1984-03-26

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: As Hon. Members are aware, there are seven motions standing on the Notice Paper at the report stage of Bill C-3. Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 should be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: Motion No. 1 by itself; a vote on Motion No. 2 will dispose of Motion No. 3. Motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 will be debated separately and voted on separately. Motion No. 7 seeks to provide a means of disposing of the funds withheld from cash contributions to provinces found not to be in compliance with the Act. Nowhere in the Bill is there any mention of a proposal to dispose of such funds. As a result, the introduction of this kind of provision in the Bill would be entirely irrelevant to the Bill.
[DOT]	(1110)
Should the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), who is present in the House, wish to present procedural arguments on this motion, I will hear him now, if he wishes to be recognized for this purpose.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make this perfectly clear. I take it you are ruling it out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is trying to indicate to the Hon. Member the thinking of the Chair. Before ruling, the Chair is inviting the Hon. Member to present his arguments. This is a practice we have developed in an attempt to accommodate Members. In fairness to the Hon. Member, I thought he should have an idea of what was in the Speaker's mind.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what bearing this will have on your decision, but this is an amendment which
was regarded as being in order when it was presented in committee. It was debated at that time. It is because I feel strongly about the amendment that I took the opportunity to reintroduce it. We are talking about moneys which the federal Government proposes, through this Bill, to withhold from provinces. We are talking about an identifiable sum of money. That money will go to a particular place, that is to say it will go into the public accounts and stay there presumably, unless of course it is returned to a province, which is another provision in the Bill indicating where the money will go under certain circumstances. In this amendment we are saying that in a different set of circumstances, for example in the case of the federal Government withholding the money permanently, this is how the money shall be spent.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is prepared to rule at this stage. May I refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1), which states in part:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope-
After hearing the argument of the Hon. Member, it still appears to the Chair that this amendment is irrelevant and beyond the scope of the Bill and, therefore, out of order. I must so rule.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-3 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 10 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"of the cost of insured health services; and
(e) must, in accordance with the regulations of this Act, provide for an acceptable ratio of ward versus private and semi-private beds in hospitals, including hospitals owned or operated by Canada.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-3 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 10 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"of the cost of insured health services; and
(e) must provide that all medical practitioners or where applicable, dentists may participate in the plan."


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-3 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 10 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"of the cost of insured health services; and
(e) must provide that any duly qualified medical practitioner and, where applicable, dentist, who has been licensed by the province to practice in the province, may participate in the plan.

March 26, 1984
Canada Health Act


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to speak to my amendment and then to the amendment of the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). Must I do that within the same time frame?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair decided that amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 would be lumped together for debate but voted on as indicated. No. 1 is voted on separately and No. 2 would dispose of No. 3. The Hon. Member is invited to make his remarks concerning the three amendments in this intervention.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the intent of our amendment with regard to providing for an acceptable ratio of ward versus private and semi-private beds in hospitals is to ensure that the overall goals of the Canada Health Act are indeed achieved throughout the country. One of our concerns is that if this is not specified in the Bill it is possible that a two-tier hospital care system could develop.
We have seen, particularly since 1977, and more specifically in the last couple of years, a trend on the part of certain provincial governments to encourage hospitals to find ways of generating revenue on their own. One way to achieve that, of course, is by turning more of their bed capacity over to the classification of private or semi-private rooms so that they generate revenue over and above that which would be generated through ordinary ward beds under the health insurance plan.
We wanted to ensure that this Act would provide a mandate to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take action, should she or he in the future discern that a province is evading universality and accessibility, with respect to clause 12, by not making a suitable number of beds available under the plan. This is not a new idea and has been done before by regulation. We feel this should be made explicit in the Canada Health Act. If this is not done, a situation could arise where accessibility could be threatened by a lack of availability of ward beds. This would then create a situation in which Canadians would rightly want to insure themselves against the unavailability of those beds, if it were seen as something that is inevitable. Eventually Canadians would feel that they have to take out private health insurance to make sure that they could get a bed when they needed it because the hospitals in their area were following that kind of policy. Very soon, the very thing we are trying to prevent in this Bill, through elimination of extra billing and user fees, could take place with respect to the availability of beds. Therefore, this amendment seems to be self-evidently in keeping with the spirit of the Canada Health Act.
I did not see any reason in committee and I do not see any reason now why this amendment cannot be enshrined in the Bill.
The amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Oxford is a reintroduction of an amendment many of us tried to move in committee in various forms which would meet what I consider to be the very legitimate concerns of the Canadian
Association of Interns and Residents, which is that all people who graduate from medicine and are licensed to practice medicine should be able to do so in the plan wherever they so choose, so long as they want to meet the conditions of the plan.
I am not saying doctors who want to extra-bill in a province where extra billing has been outlawed should be able to operate within the plan. That is not the kind of right we are talking about. We are talking about the right of physicians to have geographical freedom within a particular province. This Bill is directed at what is going on in British Columbia and what could go on in many other provinces where we find provincial governments, through the limitation of billing numbers per area, restricting the right of physicians to practise in a particular area. I think this is something that should be addressed in another way. If provinces want to find ways of redistributing physician manpower, then there must be a way that is more acceptable than refusing the right to practise in this way, particularly when you consider that there are people now graduating from our medical colleges who are now interns and residents and who, if they want to practise in B.C., for instance, face the possibility of not being able to do so. Also, as was pointed out to me by people concerned, there is one case where a husband got a billing number and the wife did not. The wife is also a physician. The only way she could practise medicine was to move away from where her husband was living and practise somewhere else. That is completely unacceptable. We have an opportunity to do something about that in this Bill. This amendment is the result of many, many refinements. I see no reason, nor, I am sure, does the Hon. Member for Oxford why we could not meet in the Bill those very legitimate concerns of the Canadian Association of Interns and Residents.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the New Democratic Party Member, the party critic, has just spoken to motions No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3. Regarding motion No. 1, his Party is asking us to amend the Bill to include "an acceptable ratio of ward" (beds), which are usually four to a room, versus semi-private beds, which are two to a room, and private rooms.
We have already discussed the motion in Committee, where it was decided to drop the proposal. The point I raised at the time was, that by including a provision for ward beds in the Bill, we would be putting an additional and unnecessary constraint on the system, and that for the time being, the situation was not alarming anywhere in Canada, and that in any case, the federal Minister could use regulatory powers existing under the Act, if necessary, and without having to resort to an amendment, could pass regulations and discuss them with the provinces, as I said before.
I do not remember exactly what the statistics are, but in Ontario, for instance, which has the largest population of any province in Canada, two-thirds of hospital-days for all kinds of
March 26, 1984

patients are attributed to wards. In fact, public demand is for private or semi-private rooms rather than wards. Since I have been Minister of Health, there have never been, to my knowledge, any complaints from Canadians because they did not have access to a ward. If a patient wants to be on a ward, in other words, a room with four beds, the hospital is obliged to provide the bed free of charge, and if the hospital in question has no ward available, it must provide a semi-private or private room, without extra charge.
I believe this answers the question raised by motion No. 1.
[DOT]	0125)

We discussed Motion No. 2 a great deal because it causes concern to all members of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. The spirit of the motion, if not the exact wording, was defeated.
The motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) is well intentioned; it wants to overcome a new problem in the system which refers to procedures used by provinces to control the number and distribution of doctors when this applies. It applies in many parts of Canada as we have a great number of doctors in proportion to the population. If provinces had a special practice it was usually to provide positive, financial incentives. This technique has worked best in the experience that has been accumulated, coupled with other incentives such as refresher courses and material or professional incentives. One province tackled the problem by a disincentive, a reduction in salary. Another province started the practice of issuing billing numbers through a provincial mechanism and commission in a way that could be considered discriminatory.
After a study of the legislation by the Department of Justice, we think that medical practitioners are protected for practising within medicare through the concept of reasonable compensation. In other words, it is not for the federal Government to decide where doctors will settle, once they are licensed; this is purely a provincial matter. Through federal legislation regarding conditions for federal funding, however, reasonable compensation must be provided for all medical practitioners who practise within medicare and provide insured services. We think that medical practitioners who provide insured services must be reasonably compensated. They should have a billing number. Individuals or groups-although the latter must be verified-could take a provincial government to court if this were denied to a medical practitioner who provided insured health services.
Motion No. 3 was also presented by the health critic of the New Democratic Party and in a way has the same meaning as Motion No. 2. Unless Hon. Members have questions on it, therefore, I think I have made the point and should not take up more time of the House.
[DOT]	(1130)


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, we are debating Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 this morning. All three deal with
Canada Health Act
Clause 12 of Bill C-3. Clause 12 defines the requirements that will be expected of the provinces with respect to accessibility to the health care plan in any province. It makes a lot of sense that there should be something in the Bill to provide for a uniform type of insured health service with uniform terms and conditions, as paragraph (a) of Clause 12 provides. Similarly, there should be a tariff payable to physicians and other health practitioners. We take no issue with that whatsoever.
As both the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and the Minister have said, we are concerned that there are changes taking place in the administration of health care in the provinces. Because of the perceived over-supply of doctors and perhaps an under-supply of doctors in certain areas, attempts are being made at the provincial level to limit the number of physicians permitted to practise in a specific area of a province. British Columbia has found a method whereby it can do this by refusing a billing number to a physician.
The Canadian Association of Interns and Residents, as can be surmised from the name, represents the up and coming professionals. They realize that the way the Act is presently written, they have no protection whatsoever. After having spent many years in universities, medical schools and one to six years of interning, graduating and getting a licence to practice, having been granted a licence to practice in any given province-and we must remember the provinces control the education, training, admission to medical schools and the licensing of these physicians-they can then be told by the province that even though they have completed their course successfully and are licensed to practice, they are not going to receive a billing number.
The Canadian Association of Interns and Residents perceived this as a real threat to them after having spent up to ten years trying to learn their profession. For all practical purposes they may not be allowed to practise in their own province. They could practise outside the plan. Across this country, 95 per cent of the physicians want to be in a plan if it is a suitable plan.
The Canadian Association of Interns and Residents are to be commended on the effort they made during the committee stage of this Bill. They had representatives in attendance the whole time the Bill was before the committee. From time to time they supplied us with various amendments which would take care of their problem. They consulted with leading constitutional experts regarding the legality of such amendments. They were assured by the authorities that the amendment would not be in conflict in any constitutional way.
It was my impression as well as that of my colleagues from all Parties on the committee that there should be protection for these young graduate doctors. I believe it is fair to say that the Government feels the same way. For some reason, however, there is not an amendment in the Bill or a change to give the protection that these interns must have.
The Government raises the argument that possibly there will be some difficulty inasmuch as we are perceived as intruding into the provincial domain. The whole Bill is an intrusion into

March 26, 1984
Canada Health Act
the provincial domain in one way or another. The amendment of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill and my amendment in no way take away the ability of the province to license and qualify physicians to practise in their province. All the amendments say is that if they are to be given that right and privilege, it should be extended a bit further to allow them the opportunity of having a billing number so that they can practise within the plan.
I suspect the Minister has received a lot of pressure from the provincial governments. I can understand why it will cause them difficulty. We have a broader obligation. Our main obligation is to protect the interest of all Canadians. We are not doing that by passing a Bill that is discriminatory. A province would not have to allow a physician who is duly qualified and licensed to practise within that plan. This is what concerns Opposition Members.
1 hope that when government Members see the difficulty caused by this Bill to young graduates, they will be prepared to accept either my amendment or the amendment of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, which is more complete than my simplified amendment. I would say that when we last consulted with the Association of Interns and Residents on Friday, they found this simplified version that I proposed quite acceptable. I would be willing to vote for both those amendments.
With regard to Motion No. 1 in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, we share his concern that there be a sufficient number of public and standard wards available in a hospital. As the Minister pointed out, if a person is admitted to a hospital on an emergency basis and requires hospital accommodation, if all standard ward beds are taken up, they automatically receive private room coverage at no extra cost. There is no extra charge to them.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: What if the private rooms are all full?


Bruce Halliday: They will get a bed somewhere in the hospital. My concern is that this Bill does not provide what Mr. Blaikie is asking for, namely, enough hospital beds. Unfortunately, that part of the health care system is not addressed in this Bill. In spite of Mr. Blaikie's amendment, over the next number of years we will find people in dire straits because the Government has not provided in this Bill any mechanism to increase the availability of hospital beds. In my view, it is unimportant whether it is a private bed, a semi-private bed or a standard ward bed, because we need all three. If Mr. Blaikie is concerned about two-tiered-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I simply wish to draw to the Hon. Member's attention that he must refer to another Hon. Member by his riding.


