billion, with the federal contribution about one-third if you use those figures. But if you use all the moneys included under medicare in the agreement, the federal Government, according to my information, is still paying approximately 50 per cent across the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If there are no further questions or comments we will move to debate. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the committee. We cannot all be members of all committees, but I have been concerned about a number of the matters that have entered into this debate, not the least of which is the further erosion of federal-provincial relations caused by the abrasive methods used by the federal Government throughout this particular piece of legislation.
However, I would like to begin my contribution to the debate, bearing in mind I was not a member of the committee, by stating quite categorically that I have yet to hear of a doctor in Canada refusing his services as a doctor to anyone requiring his services whether the person requesting them could pay or not. This, I think, is the underlying matter that we must not overlook in all of this battle about user fees and so on. Doctors do not refuse services to those who want them. I think we should pay tribute to the fraternity, those to whom we owe so much, that they take their oath as doctors as seriously as they do. The Hippocratic oath means something to a doctor, Mr. Speaker. I sometimes wonder whether the oath of a Privy Councillor is just as meaningful to some Ministers.
The whole object of this exercise seems to be another method of getting conflict going between the federal authorities and the provincial authorities. I hope time will permit me to make a proposal to resolve this matter, not just in this Bill but in other Bills where it is acknowledged, as it is acknowledged in the preamble of this Bill. I do not know whether you have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill is somewhat unusual in the manner in which it is drafted. It begins with a preambular set of three or four paragraphs. At the very opening of the preamble it says that the Parliament of Canada is called upon to recognize:
-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 is a noble sentiment. It is not carried out either in this Bill or in the conduct of the Government with relation to the provinces, and that is what I find so deplorable.
To take one example, the Ministers of Health for the provinces, who are charged under the Constitution Act and all of the amendments, met in Halifax a year or so ago. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) went to one meeting. She came out after one hour and said that there was no point in the world trying to talk to these Ministers; they were set on a course, a course which the Constitution provides for them to follow. They are set on a course, she said, that makes it impossible to talk to them. When, in the last fortnight, those same Ministers from the provinces met here in this city while this matter was before the House of Commons or the committee, the Minister refused to attend any of the conferences. This is what I find so deplorable about the manner in which this Bill is being pushed forward by this Government.
This is a Bill of confrontation, and that attitude is followed up by something which I find absolutely unacceptable in any federation. I do not know what happened in other provinces. Mark you, I am not arguing in favour of what the legislature of my province is doing, Mr. Speaker. What I deplore is the circulation of an insert in the old age pension cheques of a thing like this. It sends a message out for all those who receive old age pensions in B.C. It is a message which is designed specifically to set the people of British Columbia against the Government of British Columbia on this issue.
That is not the role of the federal Government. Its role surely is to try to meet with the provincial Ministers of Health and resolve the differences which may exist between them in open conference. It should not use this deplorable, abominable device for circulating a message of this sort. I am not talking about the substance of the message. I am talking about the method used. It is beneath contempt that any federal Government should do it. What would happen if any provincial Government were to try to reciprocate and get a message to all Canadians to undermine the federal authority? What would the federal Government do? It would probably incarcerate the
April 9, 1984

whole lot of them under the War Measures Act or something like that. This is no way to conduct a federal Government.
My attention was drawn to the fact that there was a change to the purpose of this particular Bill during the discussions in committee. I think it would be worth while to put the two versions on the record-the purpose as originally presented to the House and the purpose as it came out in committee. I have a copy of the original Bill here. I think it is worth reading the purpose in its entirety. Clause 4 of the Bill originally tabled on December 12, 1983-perhaps it is not available to everyone and everyone does not necessarily read it-reads:
The purpose of this Act is to advance the objectives of Canadian health care policy, while recognizing the primary responsibility of the provinces for the provision of health care services, by establishing criteria and conditions that must be met before full payment may be made under the Act of 1977 in respect of insured health services and extended health care services provided under provincial law.
That was the original purpose. Also I notice that the objectives of the policy as provided in Clause 3 are extended in the original version and somewhat reduced in the final version. The purpose which is in the amended version now before us is somewhat shorter and reads:
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 in respect of insured health services and extended health care services provided under provincial law.
There is quite a distinction, but what I find a little worrisome-and this goes back to my earlier worry-is the use of the word "must". A number of speakers, including the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand), suggested that Hon. Members of this Party are opposed to medicare. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Party has supported medicare from the beginning. It wants medicare provided within the means of Canadians. It wants the same medicare system provided across the country. It is not opposed to medicare. I regret any Member rising and even by implication suggesting the contrary. But the use of the word "must" in this instance I find a denial of the true meaning of federalism. It is demonstrable that the centralizing propensities of the federal Government have been at the base of many of our problems. This is another example.
Regardless of the provisions of the Constitution, it is almost as though the federal Government is deciding on its own what provincial governments must do in respect to a matter under provincial jurisdiction before there can be any possibility of a cost-sharing formula-"you had better do this or you will get no help from us". I find this wrong in terms of the federal principle despite the acknowledgement in the preamble that we are dealing with a provincial matter. No one has questioned that. Even the Government has not questioned it, but it has had the effrontery, without consultation and even turning its back on consultation when it is offered, to try to lay down the conditions for the fulfilment of a constitutional responsibility within the provinces.
The propaganda campaign mentioned by earlier speakers was launched even before the Bill was presented to Parliament without consultation with the provinces as a means of creating an issue, not reducing the differences which may exist because
Canada Health Act
of monetary restraints. I just do not understand why the Government seems so intent on creating federal-provincial confrontation. That has marked its passage from its inception under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Perhaps therein lies the problem. Perhaps the Prime Minister feels that he has done his work of instilling confrontation as a means of getting the country into debt and preventing it from working. Perhaps he finds that the future is bleak because of the confrontational tactics and has decided that it is about time to watch the process from afar without assuming any responsibility, I do not really know. However, I deplore the notion that the federal Government should draw up a Bill which will penalize the provinces for not doing what they want to do and what they will do within their fiscal powers or the means they have of producing health services.
Like the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, I too worry about the provisions of long-term care. It is a growing problem in Canada. The demographics are telling us this. The tax base is going to be lower. Those who pay taxes will be fewer in number. Those who rely on the services which the taxes provide will be more numerous. In 15, 20 or 30 years from now there will be a heavy burden, not just because of the debt that has been created by this Government but because of its promises. The country is being weakened by this confrontational procedure.
The need for chronic care in Canada is mounting, there is no question about that. When one of my predecessor colleagues entered politics in British Columbia, the former leader of the PC Party, Dr. Scott Wallace, his main objective was to get extended care extended. Unfortunately, out of sheer frustration, he felt he could no longer pursue this objective because he seemed to be getting nowhere. At one time I thought it was the local provincial government that was causing the frustration for Doctor Wallace. Having now examined this Bill and the whip hand which the federal Government has over the provincial governments with their narrow tax base, the cause of the frustration of Doctor Scott Wallace is obvious. I now know what caused him to throw up his hands in absolute frustration.
I have just a minute remaining to make a proposal. This Bill acknowledges where the constitutional responsibility lies on this matter, and that is with the provinces. I throw this proposal out; it came to me only a few minutes ago. It has not been discussed with anyone in my Party so I do not throw it out as a Party notion. I bring it forward as one who is concerned about Canada and about health care.
In matters of this sort where there is need for a federal financial input to assist the fulfilment of a provincial responsibility, should there not be some mechanism such as the joint resolution notion which is used in other fields under the Constitution? A Bill or a resolution covering these matters could be produced by the federal Parliament and then ratified by the provincial legislatures. It would show the agreement of the two levels of government in an area where there is not shared responsibility in terms of provision of the service, but a
2842

April 9, 1984
Canada Health Act
shared responsibility in terms of the financial contribution to it.
I put that forward as a notion which might be valuable in future cases where the federal Government is expected to contribute financially so that the provinces can fulfil their constitutional responsibility.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments. If there are no questions or comments, I recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on third reading of Bill C-3, the Canada Health Act. The assumption is that all three political Parties will be supporting this Bill when it comes to the final vote. I suspect it is clear to anyone who has paid attention to the debate surrounding the issue of medicare over the last number of months and years that medicare was being eroded, drastically in some provinces, and under attack in virtually all provinces with two or three exceptions. Most notably those exceptions were governments that were part of the movement that founded medicare in the 1940s, namely the NDP.
It is my plan today in the few minutes before we break to outline some of the aspects of the Bill that I feel need to be emphasized and perhaps in some cases to be re-emphasized. The Bill will obviously attempt to remove extra billing and user fees because universality was being eliminated as a result of these two areas. The assumption was that people were not receiving appropriate medical care.
A number of speakers have questioned whether user fees, extra billing and charging premiums was hindering the access of groups of people to appropriate and proper health care. In the last two or three weeks in my constituency in British Columbia, I have noticed a number of occasions where people have made it perfectly clear that they were not receiving the health care to which they were entitled.
My own parents were in need of an injection before going on a vacation. They chose to go to their physician for their injection and then went happily on their way. They could have received the same injections at the community health clinic where there would have been no cost to the system. As a result of my parents' visit, the doctor is now going to bill the provincial system for a visit and these two injections.


John Horton McDermid: Why shouldn't he?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Conservative Member says why shouldn't he? I agree he should. The point is that we are very concerned about the costs of medical care today. We are concerned about the future viability of the present system as a result of the increased costs. My point is that had my parents used the community clinic the cost would have been a few cents for the time of the nurse on duty and the cost of the injection. However, the medicare system was charged for two visits to a physician. That same service could have been provided much
more cheaply had my parents been a bit more alert to the role that the community health clinic plays in our community. It brought to mind the fact that we could be organizing our health care system in a more cost-effective way when it comes to something as simple as a straightforward injection.
1 was also visited by a young woman. She has a particular problem and occasionally has to go to the emergency ward or visit her physician to have an injection. On that particular day, a Sunday, a doctor was not available so she went to the local hospital. As she walked up to the admission desk in the emergency ward, she was told she had to pay $10 before she could see a physician. She left at that point and came to see me in my home. She asked for advice as to how she could receive this injection. She did not know she could have had her injection, that the physician would have seen her. When she was told there was an extra fee that she was required to pay, having no money with her at the time she was under the impression that that care was not available to her.
A few weeks ago, I had occasion to be visited by a young woman who had recently had a child and was breast-feeding that child. She told me that she was on her way to see her doctor for the third time in order to see how things were going with her breast-feeding. Again, the thought occurred to me that perhaps there might be a more cost-effective way to provide advice to young mothers who are breast-feeding rather than requiring a number of visits to her physician. I thought of this in terms of the cost of the health care clinic as compared to the cost billed to the medicare system.
It really came home to me, Mr. Speaker, when I visited a senior citizens' home and took part in a general discussion over lunch. A number of senior citizens indicated their concern about the availability of health care and they indicated that they were now reluctant to use the hospital system in the way they felt they ought to because of the extra fees they would be required to pay.
Whether or not all of these things which I have mentioned are true in fact, the point I would like to make is that there is a certain mind-set in the country. People who are elderly, ill or poor are, to a certain extent, of the impression that health care is no longer available to them. When it comes to having to pay premiums and extra fees to one's physician, one could say that there is certainly some truth to that in some of the cases I have mentioned. As a matter of fact, when we tally up the amount of money being set aside in user fees and extra billing, we are talking about an amount of money in the $120 million to $130 million range.
In the whole scheme of health care costs in Canada, $120 million to $130 million is not a significant amount of money. However, one could consider that this is an amount of money which is really nothing more than a special tax on the sick with a particularly hard impact upon the poor and the elderly. Bill C-3 has come before the House for third reading today in an effort to do something to end these extra costs.
April 9, 1984

I shall refer to a study which was done recently in the Province of Saskatchewan. In that study, people were asked the question: "Would a $2 increase in user fees have any adverse impact on the community that uses the health care facilities?" It was found that a $2 increase in user fees would adversely impact upon approximately 19 per cent of the clientele. Again, that 19 per cent of the clientele is composed by and large of the elderly and of people with chronic illnesses. From what I can gather, this was the result of a very unbiased study that attempted to indicate to what extent a simple $2 increase in user fees would impact on a community.
When we speak about a tax on the sick and the elderly, we are reminded of the words of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall who had so much to say about the need for medicare in the country and about the extra charges that are being levied today. He said: "The trauma of illness, the pain of surgery, the slow decline to death are burdens enough for the human being to bear without the added burden of medical or hospital bills penalizing the patient at the moment of vulnerability". This is why we in this Party are so concerned about what we see as the present erosion of the medicare system.
We in this Party are particularly concerned because of the role that we as a political Party have played in the introduction of medicare in Canada. I remember the state of the hospital system in the country at the time that I graduated from high school. I remember the confusing hodge-podge of private and public insurance schemes for health care. From my readings at that time, I recall that at least seven million Canadians did not have any kind of health insurance at all. At least half the population of Canada certainly did not have any comprehensive health coverage at that time.
In 1945, the Saskatchewan CCF Government, a forerunner to the NDP, decided that it was time to take action. I am sure that most Canadians today are under the impression that medicare has existed for as long as anything has and that medicare has always been a fact of life in Canada. Many people have grown up understanding that they could have access to a hospital and a doctor at any time at a cost that would not prohibit their treatment, and presumably at no cost at all because it was funded through the taxation system. However, 1 think it is important for Canadians to realize that this was not always the case.
Before we break, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to outline the evolution of medicare in Canada. To find the origins of medicare, we must go back to 1945 because it was in that year that under the Saskatchewan CCF Government, Saskatchewan was the first province to introduce medical and dental care for all old age pensioners and for mother's allowance recipients and their families. This was the beginning of the idea that we could indeed take action using our relatively progressive comprehensive tax system to provide health and dental care for old age pensioners and those receiving mother's allowance.
In 1946, the Saskatchewan CCF Government introduced an experimental, comprehensive, Government-sponsored medicare plan in the Swift Current region of the province. In this case,
Canada Health Act
the program provided a full range of medical services including a dental program for young people under the age of 16. The Government was testing the situation in an effort to demonstrate to Canadians in all provinces and territories that comprehensive medical care was available there and could be available to all.
In 1947, Saskatchewan, under the CCF Government, became the first province to introduce a comprehensive, Government-sponsored hospital insurance program. By 1961, many Canadians were beginning to feel that if there could be comprehensive medicare available to everyone in the Province of Saskatchewan, why could it not be available to those in other provinces? In 1961, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall was appointed to chair a royal commission on health services which was created to "inquire into and report on the existing facilities and the future needs for health services for the people of Canada".


John Horton McDermid: Who appointed Mr. Justice Hall?


Nelson Andrew Riis: In 1962, Saskatchewan, again under the CCF-NDP Government, became the first province to introduce a comprehensive, provincially-sponsored medical prepayment plan, or medicare. This, of course, resulted in the kind of knee-jerk response one might have expected because challenging the system in which appropriate health care was available to select groups of the society and not to everyone resulted in a 25-day strike of Saskatchewan physicians.
In 1964, the Hall Commission reported and recommended, among other things, the creation of comprehensive medical insurance plans in each province which would be available to all Canadians, with cost-sharing by the federal Government. In 1966, a big year for Canadians, the minority federal Government of that time passed the Medical Care Act providing for 50 per cent federal cost-sharing in proven provincial medicare plans.
One could go on to make the point very clearly that, as a result of the CCF-NDP Government which laid the groundwork and convinced Canadians that this was indeed a possibility, we have moved toward the point where today we see once again the need for the federal Government to take action to ensure that proper medical care is available to all Canadians.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. 1 think there is a general agreement that if there are to be no further speakers, the vote on third reading would be deferred until 4.45 p.m.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is agreeable to us.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, you will call the vote at that time. I just want to make it clear for the record that it is intended that there be a recorded vote at that time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In that case I shall put the question now and as there appears to be unanimous consent, the vote could be deferred until 4.45 p.m. Is that correct?

April 9, 1984
Canada Health Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is as follows:
[ Translation]
Miss Begin, seconded by Mr. LeBlanc, moved:
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.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? [English]


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Then by the unanimous agreement of the House the vote will stand deferred until 4.45 p.m.


An Hon. Member:: Call for the yeas and nays.

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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

In my opinion the motion is carried.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I should point out to the House that to have a recorded vote more than five Members would have to rise to oppose the motion.
And more than five members having risen:


John Horton McDermid: The motion was unanimous.


Mr. Ellis:: There were no nays.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The House has put the Chair in somewhat of a difficult position. There was a clear indication of unanimous consent of the House prior to putting the question that there be a recorded division at 4.45 p.m. The House then, as a formality, went through the process of putting the question and called the yeas and nays. Since there were no nays heard by the Chair, it is very difficult to do other than record that the motion was carried. However, there were more than five Members who subsequently rose. I would suggest that was a clear indication that there was to be a recorded division of the House at 4.45 p.m. this afternoon and I so rule.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p. m.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, in Regina over the weekend the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) stated that, if he becomes Prime Minister, one of his priorities will be to try to persuade NATO to de-emphasize the deterrent aspect of nuclear weapons. He stated: "1 think we should place greater reliance on conventional arms. It would be expensive, but that is a small price to pay to reduce the balance of terror."
Where has the Minister been for the last 15 years, Mr. Speaker? Where was he when his Party and Government unilaterally reduced our commitment to NATO by half? Where was he when the Armed Forces budget was frozen for three years, thus crippling critically needed re-equipment programs? Where was he when our men and women in uniform left in the thousands because of his Party's policies?
The Minister said that if a strengthened commitment means increasing the size and budget of Canada's Armed Forces, he would be willing to do so as long as other NATO countries would do the same. Our NATO partners are doing just that, and have been doing so.
The Progressive Conservative Party has consistently stood for a strong commitment to NATO, a strengthening of our forces, and greater emphasis on equipment replacement. I welcome the Minister's support of our policies, although I would rather have him express these views here in the House of Commons and in cabinet meetings. Recently we have witnessed public repudiation of government policies by many Liberal leadership hopefuls. Now, along with repudiation we have hypocrisy.
April 9, 1984



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I was flabbergasted, as were many North Shore residents, to learn about the remarks made last week by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) concerning Canada's unemployment rate. I should think that the Leader of the Official Opposition is hardly in a position to take anybody to task after what happened on the North Shore and given the unduly high unemployment rate in Schefferville, Gagnon, Fermont, Sept-lles and Port-Cartier.
Mr. Speaker, I was all the more disappointed as the charge was levelled at the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) who has done a lot for the North Shore and spent millions of dollars to create jobs and to launch the Pointe-Noire construction project which will guarantee the economic revival of the North Shore. Had the Minister of Finance not intervened directly, Mr. Speaker, we could not think and hope to restore the North Shore on a sound economic footing.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition got his letters mixed up when he made rather unworthy allegations concerning the OECD Secretary General and the accepted procedure in diplomatic circles. The OECD is not the IOC-the Iron Ore Company-and the former President of the Iron Ore may have been confused about what he could do himself in Paris when he was President of the IOC.
Mr. Speaker, I think that he was ill-advised to make derogatory comments concerning people who work with the OECD.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like briefly to voice my strong concern over the serious contradiction currently prevailing in the Liberal Cabinet. To quote the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) from a Liberal Party Biennial Policy Convention:
The Government is wasting millions of dollars by sending monthly pension cheques to wealthy senior citizens and baby bonuses to families who do not need the money. Such funds should be redirected to help the most needy.
In addition, the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston) was recently asked: "Would you move out of the Government's involvement in businesses like aircraft production and fisheries?" He replied: "Well, indeed, I would. If we can sell Canadair and if we can sell de Havilland, let's do it as quickly as possible."
On the subject of Petro-Canada, the same Minister was asked if Petro-Canada should be in the service station business. He responded by saying: "Well, frankly, I don't see any need for Petro-Canada in the service station business."
Asked whether his statements contradict policy and whether he should resign, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) said: "I don't have to comment on that. It's a problem for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), not for me."



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in 1968, George Romney, presidential hopeful, visited Vietnam on a fact finding mission. When he came back he made some statements that were subsequently proven to be false, and he indicated that he had been brainwashed. We all know what happened to his presidential candidacy after that. The same thing is happening in Canada today, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Mulroney) statement recently in Calgary with regard to Bill C-169, modifications to the Election Expenses Act, was, and I quote: "We were asleep at the switch. I didn't see it and I don't think anyone in our Caucus saw it." That is just not correct, Mr. Speaker, because members of the Tory Caucus have denied that is correct. This is how the Leader of the Opposition dances around an issue. Their Caucus, our Caucus, and the NDP Caucus all saw those changes, and saw the change we are talking about here in particular.
When the going gets tough, Mr. Speaker, it seems like the Tory Leader denies he knew anything about it. That is a clear and absolute deception of the public. You do not claim to have been asleep at the switch if you want to be Prime Minister of this country or, in another context, claim to have been brainwashed in the House of Commons.



PARLIAMENT


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat the words of Mr. Gordon Fairweather, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and a former Conservative Member of this House, in a speech he made in Manitoba last Thursday. He spoke about democratic institutions and how they should be preserved. He said "the reason we are not in a totalitarian society, the reason why we have freedom and respect for human rights, is that we have institutions like Parliament and Legislatures where issues can be debated in full public view. We have elections so that people can know where their prospective representatives stand, and vote accordingly. Anything that erodes these processes and institutions brings us a step closer to totalitarianism, a step closer to the dark world that Orwell warned us about... I am speaking against the undermining of the institutions that

April 9, 1984
5.0.	21
guarantee our freedom. Canadians look around the world and see other societies which are torn apart by tragic sectarian violence and bloodshed, and are thankful that our democratic institutions give us the means to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. They give us the means to live with one another even when we disagree, and disagree strongly. Sadly, there are people in Manitoba who are urging on Members of the Legislative Assembly who have subverted democracy by walking out, rather than standing up and voting on a resolution introduced by a duly elected Government."
What Gordon Fairweather said of that House, Mr. Speaker, applies-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, during the weekend, the Conservatives went into a retreat in Mont Sainte-Marie to hatch posthaste, it must be said, policies designed to attract the voters. Mr. Speaker, it is not too soon for them to start thinking about what they plan to put before the Canadian public during the next election campaign. The weekend's biggest find was the suggestion that the methods used to collect taxes will be changed. Without wanting to endorse blindly the present methods used by the Department of National Revenue, I believe that the Conservatives are forgetting that, throughout Canada excepting Quebec, the Canadian Government is responsible for collecting taxes on behalf of the Provinces. As we all know, these governments are for the most part Conservative and they do not seem to have any complaints about the federal Government's performance with respect to collecting these taxes. I therefore wonder about the seriousness of this proposal, Mr. Speaker. It would be interesting to know what the Premiers might have to say about this bright idea the basic purpose of which is to seduce and deceive the Canadian businessman.
What they failed to mention is the workers's own views on this as they have not opportunity whatsoever to avoid paying their taxes which are deducted at the source. In any case, no matter who collects the taxes, these have to be collected one way or another.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a matter that I raised in the House last week, that is, the massive intrusion on the rights of the nurses at the Sick Children's Hospital. I am thinking specifically of Susan Nelles and Miss Trayner. If Mr. Justice Grange should find that the deaths were intentional, if he should name names, as is his ability under the terms of reference now, and should the police officers decide as a result to lay charges, how can anyone possibly think that any of these nurses could possibly have a fair trial? Under Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights every Canadian is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law, in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
1 invite Members of the House to speak on this issue because it is an important issue. I believe this is the most massive encroachment on rights that I have witnessed.
Let us assume, on the other hand, that there is not sufficient admissible evidence to warrant a trial and yet the finding of the commission is that the deaths were deliberate, and names are named. The stigma, as a result of the publicity, could not be overcome by these nurses or anyone else named. This is totally unfair.
I believe the House should request that the Attorney General restrict the terms of inquiry, or that Mr. Justice Grange personally-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



ADULT PROFESSIONAL TRAINING


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, at first glance, the Progressive Conservative Party's proposals for adult occupational training seem progressive. A closer examination, however, reveals that on the contrary they are disappointing and regressive. Disappointing since there is no mention of paid educational leave, one of the major issues which must be examined.

It is disappointing also, Mr. Speaker, because the Progressive Conservative Party does not address the free rider syndrome. Businesses on the whole are in favour of more industrial training, but are reluctant to do more as they often lose skilled employees to other firms which do not train their own employees. The tax incentives alone which the PCs propose
April 9, 1984

will not solve this problem. Regressive, Mr. Speaker? Totally so.
The proposals do not address the problem of equal access and opportunity. The Tories suggest that we allow persons to receive unemployment insurance while training. What of those who have no unemployment insurance benefits, such as the
500,000	unemployed youth and women re-entering the labour force?
The Tories also suggest a tax sheltered savings plan which will benefit those with high incomes and a good education. It seems to me that the Tories are trying to promote a scheme such as their 1979 mortgage interest deductibility plan which will do little to solve the needs of the poor and the unemployed.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, there are scores and perhaps hundreds of Canadian women who, in the silence of their own homes each night, wet their pillows with tears. Here is a typical case. A woman came to me to ask if the Government could help her. She said:
I am 63 .. . my husband died when our son was seven. I resolved to give my boy a good education. I scrubbed floors, washed clothes, made bread ... I did everything I could to make a dollar. I was proud when Tommy entered college . .. soon he would help me ... I worked harder than ever ... my arthritis bothered me but I forced myself... I must get him through college .. . and . . . then, just before his graduation he was killed in an automobile accident... it tore the heart out of me . . . all my hopes were dashed to the ground . . . that was three years ago... I have continued to wash clothes and scrub floors, but now every part of my body aches day and night... my doctor tells me 1 must stop working . . . can the Government help me?
She did not have Canada Pension , UIC, or a bank account. I hated to tell her, but finally I swallowed hard and I said: "I'm sorry, but there is only welfare." "Welfare" she echoed. She was proud, and I saw the tear that she tried to hold back while she thanked me for listening, and hobbled out of the room.
Could we not take a few of the thousands of dollars we give to Crown corporations to provide a pension for our heroic Canadian women who have given their all and have taken nothing for themselves, Mr. Speaker? Welfare should not be their reward.



SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH COUNCIL


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications has announced that the budget for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will only be increased by $2 million, and that the $5.9 million of supplementary funds provided in the three previous years will not be
Oral Questions
renewed. Even the Government's own guideline of 5 per cent increases was not adhered to. In fact the Council will get less this year.
What astound me are the crazy priorities of the Government. On the one hand it can pour in well over $1 billion to support Canadair, but cut back and slash support for the social sciences and humanities. It seems to be okay to lose vast sums of money building executive jets, but our universities can do without. Why is the Government attacking our universities? With Bill C-12 it will deprive the universities of several hundreds of millions of dollars. With the cutback to the SSHRC it is making the situation even worse.
Does the Government feel we do not need as much research into our economic conditions, the human displacement due to technological change, or the problems facing native people? Does the Government believe that our artists, writers, and musicians need less assistance in their efforts to maintain a Canadian cultural identity? Does the Government not realize that Canada is in the midst of major social, economic, and cultural changes, and that we need more, not less, effort by organizations like the SSHRC, to help us successfully through these changes?
Mr. Minister, please wake up, get your priorities straight, and restore the funding to the social sciences and humanities.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He is wearing the red badge of shame, because 16 years ago 360,000 Canadians were unemployed and today 1,541,000 are unemployed on the anniversary of the Prime Minister's accession to leadership.
While the Minister of Employment and Immigration was campaigning for the Liberal leadership in Calgary on Friday he was asked about the latest unemployment figures, which of course went up last Friday. He said this: "They are a bad guide to the state of the economy".
If the unemployment figures are a good guide to the state of the economy when they go down, why are they a bad guide to the state of the economy when they go up? Is this the new Liberalism? Is this the new Orwellian newspeak? Is it Government policy that unemployment figures are no longer a good guide to the state of the economy?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to show appreciation for the fact that my colleague has noted that today is the sixteenth anniversary

April 9, 1984
Oral Questions
of the election of the Prime Minister as the Leader of our Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: I got the list for you, Pierre, of those who did not clap.


Marc Lalonde: 1 would like to remind the Hon. Member that this has been a period during which the economy in Canada has grown at an average of 3.3 per cent a year. This is more than every other industrialized country except Japan. During this time the average for the other countries was about 3 per cent. That means that the rate of growth of Canada has been 10 per cent above the average of all other industrialized countries since 1968.
Since my friend has talked about unemployment I would like to remind him that during this period three million jobs have been created in this country. Today there are 40 per cent more Canadians employed than there were in 1968.
During this time we have had two million more women in the workforce than in 1968.
This country has created more jobs than practically every other industrialized country during that period, and we have succeeded in doing this while preserving our social security system, which the Tories would be the first to attack, like they did when they came into office in 1979.
If my friend wants to talk about unemployment and leadership, he should first ask questions of his Leader who has destroyed the economy of the North Shore, turned Scheffer-ville into a ghost town, and closed down half of the North Shore of Quebec.


SIZE OF LABOUR FORCE
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister a question about a statement made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who has stated that unemployment figures are a bad guide to the state of the economy. There are 1,541,000 Canadians who are not applauding the elevation of the Prime Minister to office 16 years ago. They are out of work, and they do not care for your specious recital of false statistics that we just heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: When the donkeys stop braying, I will ask my question.
Last Friday the Minister of Employment and Immigration said: "The economic recovery is drawing more people into the labour force causing an increase in the number of people looking for work and inflating the unemployment rate". He is blaming people coming into the labour force for inflating the unemployment rate. As a matter of fact his statement is completely false, because the labour force declined last month by 27,000 people.
How does the Minister account for this amazing misinformation by the Minister of Employment and Immigration? Is it deliberate? Is he deliberately trying to fool the Canadian people, or is he witless and stupid? Which is it? When will he be removed from his post if he does not even know that the labour force declined, not increased, last month?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that my friend has such a corner on stupidity that there is not much left for anybody else. He knows that the labour force in Canada has increased quite significantly over the last few years, particularly last year. There is practically no other industrialized country that has known a greater growth in labour force than Canada. He knows that, or should know that.
I have already told him that the labour force in Canada last year increased by some 40 per cent more than the United States. Indeed, I was wrong, because the latest final figures that have come out show that the labour force in Canada increased by some 58 per cent more than the United States in 1983.
It may be true that, indeed, there was a decline in the labour force last month of 0.2 per cent, but my friend should try to take a little broader perspective and examine the figures for several months to realize what is really happening in this country.


Mr. McKnight:: Fifty-four per cent of the people already realize that.


Marc Lalonde: If he took a little more trouble to examine the facts he would be able to discover for himself that, indeed, we have created over 400,000 jobs last year since the depression- since the recession-in 1982.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Yes, we had a very deep recession. We have created over 424,000 jobs, and we have created as many jobs comparatively as any other industrialized country-as a matter of fact, more than most of these countries.
The Canadian record is good, and it is not by knocking Canada and knocking Canadians-


John Horton McDermid: We are not knocking Canada; we are knocking you.


Marc Lalonde: -that we will inspire confidence in this country. I leave my friend to his pessimism.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has a colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who said on Friday: "Unemployment figures are a bad guide to the state of the economy." We want to know if that is now the Government's position, that they are a bad guide to the state of the economy? He also said that the labour force went up, when in fact the labour force in the last
April 9, 1984

month went down. Is down now the same as up in the Liberal lexicon? Or is up, down? Is in, out?
Are the views of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the little Lord Fauntleroy of the new Liberalism, the economic views of the Government, or is he to be asked to tender his resignation for the foolish and deceitful statements he made last Friday in Calgary?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member could at least listen. I told him that the labour force had gone down two-tenths of one per cent last month.


John Carnell Crosbie: Your colleague said it went up.


Marc Lalonde: I also told him that the labour force in Canada in 1983 grew by some 58 per cent more compared to the United States. These are facts that my friend can check.
Again, it is true that you cannot simply judge a performance of the economy by the results of the unemployment figures for one month. You also have to look at the results in terms of productivity, the results in terms of growth of the economy, results in terms of the reduction of inflation, results in terms of the trade balance of this country and our record exports that we know at the present time.


John Carnell Crosbie: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: These are all factors that one must look at when one wants to look at the performance of the Canadian economy. You cannot just take one figure for one month-


John Carnell Crosbie: Are they a bad guide?


Marc Lalonde: - and try to extrapolate this for the whole economy. If you have any knowledge of this area, you know that you have to bear in mind all of the factors that I have mentioned.


John Carnell Crosbie: Are they a bad guide?


THE ADMINISTRATION
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public have looked at the results of the Government's economic policy, which is why they will throw the Government out in the next election.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. His Minister responsible for economic development is openly criticizing the Government's energy policy, including the National Energy Program, and now the Minister is advocating the sale of Petro-Canada service stations. He may not be aware that Petro-Canada only owns 116 of the 3,000 service stations, the rest of which are leased or are independents.
Oral Questions
My question is about Cabinet solidarity. In view of the long established parliamentary tradition that when a Minister is openly critical of Cabinet policy, that Minister resigns, has the Prime Minister asked for this Minister's resignation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Ministers who are running for the leadership of the Liberal Party are talking about the future and things that they would do if they became Prime Minister, which one of them certainly will, one of the leadership candidates will become Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It will be very brief.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I find it normal that those Ministers would indicate how they intend to govern in the future when they are Prime Minister. They are setting out their views for the delegates to hear, and they are permitting the Canadian people to know their position, which is more than the Conservative Party is doing. We are out in front with our policies and we are looking at the future. I see nothing wrong with that.


Pat Carney: We are being aided in our attacks on the Government's policy by the Prime Minister's own Ministers, and we have lots of time to review our policy.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON PETRO-CANADA GASOLINE STATIONS
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to quote the exact statement made by the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development. It has nothing to do with the future; it concerns basic Party philosophy. He said:
I don't see that the Government needs to retail gas any more than it needs to retail chocolates.
If that is not an example of abandoning Cabinet solidarity, what is? Why does the Prime Minister tolerate this open criticism of his own Government's policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Minister made it quite clear that he had supported the purchase of multinational corporations, including some which were retailing gas, and he was looking at problems he would examine in the future. He was indicating that he would consider what he would do with retailing of gas. I see nothing wrong with that. If the Minister and a future Prime Minister want to say that they will differ in some way from policies they adopted, it will be up to the delegates and the Canadian people to judge them.