Bruce Halliday: I was doing that, Mr. Speaker, until I was so taken up with my argument that I overlooked it. My apologies to you, Sir.
My point is that there will be a shortage of all three types of beds in the immediate future. Unfortunately, this Bill does not
take care of that situation. The amendment of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill will not take care of it either. It will take more than that kind of change to really look after the needs of the health care system.
In conclusion, I and my colleagues in this Party will oppose Motion No. 1. However, we are prepared to support either or both Motions Nos. 2 and 3.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motions before us at the present time. In his motion, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) suggests that the Governor in Council should regulate an acceptable ratio of wards to semi-private and private rooms. He advances the argument that accessibility could be limited by the availability of ward beds, that a two-tiered system would develop, and that preferred access, particularly for elective services, could be gained by those carrying private insurance.
On the first point, there does not appear to be much evidence to support the fact that accessibility could be limited by the availability of ward beds. For example, over each of the past five years, approximately 36 per cent of the beds have consistently been designated as preferred accommodation throughout Canada, whereas only 25 per cent to 26 per cent of hospital days have involved preferred accommodation charges. The income derived from preferred accommodation has actually dropped as a proportion of the total expenses over the past five years. Furthermore, it should be understood that the provinces themselves regulate the proportion of beds that can be so designated and the practices of hospitals in regard to such charges.
The ratio of preferred to total beds ranges between zero per cent and 48 per cent from province to province. In some provinces, fewer than 20 per cent of the beds are designated as preferred accommodation. Invariably, a lower proportion of actual hospital days are charged preferred rates. For example, 19 per cent of British Columbia's beds are designated preferred beds, but only 10 per cent of the hospital days are charged at preferred rates. The point is that there does not appear to be much overwhelming evidence of a problem of reasonable access to an extent that would warrant the federal Government's directly regulating the matter specifically through this Act.
It might be argued that the situation could change in the future. In that event, there are sufficient grounds in law and prescribed processes laid out in the Act to permit the federal Government to intervene if it became necessary. The provisions in Bill C-3 clearly spell out what the insured services are, the conditions under which access to those services must be provided, and what the federal Government must do in the event those conditions are breached. The conditions and requirements under Clause 13 and subclause 22(c) provide the means to monitor the situation, and most assuredly would
March 26, 1984

signal the emergence of any problem in regard to persons being denied access to necessary hospital services.
Few provinces have demonstrated through their respective laws and practices any strong inclination to inhibit access through restricting the availability of standard ward beds. Surely this is a provincial administrative matter that does not require precise specification in federal regulations. As well, from the standpoint of federal-provincial relations, surely this is a matter that can be entrusted to the provinces in the proper exercise of their respective responsibilities.
I turn now to the amendments to Clause 12(e) proposed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill and the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). I have listened to the Hon. Member for Oxford and can certainly understand his point of view. I can understand his concern in this regard and, as he said, all Parties including the governing Party are concerned about the situation of our young doctors. He said that health care is being regulated by the provinces to restrict the number of doctors who can practice in a particular region of a province. This is really a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker.
I think that the standing committee has given a good deal of attention to this matter and has discussed it quite thoroughly. As the Hon. Member for Oxford has stated, I think that there is a feeling of concern among the members of the committee, but I think that this matter does not fall completely within federal jurisdiction. Wording has been included in the Bill to create a framework for negotiations between the provinces and the interns and residents. It is hopefull that this framework will be satisfactory in solving what may be a potentially troublesome problem. However, it is our feeling that this is as far as we can possibly go in this regard.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, first, in responding to Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), let me say that the point that is being made both by the Parliamentary Secretary and by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), is that the manner in which beds are designated in given provinces is an area of provincial jurisdiction. However, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill does not agree with that position which we took in committee and are taking in the House this morning.
The reason for our position is that while there is a national health care plan which, through block funding, provides for certain proportionate payments both for hospital care and/or medical services, the fact remains that there is no provincial health care plan or system that is identical in all respects. There are 10 individual provincial health care plans, plus another configuration which relates to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories because of federal responsibility. Perhaps I could use this moment to say that I hope this Bill might offer another opportunity for us to say that we feel that those health care services in the Territories should be transferred to the territorial governments at the earliest opportunity.
Canada Health Act
Complementing the 10 health care plans plus the ones in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories is the federal contribution. If certain conditions established by the Established Programs Financing Act and the hospital and medicare Acts now to be consolidated into the Canada Health Act are met, the provinces have the responsibility and the jurisdiction to administer and regulate the health care system.
It then must be asked whether the House has any authority to speak in favour of the position put forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill. It is my view and that of our Party that this motion directly interferes with the provincial jurisdictions. Additionally, I think that one should be very careful when saying, from the vantage point of the House of Commons, that the individual health care systems across the country should be the same. I do not think that that is desirable and we are not in favour of that. However, this motion would dictate to the provinces a ratio of ward versus private and semi-private beds.
I think that this motion would affect not only the provinces but the hospital administrators as well. Hospital administrators are surely the professionals who work with these matters on a day-to-day basis and they should not only have the right but they should have the responsibility to determine what kind of configuration and arrangement is needed in given hospitals in order to serve best the needs of Canadians who are serviced by those hospitals. My argument against this motion is straightforward and is based upon the fact that I do not believe we would have a better system if in fact the motion of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill were to be endorsed by the House today.
I will group Motions Nos. 2 and 3 as the Chair has done. I would like first to endorse the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Oxford. It has been said already in the House that there was an extensive debate on the manner in which medical doctors operate within the health care plan. The committee was confronted with a difficulty. If a national health care plan exists which is within the parameters described in Motion No. 1 and a person is accepted by a provincial medical school, attends that school and meets the academic and professional qualifications, then once the Canada Health Act is passed and the province has established the academic criteria under which it will license that person, a potential hitch arises before that person is able to practise his or her profession. If the Canada Health Act Bill is passed wherein a penalty is imposed for extra billing, or if the person operates outside the plan-and, to my knowledge, there are now approximately six doctors in Quebec who are operating that way-a person, having met all the provincial criteria, who wants to fulfil his or her professional training, must have a billing number. That person must have a number whereby he or she can bill the health care system of the province for services rendered. The difficulty which this amendment tries to address is that once a person has met all the qualifications, there should not then be a barrier, through an administrative technique of withholding a billing number for that medical

March 26, 1984
Canada Health Act
officer, preventing that person, having met all of those criteria, from practising.
I recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the First Ministers debate on the Constitution but, more important, in the committee of officials during that summer when various amendments were considered, one of the areas which was most thorny was the so-called mobility rights clause. While there was a strong argument that Canadians should have the right to move from one province to another, from a province to a territory or from a territory to a province, without impediment or internal barriers, there was a concern expressed as well that provinces which had a provincial unemployment rate greater than the national average should have some means whereby they could provide for employment or economic activity which, if not totally protecting their citizens, would give them some access to the jobs available. For example, in Atlantic Canada there is a recognized provision-although not in the Constitution- whereby contractors in one Province have a 10 per cent advantage over contractors from another Province.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the federal Government did the same thing in the Territories. It is interesting to note, when one looks at some agreements in principle on Indian land claims, in what direction those kinds of provisions will go. That is not as yet a very clear concept. However, there was a general agreement in principle that Canadians, if they met the qualifications, should have the right, with no internal barriers, to practise their profession or trade in any province in Canada. What this amendment then addresses is that, having met the qualifications, those persons should not only have the right to practise within the plan but should not be barred from practising within any province if they have met the criteria.
If there is a problem of distribution of medical personnel, Mr. Speaker, and some people argue there is, I would think that the matter is better addressed through positive incentives. For example, the Province of Ontario, as well as other provinces, has had this kind of plan. In the Northwest Territories and the Yukon there has been a northern allowance. While some of us might argue that the northern allowance is not adequate, and there has been some argument in terms of whether it should be taxable-and we have fought the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) time after time on that-the fact remains that a positive incentive would bring more harmony into the profession and would attract people to practise in geographical areas in which otherwise they might not be as interested. This clause, Mr. Speaker, attempts to address that exact question, and I commend it to the House for approval.
Mir. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak for a few moments in particular on Motion No. 2. I sat in the House and listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacLel-lan) indicate the Government's intention not to support Motion No. 2, and I was disturbed by it. The reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to centre on the issue of provincial jurisdiction. The tone of that intervention was such
that the Liberal Government was trying to paint itself as a group which paid proper attention to provincial jurisdiction.
I believe that anyone who looks at the record of the Government in this Chamber over a four-year period of time would be inevitably drawn to the conclusion that if there has ever been a Government in the history of this nation which did not pay attention to the issue of provincial jurisdiction, surely it is the present Liberal Government. That kind of excuse for not supporting the motion rings particularly hollow on this day.
Motion No. 2 is a motion designed to ensure the equal right of all well trained medical practitioners to participate in the health insurance scheme of this country. Years ago, the provinces invited the federal Government into the manpower jurisdiction when they gave the federal Government the power to deal with unemployment insurance in this country. It is a responsibility of this Chamber and of the federal Government, and a legitimate one, to be concerned about manpower issues in this country. We must make sure that we have an adequately trained work force to do the kinds of things which need doing in this country.
When it comes to health care generally, Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that we can have a decent system of health care in this country without professionally trained people willing to provide that kind of service to their fellow Canadians. The health care system is composed of facilities, but what really makes it work is the people within them. We heard earlier this day, Mr. Speaker, that it takes between six and ten years education beyond high school before these medical practitioners are properly trained and ready to start their careers. As we look at this Canada Health Act, Mr. Speaker, and this amendment today, one of the questions every Hon. Member of this Chamber should ask himself about each and every clause in this Bill is, what is the impact of a particular clause on the mind-set of young people in this country who are trying to make a career decision? We should not have a clause or a set of words in this Act which says to the young people in this country that they should not really consider a career in the health care profession because it may turn out to be a bad career. In particular, without Motion No. 2, which was moved by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), we can see clearly that this Bill says to the eighteen-year-olds in this country that they should really stop to think about whether they want to invest ten years of their lives in a training process because it may happen that, at the end of ten years, some government somewhere in this country will say to them, "It is nice that you took those ten years of training, but we will not allow you to participate as a useful citizen in the health care of this country". In the absence of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are saying to the brightest eighteen-year-olds in this country. We are saying, "Do not take a chance. Do not be willing to risk ten years of your time and your money to get yourself well trained, because somewhere, some day some group of politicians is going to say to you that you cannot make a living practising what you have learned".
March 26, 1984