April 9, 1984
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It has to do with an individual who is 56 years of age. He has worked for 33 years for Kimberley-Clark at Kapuskasing. He was laid off last year when the plant was closed. This individual is not entitled to any pension. His UIC runs out in a little less than three weeks. His savings have gone supporting his family while he has been on UIC for the past year. The case is not unique, Mr. Speaker. It is the same situation you will find for more than 300,000 Canadians today.
While welfare is the only option left in three weeks' time, has the Minister of Finance anything to tell the more than
300,000	people in a similar situation as to what they can expect in future action from this Government as quickly as possible?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to create jobs as much as we can. Second, we have training programs, retraining programs for workers young and old. These programs at the present time have been allocated more funds than at any time in the past and are available to Canadian citizens. There are Manpower centres in this country to which people can address themselves and where they can discuss with officials ways whereby they could receive additional training which would allow them to take jobs which would become available in the labour market, and make themselves more competent and able to fill the needs that open in the labour market.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, through you I want to inform the Minister of Finance that this individual has three children who are all attempting to develop their education in one form or another. This individual has tried on many many occasions to find access to retraining programs. They simply do not exist for him. He is not qualified for most programs, and the programs for which he does qualify are offered 2,000 miles away.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S ADVICE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Regarding the individual in Kapuskasing, what advice would the Minister have if the individual had access to a retraining program as to what he should train for? In terms of the direction which this country is taking, what advice would the Minister of Finance have for this individual?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, obviously this is not an answer that I can give, not knowing the individual, not knowing his past experience, not knowing the opportunities there would be for training, and not knowing the opportunities available in the area where he lives. My friend says the opportunity for job training is 2,000 miles away. I am very surprised and, frankly, I do not believe that statement. I
just cannot accept such a statement as representing the realities. If my friend wants to send the Minister of employment and Immigration the specifics about this individual, I am sure the Minister will ask his officials to examine the case and see whether anything can be done in that regard. Again, I just do not believe that facts are as stated by my friend.


SUCCESSOR TO ILAP PROGRAM
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is for the Minister of Labour. He was informed of this case in some detail just before Christmas. He responded two months later saying that he and his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, were developing a successor to ILAP, which would build on the lessons learned from the program and that it was a high priority for both of them. This came as welcome news four months after the first letter of inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Having waited not in excess of four months, and knowing that it is a high priority, can the Minister tell us where the successor to ILAP stands? How soon will an announcement be made?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this document is now being considered by Cabinet and a decision should be reached at an early date.


LAW REFORM
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The second annual People's Law Conference is taking place today and tomorrow. The Justice Minister will know that at the first such conference last May, in addition to many distinguished members of the Bench and Bar and other organizations with a legitimate interest in law reform, a spot check of the delegate list revealed that over 40 Liberal candidates, relatives of Liberal MPs, and members of the executives of Liberal organizations, were also invited by the Minister at public expense to attend that conference. What explanation does this Minister have for their presence? And how can he justify using his position and public money to build up a campaign organization for his run at the Liberal leadership?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the participants in the first People's Law Conference, as with respect to those in the second People's Law Conference, were chosen on the basis of their participation in communities. We wrote at that time to all Members of Parliament asking them for proposals to invite people. Most people, members of all Parties, were accepted. If my hon. friend finds there were a
April 9, 1984

number of Liberals present, that should hardly surprise him considering the activity of Liberals in building up this country.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PRESIDENT OF LIBERAL WOMEN'S COMMISSION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Justice. My office has contacted a number of the people invited by the Minister's office. No doubt they were invited because of their Liberal connections. For example, Lauris Talmey of Richmond, B.C., said:
I guess I was invited because I'm now President of the Liberal Women's Commission in B.C.
Can the Minister account for such a statement by any other explanation than that the legitimate work of this Conference was used as a cover to build his leadership campaign organization well before the Prime Minister's resignation?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is both hard of hearing and understanding. There were people at that Conference last year who were nominees of all Parties in this House, some of them very active. The person my hon. friend mentions is one of the most active people in women's circles in Canada. There are many people who have that kind of national status who were at the Conference. It would have been a poor Conference if they were not.


DISTRIBUTION OF CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice. The edited proceedings of the People's Law Conference in May were published at government expense and distributed by the Minister's leadership campaign committee, as campaign literature, at the recent meeting of the Ontario wing of the Liberal Party of Canada. The publication is highlighted with such immortal phrases as:
Mr. MacGuigan has a vision of democracy in action ... At the People's Law Conference he proved that it does work in the highest practical sense.
In light of what my colleague just said, and in light of this palpable pap, would the Minister rise to his feet and admit to Parliament, and through Parliament to the people of Canada, that he is using taxpayers' money to further the campaign of himself for the Liberal leadership of this country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for reading my qualifications into the record. I am sure he does it with great sincerity.


John Horton McDermid: That brought the House down.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In fact the publication to which he refers is a literal reproduction of the proceedings of the Conference.


John Carnell Crosbie: The only one laughing is Chretien.
Oral Questions


Mark R. MacGuigan: There were some people there who, 1 am happy to say, had that opinion of my work. There were people there who spoke about all aspects of the law that was under consideration.


Mr. Nielsen:: Name one.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am glad my hon. friend has a copy of the book, and I hope he reads it and learns something from it.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Justice. We are not doubting that some qualified people were invited to attend the People's Law Conference. Nor are we doubting the potential usefulness of such a Conference in principle. But how can the Minister so shamelessly use taxpayers' money to advance his leadership campaign when many of the participants in the Conference in question had no qualifications whatever other than as potential delegates to the Liberal leadership convention in June?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I can tell that my hon. friend has not yet read very far in that book. A minority of the people at last year's Conference represented the legal profession. The majority represented the people of Canada. That is why it was the People's Law Conference, and there were people drawn from their communities. This was not a specialist conference. This was a conference of people who were community involved-


John Carnell Crosbie: They were Liberals pretending to be people.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -and who were interested in the way in which the law impinged on their society, their groups, and themselves. I think that is why the Conference has had the kind of impact it has had upon the development of law in Canada, because those who participated were so well chosen and participated so well.
* *
*


THE PRESS
Hon. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. While the new Competition Bill will obviously discourage, and probably stop, either of Canada's two giant daily newspaper chains from taking over each other, could the Minister assure the House, as a Member of a Cabinet which agreed these two chains should not increase their daily newspaper holdings in Canada, that the Bill will stop the two chains from acquiring more Canadian daily newspapers, when they already control almost two-thirds of English-language daily newspaper circu-

April 9, 1984
Oral Questions
lation? Does the Minister not agree that too much in the hands of too few is dangerous?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course I agree that too much in the hands of too few is dangerous. That is why the new Competition Bill is so vitally needed. I can assure the Hon. Member that the prenotification clause in the new Competition Bill will serve us well in those kinds of mergers which he describes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the three Ministers who preside over external affairs, and also in the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. He will know that in recent weeks U.S.-backed contras have been laying mines off the coast of Nicaragua and that five foreign ships, including British and Dutch ships, have struck mines in the Port of Corinto, leading to an offer from France to help clear the mines. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Government has investigated the possible danger to Canadian aid on board ships bound for Corinto, the results of that investigation, if there has been one, and also if the Government will join the initiative of France and offer a Canadian minesweeper to Nicaragua to help clear Nicaraguan ports?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot assist the Hon. Member. I do not know whether action has been taken by the Department, but I will gladly take the question as notice.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT OFFER MINESWEEPER TO ASSIST IN CLEARANCE OPERATIONS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister can answer the latter part of my question as to whether the Government will offer a Canadian minesweeper, or at least consider offering one to go to Nicaragua to help clear the ports. Given the Prime Minister's opposition, stated on many occasions, to the growing militarization of the region, particularly the very much increased militarization with U.S. troops and bases in Honduras, could he assure the House that Honduras, which is Canada's country target in Central America for aid assistance, will be told that that assistance will have to be reviewed very carefully if it continues to host U.S. militarization of the region?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the last question is hypothetical in its nature. I know the Hon. Member's interest in the subject. She will know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been visiting
Central America. When he returns, I am sure these questions will be examined by the Government.
As to the Hon. Member's suggestion of sending a Canadian minesweeper into those waters, it surprises me, coming as it does from the Hon. Member who generally opposes the use of Canadian forces in war zones or that type of conflict. Certainly this Government has a pretty clear practice of not sending its ships, planes, or men into any conflict, or area of conflict, unless that expedition is under the United Nations' banner. 1 repeat, the Hon. Member seems to be coming in conflict with the long-stated policy of her own Party.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. He knows that Indian tribal councils receive their funding from the federal Government. As a matter of fact the Minister is now after a doubling of those funds. Is the Prime Minister aware that one of these tribal councils presented a cheque for $9;000 to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for his leadership campaign? Does he approve of taxpayer's dollars being spent to fund Ministers' leadership runs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not aware of that. I do not know the basis in fact of the question of the Hon. Member. I will look into it.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister conduct a complete investigation into this matter and, if he finds that it is true, will he remove the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from office immediately?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants me to conduct a complete investigation, I would appreciate it if he could submit to me the allegations and the origin of them, and 1 will conduct that investigation. As to the question which followed, the Hon. Member realizes that it is hypothetical, very hypothetical.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us if it is the position of
April 9, 1984

the Government that when a Minister of the Crown speaks on public issues in public, that Minister is speaking for the Government.
Oral Questions
specific date, but I believe the commitment of the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board will be fulfilled in a very short period of time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if he is stating government policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, if he is stating government policy. If he is discussing the time of day, he is not speaking for the Government.


IDENTIFICATION OF MINISTERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the question of course is: how do we know when a Minister of the Crown is stating government policy? I remember years ago a former Minister distinguished between bears that lived in national parks and those that did not, by painting red the posteriors of the bears that did not live in national parks. Is it the suggestion of the Prime Minister that we distinguish when Ministers are speaking for the Government by painting the posteriors of Ministers, perhaps red, when they are speaking for themselves?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: It would be a pleasant change from the red faces over there.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is making an ungracious allusion to the red Tories in his own Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Senator Hazen Argue in the other place, has failed to announce to farmers the initial price of grain for the coming year. Farmers cannot stand the financial strain of falling grain prices, nor can farmers tolerate the Government playing politics with the important announcement of the initial price of grain. Will the Minister immediately announce the initial price of grain for the coming crop year so that farmers can plan their seeding operations?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that Senator Argue in the other place has already made a statement concerning the initial payments for grain. He indicated that he will be making that announcement before seeding begins so that farmers will have that initial advantage. I cannot give the Hon. Member the


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ANNOUNCEMENT
Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Senator in the other place has been making several announcements and several statements. What we are asking for is an announcement of the initial price of grain for farmers who are beginning their operations in the fields, and who need to know the direction for planting their crops in this coming year. Will he make an announcement immediately so that farmers can plan their planting operations?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I could only once again repeat my earlier answer. The other place is a useful, legitimate forum in which government policy is announced. The Minister responsible for the Wheat Board is a member of that particular Chamber. He will be making an announcement at the earliest possible date in order to allow farmers to undertake the advanced planning that is required. 1 will take notice of the Hon. Member's representations so that the Hon. Senator will be able to respond in a very short period of time.
* *
*


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last Fall Doctor Anwar Barkat of the World Council of Churches' Program to Combat Racism wrote to the Prime Minister concerning the Lubicon Lake Indian band in northern Alberta. He wrote that the Alberta Government and multinational oil companies "have taken actions which could have genocidal consequences" for the band. After detailing these actions, he said that the Lubicon people "cannot be expected to survive as a people unless they receive immediate financial, political and legal help". Was the Prime Minister made aware of the contents of this letter? Did he answer it? What action did he take in response to this urgent plea for justice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it escapes me at the time as to whether I have seen that letter, but 1 will take notice of the question and give the Hon. Member an answer.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO MEET LEGAL COSTS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, this question has been a front page story in the news for the last week, although the letter was written six months ago. It was an urgent plea for justice.

April 9, 1984
Oral Questions
The report on Indian self-government said that one of the most distressing problems noted by the committee was the problem faced by bands like the Lubicon band and the Conne River band, which have no land base, and urged immediate action to give them a land base. Considering the threat to their traditional land base in Alberta, will the Prime Minister urge the Minister of Indian Affairs to give money to the Lubicon band for legal costs in their fight to preserve their traditional land against encroachment by the Government of Alberta and multinational oil companies? Will he urge the Minister of Indian Affairs to quit stalling and to take action to validate a comprehensive claim for these people who have never signed a treaty with the Canadian Government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking to me urge the Minister to do such and so. I cannot discuss that particular case. I just told the Hon. Member I did not recall the letter to which he referred. The Minister's actions since he has been Minister of Indian Affairs have been very consistent and persistent in attempting to solve the land claims issue. He has been successful in some cases. Certainly on the whole area of self-government with a land base, the Minister has been very forward looking and progressive. His statements-


James Douglas Manly: Read the letter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now the Hon. Member is going back to his first question. I thought he wanted an answer to his second one.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the Minister inform the House when the decision was taken to sell Northern Transportation Company Limited? Was it advance knowledge of that decision that caused management of NTCL to charge to the Athabasca operation expenses incurred by other parts of NTCL to make it appear unprofitable? Will the Minister answer that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered a question in the House some ten days ago where we did announce that we were beginning measures to privatize the Crown corporation, Northern Transportation Company Limited. However, the first step we will take is to have a full, independent evaluation before we put out the offers for private purchase, so we will be securing the services of an outside investment firm to give us that kind of financial analysis. Any actions taken by management are relative to that process because they will be done by an independent group.


DISPOSAL OF ATHABASCA ASSETS
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, because the Athabasca assets are now surplus to NTCL operations, will the Minister make a commitment that the dead assets of the Athabasca area no longer being operated by NTCL will be disposed of through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, to allow residents of the Athabasca area to purchase them or, more particularly, that the City of Fort McMurray be given an opportunity to purchase the 35 acres of prime property contained within its borders?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, that is not really the kind of question I can answer during Question Period. I will take the Hon. Member's representation and examine it. I would point out that we took a position on the Fort McMurray alternative almost a year ago. There is a private development taking place in that area under agreements with other federal Departments. In terms of a specific request, I will refer to the proper authorities and get an answer for the Hon. Member.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BELGIAN SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL TRADE
Mr. Speaker:: May I call the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Andre Kempinaire, Secretary of State for External Trade, Belgium.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Tax Act that he has given to the Minister of National Revenue to administer enables him to treat bona fide Canadian artists as hobbyists and tax them accordingly. Meanwhile, Canadians can go across the line or to any other country and bring back good art duty free, which has the effect of enabling Canadians to boycott Canadian art and thereby have Canadian artists subsidize foreign artists. Does the Minister have any intention of changing the Income Tax Act so that Canadian artists will not be prejudiced by the Income Tax Act?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the whole issue of the taxation system as it applies to artists is now being examined by a Parliamentary Committee. I am confident that the Committee will do an excellent job and make the necessary recommendations.
April 9, 1984

Concerning the specific aspect mentioned by the Hon. Member, namely the establishment or the absence of tariffs on the importing of artwork or paintings from the United States to Canada, I am not too sure, but I believe that the reverse is also true. What I mean is that the United States does not have any tariffs applying to the exporting of artwork by Canadian artists to the United States.
However, I believe that the question asked by the Hon. Member goes beyond the general concept of the taxation system as applied to artists.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence concerning the inquiry into the deaths of Privates Krosney and Lau-rendeau last August. The Minister will know that I received a copy of the transcript of the inquiry through Access to Information. Subsequent to that, the Minister provided me with a copy of the recommendations which had been left out of what had been released by Access to Information. 1 commend the Minister for providing me and, through me, the family, with those recommendations.
Having had a look at the recommendations, and I hope the Minister has had that opportunity, we are concerned that the recommendations do not deal with what we consider to be the fundamental concern raised by that accident, namely, the qualifications and experience of Private Krosney to drive the vehicle in the context in which he was driving it, that is, with a gun on top, a trailer, and so on. Has the Minister had an opportunity to look at those recommendations? If so, is he satisfied that they deal with that fundamental problem? I do not believe they do. If he has not had a chance to look at the recommendations, will he do so? Will he ensure that the Militia addresses that particular concern? In my view, the recommendations do not do that.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity of reviewing the recommendations. The hon. gentleman has had an ongoing interest in this matter. If there are matters that he would like to see addressed, or if there is additional information that he wants to solicit, I will be pleased to receive any requests for that information and see what effort can be made in order to provide the information requested.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. On March
Oral Questions
28 the Minister assured my colleague from Crowfoot, and all Canadian taxpayers, when responding to a question regarding the matter of third party demand notes, "that we do have a lot of respect for both the law and the taxpayer and that any action we might take is in keeping with the utmost fairness and justice for everyone." How can the Minister justify this statement when, last January, his departmental officials proceeded through a third party demand note to seize over $5,400 from a constituent's bank account seven days after a bank draft had been sent to pay the entire amount of taxes owing?
As of today, Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada has yet to return fully the money that has in effect been stolen from my constituent's bank account. I would ask where are the justice and fairness in a despicable action of this kind?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if the incident referred to by the Hon. Member really happened as she has indicated, I would like to apologize on behalf of the Department for what has occurred. However, I want to remind her that on the one hand, there are over 19,000 employees in the Department and that on the other hand tax returns are processed and updated by computers and that there can occasionally be a breakdown in communications between the Taxation Data Centre and the District Tax Office. If the facts are as reported by the Hon. Member, I must say on behalf of the Department that I am sorry about it. However, the Hon. Member will admit that mistakes can happen because of the human factor involved.


Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Minister that the facts are as presented. I would say that it will certainly take a lot more than his six-page letter addressed to a new Deputy Minister to outline the corrective action that is necessary to put a human face on the tax Department.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I would say that it would take the resignation of a Minister who is incapable of giving responsible directives to his officials.


REQUEST FOR AMENDING LEGISLATION
Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my short supplementary question is also directed to the same Minister. Will he take steps to introduce immediately legislation based on the proposals contained in the PC task force on taxation which, if implemented, would take a giant step toward humanizing Revenue Canada, so that Canadian people will no longer have to fear "Big Brother"?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 9, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I must point out to the Hon. Member that most Canadians do not stand in awe of the Department of Revenue because the vast majority of them pay all their taxes through payroll deductions, and do so every week, every two weeks, or every month. This is the case for most Canadians.
I also want to remind the Hon. Member that I have just received the report from the Task Force, and 1 have found the little I have seen of it quite encouraging since many of the instructions I put down in my letter last week to the Deputy Minister are recommended in the report. Therefore, the decisions I had already made and implemented in the Department as ad hoc policies are in agreement with the objectives set by the Progressive Conservative Party Task Force. I shall be very happy to have further discussions for the purpose of examining more fully the other recommendations contained in this report.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of individuals from the constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap who feel that the telephone is a central communications tool vital to work, safety, recreation and family life, who believe that hearing-impaired individuals should have access to the greatest possible communications and who know that a simple and inexpensive part called a fluxcoil can make telephones compatible with hearing aids. They request that the Government of Canada order that all new telephones be compatible with hearing aids as quickly as possible.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 356 and 586.


Mr. St. Germain: Did the (a) Government (b) CBC incur any expenses to announce the CBC's plans to construct a new Toronto Broadcast Centre, and, if so, what was the cost
of (i) staging of the news conference (ii) preparation and distribution of press information kits (iii) consultants' fees and what was the total cost?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows: (a) Yes. (i) Nil. (ii) $198.77. (iii) Nil. Total cost: $198.77. (b) Not applicable.
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a) Not applicable, (b) Yes. (i) $393.15. (ii) $3,433.15. (iii) Nil. Total cost: $3,826.30.


Mr. McLean: Does the Government give criteria to Canadian-appointed officials of development oriented financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank for their use in making development project decisions and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Government provides its views to its executive directors at multilateral development banks on general policy issues such as the mobilization of financial resources and broad guidelines for lending. With respect to criteria for specific projects, the Government seeks to ensure that decisions are based on sound economic development grounds, including the conformity of the project with the over-all development plan of the beneficiary country, a positive financial and economic rate of return, and the technical and organizational merits of the proposal. In certain development banks, such as the World Bank, the Canadian executive director represents a constituency comprising a number of countries, whose views are also taken into account.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 479 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	By constituency, what amount was allocated from the additional $61,850,000 announced on December 9, 1983 by the Minister of Employment and Immigration for the Canada Works Program?
2.	By constituency, what amount was allocated for the 1984 Summer Canada Program?
3.	In 1983, by constituency, what amount was allocated under the Unemployment Insurance Job Creation Program?
4.	In 1983, under the Youth Career Access Program, what was the (a) average amount paid per participant to employers by the Government (b) total number of participants (c) average number of employment weeks per participant?
Return tabled.
April 9, 1984


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, April 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacGuigan that Bill C-10, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


Ms. McDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am rising to make a comment and ask a question with regard to the speech of the previous Member. When we finished debate the last time, it came right to the hour and there was no time left for a ten-minute question and comment period.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) was the previous speaker. The Hon. Member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) is perfectly right, there was no provision at that time for a ten-minute question and comment period. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Green-wood has the floor.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the speech made by the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) and I appreciated his attention to the practical measures of providing means for collecting maintenance orders. However, I would like to ask him a question regarding a couple of other points. He said rather clearly and forcefully that he did not want to see no-fault principles applied to maintenance but that he wished the fault principle applied. Let me quote the Hon. Member's speech from page 2737 of Hansard of April 4, 1984:
It seems to me an abuse of the privileges of the court when we attempt now to tell it that there is no alternative for the court, no discretion for the court to dispose of these very material matters of maintenance orders with a consideration of right and wrong ... to make them divide the assets between them and not take into consideration whose fault it was that the marriage is to be dissolved.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member to comment on how this can be done in any fair way. The publication of the Department of Justice called Divorce Law in Canada, Pro-
Divorce Act
posals for Change points out precisely this problem. It points out that where the faulty person is the dependent spouse, it is easy to make that person pay for the fault by reducing the maintenance order. However, if the faulty person is the breadwinner spouse, it does not mean that more money will go into the maintenance payments. In effect, with the rare exception of breadwinner spouses who happen to have a lot of money and can pay more maintenance, the only way to make this principle work for most people is by deducting maintenance in cases where the dependent spouse has been the so-called guilty partner. In other words, there is a double standard here and a principle which only applies to cause suffering to the dependent spouse. I wonder if the Hon. Member would comment on the fairness of that proposal.


Mr. Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any objection to answering the question. However, I thought the question was put earlier today and the Bill carried, or at least that the question was reserved for deferred vote. If it is the feeling of the Chair that I should respond, I will.
The position of this Party is clearly one of supporting no fault with respect to the dissolution of marriage. I do not believe in the philosophy of NDP members who try to put everything in a codified form or have everything divided equally without consideration of the many other aspects of a marital situation. I was suggesting that there was and should be a discretion in the hands of the judge who is trying the matter. Obviously, when we come to the matter of disposition of the assets of the estate, differences do apply to contributions or to whatever else.
For the people on my left, it might be said that everything should be divided equally. We got into that question a little bit with the task force on pensions and with some other legislation when considering the position of the legal wife compared to that of the common-law wife. I can see no justification for legislation providing that a common-law wife who has lived with someone for three years should be the recipient of all the benefits of the estate as well as the pension benefits, while the legal wife who stood by and raised a family is left with nought. That is just one simple example.
There is another example. If a woman should happen to have equal assets and to have made an equal contribution to the marriage, if she is the person who contributes her efforts to maintaining the social benefit of that marriage, then why should she be prejudiced in the division of the assets of the family? Why should she be limited to an equal division of the assets? If fault has any bearing on the case at all, it should be based on the financial aspect so that the innocent party is not hurt. I distinguish that completely from there being no fault in the dissolution of marriage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If there are no further questions or comments I will recognize the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) for debate.

April 9, 1984
Divorce Act


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, this morning we debated the third and final reading of the Canada Elealth Act which focused attention on the health of the nation. The Bill before us, the Divorce Act, also deals with the health of the nation although in a different sense. With this Bill we are dealing with anxiety, with hurt, with people in conflict. It may be the spouses who are in conflict or there may be a conflict between parents and children. In any case, we are dealing with people who are hurting. In the course of debate we should not lose sight of the fact that the Bill involves concepts that affect clients who are hurting.
As society moves into a much more congested era and we become compressed into urban areas, as people are squeezed closer and closer together, social tension is going to increase. As society is imbued with and adopts an egocentric philosophy where most attention focuses on the rights of the individual, we are going to move into more and more conflict because all of our individual rights are going to come into collision. When we bring together those two ingredients, the squeezing of society so that people are in closer juxtaposition, together with the egocentric philosophy of people, more and more pressure will be put on the family.
There is a hunger within all of us that cries for permanence, Mr. Speaker. In spite of the cry for individual rights and, many times, the justice of that cry, and as much as we want to focus on the rights of the individual, we must realize that the rights of the community also come into play. The health of the whole organism comes into play. One of the overriding hungers that we have is the hunger for permanence, for security.
As we debate the Bill we must keep in mind that the forces that are coming into play in society are setting us on a collision course which puts the family unit in jeopardy. On the other hand we must keep our ears open to the still sad music of humanity, and on the other hand we must listen to the victims of divorce.
We must also acknowledge that there is no such thing as creative divorce. There is a book on the newsstands which would have us believe that you can have creative conflict. In a divorce proceeding everyone loses, everyone hurts. There is no such thing as creative divorce. I am not denying that there are circumstances where divorce is necessary; I am not saying that divorce should never happen; I am simply saying that as we debate this measure we must take a long, hard, compassionate look at the consequences of the legislation and how it will impact on society.
This is a difficult Bill to debate for several reasons. There is a tendency on the part of all of us in the Chamber to closet ourselves into fixed positions and thereby isolate and automatically reject the views of others because we have already assigned them to vested positions. When we get a stated position from the Council of Catholic Bishops, for instance, it is all too easy to say that it will be opposed to divorce and to reject categorically and without examination what that position is. Because it stands at some distance, however, it may have an attitude of objectivity to the social aspect of this
question that some of us may not have. Is it not true that sometimes we increase our objectivity the further we stand back, that the closer we get to the problem and involved in the tensions of it, we lose our objectivity and our focus? We must be careful lest we reject categorically the views of those people whom we think have an iron-cald, vested position which we believe ought to be rejected because those people are already in a box.
It is also easy to reject the position of people who have a happy marriage. Several weeks ago I received a letter on this subject from a constituent. He wrote: "I cannot offer you any advice on this divorce Bill because I have been married to the same sweet person for 52 years". With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I would turn that around and say that perhaps this person, who has found the secret of happiness in marriage, has more to say to us than the person who is in tension and conflict. There is possibly some objectivity in his position. We need to be careful in this Chamber lest we disenfranchise those people we have already assigned to a fixed position.
It is difficult to speak to this Bill because we have to weigh the total effect of it on society, keeping in mind the individual cases that all of us know about and have been involved in. While we look at cases where families are being torn apart, realizing that there may be just and reasonable cause for the participants to enter into divorce proceedings, while we are debating a Bill that would loosen the restrictions on divorce proceedings, we must keep in mind the effect on society as a whole. As I said earlier, we must look at the total organism and not only at some members of society. All of us know of people who are in pain over divorce and all of us will acknowledge that there are people who are suffering as a result of faulty marriages.
Without any attitude of pomposity on our part, without adopting the attitude that we are absolutely right and that we have a reserved position, we need to keep in mind that while we want to help individuals we must also preserve the health and unity of the whole. We have a choice between the appearance of immediate relief to individuals as against the total health of the emotional and the humanitarian aspect of the whole.
This is a difficult Bill to debate, Sir, because of the unrelenting and unforgiving aspect of universal laws. They are very precise and very demanding. They make no exceptions because of personality or social strata. As the name infers, universal laws apply to all. Just because after you fall off a building you change your mind because you made a mistake, that does not mean the law of gravity is going to change its mind and forgive you. The law of gravity is going to have a total impact whether we made a mistake or not. The law of combustion is a very unforgiving law. If you play with matches around paper, you will cause a fire. The law of combustion is not going to say: "Oh, I think you made a mistake; maybe we can impose a no-fault provision on playing with fire". The law of combus-
April 9, 1984

tion is very unforgiving and, in that sense, very narrow minded.
I suggest, Sir, that social laws, the laws of human relations, are just as relentless. The only choice we have is to harness them. The law of gravity is a great law if we harness it and use it properly. The law of combustion is a great law if we understand it and harness it. Society's laws, the laws of human relations, are tremendous laws if we understand and accept them and learn to harness them. They are also unbending and if we obey them, we will flourish. If we harness these laws, we will prosper. If we violate them, we do so at our peril and the peril of society.
There is a tendency on our part, Sir, in order to be compassionate to the individual, to overlook the universal laws or reject them on behalf of an individual. Therefore, we must pay the consequences of this legislation, indeed any legislation. Where will it take us? What will happen if we invoke these laws? As we look at the consequences, I would point out that there is a total contradiction between the principle in this law and the law we passed 18 months ago in this Elouse, the Young Offenders Act. Provisions of that Act have just been applied in one of our provinces, and I want to quote from Section 3 under the heading "Declaration of Principle":
It is hereby recognized and declared that (a) while young persons should not in all instances be held accountable in the same manner or suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults, young persons who commit offences should nonetheless bear responsibility for their contraventions;-
There we have a principle enunciated in legislation. We are saying to young people that young people have to be responsible, although perhaps in not quite the same way as adults, and adults have to be responsible for their behaviour and decisions. But in this Bill we say just the opposite. We say you can have circumstances where there is no fault. You do not have to assume fault. I suggest to you, Sir, and to all of my colleagues here, that if we start enunciating one principle to the young people on accountability and another principle to adults where the adults share less accountability than young people, we are invoking a duality that we are going to come to regret. If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, what is going to happen to future generations? Are we not teaching young people through this legislation that there is a law for adults and another one for young people? We are going to rue that day.
We are now 15 minutes into my speech and I am only half way through, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the faults of a 20-minute debate when it comes to a subject like this.
We are training people to look to alternatives rather than to commitment, resolution and reconciliation. We are already teaching people to look at alternatives so that when they enter the threshold of a major decision like marriage, they are already able to say: "Hey, I can cop out of this in a year". That, Sir, leads us to tension which our society cannot handle.
In 1969, after the provisions of the previous Divorce Act came into focus, 19.3 per cent of dissolving marriage lasted 25 years or more. In 1979, ten years later, it was 11.3 per cent. You see, Mr. Speaker, once we opened the door we did not
Divorce Act
make divorce simply easier, we made marriage considerations include the consideration of opting out later on. We made it easy. Aside from that, our income tax laws make it cheaper to cohabit rather than get married. There is a prejudice in our income tax laws against marriage.
I suggest that the people who will suffer most if we destroy the commitment to permanence will be the children in those families involved in a divorce. For children the best hope of continuing relationships and for a sense of security is the home. It is not school, church, the local McDonald's, the baseball league or the hockey league. The best hope for security for young people is still the home, imperfect as it is. There is no study which shows or proves that it "is better for the kids if we separate". The fact is that if they are given a choice, they would rather the parents stay together in most cases, even in conflict, than have them separate.
We also have to look at the effect on the oath which this Bill has, whether it is before judge or before God in church. What does it do to the law of the land, our system of jurisprudence, if before a judge we swear permanent loyalty and commitment and one year later we can back out? What does it do to an oath before God? What does it do to the concept of His character? If we say before God that we are going to be true to each other, and then, in a year's time, we say forget it, what does that do to our concept of God and the integrity of His character?
Finally, Sir, the no-fault provisions of this Bill will lead us to an era, and I say this carefully and cautiously, of a kind of incipient mental illness. It leads to a world of illusion when we say there is no fault. Both parties know there was a fault and you cannot have mental health if you deny there is a problem. The first rule of mental health is if we accept reality. If we try to escape from reality by saying there is no fault, we pertuate an illusion. That will lead us to a kind of national illness in the home. It also involves a denial of justice. What do we do for the person who knows there is fault and is denied a court of appeal? One of the marriage partners was injured but is denied the right to be heard by the courts. I thought all of our jurisprudence rested on the right of the accused or of both parties to be heard by a forum. If we are going to invoke the principle of no fault, presumably in order to take away the tension, we will increase, postpone and put forward the tension that is already there and magnify it for future years. That is not a route to health, Sir.
As I said at the outset, we are dealing with a Bill that is focusing on national health. The national health of our families is at stake here. We need to preserve it. As we look at the provisions of this legislation we must consider its impact on our children and on future generations in order to maintain the health of families and of the nation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a 10-minute period for questions or comments.

April 9, 1984
Divorce Act


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment and then a question for the previous speaker. I was very puzzled by his discussion of the no fault principle. I do not know of anyone who is claiming that there is no fault in the ordinary, common sense use of the term. The idea of the legislation is that it will be a better marriage-divorce regime not to have fault proved in the courts. My Party and I certainly support this part of the legislation. It is difficult for the children to be dragged into court to give evidence against one parent or the other. It is more difficult for arrangements with regard to maintenance, visiting and custody if this hostility between the partners, which undoubtedly exists, is exacerbated by the proving of fault. Therefore, it is not a denial of fault, but, rather, it is saying that we build whole communities by being forgiving, by overlooking the past, and by trying to be reasonable and practical in developing relationships for the future.
Is the Hon. Member saying that there should be no divorce under any circumstances? It seemed that he was implying that divorce ought not to be allowed under any circumstances. He said that under no circumstances would children prefer the marriage to be broken up. Does he hold this belief when there is physical or emotional abuse in the home? Statistics indicate that one in ten Canadian wives is beaten by her spouse in any year. Is a woman who is beaten by her husband supposed to stay in that relationship? What about the children? We do know that women and children are beaten and indeed murdered in situations of this sort. Is he saying that this vow of permanence should hold even when there is a risk to life and limb?


John Horton McDermid: Never come in in the middle of a speech.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) was when I was speaking. She can check Hansard tomorrow. I made a deliberate statement that there are circumstances under which divorce is going to happen. I understand that. I am not going to rule out the fact that divorce will, and in some cases must, take place. I can understand this in cases where there is incest or aggravated wife beating. Ther are all kinds of-


Lynn McDonald: How aggravated?


Benno Friesen: Well, you define aggravated, or we will let the courts define it.


Lynn McDonald: How much does someone have to accept?


Benno Friesen: I am not going to get into a definition of terms in the debate. I am pointing out to the Member that I understand fully the need for divorce. I can envisage circumstances where I would not only understand this, but I would counsel it. I would ask the Member not to distort what I said when I was speaking to principle.
I would like to make a second point. In most legislation the lawyers who draft the legislation make the Bill as precise as possible. This is why legislation becomes complicated. In making it as precise as possible they tend to make it as
complicated as possible. Rather than precision in this Bill, we have generality in no fault divorce. That creates a problem in the divorce proceedings. As soon as you have those generalities you are going to get into problems because the courts must have precise definitions.
I urge the Hon. Member to take a look at the division between divorce and settlement. I think the Hon. Member understands that the anxiety does not come during the divorce proceedings. It comes while trying to decide where the children will go and how the assets will be disposed of.
The Hon. Member has been in social work. She understands some of the dynamics that enter into social relations. She has taken courses in psychology, I am sure many more than I have. I think she ought to understand that you cannot have health if you do not have reality. I think she will accept that. And you cannot have reality if you pretend there is no fault. It is a chain reaction. We will not have a healthy society if we encourage illusion. It is as simple as that.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be interested in hearing my friend's comments on his concept of justice. I practised divorce litigation for some 11 years. The vast bulk of cases which I saw were of women who had married a man young and had often financed the advancement of his education. She then stayed with that man and raised three, four, or five children only to find, at age 45 or 50, that the man hooked up with a younger woman and abandoned his wife. He would then come in and expect a divorce on the basis of no fault. He would wonder why this woman was upset with him, because he was prepared to provide well for her. I would be interested to hear the Member's thinking in terms of justice and what is fair for a society in the long run.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) has focused on one of the great problems that we face in this legislation. First of all, we must realize that what is an applied sense of justice in one case is not necessarily the same in another. It is one thing to talk about a just settlement for someone who has been married two or three years, where there are no children and no property involved, and another, as the Member points out, for someone who has spent half of his or her life with a partner and has shared and accumulated property and so forth. It is quite a different thing. That is why I am concerned about this legislation. It seems to me that we jeopardize the justice, usually on behalf of the wife, by shortening the time of possibility of litigation. That is my fear. I think that is the fear of some of the women's organizations. If you hurry the divorce proceedings you are going to get into a situation where there is no time to have an equitable and just settlement of the accumulated assets. I understand that. That is why I believe we need to be careful to preserve a domain where both parties can be heard in the fullest without any pressure of time constraints.
I am not a lawyer and I do not understand all of the legal proceedings. My friend is a lawyer and he may understand
April 9, 1984

aspects of this that I do not. However, that is my understanding of it at this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: This is the end of the
period for questions and comments. Debate.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10, has had a rather "on again, off again" history in the House. I am pleased that we are debating it again, although it is a bit of a surprise to us today. Fortunately, certain references were attached to the Bill, such as the document "Divorce Law in Canada: Proposals for Change", which have been quite useful. I found working paper No. 13 even more useful. It is from the Law Reform Commission which also had something to say on this subject.
The Bill does not live up to the promises of the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan). It neglects many of the key proposals that were spelled out in "Divorce Law in Canada" and Working Paper No. 13. Bill C-10, which was accompanied by this document, reviews very selectively some of the need for reform in divorce legislation.
It seems that the Government never understands some of the ancillary effects of legislation that it passes. A good example of this was when it cut off the capital cost allowance of apartment buildings. When it did this, the Government was surprised when people stopped building apartment buildings, because it did not think that capital cost allowance was connected to construction.
This Bill has some side effects which must be addressed before it is passed by the House. I listened with great interest to my colleague who just spoke when he gave statistics of the broken marriages and divorces that are occurring and stated that only 11 per cent of current marriages are what we call long-lasting marriages. I do not know whether it is the divorce laws that are causing an increase in divorce or if it is the attitude toward marriage. I suspect it is the latter because young people get married without any real sense of commitment toward the vows they are taking. When they get bored a year or so later, they opt for an easy divorce.
Some time ago I attended the wedding of a friend's son. While I thought I gave a pretty poor response to the toast to my bride, his was even worse. While mine was short and bumbling, he said, "So we are getting married, no big deal". Somehow, those words have stuck in my mind over the years. Of course, it was no big deal because they are now divorced after some three years of marriage.
I do not know if this attitude can be changed, but people who enter marriage with the idea that it is no big deal will face an early boredom with marriage and will want to walk out of it. They will miss a great deal in life by doing so.
I believe some people divorce for financial reasons. I have not had that experience but I have heard from knowledgeable people that no one can afford to get divorced. It is always expensive for both the man and the woman.
To show that the Government does not understand the effects of its legislation on the public, one needs to look only at
Divorce Act
the increase to GIS. I see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is here. Increasing the GIS for single people only means that for a person living in my constituency who is getting older and is thinking of getting married again, there is an inducement not to get married again because it will not be possible to get the increase in the GIS since he or she will no longer be single. However, it is possible to cohabit and receive $100 extra per couple by next Christmas. Consequently, people in lower income brackets who are considering marriage decide not to marry because they cannot afford the $100 a month it will cost them.
However, to show how the Government is even-handed, it now grants a continuation of pension benefits upon remarriage. If a widow is drawing a pension benefit, she can now get remarried and continue drawing the pension. This shows that, on the one hand, marriage is discouraged while, on the other hand, it is encouraged. I suggest this uncertain attitude toward marriage has had the result which has been mentioned by my colleague so eloquently this afternoon. The reason that people are not staying married can often be found outside of the fault-no fault arrangement. It is essentially a lack of faith when marriage is entered into.
When the Minister of Justice introduced the Bill and wrote about it, he said, "I encourage groups and individuals to let me know their views on the proposals for changes to the Divorce Act". We on this side are expressing rather wide-ranging views because we do not believe that this is a subject to which a Party should adhere rigidly in terms of being in favour of the entire Bill or certain parts of it, particularly at this early stage of its reading. We are stating our views in the confidence that the Minister is sincere and prepared to revise this rather unsatisfactory piece of legislation.
One of the great controversies is that Bill C-10 introduces grounds of no fault and that marriage breakdown can be the only reason for divorce, with one year of separation being considered a sufficient condition to prove that there has been a marriage breakdown. It is no longer possible to sue for immediate relief or divorce on the grounds of marital misconduct.
My colleague said that this delay was not long enough. There are others, particularly among women's action groups, who believe that one year is too long. I would suspect that it is far too long for a wife who is being physically mistreated and whose husband is guilty of very aggravated misconduct. I suggest that making her wait a year with very little means at her disposal is adding insult to injury.
No fault eliminates the idea of one partner being more responsible for marriage breakdown than the other. The idea of no fault marriage breakdowns and no fault divorces is a purely semantic exercise. I find it difficult to understand how there can be no fault when a wife has been beaten up by her husband who has run off with another woman or when a wife has abandoned her husband for some other man and left two children. The husband has every right to believe that it was not his fault. He may be difficult to live with, but there is clear evidence of fault.

April 9, 1984
Divorce Act
Of course, the Government uses semantics well. We heard a good example recently when one of that Party's leadership aspirants made a crystal clear statement of his opinion about the language question in Manitoba. The following week, he clarified it in a way that was totally incomprehensible to anyone. We have a new meaning of the word "clarify" which is to muddify whatever you are talking about. I see that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) agrees entirely with me about that particular case.
We believe that the fault grounds should be retained in order to protect the interests of the innocent spouses in cases of marital misconduct. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women expressed its concern about the elimination of fault grounds as they relate to maintenance. Previously, in the case of a spouse divorcing a husband who is at fault, the injured party was able to bargain by granting him an early divorce in return for a suitable settlement. That way they would dream up false grounds or something like that to get a quicker divorce. This will not be possible now. It will have, according to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, a bad effect on the wife's bargaining position, as far as having a quick divorce is concerned, which the husband might well want.
Judges are explicitly instructed to consider conduct when they establish awards under the present law. In Bill C-10 they are prohibited from including this consideration. It is rather difficult, as I mentioned in the two cases, the one where the woman was at fault and the other where the husband was at fault, to believe that there should always be an even division of property and income. I can understand the Minister's difficulty in writing a piece of legislation that would be fair both to young women and to much older women. Say a woman is in her mid-fifties and her husband runs off with his secretary, or a friend in some other trade or profession, abandoning his wife. It is pretty hard for a woman at that age to find another occupation to sustain her in any degree comparable to the life to which she was accustomed. They tell the famous story here in Ottawa of a senior official in government whose wife was reduced to working as a scullery maid because she had been a homemaker. That is what she was qualified for at age 55. She knew nothing about Micoms, computers, and things like that, which would be difficult for her to learn.
I think the Government was moving in the right direction with Bill C-38, which I was pleased to help along in this House as best I could. I thought Bill C-38 was one of the best pieces of legislation produced by the Government. As most people know, it has to do with the garnishment of salaries of civil servants, armed forces, Members of Parliament, judges and Governors General. In fact, it covered the salaries of quite a variety of people. But the final part of that particular Bill enabled a diversion of pensions to fulfil a court order for maintenance. This was done fairly simply and easily. I think it was done by the intention of the Government to set an example for the rest of the country that its employees were not going to be able to dodge maintenance orders any longer. If a person
has a proper maintenance order from the proper judicial authority, the recipient of family maintenance would simply have to register with the appropriate Minister of the Crown. There would be a pension diversion which would see that the one who was not the wage earner should receive a fair proportion of the combined income. I am happy that after a long legal difficulty pension diversion is now the law of the land.
Perhaps the Minister of Justice could tell us if he could get the word across to judges that they should stop allotting maintenance orders in dollar terms. If inflation continues, and there is not much indication it will slow down, especially with this spendthrift Government, it will become quite unfair for a person with an $800 pension to have $200 allotted as maintenance to the spouse who has been faulted in the marriage. Then, after a few years of indexation, the wage earner is getting, say, $1,200 a month and the abandoned wife, we will say, is still getting the same $200. These awards have to be granted on a percentage basis so that when an allocation is made at 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 40 per cent, or whatever, the percentage holds, and, as inflation goes on, the pension cheque goes up accordingly. I think that is only fair.
There was a recommendation on page 25 of the discussion paper which stated that recommendations not included in the Bill are:
-being considered by both federal and provincial governments, including the possibility of creating a central registry in which all maintenance and custody orders would be filed and the possibility of allowing access to information contained in Government files relevant to location of a debtor.
There is a variety of statistics to tell us how many of these maintenance orders are being ignored. The figures I usually hear run from around 65 per cent to 85 per cent. Indeed, many settlements are made in divorces with, let us say, the husband-it could be the other way around-agreeing that he will pay a certain amount. He bargains to keep that amount low on threat of leaving the province, in which case the spouse will never collect a cent. Therefore, the wronged one will say, "I will take it if you will pay it", if the husband stays in the province and the wife has some hope of collecting. However, if the husband decides he will live in another province, the possibility of collecting becomes exceedingly remote.
I spoke to the Attorney General of British Columbia about this matter who said that he would certainly extend his co-operation to having this kind of legislation enacted with a central registry established in which these maintenance orders would be filed and the money collected. That would be done federally. However, you would need the co-operation of all the provinces. I hope the Minister of Justice will do his best to get that co-operation, which I believe is there. I do not think any country can be happy with the fact that in the judicial system, of which we are quite proud, 84 per cent, even if it is 65 per cent of the people who are ordered by a judge to make payments, laugh at the court order and go off to another province and leave their former partner behind.
I do not propose to go on any further in debating this Bill. I hope there will be an opportunity to amend it in committee. As one final note, let me point out that working paper No. 13 of
April 9, 1984

the Law Reform Commission, whose reports I believe received acclaim and support in all corners of the House, had this to say at page 34 regarding matrimonial offences:
-serious hardship would be suffered if matrimonial offences were abolished as grounds for divorce and no petition could be entertained unless the spouses had been separated for a lengthy period of time.
This recommendation is one totally ignored by the Minister of Justice. I feel that the Law Reform Commission had a good case to make, as did the National Women's Association, about the incompetence of the drafters of this Bill, who, I suppose, were not adverse, in an attempt to make fine points, to muddifying the entire proceedings of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten minute period for questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify one misunderstanding and then ask a couple of questions. The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) mentioned the position of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and its criticism of the Bill, particularly with regard to maintenance. That has been the main criticism. He mentioned the elimination of fault as harming a woman's bargaining power. However, the National Action Committee did not recommend that fault be introduced; indeed, it supports marriage breakdown as the sole cause for divorce. What the National Action Committee did advocate is that there be very effective collection machinery for maintenance orders and that there be very clear criteria setting out the equal financial responsibity and other responsibilities for child care and support.
The Hon. Member showed a great deal of sympathy for the situation of women who do not get their maintenance orders paid. Would he be very specific and advocate equal splitting of pensions on marriage and divorce? Specifically, would he advocate the use of federal data banks for the location of defaulters on maintenance, going into a central registry which we know he supports? Does he support the interception of federal moneys for the collection of maintenance orders?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) stopped where she did, because I lost track of the first two or three questions. In brief, 1 have the same feeling as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. According to my records, it is concerned about the elimination of fault grounds. I would not say that the committee wanted it to be changed from the legalistic viewpoint. As far as maintenance orders being satisfied by pension deductions are concerned, I certainly indicated by my attitude during the debate on Bill C-38 that I was very strongly in favour of that. In fact, I do not know how often I raised it in the House. I expect that it was half a dozen times. The Minister of Justice could certify as to the delay there was on the diversion of pensions to satisfy court orders.
Divorce Act
I do not think we should say to judges that they must divide it 50-50. Indeed a judge might want to divide it 75-25, with 75 going to the female spouse. It is up to the judges to decide what proportion it should be. I am in agreement with satisfying court orders. It is judges not parliamentarians who listen to individual cases. I suppose there is an infinite number of different cases, different blames and different incomes.
It is reasonable to add up the income a person has or is likely to have, add the two totals together and divide it in half. Unless someone can think of a better scheme, that would be very rough justice, I assume. It is the role of judges in matters such as that to try to come up with an equitable solution.
I have no hang-ups about having it collected from their pay, but getting into data banks to trace them would mean that we would get into a sensitive area where people do not want to have their incomes registered, their tax returns made public or anyone else having access to the information. If we could do it and still manage to stay within the Privacy Act, I would not mind particularly. I do not have strong feelings on that particular question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: For questions, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in having my colleague's comments on the broad question of justice in the situation where the wife has oftentimes educated her husband, stayed home, raised four or five children and then finds herself at the age of 50 years with her husband having left for another woman, invariably a younger woman. The current Bill on no fault lets that man, after one year, get out of the marriage with no adequate provisions with respect to maintenance. Indeed, the current formation of the Bill would indicate that the judge has to insist that the woman become self-sufficient within three years. That somehow seems unjust to me. Why cannot there be a provision in the Bill where fault can be raised in legitimate cases as opposed to the total no fault position? Would the Hon. Member give me his sense of what is just as between men and women in that circumstance?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all have experience from constituents who have written to us with problems. For example, there is the woman who has educated her husband and then he wants to run off with a younger woman. Of course he has missed something in his education and does not appreciate older women the way he should, but I suppose it is a fact of life that often happens. In cases like that, particularly if the woman is at an age at which it would be difficult for her to learn any technological trade or skill, she should not have placed on her a three-year limit to be re-educated to do something she never expected to do in her life. The man who takes off for the attraction of some other woman and leaves behind his responsibilities is not acting in a fair manner at all. I believe that in such circumstances the woman has a good case to make for the fact that she will probably be at a low-income level without maintenance for the rest of her days.

April 9, 1984
Divorce Act
As I said earlier in my remarks, no one is better off as a result of a divorce. It simply costs far more for a threesome m be involved than it does for a twosome, particularly if a home has been established with all the ancillary things which go along with it. It is a tragedy that the old standards seem to have been ignored or forgotten. Often those who think they are getting away with something by living a new life or a new lifestyle find out that they have missed something pretty precious.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: For questions, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties I have had in coping with legislation in this place has been the whole area of the language of legislation. It tends to get more complicated as the years go by and therefore more undiscernible and undecipherable to most people. I can accept that every Bill with which we deal always comes before us at the outset with a list of definitions of terms. The purpose of that is to make the legislation as precise as possible so that those affected by the legislation, the practitioners and the lawyers who deal with it, can be as precise as possible in narrowing it down to the finest point so that nothing is left to the imagination. It is the opposite of generalization. It is precision. Yet, in this bill we have the term "marriage breakdown", which is about as encompassing a term as can be. Lawyers who practise the art of precision in most cases want the language to be as precise as possible so that there is no opportunity for elaboration, misconstruction or misapplication. In this Bill the term is as general as possible, with an umbrella definition as to why it is possible. What does the Hon. Member think about this digression from the principle of precision in this legislation to one of generalization?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Marriage breakdown is defined by one year's separation.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The Minister of Justice just said, "Marriage breakdown is defined by one year's separation." He is just showing the idiocy of that attitude. He would have been much wiser to say nothing, and we would not have known that he held that opinion of marriage breakdown in the English language.


Mark R. MacGuigan: It is in the Act.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Marriage breakdown can happen for a dozen different reasons, or maybe a thousand different reasons, one being that the personalities clash day in and day out, another being a misdemeanour of one or the other parties. A group of lawyers say that marriage breakdown means living separately for one year; of course during World War II we would have lost 700,000 marriages. They would have gone down the tube with this legislation because couples were separated.