The Government has a few more hours, Mr. Speaker, and I urge it to reconsider its decision. I urge the Government to think about the wisdom of supporting this amendment. As we look to the future, we can see jobs in manufacturing disappearing. We can see the disappearance of a lot of jobs in Canadian society. It is a little harder to look ahead to see where the jobs of the future are likely to be, but it is clear that one area of jobs will be that of human services. That will require generally more people in the future. We have in this country a gradually aging population and we can see that our health care system is going to have increased demands made upon it simply as a consequence of the demographics of the aging population. In the future we are going to require more people in the health care professions, not fewer.
We in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, in the month of March, 1984, should be looking at every clause in this Bill from the viewpoint of whether or not it will encourage the best and the brightest to commit their lives to human service through the health care profession. Anything which goes in the opposite direction is just simply wrong. But anything which encourages young people to commit their talent, energy and humanity to the care of others is going in a positive direction.
We may look at this Bill as being designed to provide more publicity for the Government in trying to deal with a specific economic situation, but at the heart must lie our concern for those who are less fortunate healthwise than most Members of this Chamber. We can go to any hospital in this or any city in the country and see people concerned, scared and suffering. That can only be alleviated through treatment by people with skills, commitment and compassion. The lives of the sick are made a little better when people with those qualities have committed their lives to that kind of service.
Amendment No. 2 is an important amendment in that it indicates that Members of this Chamber, the highest court of the land, want to say to the young people of this nation that if they will commit their lives in this field, then we will enact the legislation which ensures that when they have completed their training, they can be a full partner and a full participant in our health care system, not a second-class partner.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is back in the House after two months of detailed study in committee, and there are certain amendments before us, as you have delineated. There have been some surprises along the road with this Bill, surprises to the Canadian Medical Association, the provincial Governments and the people of Canada generally. However, I do not think there was anything more surprising than, when one turned on the radio this morning, to hear a CBC report stating that this Bill had come out of committee with not very much argument, very little debate and very little controversy. The only thing I can say about that, Mr. Speaker, is that, as usual, the CBC was not present at any of the committee meetings and really did not have a clue as to what took place.
Canada Health Act
The reason I mention that, Mr. Speaker, is that during the course of debate in committee on this Bill we heard some very, very poignant and telling testimony from groups, organizations and individuals, experts in the field of health care. As a result, members of the Opposition were able to put forward amendments that we knew would improve the Bill. Not only were we prepared to put them forward and listen to such telling arguments as were presented by the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association, but we were able finally to convince the Government that it would be in the interests of the health care delivery system of this country to make the amendments we had originally proposed in the name of the Government so that they would be incorporated in the Bill.
The reason I mention that, Mr. Speaker, is that after much protracted debate and argument in committee, there was one proposal which the Government refused to adopt even though it acknowledged, as the Minister has acknowledged here this morning, the merits of the argument. The arguments for the proposal were put forward primarily by witnesses from the Canadian Association of Interns and Residents, the young graduates coming out of medical school, the people who are still in training or who have just recently graduated. They are concerned about their future and whether or not they will be able to practise the profession for which they have spent so many years training. These people came before us and talked as individuals, made their presentations collectively, and there is no doubt that the strength of their argument made a major impression on the committee.
There is no question that we do not want to see any kind of restrictions, either in a professional or, as my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) and the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) have said, any restriction on mobility even in moving from province to province. It is debatable, obviously, whether or not those restrictions will be put in place at the provincial level, although there is one case where perhaps that is already being done and it may happen in other cases. We have the opportunity here, Sir, to ensure that that kind of restriction is not unduly enforced upon people who have already shown their good intentions by meeting the criteria demanded of them in their performance.
Amendment No. 2 was put forward by the Hon. Member for Oxford, and amendment No. 3 by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). They have been grouped for debate. These amendments seek to ensure that these young people will be guaranteed the ability to practise their profession, that no impediment will be placed to prevent them from carrying out their profession because of some restriction or reluctance at the provincial level to provide them with a billing number. In this amendment we are asking that they be given the chance to prove themselves. I am sure the Government understands the worthiness of that argument.
I listened to the Minister in committee and I listened to her here this morning. The willingness which the Government exhibited in committee to accept amendments to improve the

March 26, 1984
Canada Health Act
Bill did not by any means satisfy all our objections to it. The Government willingly accepted amendments which would have made it possible for a mechanism to be built in so that doctors can be assured of a fee schedule in any province. It willingly accepted an amendment to make sure that the term "health care practitioner" is incorporated in the Act for future developments. We are asking that that same willingness be applied to the needs of interns and residents throughout the country. I do not think that should be a major hurdle for the Government. It should not be a major impediment which the Government is not prepared to take in its stride.
This is not an amendment which would unduly stretch the Act or bring into contention any great provincial responsibility. It is an amendment which is sensible and sensitive to the needs of the people to whom it is directed, and one which should not really cause the Minister any great trouble. In fact, Sir, I am pretty well assured she does not have any great trouble with it. Therefore, I ask her at this stage to consider incorporating this amendment into the Bill to make sure we have taken that one last step to make this a better Bill than it is at present.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, along with the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) I was somewhat surprised, after the hours of committee deliberations, to hear and read that there was not much controversy and not much input by the opposition Parties to the application of Bill C-3, the amendments now coming out of it, and those that were considered in committee. I was rather surprised as well, Mr. Speaker, that a limitation was going to be imposed on the discussions this morning with respect to the linking of Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
This morning I would like to join my colleagues in addressing particular Motion No. 2, which perhaps created an undue concern on the part of the Government. We were told that Bill C-3 was introduced with the purpose of accessibility in mind to ensure that Canadians across the country had access to the greatest medicare system in the world. We were told that in order for Canadians to be assured of that accessibility there had to be protection against the possibility of erosion of medicare through user fees and extra billing.
When the original medicare Bill was tabled, not much consideration was given to medical practitioners. It was stated that they would not become functionaries of the state. Even now it has been said that our medical practitioners would not be and are not functionaries of the state. Yet, through a devious and roundabout way, they are being affected by Bill C-3, which may affect medicare, in a way we may not have properly and thoroughly considered.
Motion No. 2 as introduced by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) introduces a very plausible concern. Interns and residents say they are not interfering with the provincial right to license doctors. However, if they are going to spend many years going to medical school to become specialists in the field, surely there must be something in this legislation to prevent erosion and give Canadians the right of accessibility to the medical practitioners of the future. However, the Government does not see it that way because it has a fixation on the two potential erosionary capacities of user fees and extra billing. Unless we can assure the people of tomorrow that there will be sufficient practitioners skilled in the practice of medicine tomorrow, there will be a greater erosion of medicare than that which we have considered to date.
On the basis of consistency, I am wondering why the Government has refused to introduce amendments to ensure that doctors reaching this level of internship and medical practitioners who are residents within hospitals will be allowed to opt in as licensed doctors and participate in the medicare system which we have all grown to accept as part of our social structure, part of our way of life, and part of a system of which we have become so proud and which we consider to be the best medicare system in the land. To refuse to give that right to those students who have come this far and are now calling themselves doctors, is an injustice to the medical profession. They should be assured of this right through legislation. The thrust of Bill C-3 is accessibility. The greatest threat to accessibility and to the quality of medicine is the lack of medical practitioners with necessary skills.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and particularly on amendments Nos. 2 and 3. On listening to the debate at the present time the House could be led to believe that Members who support the Government have ignored the problem which was being raised by the Canadian Association of Interns and Residents and that we did nothing about it. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that Members who are supporters of the Government did introduce an amendment to paragraph (c) Clause 12 adding the word "all" before the words "insured health services". Paragraph (c) now reads: "must provide for reasonable compensation for all insured health services rendered by medical practitioners or dentists;". There was disagreement as to the effectiveness of this amendment, but we believe that by adding the word "all" before the words "insured health services" the concerns of CAIR are being reasonably met.
I would like to point out that that is the same type of wording that exists in Clause 9 which deals with comprehensiveness. Clause 9, at line 15, reads:
-the health care insurance plan of a province must insure all insured health services provided by hospitals, medical practitioners-
I believe that the concerns that were being expressed by the interns and residents have reasonably been met by the amendment that we proposed to add the word "all" in paragraph (c) of Section 12. Since this Bill addresses health services and accessibility of patients to health services, rather than accessibility of professional groups to a public plan, I believe that that was the right way to approach this question.
At first glance, amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 3 do not seem to be offensive, but there is a slight difference between talking about the totality of insured services and providing, according to the amendment of the Member for
March 26, 1984

Oxford (Mr, Halliday), that a provincial plan must provide that all medical practitioners or, where applicable, dentists may participate in the plan. I do not believe it is the business of the Parliament of Canada or of the Canada Health Act to determine how medical practitioners in a province should or should not be in a plan. 1 do not think that is the intent of the legislation nor do I believe it is relevant to the legislation.
What is relevant to the legislation is that all insured health services be covered by a plan. We believe that this leads to the conclusion that if medical practitioners who are licensed in a province and licensed under the laws of the province, either by a college of physicians or the province itself, provide insured health services that are described in the Act, the plan must show that all insured health services are covered. I believe this is the best way to proceed.
We are talking about adding the word "all" before the words "insured health services" rather than prescribing to the provinces that they "must provide all medical practitioners or, where applicable, dentists may participate in the plan", as both amendments would do.
Amendment No. 3 of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) also proposed that the plan "must provide" etc. I do not believe it is relevant to this Act that we should prescribe legally who should or should not be in a plan from the point of view of the medical profession.
My purpose in speaking this afternoon is simply to say that we did recognize that the Canadian Association of Interns and Residents has a legitimate problem and we tried to respond to it reasonably. We believe we have. I did not want the record to remain, as the debate has shown, that somehow we had neglected the problem that was raised by CAIR and were not sensitive to it. We are sensitive to it and we believe we have done what is reasonable by adding the word "all", before "insured health services" in Clause 12, which would do the same thing as we did in Clause 9 dealing with comprehensiveness.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the question of accessibility as it concerns both the public and those who provide medical services. This includes nurses, who I believe have made an exceptionally good case for an extension of their jurisdiction and participation in a better health service system than exists presently.
I suggest that a bureaucratic cement has set in at the federal level which has made it rigid and incapable of accepting anything except power. Bureaucracy at the provincial level is now in the process of making those who supply medical services essentially civil servants. We have seen that union negotiations have forced nurses to go on strike. In some provinces they are now forbidden to strike and have become part of the Public Service. This affects accessibility.
With respect to accessibility, I wish to point out to the Minister that there are many doctors in this country who are prevented from practising medicine. We accepted many refugees, such as Vietnamese and Polish physicians, a great
Canada Health Act
majority of whom must scrub floors and act as janitors because our bureaucracy has prevented them from practising. Somehow the bureaucracy believes that medicine was invented in some medical schools in Canada or the United States and that foreign doctors, although we know many have passed equivalent requirements and have the same qualifications as Canadian graduates, cannot qualify.
The bureaucratic boondogging over financing between the federal and provincial governments has meant that there is an artificial limitation imposed on the number of entrants into internship. In Ontario, even domestic graduates have been kept out of the practice of medicine by this budgetary limitation imposed on hospitals by the provincial and federal governments. This means that many young men and women have wasted years of study.
The Minister should pay particular attention to the Government's cynicism in accepting refugee doctors while denying them the right to practise even when they prove their qualifications. They cannot practise until they go through their internship, but they are at the bottom of the list for admittance. I ask the Minister if she has ever heard Dr. Nguyen here in Ottawa talk about the problems of Vietnamese doctors whose medical qualifications will expire after five years if they do not proceed to internship. Yet in my province there is a need for 30 doctors in rural areas in some of the small hospitals. Here again is the boondoggle of bureaucracy. For instance, there is the building of ten-bed hospitals.


Monique Bégin: Not today.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will agree, but they were fine. Why does the Minister not talk, with due respect to the Chair, to the people involved? There are many ten-bed hospitals functioning well. The Minister shakes her head. That is only because she is a prisoner of her bureaucrats on that point. There are many districts in which ten-bed hospitals work. But you need to have the doctors. Hospitals have been closed because one man or woman cannot maintain a ten-bed hospital. Doctors are not sentenced to a life of work seven days a week, 18 hours a day. But if you listen to the bureaucrats from their comfortable pews, doctors should accept that kind of role.
I am making a plea. For goodness' sake, let us get rid of this cynicism that we have exhibited as Canadians. We should start with the Government of Canada, the Department of Employment and Immigration first. What about the Department of Health and Welfare? Other people would suggest it is the Department of Wealth and Welfare. But what about Health and Welfare Canada? What about the refugee doctors? We have to get rid of this scandal of duly qualified medical graduates from universities in Poland being effectively barred from practising. I know of some particular cases. I speak out of sheer frustration against the obstacles being placed before highly qualified and dedicated people wanting to practise medicine that prevent them from doing so. This is simply because they cannot get an intern position. This is nonsense. The Minister would do far more for medical care in this

March 26, 1984
Canada Health Act
country if she went after that particular problem than does this whole Bill which does nothing but, in my mind, take a giant step toward total socialization of medical services. It is all under the guise of accessibility and universality but it still slices like bread. That bread is the total socialization of medical services in Canada.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I want to argue against Motion No. 1 in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). But first I want to compliment the members of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. During the past two months the actions of that committee have shown Parliament at its best and how this House should operate in the sense that dozens of amendments were accepted and incorporated into the Bill both in terms of word changes and whole new clauses which acted within the concept of federal-provincial relations. I know the members worked hard. They heard many witnesses and they made the changes. Nevertheless I was astounded this morning at the CBC coverage. It appeared as though Parliament had not been doing anything on this Bill. As has happened so often to us, we participate in debates here in the House but then when you watch the news at eleven o'clock at night and see what is reported, you wonder if is the same debate in which you have participated. I guess that is just the typical CBC pattern on things.
As far as Motion No. 1 is concerned, I submit it is too aggressive within federal-provincial relations. It is they who have to deal with health care. The amendment of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill mentions federal dollars which, as you recall, Mr. Speaker, amount to some $5 billion which Canadians through Parliament are allocating to health care. We are simply saying to the provincial governments that for that $5 billion we think we are entitled to reasonable conditions. That is where these five conditions came from, portability, accessibility, and so on.
A very delicate balance has to be maintained between federal and provincial jurisdictions. In terms of the Constitution, the jurisdiction is purely provincial. That has been the case since 1867. During the 1950s and as a result of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, which was passed by the Diefenbaker Government, and then the Medical Care Act passed by the Pearson Government, the federal Government allocated cash to provincial Governments and, as a result, we demanded some conditions.
Let us examine, Mr. Speaker, the wording of the amendment which reads:
(e) must, in accordance with the regulations of this Act, provide for an acceptable ratio of ward versus private and semi-private beds in hospitals, including hospitals owned or operated by Canada.
That mentions an acceptable ratio. But acceptable to whom? Presumably it is acceptable to someone in the Department of National Health and Welfare. That is what throws the whole process, this delicate balance between the federal and provincial governments, out of whack. Federal bureaucrats here in Ottawa will then have the power to make decisions as to what is an acceptable ratio of beds in hospitals in all the
provinces. I think that is aggressive and unacceptable. That type of decision should be left with the provinces.
In support of that argument, I will read into the record the clause which was accepted by all Parties. We find it in the preamble. It reads:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes: 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-
And, therefore, as parliamentarians we are making the statement that we want to respect that original jurisdiction because the provinces are closer to the people and have much more flexibility to change things around.
I speak against Motion No. 1 and I hope the House will agree with me.
[ Translation]