Mark R. MacGuigan: That is not separate and apart-


Allan Bruce McKinnon: That is separated for one year and that is how a marriage breakdown is defined.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I am sorry to advise the Hon. Member that the ten minutes for questions and answers has expired.



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 Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain)-Labour Conditions (a) Youth unemployment levels. (b) Criteria applicable to youth employment fund; the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper)-Employment- Program expenditures made by Canada Post Corporation; the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky)- Income Tax (a) Expense deductions for volunteer firemen, (b) Increase sought.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacGuigan that Bill C-10, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on Bill C-10, an Act to amend the Divorce Act. This Act is important both to thousands of individuals and to society as a whole. Perhaps it would be helpful if I clarified the perspective from which I speak. It might illustrate the evolution of the views in our society.
As a small child, I remember hearing whispered comments about a certain woman being divorced, implying that divorce was not something people talked about, at least not out loud. There was a whiff of scandal about it.
During the 1950s, I remember divorce becoming a subject for farce. About the only way people could obtain a divorce was to prove adultery. On one hand, there was the situation where aggrieved spouses hired private detectives to follow their partners, break in on them with flashbulbs and witnesses in an
April 9, 1984

attempt to get evidence that the partners were having an illicit relationship. On the other hand, there were couples who very much wanted a divorce. Therefore, they had to obtain the necessary grounds. They would hire professional correspondents to go to a hotel room with one or the other. They would get partially undressed and wait patiently for the private detective, hired in advance, to burst in and take a picture. That picture provided the necessary evidence of adultery so that a divorce could be obtained.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, two Members of our Party, Frank Howard and Arnold Peters, forced changes in the Quebec divorce law by insisting on debating every single divorce that came before this House. Quebec divorces at that time could be gained only through an Act of Parliament.
As a United Church clergyman, I have officiated at hundreds of weddings. I must admit that I do not always feel very good when I look back on my performance and participation. I see young people and some not so young rushing into marriage with little or no understanding of what was involved. Counselling did not always seem to help very much. I explained to them that the wedding service takes place on at least four levels.
First, the wedding service is a legal procedure involving a marriage licence issued by the province, official witnesses and a clergyman who is licensed by the province. There is a formal registration and a full body of law attached to marriage so that after the wedding service people have a different legal status than before. On the second level, it is a social affair. People usually have some kind of reception. They invite their family, friends and sometimes the community, in recognition of the fact that society as a whole is involved in the wedding. Third, because they come to a clergyman, the wedding service is also a worship service. The couple acknowledge the presence of God as they make their vows, asking God's blessing upon their marriage. Finally, and most important, the wedding service is a very personal affair where two people make vows and a commitment to each other.
When this personal dimension changes, we have divorce. When we try to undo the legal entanglement from the first level, we have all the problems. The American writer Peter DeVries talked about some churches which he said were so modern that they made divorce almost a sacrament. The United Church is not like that, but we do recognize situations where the marriage relationship has broken down to such an extent that divorce becomes the most creative possibility. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) said that there is no such thing as creative divorce. He might have to admit that in some situations divorce would be the most creative possibility that a couple could face.
I am reminded of the situation in which a traditional set of parents were confronted by one of their children who wanted to obtain a divorce. The parents asked why he wanted a divorce. He said "Because we are not happy". The parents asked, "Who is happy? Do you think your mother and I have been happy all these years? Yet we stayed together".
Divorce Act
I am not sure that that attitude toward marriage and divorce is very helpful. It is good that we have moved beyond the hyprocrisy of talking about divorce in hushed terms of scandal. It is good that we have moved beyond the fifties farce of private eyes and make-believe adultery. It is good that this Government has brought in legislation making marriage breakdown the only grounds for divorce.
The March, 1984 Canadian Churchman contained an editorial pointing out some of the problems with the present situation. It said, and I quote:
And the procedure now laid down by the Divorce Act is a legalistic, expensive and often humiliating experience for the couple and children involved. It is grounded upon an adversarial stance, presents grounds for divorce in the worst possible way and gives new light to old hurts.
Children often become pawns at the hands of one parent or another . .. Routine, uncontested divorce proceedings now cost between $700 and $1,000.
These costs should be cut by one-third to one-half if the proposed reforms are approved.
However, their value should extend far beyond the economic saving to the parties concerned.
They should eliminate the need for a child to go into a courtroom to testify against one or other of the parents. Such cases are traumatic for children, but sometimes necessary under the current law.
Most divorces are painful enough without one partner having to prove that the other was at fault. There are probably situations where one partner is clearly at fault, but it has been my experience that in most relationships fault or blame is not a helpful concept. The New Democratic Party has been calling for no-fault divorce since 1967 when it passed a resolution to that effect.
After divorce, most couples have to find some modus ope-randi. If there are children, there are visiting rights and access. The less hurt, the better. To focus on the whole idea of where blame should be assigned or who is at fault is not helpful in this context. Consequently, we support the provisions of this Bill that make no-fault divorce possible, even though the Conservative Party seems to stumble over that phrase.
Unfortunately, the failure of this Bill to deal with the question of maintenance makes it impossible for us to support the Bill. The Bill ignores the complex nature of marriage and suggests that divorce is simply a matter of two people cutting their losses while the band plays thanks for the memories, no tears, no fuss, hurrah for us.
There is the matter of maintenance payments, which cannot be ignored. More than one-half of all divorces involve children, and in 85 per cent of divorces involving children, the mother gets custody. Mothering traditionally takes the woman out of the labour force for a number of years. As a result, a divorced woman with children either has no outside job or one with a very limited income. It is known to all Members of the House that, on average, women earn only 60 per cent of the average male income. This has a direct relationship to divorce because 45 per cent of all single-parent families headed by women live under the poverty line. For women with children, divorce is too often a shortcut to poverty. This is also the case with the 10 per cent of divorced women over 50 who have been homemak-

April 9, 1984
Divorce Act
ers most of their lives and have no skills, no jobs and very few prospects.
At various times the House has been concerned about the situation of Indian women who marry non-Indian men. This situation becomes particularly acute in the case of divorce because, under Section 12( 1 )(b) of the Act, these women have lost their status as Indians and do not even have the right to go back to their traditional home.
It is important that the House recognize the fact that no-fault divorce does not mean divorce without consequences. It does not mean divorce without economic consequences. At present, women must bear a very disproportionate share of those consequences. Maintenance orders are widely disregarded and more than 70 per cent of such orders are in arrears.
There may be some cases in which a man's economic circumstances make it impossible for him to make support payments that have been ordered, but in most cases I suspect that it is a matter of attitude. Many people making support payments wonder why they should go on paying after a relationship has been terminated. They have new lives to live and new expenses and obligations. Because society does not insist upon the enforcement of maintenance payments, 70 per cent of maintenance orders simply go by the wayside. This attitude on the part of many divorced men may be understandable, but it is not acceptable. However, this Bill does nothing to deal with that problem. Bill C-10 walks away from the problem and lacks adequate provisions to ensure support payments.
Clause 10 of Bill C-10 adds a new Section 12.1(1) to the Divorce Act. It sets out the objectives for maintenance orders. That clause reads in part that these orders should:
-be designed, in so far as is practicable, to
-(c) relieve any economic hardship that the court exercising jurisdiction to
make or vary the order determines to be grave;-
What does relieving grave economic hardship mean? If, for example, a woman had been married to a well-paid professional and is forced to take a job at the lower end of the pay scale, would her situation be one of grave economic hardship or would it simply be another factor to which she had to adjust? Part (d) of the clause indicates that an order should be designed to:
-assist adjustment to economic self-sufficiency by either of the spouses within a reasonable time of the making of any such order for maintenance of the spouse.
What is a reasonable time, Mr. Speaker? We do not know, and of course it varies from situation to situation. In many cases the economic climate of a country or province can vary over a period of two or three years. If a court order was made to provide for maintenance payments over a three-year period, as has been suggested, and then the economic climate changed so that prospects for economic self-sufficiency that previously existed were no longer possible, then there would be no recourse but to go back to the court to get a new court order. The Act contains very inadequate provisions to enforce maintenance payments.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while our Party supports and likes the no-fault provisions within this Act, we are completely unsatisfied with its shortcomings regarding maintenance. On that basis, we are asking the Minister to withdraw the Bill and bring it back with adequate provisions for the enforcement of maintenance payments.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the speech of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) because I have known him intermittently over many years. I was glad that he focused on the matter of maintenance and the problems that this Bill creates for those people who would be at an incredible disadvantage as a result of this legislation. Therefore, I am happy for small mercies and am glad that members of the NDP are fighting this Bill, even if it is only on that one point. It is a very important point and I do not mean to diminish its importance.
I also noted with great interest that the Hon. Member referred to himself as being an ordained minister. I suspect that at the many weddings at which he has officiated over the years, if he has used the traditional service, he has usually ended with the statement: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder". Now he is saying that he, as a member of his caucus, supports no-fault divorce. I am interested in the tension that that creates between the absolute statement he has made in those vows and the relative position that he has adopted in the law. I am wondering if the law takes precedence over what he said in marriage ceremonies.
I am even more fascinated by a statement of his which I wrote down very carefully. If I am wrong, I hope he corrects me but I think he said: "Fault or blame is not an interesting concept". I did not know that whether or not fault or blame is interesting was a matter of discussion. I thought we were dealing with whether it is fact or not. If the Hon. Member, in his application of social, emotional, psychological or spiritual principles, wishes to avoid the discussion of fault or blame so that people could go on to build their lives, how does he see reconciliation taking place if there is not a discussion and acknowledgement of fault or blame?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta, brought up a number of interesting points. First, he referred to the marriage service statement: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder". We in the United Church usually use non-sexist language wherever possible.


Benno Friesen: You are marrying two sexes.


James Douglas Manly: Yes, that is true. We are marrying two sexes. However, if we are going to get into a theological debate, I believe that the Scriptures themselves talk about divorce as being something that is related to human failures. I suppose that in every divorce there is a human failure of some kind. I think the Hon. Member himself admits the need at times for divorce. How is this put asunder in his mind? I think he takes a much more rigid view of the Scriptures than I do, and I would be interested to see how he reconciles that particular
April 9, 1984

view. 1 see this question as being one of dealing with the fact of the failure of relationships.
I intended to say that fault or blame is not a helpful concept. If I said that fault or blame is not an interesting concept, of course I was quite wrong. It is a very interesting concept. Whenever I counselled a couple with problems, I was very interested in the whole question of who was at fault and who was to blame. However, that was not helpful. It was helpful for the couple to see that their relationship had reached a certain point. Perhaps it had not reached the point of absolute breakdown but it had reached a point where certain actions had to be taken. Maybe the action taken would be one of reconciliation, but maybe the point had been reached where the most helpful solution would be to simply acknowledge that they had reached the point of complete breakdown and the most helpful action would be to separate and indeed to have a divorce. It is on that basis that I say it is not helpful to assign blame.
I do not think that as a general rule assigning blame has ever led to reconciliation. Sometimes it is helpful if I, as one of the people involved, accept blame that attaches to me. If I go into a situation where there is a dispute between myself and another person, however, I do not think it is helpful for me to try to put blame on that person, nor do I think it is helpful for the law to try to put blame or fault or another person.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the Hon. Member that I did not invoke the Scriptures; I could easily have done so but I did not. I was referring to his own statement that he had officiated at many marriages.
I would like the Hon. Member to define the second point more clearly. 1 am not talking about blame, I am talking about fault. I make distinction between blame and fault. Talking about blame brings us into a pejorative and accusatory atmosphere, and it is not my intention to invoke that kind of pejorative atmosphere. My concern is that we have a healthgiving atmosphere. If we talk about blame we will get into that kind of atmosphere, but if we talk about fault then we can examine it. Surely the emotions are not involved with fault as they are with blame.
I should like the Hon. Member to make the distinction. I thought he was using terms very loosely and I should like him to clarify whether he sees a distinction between fault and blame.


James Douglas Manly: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there is a distinction, but in the way I was using the words I think they both apply. I would ask how the courts can determine fault if they do not have some process? Very often that process become pejorative where one person blames another. The court also assigns blame along with assigning fault.
The whole history of our divorce courts is one where people try to assign blame to one another. If the Hon. Member wants to quibble with the word "fault" or have a no-blame divorce, that is fine with me. I would be glad if he would accept a no-blame divorce.
Divorce Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If there are no further questions or comments, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) to continue debate.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I consider this to be one of the most important debates in which we have engaged in the House of Commons, one which certainly involves some long overdue reform. On the other hand, we are faced with a Bill that raises some very, very major reservations on the part of many of us on this side of the House.
When the Bill has been before the House, a number of Members have commented that it is a sad fact that in Canada today over 40 per cent of marriages end in divorce. This figure represents something like 70,000 divorces per year. That figure is growing and is twice the number of 10 years ago.
Perhaps more important, however, than the increasing number of divorces is the fact that 50 per cent of divorcing couples have dependent children, many of whom are put to unnecessary suffering due to the adversarial or confrontational nature of divorce.
That there is a pressing need to reform and humanize the current divorce law cannot be denied. What has to be highlighted and brought to the attention of every Member of the House is that what is unacceptable is the very superficial and simplistic approach to divorce that Bill C-10 brings to the subject.
One cannot really expect legislation to be accepted on the basis of slogans or popular headlines. It is great to see something like "No Fault Divorce" in headlines, but beyond the headlines and slogans one has to consider the heartache and frustration and pain that accompanies the breakdown of marriage.
The press release that accompanied the Bill when it was introduced in the House by the Minister said that the Bill would "-revise Canada's divorce law to make it more consistent with current social needs and realities". That would be a laudable goal. That is the way the present Bill has been sold, particularly to the media, and it has been conveyed to the people of Canada in that vein. Does that necessarily accord with the facts? Perhaps someone will stand up and say, "We took a Gallup poll on the subject across the country and 62 per cent of those polled agreed that no fault divorce was welcome. A shorter time period and fewer reasons for divorce are acceptable because 62 per cent of the Canadian public said so".


Mark R. MacGuigan: It was 64 per cent.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I stand corrected; the Minister says 64 per cent. I should like to know whether 64 per cent of the people who replied have actually read the Bill. Have they looked beyond the headlines and the slogans to what is actually in the Bill? I suggest that the other 36 per cent, those who did not accept it so easily, are the people who have probably

April 9, 1984
Divorce Act
read the Bill and looked at the fine print, the clauses and the deficiencies of the Bill.
Let me give some examples of people who have objected to the legislation. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, is an umbrella organization which encompasses 260 women's organizations from coast to coast and represents millions of women. It responded to the new legislation as follows:
Instead of improving the terrible situation of the victims of divorce such as mothers of young children and older housewives, it would worsen it by reducing their already meagre bargaining power while giving them nothing at all in exchange.
That is the reaction of the spokespersons for the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
Other groups looked at the Bill and almost immediately after studying it voiced their objection. One such group was the Government's own Advisory Council on the Status of Women. It complained about the Bill, saying that it poses a threat to women and children involved in divorce proceedings. The council talked about a threat, and I think it is to this threat that we should address our remarks. We should determine why the council considered certain parts of the Bill a threat to wives and children. I hope that if we look at it from that point of view, we may get members of the Government to see that the need for divorce reform has to be examined through the eyes of the victims and not through the eyes of a Minister. He may think this is a very progressive piece of legislation which he can perhaps use to further his leadership drive. It is the people involved in divorce who should be able to offer some comment. That is the reason that many people who have already been through that traumatic situation object to this Bill.
I want to go further and illustrate why it is that so many women's organizations have in fact been so critical of this Bill and have labelled it as doing great injustice to women and children. Let me provide a few vital background statistics which point out just how badly the present system works. Only when the current danger is known do the difficulties this Bill presents become even clearer.
Sir, today, in 85 per cent of all cases of divorce, the mother is granted custody of the children. Not only has she the responsiblity of raising the children, she also has the responsibility of providing for them financially as well as supporting them morally, since in most cases child support is rarely paid, if at all. That is one of the greatest tragedies in the many divorces which have taken place. In fact, five years after divorce, only one in four families gets child support. That is all. I have said that in 85 per cent of divorces the mother has the responsibility for her children; only one of four of those cases receives any kind of support after five years. In Ontario alone an incredible $85 million is in arrears at the present time. Overall, 75 per cent of all maintenance orders do not get paid. Ten per cent of all divorcing wives, Sir, are over the age of 50 years. That is the figure for last year. These are people who, by and large, have spent most of their adult lives working
full time in the home. As a result of their assumption of the primary responsibility for the household and child rearing, these women have become financially dependent upon their husbands and they have lost career opportunities which they might otherwise have had. In other words, what happens is that these women-and I am speaking now of those who have been divorced at over the age of 50-are left with very little, and they are probably the most vulnerable group in society in the case of a divorce.
In the face of these very sobering statistics, Mr. Speaker, what do we have? We have the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) proposing this Bill to the House of Commons and encouraging all Members to support it. Well, some of these proposals he puts forward are long overdue, and I can list a number of them that I want to see passed. But there are other aspects of the Bill which are only going to worsen an already bad situation. That is the last thing we should want to do, make matters worse for those who are indeed most vulnerable.
Much of the problem we have in this regard, at least I have myself, is to give a concept of a blanket approach to no-fault divorce. In an effort to streamline legal proceedings, the only grounds for divorce would be a one-year separation period. This may be acceptable in uncontested cases, and I do not have any difficulty with that whatsoever. But by no means at all am I sure that fault should be entirely eliminated. In the case of cruelty or desertion, a 12-month waiting period could be quite undesirable. One might want to have a divorce brought about sooner than that. Fault would also play a crucial role in the establishment of property and financial settlements.
I see you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member.




[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 amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the deferred division of Bill C-3, an Act relating to cash contributions by Canada in respect of insured
April 9, 1984

Public Service
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.
Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but it is now six o'clock."]
Mr. Speaker:: Shall all orders and items preceding item No. 48 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved: that Bill C-230, an Act respecting the appointment of deputy, associate deputy and assistant deputy minister, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: with the little time left, I know there will be a lot of approval for this legislation that I am putting before the House. I recognize that it may not be necessary for Private Member's Business to take up the full hour allowed, and I am anticipating that there will be a chance for this Bill to go on to Committee for further study. I think it is necessary for the House to legitimize what is happening by practice with deputy

April 9, 1984
Public Service
ministers at this time. It is also essential that we take a long look at what is happening in the Public Service with the appointments of associate and assistant deputy ministers.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) has the floor.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The purpose of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is to standardize the method of appointment and tenure of senior officers of the Public Service and to tie their appointments to the duration of a Parliament. The Public Service would thereby be more accountable to the Government of the day and to the electorate. That, in effect, is saying that we should make sure that senior public servants hold the same political beliefs as the government in power and as the Ministers. If governments were to change more often than they have in the past, you would find that the principles on which the government is elected and the policies by which it has come into office would be the same as those of the senior public servants whom it has appointed. Those senior public servants would then be in charge of making sure that the Bills and other pieces of legislation that have passed this House are put into practice by the Public Service.
If one looks at what has happened in the last number of years, one will find that legislation is now being passed that gives more and more discretion to the Public Service and to the Governor in Council. No Minister can keep up with making sure that everything that is passed by this House is being put in place by the Public Service in the method in which this House or the government wishes. It is important that Ministers have the chief people in the public service using the same methodology as those people who have been put into power.
We now have the problem of having permanent political public servants at top levels of government. Because we have had in effect one-Party rule since 1963, elected officials and appointed senior bureaucrats play a similar role. I use as an example the deputy minister of national revenue who was on television defending the Government for practices which it had put in place. Also we have the deputy minister of agriculture making a speech on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and in effect assuming his role. Therefore, the political effect of those at senior levels is the same as that of Ministers. There are approximately 45 deputy ministers and between 250 and 300 assistant deputy ministers. The Minister's office has become a back door for higher public servants. They are not appointed on the merit system. Rather than doing what is being done now and saying that it is not in effect, we ought to legitimize the process.
The Minister needs a small loyal staff who can administer his Department along with him. That is what we ought to provide. Bureaucracy at the highest level is being eroded of its objectivity and its professional neutrality by a tired political
executive or one that does not care and is on to other things. We must acknowledge this fact. It reminds me of a book written by Hugh Heclos entitled A Government of Strangers. He wrote, and I agree with it:
-a political appointment need not be unfilled to be functionally vacant; career officials can be found in charge where the supposed political leadership is uninterested or inept. As a former supergrade who had moved up to a presidential appointment said: In a department where there is a vacuum and only a series of transients, then the bureaucrats try to fill the vacuum. Without malice, with the best intentions in the world, people trying to fill a political vacuum can adopt some pretty unique strategies . . . arranging special trips for congressmen or upgrading their own and other people's jobs.
In effect that can happen when we ask a supposedly unpolitical Public Service to take over the job of a Minister who does not have time to administer his Department properly or is not capable of doing it. There is a need in Canada for major reform at senior levels of bureaucracy in order to facilitate the greatest degree of responsiveness between senior levels of the Public Service and newly-elected political leaders.
In some cases the transition can be smooth, Ministers and their senior deputies and assistant deputies get along well and are of the same philosophical background. In other cases there are barriers. There can be structural barriers to transition or a situation wherein a senior deputy minister has a completely different philosophy from that of his Minister and finds it very difficult to abide by what he should in fact be putting in place.
There are many things deputy ministers can do to see to it that policy is not effected. They can start by having many briefing sessions with the Minister to say that this or that is not possible. In effect, they slow down the process. They can ensure that all correspondence going through the Department is routed through the Minister's office. They can exaggerate the time frames within which things can or cannot be done. They can see to it that there is a lack of money in the budget to adopt new approaches which the Minister or the Government wishes to put in place. In effect, they can indicate that there are certain ramifications as to why on a political basis something should or should not be done. There are many examples of this in history, for example, in the Province of Saskatchewan when the political change from the Liberal Party to the CCF occurred. This can be documented as actually having taken place. When political policymakers come head to head with bureaucratic personnel who can influence policy, they simply withhold information or ideas, change them or forcefully present conflicting proposals to the Minister.
When government is growing there is a greater amount of decision-making conferred on departmental management. This really raises the question of who has the power-who is the master and who is the servant. We see a majority of Bills which are now conferring discretion on departmental management. They are attributable to present government philosophy. The Government has remained in power for a long period of time. Effectively there has not been a change since 1963. Because of this fact, the executive and legislative functions of Government have become very closely meshed.

April 9, 1984

At the present time deputy ministers are appointed at the pleasure of the Government, so they can be removed. When a deputy minister has held his position for a long time, it is very difficult to fire him. When there is a change and a new government is in place, the resignations of all deputy ministers should follow. The legislation says that it is at the pleasure of Parliament. Then there are some 300 assistant deputy ministers who simply cannot be removed. Even if they do not agree with the philosophy of government, they remain in place. Their position in government is that they are supposed to offer continued advice and guidance on matters of high policy. They are to be program specialists and technical people. They are to be very efficient in allowing the Minister to make decisions. Ministers, deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers who have been working together for a long period of time often find that they ask those people to come forward with public policy. When a person has brought forward a policy position which his Minister has put in place, and then a new government comes into power and wants to throw out that policy, that public servant will be very reluctant to allow it to happen and perhaps will put various obstacles in the way so that it cannot come about. This Bill would allow a government coming into office to make changes at the most senior levels.
Some concern has been expressed that if that were the case there would be no office within the Public Service toward which public servants could work to attain. That office now is that of assistant deputy minister. We should make the top job in the Public Service that of director general. The salary of that person should be elevated to a level that would encourage public servants moving through the system to attain it. The difference in salary should be such that persons would try to move up to the top job. As well we would find that technical people trying to get information to their Minister would not have to run the gamble of going through the assistant deputy minister and then the deputy minister. Often it is the case that people say it is impossible to get information through their deputy ministers to their Ministers because deputy ministers or assistant deputy ministers do not want their Ministers to feel they are not in touch with everything that is going on in the Department. If those people were political appointments at the top level, they would be searching for that information. They would be political people who would want to get the information out which supported the Ministers or the Government's political philosophy.
I suggest that there are six reasons why the Bill should pass. The officials, namely the deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers, and Ministers would share the same basic philosophy and, therefore, the options presented for the Minister's consideration would be consistent with his own. They would bring to the Public Service new expertise in given areas with fresh ideas and approaches.
I went to the United States to see how the system worked there. I talked to some public servants under political appointments. The chief public servant in the United States Department of the Interior said there was no difficulty with the
Public Service
system. As under-secretaries changed, they brought expertise from the outside sector. He said one under-secretary was an expert in information flows, another in computers and another in efficiencies. They brought that expertise to the Department. It was of great assistance.
He also said that when there was a particularly serious problem, they could pick the best expert in the general work area and bring him in for a period of a year or a year and a half to assist the Public Service and the Government in putting a policy in place. This would be of assistance to our Public Service in Canada. There would be new enthusiasm for ideas and approaches. It would allow the experts and technical people in the Public Service to bring their ideas forward to the Minister and to the political people in the Department. They could be analysed and possibly put into place.
Third, it would facilitate the implementation of the program on which the Party had been elected to office. In my experience in the very short period of time we were in government, this was a serious problem. This Bill would assist a government coming into power by allowing it to implement its program.
Fourth, it would reduce substantially Public Service resistance to a change in government programs or direction. One can imagine how a deputy minister or assistant deputy minister would react to the abolition of a major program they had developed. An example is the National Energy Program. If a new government wanted to abandon that program and put in place a policy that was the exact opposite, the person who developed the program might find reasons why he should not implement that quickly.
Fifth, it would provide a greater degree and recognition of the accountability that senior officials should accept for their administrative actions. When deputy or assistant deputy ministers come before a committee, Members often cannot get answers as to why policies are in place, why policies have not been put into place or why they are in place in the manner in which they are. The deputy or assistant deputy minister constantly say that you can only ask the Minister. It is the deputy and assistant deputy ministers who often put the policies in place and it should be they who answer the questions. If this Bill were accepted, they could answer for the Minister. They would be an extension of the political arm of the Party.
Last, it would reduce to a minimum clashes between the administrative and legislative arms of Government. When a government is elected by the people with its program, it should be allowed to put that program in place as quickly as possible. Allowing the Government to choose its senior public servants would enhance that ability.
Some may ask how we could implement this program with what is now in place. They say it would put possibly 300 people out of a job. I do not suggest that would happen. Many assistant deputy ministers would stay on because they are very capable and helpful. There are ways of doing this. We now have in place the executive interchange program. It allows people to come into the Public Service through sponsors. We have the use of service contracts and options such as term employment. It is essential to ensure that people who come

April 9, 1984
Public Service
into the Public Service can bring their pensions with them and take them when they leave. That may mean more use of the Registered Retirement Savings Programs.
These are some reasons why I believe this legislation has a lot of merit. It should be considered and discussed. A government coming into being would have a lot less difficulty dealing with the senior managers in the Public Service with this kind of legislation in place. The problem of not being able to get along with a deputy or assistant deputy minister would not exist. At present the cannot be fired or asked to leave. What happens is that he is shuffled aside and given mediocre tasks. He still receives the same salary, a salary not comparable to the duties he is asked to perform. That is not fair to the taxpayers of this country. With this legislation in place, those coming into the senior levels of the Public Service would know that they would have a duration of office of four years or less, and there would be no difficulty with a change of government.
This House should seriously discuss the pros and cons of a Bill such as this. I commend the Bill to Members of this House for debate and I ask them to look seriously at what it offers.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill under consideration is somewhat of a surprise to me. The purpose of Bill C-230 introduced by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) can be surprising to anyone who has been working with federal public servants for 12 years and who wants to understand the importance and especially the difficulties inherent in so large and complex a system as that of the Public Service of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am very much in favour of making our Public Service accountable. I am convinced that Members on both sides of the House are prepared to support any new and worthwhile measure designed to make the Public Service of Canada more responsible. What amazes me, however, is the suggestion made in Bill C-230 as to the means deemed appropriate to achieve accountability.
The purpose of Bill C-230 introduced by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin is, and I quote the explanatory note:
The purpose of this Bill is to standardize the method of appointment and tenure of the senior officers of the Public Service and to tie their appointments to the duration of a parliament. The public service would thereby be more accountable to the government of the day and to the electorate.
Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that this Bill is somewhat of a surprise to me. I should have said that it is a big surprise to me. First, here is the way to standardize the method of appointment, as proposed: all appointments of senior officials would be made by order in council, in other words, by the Cabinet. The Bill does not refer to regular staff; it refers to deputy heads, more commonly known as deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers. It refers as well to the deputy head and the chief executive officer of organizations, boards, agencies and other bodies, since this Bill, as explained in Clause 1, applies to any
organization listed in Schedule I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act of Canada.
What we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, is the entire senior management of the main body responsible for the administration and the policies of most of the Government. Before going any further, Mr. Speaker, let us consider more closely the current situation and the practical consequences of the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin.
First, the deputy ministers-about 40 of them-are now appointed by the Governor in Council, which means the Cabinet, and their responsibilities, powers and authority are implicitly and explicitly defined in agreements and legislation such as the Acts to establish the Departments, the Interpretation Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Public Service Employment Act of Canada and the Official Languages Act. Their responsibilities are clearly defined. As to the associate deputy ministers, at least nine, the situation is somewhat different since there are two categories: those who are appointed pursuant to the Acts to establish the Departments and whose responsibilities, powers and attributions are set forth in those Acts-there are four now, only four that. . . And I will name them: the Department of Justice Act, the Department of Labour Act, the National Defence Act, and the Employment and Immigration Department Act. In those cases, appointments are made by the Governor in Council. The appointments of the other associate deputy ministers are made differently, mostly under the Public Service Employment Act by the Commission itself, that is the Public Service Commission of Canada. It should be noted that the appointments of deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers are made by the Governor in Council and revocable at pleasure. Let us consider the status of associate deputy ministers. There are many of them, exactly 282. The assistant deputy ministers make up the largest group and are appointed under the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act and, of course, according to the merit principle. In practice, what does that proposal mean? With respect to the deputy ministers and some associate deputy ministers, it means that from now on their appointment will not be revocable at pleasure but that their term of office will be set. Under the bill, such a term of office would coincide with the duration of a Parliament. Secondly, with respect to the appointment of associate and assistant deputy ministers under the Public Service Employment Act, it is suggested not only that their type of appointment should be changed but that they also be subjected to a set term of office; they would therefore become term employees.
Mr. Speaker, the bill which was introduced today by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin is aimed above all at standardizing the appointment procedures and the terms of office of those officials so that the Public Service of Canada would not have to be more accountable to the government and the
April 9, 1984

electorate. It would provide for a term of office which would have nothing to do with the efficiency of the individual.
Mr. Speaker, I do not see many advantages but some serious implications in such a simplification. Firstly, let us deal with the serious implications. What will happen when, all of a sudden, the senior executives, the administrators who make the wheels of the organization turn, all leave at the same time because their term of office has come to an end? The Government is anything but a small business. It is a major system which needs some continuity and stability, and when there is a change of Government, it is the senior public servants who must provide the continuity required for an effective and healthy management of the country's business.
We just have to recall the criticism to be found in the Lambert Report, this famous report on accountability and financial management, to the effect that Deputy Ministers are changed much too frequently, a fact which affects efficiency and is of course reflected on the organization itself. What the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) is suggesting is not a change in Deputy Ministers with each new Parliament, but a change which would affect all senior public servants, all the heads of the Government organization. This could do serious damage, Mr. Speaker. I find it difficult to believe that such action would make the Canadian Public Service more accountable to the Government and the Canadian public, when all the agencies and services serving the public would be seriously affected during the period of transition at the end of each Parliament.
If we were to implement such a legislation, Mr. Speaker, we would not be more accountable to the voting public, but we would be acting irresponsibly and neglecting the voters. The public would be the first to suffer. These periods of hesitation and uncertainty will only affect the quality of the services provided to the public. In addition, the Hon. Member seems to forget that, at the level of the individuals themselves, whose terms of office would end with each change of government, such a system could and certainly would affect the morale, the motivation, the commitment and the work of these senior public servants, because they would no longer be in a position to guarantee the effectiveness of Government programs and policies. I am not speaking about partisan policies, but about policies and objectives set by the Government in the interests of the Canadian public.
1 also believe that this proposal would be a serious hindrance to the career of these senior public servants.
Mr. Speaker, we must not delude ourselves, and I want to point out in passing, that it is because Deputy Ministers were appointed by the Governor-in-Council that the public service has often been accused of political bias. What is now being suggested is that the list of politically-oriented public servants should also include the Assistant Deputy Ministers and all the senior public servants who are responsible for Government management and policies.
Public Service
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this would be going a bit too far. Apparently, Bill C-230 tends to make Canadian public servants more accountable to the Government and the voting public. Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to see how these changes could make the Canadian Public Service more accountable. These last few years, I have seen many initiatives taken by this Government to make the Canadian Public Service more accountable. I have supported them as their purpose really was to bring about improvements. Their objectives were valid and practical. I am afraid that the purpose of this Bill might be somewhat fictitious.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this concept of accountability and ask my colleagues to ponder over it. I ask them to muse over this basic principle with which you are yourself quite familiar, Mr. Speaker, because you sat with me on the Special Committee in 1977 and 1978, when we considered this matter. All these systems tend to be more effective and require greater efficiency on the part of our public servants.
Mr. Speaker, in our parliamentary system in Canada, and this cannot be compared with the American system as the two are quite different, the concept of accountability to the public, the Government and Parliament, within the law, has been the subject of much attention for many years. First, there was the Glassco Commission, then, more recently, the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, better known as the Lambert Commission. This was only four or five years ago. We received the report of this Commission in the House in 1979, four years ago. All the Hon. Members will recall that enormous efforts were made by the Government to implement the recommendations contained in this report. The managerial practices have been reviewed and amended to ensure that the highest level of government assumes its responsibilities on all fronts, in terms of operational, fiscal or human resources activities, to mention just a few.
Several reforms were implemented along the lines of the recommendations formulated by the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability. I should like to deal briefly with the changes proposed by the President of the Treasury Board around 1981, only just two years ago, based on the recommendations of the Lambert Report. According to this document, the government's proposals concerning managerial accountability were divided into seven categories, which I should like to read for the information of Hon. Members.
First, the fiscal plan; second, an orderly distribution of resources based on the fiscal plan; third, the government's accountability to Parliament; fourth, the accountability within the government; fifth, the accountability and effectiveness of financial system management; sixth, the accountability and effectiveness of human resources management; and seventh, a permanent reform strategy.
2874