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak to motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 which are now before the House, but after the comments of the previous speaker, I would like to continue in the same vein and say, although there are people who claim this does not happen often enough, that sometimes in the House of Commons, Members on both sides of the House do a good job. As a Member of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I wholeheartedly support what was said by the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), who expressed his appreciation for the thorough job done on the Committee by Members on both sides of the House. That the Bill was amended and improved the way it was, is certainly a good indication. I must say it was the result of efforts on the part of all members of the Committee, irrespective of party lines.
That being said, and since I have the floor, I would like to say a few words about motions 2 and 3. In Committee I had an opportunity to explain extensively my position with respect to the complaints aired by the Canadian Association of Interns and Residents and its Quebec counterpart.
Like my hon. friend, the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), I would like to point out that I support the intent of the sponsors of the motions, since there are two that are similar, and this debate in Committee has brought out the very real problems facing young doctors in negotiations with provincial governments, that determine the geographic distribution of physicians in the provinces. I think few Canadians were aware of these problems, and the representatives of the Association of Interns and Residents very skillfully described the realities with which they had to cope.
The problem we had as Members of Parliament was to find a reasonable way of accepting the principle that these problems existed, without directly interfering with the direct contractual relationship between the provincial governments,
March 26, 1984

responsible for discussions or negotiations with the medical associations in general and physicians in particular, and those providing health services, which in the present case means doctors or young doctors.
My hon. friend from Gloucester pointed out that the amendment to Clause 12(l)(c), which links the concept of reasonable compensation to all insured services, would make it possible for the federal Minister of Health to intervene, if necessary, should a group of physicians be denied reasonable access by a given province to the health services system. It is a compromise. It is a compromise that does not go as far as the two amendments now before the House. It is a compromise, however, that recognizes a situation where provinces might prevent young doctors from earning a living by refusing to give them a billing number. Personally, I am convinced that the amendment that was made, linking the concept of reasonable compensation to all medical services, plus progressive penalties that may be imposed by the Minister of Health under the new health legislation, constitutes a last resort, but still a real recourse for these doctors, enabling them to use the new Health Act to oblige the federal Minister of Health to intervene in cases of manifest abuse.
For these reasons, and because the issue has been discussed at length in Committee, I personally am satisfied that we have gone as far as we could in responding to the problems put forward by the Canadian Association of Interns and Residents. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to again congratulate the representatives of the Association on their efforts to inform Canadians, and Members of Parliament in particular, of these problems which are now public knowledge and can no longer be ignored by the provincial Ministers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will
please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Canada Health Act


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to Motion No. 4.


Bruce Halliday: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-3 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 14 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"only if the province has chosen to enter into, and".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to usher in this motion before the House. I think it is a very important motion and should be considered. At first glance, the way the Bill was amended in committee might seem to indicate that it was not essential to consider adding the word "only" to a motion which has been debated to a considerable extent in the last two months.
We are still dealing with Clause 12 which has proved to be a fairly controversial clause. It contains some very important concepts and principles which need to be considered. Clause 12 deals with accessibility. The amended version of Bill C-3 provides in Clause 12(1) the criteria that have to be met by a province if it is going to provide the kind of accessibility that should be available to Canadians. It deals with the types of insured health services provided under uniform terms and conditions, and requires payment for insured health services in accordance with a payments plan authorized by the province. It was difficult to come to grips with paragraph (c) which appears at the top of page 9 of the Bill beginning at line 3 and reads as follows:
(c) must provide for reasonable compensation for all insured health services rendered by medical practitioners or dentists; and
The difficulty was that professionals in the field did not know what reasonable compensation meant, nor did the provincial Governments responsible for providing it know what reasonable compensation meant. It made some sense that in committee, members from all three Parties accepted the fact that there had to be some method devised to try to define what we were talking about. We ended up with this additional subclause (2) which tried to delineate what we felt would be deemed to be reasonable compensation. In other words, if a province met these certain specific criteria that are outlined in subclause (2) of clause 12, the province would then be deemed to have met the criteria of providing reasonable compensation.

March 26, 1984
Canada Health Act
We were able to look at a series of suggestions and we received some advice from the professional sector. Of course, there was no place better to look than to the author of the current bible on health care in Canada, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, who in 1979 was asked to make a study of the health care system in Canada. His report is entitled Canada's National-Provincial Health Program for the 1980s. The essence of his report is that he accepted the concept that we needed to ban extra billing and user charges. He had no difficulty with banning those charges but he insisted that if we were to ban them we had to be equally stringent in providing what he called adequate compensation for professionals.
If I may, I would like to take a couple of moments to read from Mr. Justice Emmett Hall's report. The Government has used that report on many, many occasions and the Minister has referred to it numerous times because it does indicate exactly what she wants it to indicate regarding extra billing and user fees. However, she has ultimately refused to accept what he also required as part of the twinning mechanism which he felt was absolutely mandatory. For the benefit of the record and for the benefit of the Minister who is present today, and I appreciate the fact that she is present, I would like to read what Mr. Justice Emmett Hall actually said in his report. At the top of page 28 it reads as follows:
Consideration and discussion of the question of outlawing extra billing however resorted to must always be accompanied by a recognition of the physician's right to adequate compensation and vice versa.
The next paragraph reads as follows:
These two elements must always co-exist; there cannot be recognition of one without recognition of the other.
The middle of that page reads as follows:
Provinces have the power to outlaw extra billing and should do so. It must be a condition of any legislation outlawing extra billing or balanced billing, in whatever form invoked, that the Province enacting such legislation will itself in the legislation agree to accept binding arbitration as now proposed. The two elements must be twinned.
Mr. Justice Emmett Hall then went on to say that he does not want there to be any mechanism whatsoever whereby that requirement can be overturned or appealed.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the good words you have heard spoken this morning about the work of the committee in the last two months are indeed true. We have looked at this matter very seriously and there has been a certain amount of compromise on both sides of the House in the committee proceedings. We have come up with an amendment which does not actually accept the demand of Mr. Justice Hall that there be no mechanism for appeal. On page 9 of the amended Bill, beginning at line 31, paragraph (c) does allow for the legislature to do what Mr. Justice Hall indicated should not be done. He had indicated that any decision made by an arbitration board should not be amenable to appeal. In our attempt to compromise, we allowed that a provincial Government should have the right in the end to bring before the legislature and overturn a decision of some court of arbitration.
In the next few moments I would like to point out that subclause (2) of Clause 12, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), provide the criteria that must be met by the province if it is deemed to have met the terms of reasonable compensation as we would like them to be. In the amended version of the Bill, that clause now provides that there must be a provision in each province for negotiation relating to compensation. Second, it provides that there must be provision for the settlement of disputes if, for some reason, the profession and the Government do not see eye to eye on the outcome of those negotiations. There is nothing wrong with that and we all agree with it. However, the difficulty lies in the wording at the beginning of subclause (2). This is where my one-word amendment must come in. We acknowledge the fact that if a province were to ban extra billing, it would then fulfil one of the criteria of Mr. Justice Hall, which was a very important criterion in his view. The Bill is now acknowledging what will happen if extra billing is not permitted in a province. Subclause (2) reads as follows:
In respect of any province in which extra-billing is not permitted, paragraph 12(1 )(c) shall be deemed to be complied with if the province has chosen to enter into, and has entered into, an agreement with the medical practitioners and dentists of the province that provides-
-for negotiations and settlement of disputes.
What is missing is the word "only" which must be added to line 13 in order to make it work. Without that word, this clause has no teeth. Unless this is set into law with the inclusion of the word "only", thus making provision for negotiation and settlement of disputes, the paragraph will be inadequate and will, in effect, have no teeth.
The Government may argue that it is not necessary to include the word "only" in that paragraph, but those who have looked at it, including professional people, have realized that there is absolutely no protection here whatsoever without the word "only". This must be done if we are to follow Mr. Justice Hall's recommendation that if we are to ban extra billing, we must have equally stringent rules regarding the requirement for adequate or reasonable compensation. Only by adding that word will we have the requirement demanded by Mr. Justice Hall.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, may 1 call it one o'clock so that I can finish my speech later on?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I have consent to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
March 26, 1984



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has taken an unprecedented step in hiring unqualified commissionaires at Millhaven, one of Canada's maximum security penitentiaries. The hiring of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires Inc. was not a local decision but one made in Ottawa, and, as the Minister told this House on Friday, he himself approved that policy of replacing professional staff with parttime, unqualified personnel. This is irresponsible and can only add to an already unstable situation.
Since my questioning of the Minister on Friday, another inmate was murdered over the weekend.
Every position in a maximum security institution is of crucial importance, especially to the staff who have to be locked up with dangerous individuals. The institution is now under control only because all privileges have been suspended. This will not address the situation, because as soon as the lock-up is discontinued the murders will continue. It is common knowledge in Millhaven that two inmates were to be terminated last Friday but only one was actually murdered.
It is disgraceful that drugs and alcohol are as available as they are in this institution. The problem lies in the unnecessary large number of outside visitors being permitted in the institution. There visitors are not properly checked for contraband, and therefore no one within this institution is safe. An institution with Canada's most dangerous criminals run in such a manner is shameful.
It must be pointed out also that the local administration at the institution is not at fault; it is the attitude of senior correctional officials who intimidate officers with the threat of early retirements, transfer, or dismissal if unreasonable orders from Ottawa are not carried out-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have much to celebrate in this, the Year of Tourism. Newfoundland, Quebec, and Ontario will celebrate their respective anniversaries. The Ontario Provincial Police marks its seventy-fifth anniversary, and in my riding Barrie celebrates its twenty-fifth anniversary as a city.
April 1 will mark the sixtieth anniversary of the Royal Canadian Air Force, which officially came into being on April 1, 1924, as a permanent service at Canadian Forces Base Borden. The Air Force was responsible for the mapping of Canada's North, its members fought valiantly in two world wars, and it is today in the forefront of Canada's efforts in aerospace technology. The first flying school in Canada, established in 1917 at Base Borden, now trains both aerospace and Army ordnance personnel.
The Air Force celebrations are especially significant for the constituents of Simcoe South, home of Base Borden. Over all, military and civilian salaries, combined with defence spending, inject about $100 million into the local economy. Last year 20,000 students passed through the training facilities at Base Borden, highlighting its significant contributions to Canada's military efforts.
Base Borden is as integral a part of my riding as it is of the Canadian Armed Forces. I am proud to be its representative in Parliament. Congratulations on the sixtieth anniversary of the founding of the Royal Canadian Air Force.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



VIA RAIL


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, VIA, under the then Minister of Transport, Jean-Luc Pepin, decided to end its transcontinental passenger service. The people of Melville and other communities across the West fought very hard to have that passenger service reinstated, which will happen in June of this year. It is reinstated because of the tremendous fight put up by a number of communities for that passenger service.
My appeal today, Mr. Speaker, is that the passenger train stop at the small town of Ituna. It always used to do so in the past, and people from that community and surrounding communities could always take a train to wherever they were going. Then VIA comes back it will not be stopping at Ituna; it will only stop at Melville. People in the Town of Ituna and the surrounding communities have been circulating petitions and writing letters asking that there be at least a conditional stop, a flag stop, for that particular community.
What is very important to realize is that there are several thousands of people living not just in the town but in the small villages and farm communities in the surrounding area. They do not even have direct bus service to places like Regina! I would like to appeal now to fellow Hon. Members of Parliament, to the CTC, and to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), that when VIA comes back in the month of June it

March 26, 1984
stop in the town of Ituna as it did before VIA was taken out of service some two or three years ago.
These people deserve a train service. Because they live in a small rural community should not mean that they are discriminated against by the Government which sits across the way, or by the CTC.



FISHERIES


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, all Prince Edward Islanders welcomed the announcement on Friday that, at long last, Georgetown Seafoods will be reopened under the ownership of National Sea. However, many basic questions about the federal Government's plans remain unanswered. For example, what constitutes the twenty million pounds of fish allocated to the plant? Will the allocation be from the Gulf, or from outside the Gulf, or from both, and in what proportions? What species are to be included, and what comparative numbers? Will the fish be harvested by the inshore fleet or by the offshore fleet? Under what conditions have the assets of Georgetown Seafoods been turned over to National Sea to protect the interests of the plant in the event National Sea decides to leave Georgetown at a later date?
In what specific ways is the $2.25 million initial capital investment to be spent, particularly since no one had previously estimated that more than $500,000 would be required to make the plant operational? Are anticipated initial losses at the plant being capitalized through the start-up financing?
The long-term profitability of Georgetown Seafoods requires satisfactory answers to those questions. I am serving notice to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) that I shall be posing those questions to him upon his return to the House later in the week.



WORLD FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONSHIPS-TRIBUTE TO CANADIAN ATHLETES

Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the group of talented and dedicated athletes who represented Canada last week at the world figure skating championships here in Ottawa.
As a team, their placings in all competitions were outstanding, and all Canadians can be justly proud of their achievements. We were especially thrilled last Thursday when Barbara Underhill of Oshawa and Paul Martini from Woodbridge came from behind to capture the gold medal in the pairs competition with an exciting and flawless freestyle performance. This is Canada's first world title in figure skating since Karen Magnussen won the women's singles world title in 1973,
and the first in the pairs competition since my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek), and his sister Maria, won that title in 1962.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jennifer Cossitt: This week's achievements were topped off by Orillia's Brian Orser repeating his Sarajevo Olympics victory and winning the silver medal in the men's singles competition on Friday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I know this House will join me in paying tribute to and saluting these outstanding young Canadian athletes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian National Railways plan to discontinue the operation of trains 492 and 493 through Dauphin on May 27, 1984. The people of Dauphin are very concerned as the town has experienced a number of reductions in CN employment in recent years which has had a detrimental impact on the local economy. Services have been reduced, and there is growing concern that these moves by CN will eventually lead to the elimination of Dauphin as a major CN divisional point. In view of this, and CN's growing record of diminishing service to the people of my constituency, I call upon the Minister to look into this specific matter, and review CN's operation and plans in general for this part of Manitoba, to ensure that this area will receive service of high quality well into the future.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, through socialistic programs, deficit after deficit even in the good years, an ever increasing national debt now totalling more than $150 billion, programs which force lay-offs and create unemployment such as cutting the capital cost allowance in the first year, Gestapo methods of collecting taxes from the poor, the hungry, and even the kids of the nation, refusal to recognize the only pension a farmer or businessman has is his farm or his business, meagre and ineffective efforts to solve the unemployment problem of our youth, and no recognition of the dire need of women between the ages of 50 and 65, et cetera, this Liberal Government has brought Canada to its knees and to the very verge of bankruptcy. Now the same Liberal Ministers
March 26, 1984

who initiated all these devastating programs are hypocritically offering to change their programs if elected Leader of that bankrupt Party.
The people of Canada are not naive. The only hope for this nation is to kick out the Liberals and elect a PC Government headed by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mul-roney). It will have a fresh approach, the free enterprise approach, and a determination to build trust and faith in this country. It will be willing to sit down and talk with the provincial Governments, and will be determined to reflect the thinking of the greatest possible number of our people. It will cease having government compete with industry. A PC Government can hold this nation together and satisfy all regions with fairness, understanding, and compassion for all peoples, including the minorities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), the Chair would call to his attention the rules of the House which preclude using Standing Order 21 to recognize visitors in the Gallery.



AIR SAFETY


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion lately about tourist and commercial travel. I want to focus the attention of the House of Commons on a very important issue, that of air safety. Last year we had that disaster in Cincinnati where 23 people lost their lives. Then, more recently, we saw where an Air Canada pilot caused a fire in the cockpit of an aircraft, resulting in a forced landing. Most recently a PWA aircraft was totally destroyed by fire in Calgary.
To follow up on my interventions in committee with respect to representations being made to the president of Air Canada and to the air travel industry in general concerning the health effects of breathing noxious cigarette fumes, as well as the air safety aspect, I would ask if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) would consider restrictions on airline employees smoking in aircraft in order better to protect the travelling public who are at risk because of the carrying, on aircraft, of inflammable materials. I ask the support of this House in encouraging the Minister to take action in this regard.



NATIONAL MIXED CURLING PLAYOFFS-CONGRATULATIONS TO SASKATCHEWAN RINK

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, last week the beautiful city of Prince Albert hosted the National Mixed Curling Playoffs. The winning Province was, of course, Saskatchewan. I passed on your congratulations to the winning team as well as to the other teams, and I now express my
Oral Questions
condolences to the Members from the rest of Canada whose Provinces did not quite make it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He will realize that, despite the fact interest rates went up last week, the dollar continues to go down and is now struggling to stay above 78 cents. However, my question has to do with misrepresentations he made in the House last Friday.
The Minister said on Friday that the cycles of recession and recovery are not identical in Canada to the United States. We should expect there to be lags in either direction, but fundamentally the same general direction applies. How can he say that when in the U.S. today the unemployment rate is 7.8 per cent, down 1.7 per cent since last August, while in Canada at the same time the unemployment rate is 11.3 per cent, having dropped only .3 per cent since last August? It would take the creation of 400,000 jobs here in Canada just to move our unemployment rate back to the same level as it is in the U.S. How can the Minister say we are moving in the same direction when we are going in the opposite and worst direction?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I invite my friend to look at the figures and he will realize that both here and in the U.S. there has been strong job creation in the last year. As I indicated, since the end of the recession we have created over 450,000 jobs in this country, 54,000 of them last month. Both in Canada and in the U.S. there has been a strong upward movement in job creation.
My friend has pointed out that unemployment in the U.S. has gone down faster than in Canada. This is quite true, and I have said so in this House many times. The main difference is that the rate of increase in the participation rate, or the number of people joining the labour force, is significantly larger in Canada than in the U.S. For instance, last year the relative rate of increase in Canada was 40 per cent higher than in the U.S. As we get more and more people joining the labour force in Canada, in numbers larger proportionately than in the U.S., it is harder to bring the unemployment rate down. But the fact is that the U.S. and Canadian economies grew strongly last year and we expect them to grow strongly this year, and we also expect employment in both countries to grow strongly, and unemployment to come down in Canada also.

March 26, 1984
Oral Questions


NEW ENTRANTS TO LABOUR FORCE
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister persist in trying to get away with these canards? Does he not realize that from August, 1983, to February, 1984, the number of new entrants joining the labour force in the U.S. was 576,000, compared to 61,000 in Canada? The U.S. unemployment rate before the recession was the same as ours, 7.5 per cent, but it is now 3.5 per cent better. When is the Minister going to admit that they are doing much better in the U.S., and when will he emulate them, follow some of their policies, and do something for the unemployed of Canada, instead of giving specious reasoning and misrepresentations to the House?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric of the Hon. Member will not change any of the facts. Of course there are more new entrants into the job market in the U.S. than in Canada; they have ten times the population. I have indicated that you have to look at the percentages. The fact is that the percentage increase in the number of people joining the labour force in Canada in 1983, compared to the U.S., was 40 per cent higher. I invite my friend to check the facts and figures. Then he can abandon the rhetoric he indulges in. However, I do not think that will lead him to that at all. He is more interested in rhetoric than in facts.


John Carnell Crosbie: There are 1,476,000 Canadians officially unemployed. They are not interested in the Minister's rhetoric or in his attempting to explain away the unexplainable. They want jobs, and the Minister is doing nothing to assist them.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in 1968 when the present Prime Minister came into office there were 360,000 unemployed, and today there are four times that many. That is not rhetoric; that is fact. When are the Minister and the Prime Minister going to take some interest in our economy and develop some new policies or new approaches which will reduce the figure of 1,476,000 unemployed? That is not rhetoric. That is 1,476,000 unemployed people you are doing nothing about.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I intend to address the very question raised by the Hon. Member in a speech 1 am going to make next Wednesday. I invite him to read that speech. He will discover the facts of what has happened to the economy since 1968. He will discover, among other things, that we have created something like three million jobs since 1968. These are jobs that have been created in Canada that did not exist in 1968. These jobs have been created in the Canadian economy. We have known higher rates of growth during that period than most other industrialized countries. If my friend takes the trouble of reading the speech, he will find that the economic record of our country
since 1968 is indeed one of the best of all industrialized countries.


UNEMPLOYMENT RATES IN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He has claimed that we are using rhetoric to alter the facts. He is using rhetoric to misrepresent the facts. He persists in saying that the number of people entering the labour force in Canada is greater than the number in the U.S. The facts show that for the last six months the percentage increase is exactly the same for both countries. The figure is .5 per cent.
Why does the Minister blatantly misrepresent the facts when trying to explain why unemployment in the U.S. has dropped substantially, about 18 per cent in the last six months, compared to a marginal drop in unemployment in Canada of about 2.6 per cent?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I may remind my hon. friend that the growth rate of the Canadian economy in 1983 compared very favourably with that of the U.S. economy. During the first two or even three months of this year, it seems the U.S. economy experienced a very high growth rate, as much as 7.2 per cent real growth. I am not in a position to know exactly what the growth rate was in Canada, but eventually StatsCan will publish these figures, and we will then be able to compare. Once more, however, what I said about the increase in labour force in 1983 reflects the true situation. In 1983, in Canada, there was a proportional increase in the labour force that was 40 per cent higher than in the United States.
My hon. friend chose to take the figures for the last six months. I referred to the figures for 1983, and perhaps she would care to check those figures.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think the record should show that the Minister of Finance did not answer the question.


AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a second error and omission in the Minister's recent remarks. Last week he said that he agreed with the statement by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Gerald Bouey, that Canadians are partly to blame for high interest rates because Canadian wage settlements are higher than those in the U.S. In the first nine months of the fiscal year, which is how Statistics Canada measures it, StatsCan reported that the average weekly wage in Canada, excluding agriculture, rose 3.2 per cent. That is well below the 5.1 per cent recorded in the U.S. in the same period. Since the facts contradict the Minister's own statement, why is he unfairly blaming Canadians for his own high interest rate policies?
March 26, 1984


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have just got a very nice example of wilful distortion of a statement made by a senior official. What the Governor of the Bank of Canada has said before the parliamentary committee is on the record. I invite my colleague to go and check exactly what he said. Neither the Governor nor myself has blamed anyone. I invite the Hon. Member to check the words that have been used by the Governor, rather than seriously distorting his statement.
The figures in terms of rates of growth of wages in Canada and the United States over the last few years are there for everyone to see. Last Friday in the House I mentioned a number of figures for the last few years. Those are the figures which were released by official organizations such as Statistics Canada. If my friend does not like those figures, she can argue with Statistics Canada. However, they are there for everyone to see.
If the Hon. Member checked back before 1981 she would see that for years in Canada we have had higher levels of remuneration growth in wage settlements than there have been in the United States. I have indicated that we cannot hope to compete with the United States if, year after year, we have higher rates of settlements than in the United States, unless we are going to have higher productivity than the United States. This is grade one economics. If my friend does not realize that, her case is rather hopeless.


FINANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Two years ago when interest rates in Canada reached nearly 21 per cent and there were almost 2 million people unemployed, we had been following and were continuing to follow the interest rate policy established by the United States Government. We saw the dire consequences of that action, with more bankruptcies in almost every single sector of the Canadian economy. Is the Government now prepared to risk the same kind of consequences by following the U.S. interest rate to whatever level it reaches, regardless of the effect it will have on the Canadian public?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is a discussion which we already had in great detail last week. I have nothing to add to what I said on the subject last week. However, I may remind my hon. friend that in case he is panicking, there is no reason to believe that in the months to come, interest rates will start rising as they did a few years ago.
All analysts who are looking into the situation, or at least the vast majority, agree that even if interest rates in the United States were to rise, the increase would not be substan-
Oral Questions
tial. In fact, there is no reason to believe in the pessimistic scenario given by my hon. friend.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, that is the same answer we got in 1980 and 1981. The difficulty is that there is not an analyst anywhere who fully understands what the consequences will be, or where the rates will go. It will be too late to turn it back once the rates get to 16 and 17 per cent.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES ON UNEMPLOYMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, as reported at page 2331 of Hansard of last week the Minister said: "Mr. Speaker, an increase of one-half of one per cent in the interest rate does not necessarily mean there will be fewer jobs in Canada."
Between 1981 and 1982 each one-half per cent increase in the interest rate resulted in a net loss of 100,000 jobs seasonally unadjusted and 35,000 jobs seasonally adjusted. Is the Minister prepared to follow the upward spiral of interest rates which is now being pursued in the United States, recognizing the loss of jobs that will result in Canada if we follow it lock-step as we did through the years 1980 through 1983?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, surely my friend recognizes that an increase of one-half of one per cent in interest rates does not necessarily lead to higher unemployment. It depends on a number of other factors, including the general economic environment, the confidence of consumers, the expectations of businessmen as to what will happen in terms of consumer demand, and the world demand for a number of products in the mining and forestry industries, to mention only two.
To find evidence that jobs can still be created and unemployment reduced, even though there may be some slight increase in the interest rates, one has only to look at the situation in the United States in the last three months. In the United States there has been an edging up of rates since January. They have still been creating jobs very quickly and have known a very high rate of growth in their economy.
Along with my friend I recognize that large increases in interest rates would indeed have a very serious, dampening effect on the economy. However, the type of increase which has occurred, or is likely to occur, is not necessarily one which would lead to a decline in employment. On the contrary, the evidence from the United States in the last few months seems to indicate that there can still be strong growth in the face of edging up of interest rates. Obviously our preference would be for interest rates to be lower and to continue the downward trend which existed last year. The object of our policy is to have the lowest possible interest rates in this country.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES ON BUSINESS SECTOR
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, back in 1979 the present President of the Treasury Board said: "The

March 26, 1984
Oral Questions
effect of each one-half per cent increase in interest rates results in a loss of S375 million to the business sector". Given the fact that a figure like that, if calculated based on today's values, would be considerably higher than $375 million, how can the Minister stand in his place and suggest for one moment that if interest rates rise by one-half of one per cent, albeit incrementally, there will not be a net loss in the number of jobs if there will be in fact a net loss in the amount of revenue that goes to every company in Canada?
Why does the Minister insist that it would be better to wait, hoping that nothing goes wrong, than to take an independent path for Canadians and establish, once and for all, that we have the power and the right to determine what kind of future Canadians ought to have?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very nice rhetoric of the Hon. Member. It would be very interesting if the NDP were to put this into mechanics and show us what they would be proposing specifically, in terms of policy and mechanics, and how they will have interest rates in Canada that are significantly lower than in the United States while still having growth in this country and still increasing the real income of the workers. It will be very interesting to see what they will come up with, rather than the rhetoric they are giving us.
With respect to his question, again I refer him to the period that preceded the recession we experienced in 1981-82. At that time interest rates went up quite rapidly and significantly.


Ian Deans: Incrementally.


Marc Lalonde: Businessmen still kept investing and borrowing. We knew very high rates of growth while interest rates were growing. Obviously we reached a point when there was an abrupt stop, and then decline and recession, but if my friend checks the facts he will learn that, during the rise of interest rates, investors in this country, businessmen, continued to borrow and invest very rapidly and significantly.
You must look at these things in terms of the context of the situation. At the present time there is no reason to believe that the slight increase we have known in the prime rate will lead to a decline in employment.


Ian Deans: If it does?


Marc Lalonde: We will see in the next few weeks and months exactly what will happen in the economy. We are monitoring the situation carefully. If need be, we will make the necessary adjustments. In the meantime I see no reason to change the basic policy that we have been following.


Ian Deans: What adjustments?


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.


Ian Deans: What adjustments?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster has the floor. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain had seven minutes and two supplementaries.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I certainly hope you are as lenient with me, Mr. Speaker, as you were with that Member.
On March 8 of this year an erroneous and misleading advertisement, entitled "Canada's Rail Expansion Program", appeared in The Financial Post. It stated that $16.5 billion of investment would be made by the railroads by 1991, and some
375,000	new jobs would be created. The Minister knows that his own Department estimates that the investment by the railroads by 1991 will only be $12.5 billion, and the railroads' admission is that there will only be 155,000 new jobs created. Will the Minister stop this self-serving and misleading advertising paid for by the taxpayers of Canada?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member did not attend the full meeting of the Transport Committee last Thursday when we spent several hours talking about the whole grain expansion program.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: You haven't spent several hours yet.


Lloyd Axworthy: It would have given us an opportunity to have a much broader and more diversified discussion. I would point out to him that the impact of the Western Grain Transportation Bill is still very substantial. In this year alone some $1.1 billion of new capital investment will be going into the Canadian economy, providing a number of major acquisitions, purchases for new equipment, and facilities across the country, from Trenton, Nova Scotia, to the Hamilton area with, of course, substantial investment in the western provinces in which I know he is interested.
The whole point of the advertising is to bring to the attention of the Canadian business community the opportunities that exist under the Grain Transportation Bill for the possibility of a number of new sales and new supplies for the railroads. It is the whole point of the advertising which I hope the Hon. Member will endorse because it is a very strong opportunity for Canadian business to get into a new area of product development.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I will repeat my question to the Minister but, as an aside, the Minister has not spent several hours in the Standing Committee on Transportation since he has become Minister.
March 26, 1984


REQUEST THAT ADVERTISEMENT BE STOPPED
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, in light of the statements by his own Department that $12.5 billion is all that the railroads will invest between now and 1991, and the railroads' statement that there will only be
155,000	jobs created, will he stop this misleading advertisement? In view of his decision not to seek the leadership of his Party and to support the candidate from the Canadian Pacific, will you stop spending taxpayers' money to advertise erroneous information?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will address his remarks to the Chair.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it would help if the Hon. Member stopped making silly, gratuitous statements in the House of Commons. Then we could get down to some serious exchanges in Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I see we have rattled their cages again. The fact of the matter is that the change in those estimates does not affect the job factor substantially because part of the reduction in capital investment is due to the reduction in the inflation rate between the time the original forecasts were made and what we have been able to succeed in bringing it down to since that period of time. It only makes good sense that, if you reduce the inflation rate, less capital goes in but you still get the same job impact as a result.


CONTENT OF ADVERTISEMENT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Transport tell us if the advertisement in The Financial Post of March 8 is true?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already explained. Again I would register my-


Mr. Blenkarn:: Yes or no.


Lloyd Axworthy: We will try to answer the question when we are ready. The fact of the matter is that-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is false.


Lloyd Axworthy: -the advertisement that was put into The Financial Post, as I said to the previous questioner, is designed to provide information to the Canadian business public because of the opportunities that that capital investment offers for the business community to begin supplying a wide range of new facilities and equipment.
We are presently reforecasting the total expenditure over that period of time in light of a new improved economic condition that this country is facing. We have to revise the numbers because of that new forecast. We will revise them. What is true is that that Western Grain Transportation Bill is
Oral Questions
one of the most important economic investments ever made in the history of this country.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ISSUE NEW ADVERTISEMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: We have a most remarkable situation here. The Minister of Transport has admitted that his advertisement is false, at least in part. He now tells us in the House of Commons which parts, which subparagraphs of his advertisement are true, and consequently which are false.
When will the Government start telling the truth? Is the Government going to issue a new advertisement, paid for by the Liberal Party, because it was their Minister who told the falsehood, that sets forth the true facts? Will he give us an undertaking now that he will stop this lying by advertising at public expense?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member has a wonderful facility for being able to twist and turn a very simple, basic fact into something that is totally distorted in relation to the opportunity. I would ask the Conservative Party if they are now prepared to say that they do not favour that investment of billions of dollars that will be going into the Canadian economy? Are they opposed to the expansion and modernization of that transportation line? Are they prepared to have an advertisement, paid for by the Conservative Party, which would state for the first time where they stand on western transportation, because we have never heard them say in the House what their stand on the issue was?


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ISSUE ANOTHER ADVERTISEMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister start to tell the truth? Will he issue another advertisement that corrects this false advertisement, paid for by the people of Canada, to advance the interests of the Liberal Party?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in the committee, which the Right Hon. Member did not attend-because we went through this examination-the advertisements were originally commissioned some six weeks ago. The new forecasts, which are not even yet completed and will not be completed for another week, revise those forecasts down. I can hardly be expected to be so prescient as to be able to tell six weeks ago what a forecast that will not be available for the next week would have in it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: If the forecasts are different, we would then change the advertisement.

March 26, 1984
Oral Questions


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: Leader.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: During the last few days I have received many letters regarding the interest rates charged by the Farm Corporation. I want to quote from one letter as follows:
This interest rate is very high and I am having trouble making my payments.
1 am wondering if there is some way that this loan could be changed to a lower rate of interest.
The letter is signed by a Mr. William R. Walter who lives in Codette, Saskatchewan.
Can the Minister give me an answer that I can pass on to Mr. Walter?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can tell his constituent that my concern for his constituent is as great as his.


Mr. Stevens:: Throw your hat in the ring.


John Carnell Crosbie: Don't forget to put your head in it.


Eugene Whelan: We are investigating and trying to find a way that we can lower the interest rate for about 8,700 farmers who are paying as high as 16.75 per cent. As I said in the House the other day-and this question has been asked several times, Mr. Speaker-when we were loaning that money at that rate, 16V4, 16'/2, 16.75 per cent, the cheapest the farmers could get it was 20 per cent, 21 per cent, and 22 per cent. Also we subsidized that rate. For some of them it was 5 per cent, and for some of them 4 per cent subsidization-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Did you?


Eugene Whelan: -which brought the rate down in some instances to 12 per cent, and in some instances to below 12 per cent. To say that we have not done anything-and the Hon. Member has not said that, but I am surmising what his supplementary question is going to be-we have done more here probably than any other part. We are concerned and we are hoping to put forward a paper to work out a long-term policy on these rates if we can.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER EXTEND EMERGENCY AID PROGRAM
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Agriculture. One in seven Farm Credit Corporation borrowers is in arrears and in trouble. Since the Minister of Finance has indicated that he has no intention of doing anything about the high and increasing interest rates, would the Minister of Agriculture extend, at least for those few farmers who are getting some benefits from
his emergency program, the program beyond April 1 and make it available to another 8,000 farmers who are in trouble because of the high interest rates of this Government?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member refers to the Minister of Finance, let me say the Minister of Finance has been very responsive in the past when we have made requests to assist farmers who found themselves in financial difficulty. He has not told me that he is not going to be responsive to any reasonable, constructive suggestion that I am liable to make to him.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for International Affairs.


Mr. Regan:: Minister of International Trade.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry, Minister of International Trade. 1 certainly would not want to downgrade a potential leadership candidate like him, Sir.


John Carnell Crosbie: In the 21st Century.


Erik Nielsen: Did his department, or the Department of External Affairs, pay for an eight page, full colour advertisement appearing in The Globe and Mail today lauding the awesome accomplishments in the field of External Affairs personally brought about by the Minister and the Government and bearing no relationship whatever in terms of our foreign trade being due to any other factor, such as the falling dollar? The question is related to the justification for the expense in printing that kind of trash.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, Canadians-


John Carnell Crosbie: Throw your hat in the ring, Gerry.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You are their only hope.


An Hon. Member:: You can walk in the fog.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: They are unruly today, Prime Minister.


John Horton McDermid: Do you have to check in every five minutes?


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am very happy to do so.
The Hon. Member belongs to a Party that never likes to hear good news. I am surprised at the fact that he can greet as bad news something that I consider to be the subject for tremendous satisfaction and enthusiasm, and that is the job that we are doing in international trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 26, 1984


Gerald Augustine Regan: Last year we had an $18 billion trade surplus, Mr. Speaker. At this stage in a recovery usually you get a flattening out in the amount of the trade surplus because, as the economy recovers, people tend to buy more imported goods. That is particularly true when you consider how soft the European currencies are against ours and the difficulty of selling into Europe because of the currency situation.
You mention the question of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the American dollar. Compare the disadvantage that we have because European currencies have gone down some 40 per cent against ours in the last four years, and consider the fact that the less developed countries have no credit worthiness to buy much in the way of imports these days.