April 9, 1984
Public Service
The Government has implemented the major recommendations of the Lambert Commission. I should like to give some concrete examples of these reforms.
To begin with, a new policy and expense management system which starts planning expenses from the top down by using functional envelopes and which allows a closer integration of government priorities to decision-making mechanisms which decentralize the decision-making process while taking into account the complexity of government responsibilities, and which increases the minister's input in the decisions concerning the state's planning policies and expenses.
The yearly presentation to Parliament of a Government multi-year financial plan is the basis for a healthy government management and parliamentary control over public funds. Cabinet is regaining its ability to set a ceiling on public expenditures and ensure that hundreds of departments and agencies manage their operations efficiently to make the best possible use of taxpayers' money.
These initiatives have enhanced accountability to Parliament by providing us with more useful and more specific information which allows us to better judge the importance of programs and expenditures and puts us in a better position to reach responsible decisions. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, the committees of the House can examine the specific expenditures of each Department and agency as set out in Part III of the Estimates.
I admit that we still have a long way to go. I admit, as everyone knows in the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates which I have the honour to chair, that there is still room for improvement. But we will work towards our common goal, that is to ensure a better accountability of public expenditures to Parliament, by making those books easier to understand.
In the area of personnel management accountability, there are also many substantial improvements. Thanks to a new policy on personnel management planning which integrates the development of human resources objectives in the financial plan, requirements are more easily determined and a clearly established responsibility channel is provided. This matter was also given much attention to ensure that managers themselves better understand their responsibilities. Through the development of a new management category, managers are now more aware of their duties and therefore in a better position to assume their responsibilities. In addition, these past few years, the Government has strengthened its policy on performance rating of public servants and senior officials in particular so as to ensure that the systems have not only been improved and the managers' roles clarified, but that the latter fulfill their responsibilities, account for their work, in a word, that they are accountable.
Accountability, Mr. Speaker, is an important and even vital principle within an organization such as the Government of
Canada. Let us keep in mind that it involves a professional and non-partisan commitment by senior officials. On the Government's service, senior officials and managers must, on the one hand, be aware of the various aspects of the political process and, on the other hand, remember that under the law and by tradition in this country, the Public Service must not take any political stand. If public servants are required to support and implement the policies put forward by the Government in office, they must perform their work so as to avoid being accused of partisanship neither in favour of the party in power nor against those who might disagree with the Government of the day. They must avoid any action that would deliberately favour one part at the expense of another. God knows, Mr. Speaker, that Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act is causing problems! The matter of the political involvement acceptable for public servants will have to be resolved. I call upon my colleagues to come and sit on the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. We shall discuss the matter during two hours and a half. Mr. Speaker, I see that you are about to rise, which means that I do not have time to conclude my remarks. I am sorry, I wish I could complete my speech, but I shall do it some other time.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the time available to me is very short but I should like to put a few things on the record. First of all, it seems that the kinds of problems the Hon. Member referred to would be better dealt with-if his opinion is correct, and I do not think it is-by strengthening Parliament rather than attacking a Public Service that I think gives us the best service in the world today. It is an excellent Public Service. We have an excellent structure with very good, dedicated people at the senior levels. I have always found, as I think all Ministers have, that if the Government is sure about its policy and knows where it wants to go, it will get excellent service from the Public Service. If it does not provide direction to the Public Service, however, the policy development starts to take place elsewhere-in many cases at the request of Ministers. Perhaps that service is not what Hon. Members opposite would like to see-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but it is now six o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.
April 9, 1984

Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to speak on what is likely the most important issue facing young Canadians, old Canadians, all Canadians: unemployment. Last Tuesday the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) skilfully denied the statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in Montreal when he said that the problem of youth unemployment is not a crisis and there is no danger of losing the present generation. That attitude, Mr. Speaker, ignores the stark, cold fact of youth unemployment.
Some 18.7 per cent of our youth are unemployed and that is not acceptable. Over one third of the total number of unemployed and on unemployment insurance are youth. Statistics Canada lists 536,000 Canadian youth as unemployed and another 40,000 have given up looking for jobs. Since 1980 the number of young unemployed for a year or more has risen from 42,000 to 102,000.
In the same period the number of Canadians in the 20 to 24 years age group increased by 73,000, but the number of jobs held by youth in that age bracket decreased by 96,000. The unemployment rate among youth with secondary school certificates and university degrees has almost doubled; 13 per cent in 1983 as compared to 7.8 per cent in 1981. Why send your children to university, Mr. Speaker-to join the unemployment roles?
Across Canada the youth unemployment rates are 24 per cent in B.C., over 39 per cent in Newfoundland, 26 per cent in P.E.I., 24.9 per cent in Nova Scotia, 31.2 per cent in New Brunswick, 21.6 per cent in Quebec, 17.7 per cent in Ontario, 14.7 per cent in Manitoba, 18.4 per cent in Saskatchewan and 18.4 per cent in Alberta. This is a disaster.
As was pointed out in this House, Mr. Speaker, the statistics clearly indicate a crisis and a generation adrift. If the Minister of Finance cannot see that, his vision is lacking. This all results from the chaos of Liberal economic policies. It started several years ago, but in the West we have seen policies like the National Energy Program virtually annihilate an economy. The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and the Government opposite, are ignoring the statistics. They are not talking of the youth and their parents who would be telling them what the real crisis of youth unemployment is. It is characteristic of the Government opposite to ignore the problems, to ignore the Canadian people, while it fixates on the Gallup polls.
The Government tries to divert our attention from the fact that it has run out of ideas. What the Liberal Party of Canada is, is a Liberal with Canadian tax dollars which he gives only to Liberals. The Minister of Employment and Immigration talks of new Liberalism. Where is his credibility? He was the Minister who personally administered the largest slush fund this country has ever seen, the Special Employment Initiatives
Adjournment Debate
Program. It is a disgrace that all Canadians were not allowed to share in those funds. I would like to read this quotation by the Hon. Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) in her maiden address to this House as Minister:
What is more, young people have suffered a loss of purpose and social contact... all this has been at a huge social and financial loss to all Canadians. And the result, 1 am afraid, is that too many young people have lowered their expectations, have stoppped searching for the future they want and have begun to settle for less.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that not a crisis? Is that not a lost generation, a generation adrift? This was said by a Minister in this House in contradiction to the Minister of Finance. I agree with the Minister of State for Youth. She knows of the alcoholism, crime and the suicide that afflict our youth. She understands the problems that are facing our youth. Yet she gets a paltry $150 million for youth unemployment, whereas Canadair squanders $2.1 billion.
The story of the Government, Mr. Speaker, is total devastation to our youth and they will not recognize it. We have pleaded with them. We have suggested ideas. Mr. Speaker, I plead through you that they do something about this very crucial situation.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has already indicated, he agrees with his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), that such high unemployment rates among young people are entirely unacceptable.
The federal Budget of February 1984 takes into account the fact that young people are facing serious unemployment problems in spite of improved economic conditions. Consequently, the estimates for the Youth Opportunities Fund have been increased by $150 million, which raises the total amount earmarked for employment projects intended for young people to $1.3 billion for 1984-85.
An integrated and comprehensive concept of education, proper professional training, a working experience and a balanced combination of those elements will greatly contribute to increase the labour force participation rate of young people. Moreover, the Cabinet has recently approved an additional amount of $30 million for the Summer Canada Program.
At present, the Department of Employment and Immigration has some $457.9 million for youth training, $550.3 million for the funding of direct job creation and some $150 million for youth services such as job counselling, the Outreach Program, mobility and placing.
Employment problems are particularly serious for young dropouts with inadequate schooling.
In addition, there are considerable challenges to take up in order to prepare students to enter the labour force, to restructure the educational system and put emphasis on innovative

April 9, 1984
Adjournment Debate
agreements with the private sector to ease the transition between school and the labour force.
During the 1983-1984 fiscal year, more than 2.5 millions young Canadians participated in training and job creation programs of the CEIC, and this number should increase during the coming year. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there is a program called Skill Grouth Fund jointly administered by the Federal Government and the provinces, whereby students can enrol in training courses in a great variety of new fields.
I must also indicate to my colleague that, when his Party was in power, how ever briefly, in 1979, they wanted to put an end to the job creation program for youth, and that when the Liberal Party came back to power, in February 1980, this program was offered again. So, I think that this Government has done more than any other as far as job creation is concerned, and we did it again lately, by increasing the budget of Summer-Canada for youth.


EMPLOYMENT-PROGRAM EXPENDITURES MADE BY CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the matter that I particularly wanted to raise today relates to a question I posed in the House on February 22 to the Minister responsible for the Special Employment Initiatives Program, specifically regarding Canada Post.
Under this program the Minister, through Canada Post, had budgeted some $5,575,640. Essentially what happened is that 95.7 per cent of that money ended up being spent in Liberal ridings. Only 4.3 per cent of that money was spent in ridings held by the Conservatives and absolutely nothing was spent in the ridings held by the NDP. Of course, it was not an isolated incident. The same thing happened in the Department of Communications where 64.6 per cent of the money was spent in Liberal ridings and only 28 per cent in P.C. ridings. With respect to CMHC, 89.5 per cent of that money was spent in Liberal ridings.
What made people so angry is that as one went through that program it became more and more apparent it was nothing more than a Liberal slush fund being used in the most partisan way.
The concern I have is that Canada Post has recently deferred some $35 million in capital projects right across Canada. Of course, the reason is that it is trying to save money and ensure that it does not go too far into debt. Supposedly it is trying to be austere and look after the situation. We suddenly found that this $5 million was available and was all spent in Liberal ridings. Immediately one becomes very suspicious.
I am particularly suspicious because in my riding we have a number of very serious postal concerns. The City of Grande Prairie was promised a new post office over two years ago. It
was the No. 2 priority, and in fact has moved up to the No. 1 priority in Alberta. Now there is no action. Suddenly, when funds become available, they are all spent in Liberal ridings.
How can the Minister justify that kind of action? Clearly it is an abuse of Canada Post for partisan purposes. It is an abuse of the power of the Government. It is certainly something that aggravates Canadians very much. If we look at the whole program we find that there was $184 million in the program. A mere $1.3 million of that ended up being spent in the Province of Alberta. Clearly, the Government has been very partisan in its administration of the program. It is no wonder that Albertans have not bothered to return a Liberal to the House. I doubt that they will for a very long time to come. They are sick and tired of this kind of partisan approach which the Government has used in handling government programs that are supposedly meant for the benefit of all Canadians.
I want to close my remarks by saying that we on this side of the House are extremely angered with the Government for doing that. We do not think the Minister can justify it in any honest or sincere way. The only thing we are left to believe is that it was done for partisan purposes and not in the best interests of the country, that it was an abuse of taxpayers' money to use it in such a partisan fashion.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) rose in this House on February 22, the day after the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) tabled an exhaustive list of the
50,000	job-creation projects funded by this government during the last two years. On this occasion, the Hon. Member raised the matter of the money spent by Canada Post under the Special Employment Initiatives Program, attempting to demonstrate that post office capital projects had been poorly distributed.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Peace River carefully omitted to make any serious analysis of this government's huge job-creation efforts and especially of the 50,000 projects that were implemented in all parts of this country.
Since the Hon. Member chose not to talk about it I would like to remind him that this government spent $2.5 billion for job creation in a two-year period through the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, that is, more than $1.2 billion in 1983-84 and almost $1.3 billion in 1984-85. Moreover, within the special recovery projects aimed at stimulating the economy and creating jobs, which are funded by several departments, and within various existing government programs, this government will spend another $2.4 billion during fiscal years 1983-84 and 1984-85.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a few points regarding the questions raised by the Hon. Member for Peace River concerning the so-called huge sums spent in Liberal ridings through the Canada Post Corporation. Canada Post was
April 9, 1984

advised as to the money available to stimulate the economy and create jobs through various programs, one of which being the Special Employment Initiatives Program. The Corporation prepared more than 70 projects aimed at upgrading or building post offices where needed around the country. Forty of these projects were approved and funded for a total of $5.57 million.
I should point out that this represents a small portion of the Corporation's capital expenditure projects which will amount to between $20 and $30 million in 1984-85.
Mr. Speaker, concerning the Special Employment Initiative Program, I should like to say that in the Joliette riding and in others, some special recovery programs have been implemented. Some have even been implemented in the Yukon riding. What can you say to that, Mr. Speaker? But Hon. Members disregard this information and fail to mention these projects. However, when they had a look at the list of 50,000 job creation projects which the Liberal government in Ottawa has implemented over the past few years, the Canadian people realized the moment it was tabled that the Canadian government had done a lot to create jobs.
As far as Post Canada is concerned, there are certainly a number of Conservative ridings which have received funds, including the Sunbury, Fundy Royal and Timiskaming ridings.
Although these three ridings are represented by PC members in the House, they have all received funds however, none of them has risen in the House to criticize the government for the money which Canada Post has invested in their respective ridings.


INCOME TAX-EXPENSE DEDUCTIONS FOR VOLUNTEER FIREMEN. (B) INCREASE SOUGHT
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to pursue further the question I raised in the House on March 28, 1984, with regard to income tax, specifically expense deductions for volunteer firemen.
I think if you were to review the response I received from the Minister in the House at that time, you will find he indicated that he was aware on March 27 that we had debated a private member's motion, which the Liberals talked out, concerning an increase to the maximum deduction allowed to volunteer firemen. The Minister indicated he would consider increasing the present limit. Then he said he would give it the same sort of consideration he gives all representations regarding future budgets.
In response to my supplementary question, the Minister indicated he would give consideration to the fact that all volunteer firemen would be covered, including those who might receive some sort of token remuneration for the work they had done. I was not really satisfied with the Minister's response on that particular occasion.
Adjournment Debate
I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that this issue has really been kicking around for quite some time. I know that after being elected on February 18, 1980, four years ago, a Mr. Charlie McKean came into my Dauphin office on March 9, 1980, to make representation that this expense deduction be increased to $1,000. His particular representation went back a bit further, he drew my attention to the fact that the Manitoba Association of Fire Chiefs at their annual meeting on March 31, 1979, had made a request that the income tax deduction be increased to $1,000. What we are talking about is something that has dragged on for five years, almost half a decade. It is not really a very recent issue.
If you consider the types of increases in expenses that have risen over the last half a decade I think you can see the reason I am rising again to urge the Government to act on the representation I have made, and make again. Again, I just want to point out my disappointment with regard to talking out the issue by various parliamentary secretaries on the other side of the House.
In addition to speaking in the House on various occasions, I have written to the Minister. Just to give you an indication of how longstanding this issue is, Mr. Speaker, on January 26, 1983, as a follow-up to what I said in the House some two weeks previously, I asked the Minister to consider increasing the income tax deduction allowed to $1,000. He replied that because this issue was under consideration for the forthcoming Budget, that is the one of February 1983, he was not at liberty to elaborate in any great detail upon my representation. When he indicated that he was prepared to give it some further consideration in future Budgets, I was somewhat concerned, to put it mildly, with his response. In the last two weeks I have experienced further consternation simply because I have received no letter subsequent to his statement in the House. For that reason I wanted to raise the matter again today.
I think this issue is important to small communities, especially rural and northern ones. In my own constituency there are 27 such volunteer firemen groups working in various communities. I urge the Government to take my representation seriously and to act upon it. It is extremely important. Otherwise, we will be forced to assume that the Minister will not be giving attention to this matter until the next Budget. We will then have to ask ourselves when will be the next Budget, and will he be the Finance Minister? Here is an opportunity for him to act immediately to meet a need which exists. It is something for which firemen have been awaiting a long time. This issue needs the Minister's immediate, and favourable consideration and attention now. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate that they are prepared to consider it.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government fully supports the volunteer movement in Canada and recognizes

April 9, 1984
Adjournment Debate
the important role it plays in providing or supplementing various services in the community. The question of volunteer service has become an important issue, and many advocate the use of the income tax system to provide incentives to encourage volunteer services in Canada. However, the effectiveness of the tax system depends upon its integrity and fairness.
Contributions of money and time in volunteer service is basically personal and undertaken at a taxpayer's discretion. The related expenses of providing the service are therefore personal expenses. Because of the possibility of the misdirection of tax incentives for personal gains, tax concessions are not generally provided in respect of personal expenses, even when they are expended to earn income; for example the cost of transportation to and from work. Given this general tax principle, it would be very difficult to introduce tax benefits for volunteer services which would be fair to the taxpaying public who must ultimately finance these benefits.
An exception has already been provided in the Income Tax Act by way of the $500 exemption in respect of allowances received by volunteer firemen from a government, municipality or other public authority. This exemption is in addition to the 20 per cent employement expense deduction, to a maximum of $500, available to all employees including volunteer firemen.
The $500 exemption differs from the provision which is proposed in that under current law the authority which grants the allowance serves as an independent control to ensure that the expenses incurred are reasonable and valid. Permitting a deduction of these expenses would clearly increase the administrative cost of ensuring that expenses are reasonable. It would also further aggravate the disparity between volunteer firemen and other volunteer workers, such as St. John's Ambulance drivers who constantly point out the inequity of a tax concession for firemen with no similar treatment for themselves.
At this time of budgetary constraint it would be difficult to justify to the tax-paying public further exemptions. This is so especially in light of the fact that the responsibility for providing municipal services, such as protection against fire, is not properly the responsibility of the federal Government, but that of local and provincial governments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.25 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, April 10, 1984