John Carnell Crosbie: Move over, Turner.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Yet we build an $18 billion surplus. Our trade figures-our exports-are at an all-time high. I want the Hon. Member to know that I have got that Department just a-hum-min', and I am proud of what it sells.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Well, by George, Sir, if that Department is just a-hummin' it's the only damn thing over there that is.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: That was not, however, what I was asking the Minister.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from the fact that the reason for the increase in trade is the deep depression that we are in, and quite apart from the fact that we are not importing, what about the advertisement? What about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that go to pay for an eight-page full advertisement which does nothing more than pat the Minister on the back and pat the Government on the back? Are we to expect this kind of thing? What about the activities of the Minister of Transport and those of other Ministers? The expenditure of taxpayers' dollars on this kind of trashy advertisement-is this the kind of thing we can expect from now until the election?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that ad, and I will have a look at it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to say to the Hon. Member through you, Sir, that I consider an ad of that type in relation to what we are doing and what we can do in exports-


Erik Nielsen: Remember you have not seen it.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -to be tremendously important.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Let me tell the Hon. Member very briefly why. As well as we are doing in exports, we can do a great deal better if we can get an orientation by more companies and more businessmen in this country toward exports, to recognize what is being done, and how, in product after product, we are successfully competing with the best in the world, outdoing the United States in telecommunications exports, in relation to mass transit equipment, and in many other fields, but unfortunately we do not yet have enough companies here in this country that are aggressively developing our export markets. That ad helps to bring the importance of that to their attention. I hope that you will review your position and agree-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the Hon. Minister to address his remarks to the Chair.


John Horton McDermid: You had hair when that picture was taken, Gerry.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but in his absence I will address it to his Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that the Conservative Party, through its official critic, the Hon. Member for South Shore, has asked the Government of Canada on several occasions in the last few weeks to impose a ban on the white coat hunt for seals. The Parliamentary Secretary should also know that yesterday in Newfoundland the Minister of Fisheries for that province publicly disagreed with that policy and publicly complained that neither he nor anyone else in the industry or in the Province was consulted.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell this House, and more importantly assure fishermen, assure industry players, assure provincial Governments with whom we need to consult to have a successful fishery policy in this country, that this Government will not be acting arbitrarily and will not have a knee-jerk reaction to a policy which I am told does not even meet with the approval of the Hon. Member for St. John's West?


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, all Members of the House and all Canadians, will know that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has strongly defended the industry and fishermen in this country. His statements have been very consistent and he has not given into threats or blackmail on this issue. The Hon. Member is quite correct in
2426

March 26, 1984
Oral Questions
saying that the Hon. Member for St. John's East has publicly stated that he has not been consulted in his caucus or by the critic for his Party about the recently announced policy of the Official Opposition. The Government's policy remains the same-strong and consistent.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. As the Minister is no doubt aware, I made official application three weeks ago for access to the report of the inquiry into the Pacific Petrel affair. Since a wooden sailing ship can hardly be considered of strategic importance or of national security relevance, why is the Minister stonewalling my request? He has had the report on the Petrel for some three months. How much longer must we wait to find out the truth about this mismanagement of public funds?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, the report is being prepared for delivery to the hon. gentleman within the time set out in the statute.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will not run its full time, because the report was prepared three months ago and I should like to see it urgently.


COURT MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The commander of Maritime Forces Pacific has stated in The Times-Colonist of Victoria that he knew about the Pacific Petrel project all along, as did the senior staff at National Defence Headquarters, yet the Department is court-martialling a relatively junior player in this drama and making him the scapegoat for everyone from the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff down.
Will the Minister now release the inquiry and assure the House that no action will be taken against National Defence personnel without a full, public revelation of the facts?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows, as a former Minister of National Defence, disciplinary action is taken within the Department by the officer responsible for the command in question. That is the procedure that has been followed in this instance. The hon. gentleman knows full well that the proceedings will be commencing tomorrow. I hope that he will not ask me to start commenting on proceedings that are in progress. I will abstain from doing so.


FINANCE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of his projections in the February Budget of the cost of government borrowings of approximately $20 billion, I should like to know what interest rate he used to calculate that cost? Does he accept the fact that a .5 per cent increase in interest rates in Canada represents as much as $750 million in additional government expenditures?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's mathematics may be all right assuming that these interest rates will last all year, but there is no reason to believe that this will be the case.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. He knows that government borrowings already take as much as 90 per cent of Canadian savings. In itself this represents a major pressure on interest rates. Notwithstanding the Minister's previous answer, what principle will the Minister use to accommodate that additional cost to the Government? Will he increase taxes to compensate for the additional cost, will he decrease services, or will he increase the deficit?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my friend will have to wait for the fiscal year report for 1984-85.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Bud Cullen (Samia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Following on the presentation of the report of the petrochemical task force-and I believe that the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin asked the Minister of Finance about this last week-I should like to know the position the federal Government is taking vis-a-vis action on the report. Many Governments are involved, and producers and producing provinces are also involved. Given the fact that the report was commissioned by the federal Government and done by the private sector, what role have the federal Government, and the Minister's Department in particular, taken?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have had some meetings with the industry, and my colleague, the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development, and I are working on the problem. One possibility is conversion from oil to natural gas. We are having discussions at the present time with the Government of Alberta about an incentive price for new quantities
March 26, 1984

of natural gas in the market. After my last discussion with Mr. Zaozirny he was supposed to come up with a reduction in the price of new quantities of natural gas. I am still waiting for his answer but I hope to talk to him this week. This will go a long way toward resolving the problems of the petrochemical industry in the East.
There is also a responsibility on the Ontario Government because a lot of investment in the Sarnia area has to be protected. I hope the Ontario Government will want to play a role there.


HOUSING
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Housing starts in Canada reached a peak in 1976 with 273,000 units. They declined to 126,000 units in 1982 and slowly picked up to
162,000	in 1983. They are already beginning to stall in 1984 because of the decrease in disposable income. Now they will be further depressed because of higher interest and mortgage rates. Considering that this will destroy any hope for recovery in the lumber and construction industries, what steps will the Minister take to bring mortgate rates down so that Canadians can once again build and purchase homes?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that the figures for housing in the early part of the year have picked up. The forecast is for increased housing construction in 1984 compared to 1983. As far as the lumber industry is concerned, the Hon. Member knows that a larger part of that industry depends on the American market for its production and that a relatively small share of the total production is consumed in Canada. A good part of it is also consumed abroad. The housing market in the United States looks quite good at the present time. There is no reason to believe that the lumber industry will encounter more difficulties this year than last year; on the contrary, we are confident that things will improve.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN LUMBER AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, housing starts in January were 129,000. That is not good enough for the Canadian industry. While we depend on the American market for lumber, it is also important that the Canadian market be high enough to take its share of the lumber industry. Forest workers in Canada have had two years of depression-level unemployment; 30 per cent of construction workers are laid off across Canada, and carpenters in Victoria have a 70 per cent unemployment rate.
In light of these facts, how high does unemployment amongst lumber workers and construction workers have to go before their voice is as loud as the voice of Governor Bouey?
Oral Questions
How high do interest rates have to go before the Minister takes action to protect Canadian jobs?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat to the Hon. Member that we expect housing starts this year to be higher than they were last year.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The question is a few weeks old but it has lost none of its importance. On February 10 a press release from the Prime Minister's office stated that the Minister of Transport was to be responsible for the Canadian Air Safety Board, yet Mr. Justice Dubin's report was explicit in saying that anyone but the Minister of Transport was to be named to this position. Can the Minister of Transport tell the House why this was done in complete opposition to the Dubin report?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the rationale for that is that we are trying to consolidate and centralize a number of the safety operations in the Department of Transport so that we can have a comprehensive approach to the problem. The Canadian Air Safety Board does not in any way respond to any ministerial direction; I simply report to Parliament for it. It has a complete, detached, arm's length reference. This means that we are able to keep an overview of all safety activities and to ensure that we have a full and proper safety approach. That is virtually our No. 1 priority, and that is the rationale for this action.


DUBIN REPORT RECOMMENDATION
John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that the Minister of Transport does have a handle on all of the things that happen in the air transport industry, and the Canadian Air Safety Board is one of those things. The Standing Committee on Transport and many other committees assume that the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General for Canada would be in a position to reply to the House of Commons on behalf of this Board. It is absolutely fallacious for the Minister to say that there is no conflict. Would he not take another look at this situation to see if he would do the right thing by following Chief Justice Dubin's request and putting it into the hands of another Minister?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would take another look at the Dubin report he would see that the actual text indicated that it contained the recommendations of several groups which appeared before Mr. Justice Dubin but that Mr. Justice Dubin himself did not have a very strong view on the question. I would like to ask the Hon. Member to take at face value what we are trying to do, because it is very important.

March 26, 1984
Petitions
We are trying to deal with the issue of air safety. It is important to have a complete and total picture of what is going on in both the inquiry and investigation side as well as the inspection and setting of standards side. If those two sides were fragmented between different Ministers we would not be able to bring that kind of comprehensive approach to bear. However, I can certainly assure the Hon. Member that there is nothing in the mandate of the aviation safety board which allows the Minister to interfere in any way with its ability to undertake independent inquiries and to report publicly and directly on the results of those inquiries. I have no power to interfere with that in any way, but I do have the ability to match up the activities of the safety board with the other regulatory activities of the Department to make sure that we do have a complete and total understanding of the problem, and the ability to respond to the problem in a policy way.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether or not he is satisfied with the Bracken formula for allocating hopper cars and whether or not he anticipates any change to the formula. Does he think that the formula has the effect of keeping the big companies big and the small companies small? Is he causing any studies to take place with respect to the Bracken formula? Would he tell us what his intentions are?


An Hon. Member:: Good question.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member who said that it is a good question. However, it is a question of great magnitude as well, and one that hardly can be answered within the realm of Question Period.
I would point out to the Hon. Member that that is the whole purpose of having the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. It brings all of the major participants in the grain transportation system in western Canada together to meet on a monthly basis and examine issues exactly related to the efficient use and allocation of cars in the grain system. I will certainly be glad to refer the question to the Grain Transportation Committee so it can refer back to me about the Hon. Member's concern.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, March 23, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) has served notice of a point of order.


PRIVILEGE
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege arising out of the remarks made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in answer to a question which I asked him. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that today I referred to his support for the remark made by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, indicating that Canadians are partly to blame for high interest rates because wage settlements are higher here than in the United States. In his answer the Minister of Finance said that I wilfully misrepresented this statement.
As you are fully aware, Mr. Speaker, it is parliamentary to say that a Member misrepresented the facts but it is unparliamentary to say that a Member attempted to misrepresent the facts and, further, it is unparliamentary to say that a Member wilfully misrepresented the facts. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Chair to direct the Minister to withdraw his remarks.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is not present in the House so he will of course have to examine today's record and take note of the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney). In the meantime, in considering the matter, it might assist the Chair to refer to page 112 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms where the words "misrepresent" and "misrepresentation" appear as being one of those instances where it has been ruled parliamentary to use such an expression.
However, at page 109 of the same edition of Beauchesne's, an example of an unparliamentary expression is set forth as being "attempted to misrepresent", because obviously by using the word "attempted", one is attributing a state of mind and inferring a deliberate intention on the part of the Member to misrepresent.
My submission to you in support of the point of privilege of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, Sir, is that if it is unparliamentary to use the expression "attempted to misrepresent", it is even more unparliamentary to use the expression "wilfully misrepresent". I hope that the Minister will review this exchange and will, hopefully, do the proper thing tomorrow at the first opportunity, which would be to apologize and withdraw the offending expression.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will make note of this and will examine the record.
March 26, 1984



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 468, 529, 580 and 640.


Mr. Howie: 1.	In 1983 was the National Harbours Board involved in any lawsuits with respect to its operations in New Brunswick and, if so, what were the names of the litigants?
2.	In 1983 to date, were any outside lawyers employed by the Board and, if so, what total amount was paid to them?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Canada Ports Corporation advises as follows:
1.	Yes. National Harbours Board versus P. Kiewit Sons Company Ltd., a $30 million law suit in relation to Rodney Terminal.
2.	Yes. In 1983 the law firm Mockler, Allen and Dixon were employed by the Board and the total sum of $236,586.37 was paid to them in relation to the above-noted litigation.


Mr. Mayer: In 1983, what was the annual passenger load on the VIA train route from Winnipeg to Saskatoon and what was the cost of operating the route?


Lloyd Axworthy: The management of VIA Rail Canada Inc. advises as follows:
In 1983 the annual passenger load on the VIA train route from Winnipeg to Saskatoon was 33,330 passengers. The cost of operating the route was $9,143,222.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Did the Ministry of Transport conduct any studies relating to the merits of grooving aircraft runways and, if so (a) were outside consultants used and, if so, what (i) is a list of the names of such consultants (ii) remuneration was or will be paid to them?
2.	Does the Ministry plan to groove any runways at its airfields?
3.	Will the Ministry fill in the ravine at the end of runway 24L at the Pearson International Airport at Toronto?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. Yes. (a) No. (i) and (ii) Not applicable.
2. The practice of the Department is to groove runways when operational problems are experienced that need correction, and grooving is the most economical means of correction.
Order Paper Questions
Additional runways will be grooved in the future if such operational problems are encountered.
3.	Filling of the ravine at the end of runway 24L at Toronto-Lester B. Pearson International Airport will depend on the findings of a new feasibility study which departmental officials have been directed to undertake.


Mr. Stewart: With reference to the answer to question No. 116, in the fiscal year 1983-84, what total amount was budgeted for all Industrial Research Assistance Programs?


Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the answer is as follows: $38.5 million.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 204 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 204 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were outside consultants employed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the total amount paid?
2.	Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case what (a) was his/her name (b) was the amount (c) services were provided?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 26, 1984
Canada Health Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and Motion No. 4 (Mr. Halliday).
Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock, when the House took recess, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) had presented his amendment to Bill C-3. I would now like to summarize for the House the history of Clause 12 as amended by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, to clarify the reasons for the present form of this Clause in the Bill, the report stage of which is now being considered by the House, and the exact implications of the amendment being proposed by the Hon. Member for Oxford.
Mr. Speaker, the House will recall, and the Hon. Member himself referred to this point, that Mr. Justice Hall has always indicated the inherent duality of eliminating extra-billing, which he proposed, and the need for providing doctors with a framework for negotiations with the provinces which are responsible for setting standards of compensation for insured health services. More specifically, Mr. Speaker, when he appeared before the Committee, Mr. Justice Hall indicated that the binding arbitration procedure which he recommended in his 1980 report should not be imposed through legislation, and should certainly not constitute a fundamental condition for implementing the federal legislation.
Aware of this dilemma, Committee members examined the concept, favoured by Mr. Justice Hall and recommended, much later, by the Canadian Medical Association-I say much later, because originally, the Association did not see the need for it-in order to see to what extent this framework for discussion could be incorporated into the federal legislation, while leaving intact the concept of shared responsibility or jurisdiction, it being understood that health is a provincial responsibility, generally speaking, with respect to providing services, allocating resources, and setting priorities, while federal jurisdiction covered spending powers and a responsibility, taken on twenty-five years ago, for making federal transfer payments, provided the five essential conditions are met.
Now, the concept of reasonable compensation, since that is what we are talking about here, which was in the original 1966
legislation on health care, went as far as the Canadian Government thought it could go in urging participating provinces to ensure that their doctors received "reasonable" compensation, a subjective concept, I agree, which is or was in Bill C-3 as originally introduced in the House, considered at the second reading stage and referred to Committee.
The Committee had to decide, first of all, whether or not this framework for discussion, this framework for negotiations leading to binding arbitration-arbitration, that is, always preceded by negotiations-could be put in the federal legislation without interfering directly with the responsibility of the provinces which, with respect to negotiations, and I was referring earlier to compensation, is not contested. The answer was yes, after lengthy discussions in Committee. We decided that this framework could be incorporated in the federal legislation. The second question, a corollary of the previous one, was to decide whether or not we had to impose, on the ten participating provinces, this framework for discussion and negotiations and, eventually, binding arbitration, within the concept or general framework of reasonable compensation.
The Committee decided: no, we did not want to impose binding arbitration on the provinces but we would leave it up to the provinces to operate within the framework of the negotiations specified and enumerated in paragraph 2 of clause 12 as amended in Committee.
I think that is the basic element which enables us now to reply to the argument and the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Oxford. Indeed, if subclause (2) is optional-and so it is, obviously-we must check whether or not the proposed amendment nullifies that option. I say it does because subclause (2) provides that, if the provinces and the medical associations involved have signed and agreed on a negotiating formula, the reasonable compensation criterion will be respected. On the other hand, if there is no agreement, the reasonable compensation criterion takes precedence-the subjective criterion which remains and which, in the final analysis, will always leave the Minister of National Health and Welfare free to intervene if necessary and apply the penalties mentioned in clause 14 and the following clauses of the Bill.
Now, what would happen if the amendment of the Hon. Member for Oxford were adopted? By adding the word "only", we would inevitably commit the legal negotiating structure proposed under the reasonable compensation clause. Without legal structure, without agreement among the provinces, the federal Minister would necessarily have to resort to penalties as provided for in the Bill and as the federal Minister is authorized to do pursuant to the Bill. I respect the Hon. Member for Oxford for what he is attempting to do, and I might add that I agree with him that we ought to make sure that Canadian medical practitioners do receive reasonable compensation and have the means to obtain it. But still the basic problem remains unsolved and we have to cut the
March 26, 1984

Gordian knot. Yes or no, does the House want to force the mechanism proposed in the Bill on the provinces?
It is an issue or a problem which is difficult to solve and I would rather not get into a lengthy argument on the delicate balance between the federal presence and the provincial responsibilities in the field of health care, for we all know the conditions of that essential balance. Personally, I would much prefer that the Canadian Government did not force-I repeat, force-the provinces and the medical associations concerned, through the new Canada Health Act, to accept any legal structure whatsoever. In my opinion, that is exactly what would happen if we were to adopt the amendment of the Hon. Member for Oxford.
Although I appreciate what he is attempting to do, that is why I cannot support his amendment since it would force the provinces to accept a structure which the committee made sure would not be compulsory.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this amendment was proposed in committee and there is quite a history behind it. I think it is important, in order to understand what is being proposed, to look at the background of this amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). It has always been difficult to answer a number of questions on a national health scheme, but one question which has always been front and centre is: How do you establish a national health scheme yet retain professional freedom within that scheme? The definition of professional freedom might have various dimensions or parameters depending on the observer, but what has happened through the years is that a certain equilibrium has been established between the province, represented primarily by the Ministry of Health, the Health Services Commission, and the medical profession, generally represented by a provincial organization or the umbrella body, the Canadian Medical Association.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Justice Hall, in his report studying the health care system, which report was commissioned by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) when he was Minister of National Health and Welfare, made two fundamental points. He said that extra billing and user fees had the potential or eroding medicare as Canadians had come to understand it. We can argue about the consultation process, and I am going to get to that on third reading, but for the purpose of this debate the perception of Mr. Justice Hall was that that was a potential problem. However, he never looked at the solution to that problem, as he identified it, in isolation.
He also recognized that the primary focus of the health care system had to be service to Canadians first. In order to have proper service, the health care professionals had to feel not only that they were being fairly treated, but that their professionalism was being recognized. The other half of the argument that he put forward was that if extra billing was either to
Canada Health Act
be outlawed or penalties for its use applied, which could eventually lead to its demise, then there had to be reasonable and fair compensation for the medical profession.
Members can argue that those are two almost irreconcilable points of view. When you add thereto the reality of federal-provincial jurisdictional components and responsibilities, you come up with a very difficult problem to solve, if a solution can be found. That is why, Mr. Speaker, just on that narrow ground, it was our preference that negotiations with the provinces take place before the Canada Health Act is brought in. But that is not what we have been facing over these past few weeks. That being the case, when one comes to the operative words "reasonable compensation", what does it mean and how do you get it?
I said that what is reasonable would vary with the individual. I cannot speak for the Canadian Medical Association, but I know there are a lot of discussions within that organization and their provincial affiliates as to how to address this matter of the established equilibrium being eroded. There was this new factor, that of a penalty being imposed if extra billing continues. I do not know what the legal fees relating to this clause are, Mr. Speaker, but I know that an awful lot of work went into the clause, and so at least in part we addressed the question. I say "in part". What concerns me, if we do not accept this amendment, is this nebulous but real relationship which a professional has to his or her place of work. That is real. I know that the majority of Canadians say they wanted penalties for extra billing, but the existing mechanism had created an understanding, an equilibrium. All the committee tried to do was to restore some mechanism whereby, if the equilibrium, the fairness and reasonableness, is not achievable, then at least the mechanism to try and reach those goals might be set up. I am convinced that if we do not have that kind of mechanism, the medical profession will feel that their professionalism, their training and their service is not recognized adequately. I am not talking about dollars, I am talking about attitude. It is part of professionalism. That is why I think this amendment is so important.
If we were to have that kind of negative attitude toward the system and the manner in which the services are provided and compensated for, who would suffer most? That is the question we have to ask. Is it the medical profession? Is it potentially the Canadian public who needs the service? I am not saying that doctors will automatically try to provide an inferior service, but I think we have to deal with the psychology of the situation and with how a professional views himself or herself. That is the point I am trying to get across. I suggest that the manner in which the Ontario Medical Association puts forward its case does not augur well for the manner in which the problems endemic to the health care system will be resolved.
I do not subscribe to the concept that this is conscription-I want to make that very clear. It is not civilian conscription. If you look at many professional groups, having established a salary and working conditions, that is their contract. But within this system I suggest it would be detrimental to the public if we saw the Canadian medical profession, either by

March 26, 1984
Canada Health Act
their rhetoric, their actions or the actions of this House, being pushed into or moved into a position where they feel that what we often call job action is justified. The greatest hurt would then be inflicted on those Canadians who need health care
services.
It does not do the Canadian Medical Association or health care providers any good, who, through a bargaining mechanism, withdraw their services from the ill. I must admit I do not have a lot of evidence that that kind of action has in fact benefited the profession. Maybe this goes back to my relationship to a profession I was once in. I never felt that job action was a better solution than sitting down around a table and, no matter how long it took, or how frustrating the experience, eventually as adult men and women coming up with an agreement.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to
interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member may
continue his remarks.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank Hon. Members for their courtesy. I would like to say, that being the case, I urge Members to once again examine this motion. I believe we have come some distance toward addressing the problems which have been put forward by my colleague and others. I believe that we could strengthen the solution which the committee came up with after hours of hard work. I commend the motion, Mr. Speaker, to the House in order that within months we will not have job action or the potential of job action which would hurt those Canadians who need the service of the medical system.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, even though I speak in support of the amendment by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) I have never accepted the argument which was put forward by the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) that there is some kind of inextricable link between professionalism and extra billing. I have always found it very difficult to understand how the professionalism of one profession, in this case the medical profession, could be so bound up with the ability to extra bill patients when the professionalism of other professions is unrelated to whether or not they are able to bill clients over and above what they are paid through their salary.
Having said that, I would like to say that I have always supported, on behalf of my Party, the recommendation of Justice Hall that the outlawing of extra billing in any particular province go hand in hand with binding arbitration procedures in those provinces. I have stood up in the House on many occasions over the past four years and called on the Minister to do something about the erosion of medicare represented by extra billing. Many times I included in my representations to
her our support for the concept of binding arbitration. Therefore, I have no problem supporting an amendment which I know has the support of the Canadian Medical Association, a group I am normally not in agreement with. I do not do this out of any affection for their Association, particularly given their most recent activity; I do it in the interest of consistency and in the interest of the position I have taken since the beginning of this debate on the erosion of medicare and how extra billing ought to be eliminated.
In that respect I would submit that we are unlike the other two Parties in the House. We are unlike the Tories who never said boo about extra billing. I invite people to check the record. I invite them to search through Hansard high and low, between the lines, through the lines and around the lines to find out if anyone in the House on behalf of the P.C. Party ever expressed a concern about extra billing before the Canada Health Act was actually tabled and a political judgment was made that the Act would be supported, which is fair enough. We were calling for the elimination of extra billing and for binding arbitration when others were paying no attention at all to extra billing.
This gives me an opportunity to make a general comment which is related to the concern of the Hon. Member for Provencher about professionalism. In recent days with the turning over of the membership list of the Canadian Medical Association to the National Citizens' Coalition, as was reported in the newspapers, and with the full page ads-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Ontario Medical Association, not the Canadian Medical Association.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am sorry, the Ontario Medical Association- I stand corrected and the turning over of their membership list to the National Citizens' Coalition and the full page ads taken out by the National Citizens' Coalition against the Canada Health Act. Not only that, but the ads we have seen in the Ottawa area recently, where the monitors are going, "beep, beep, beep" is supposed to be what is happening to medicare as a result of the Canada Health Act. I am known to be a critic of doctors. I do not have high expectations of them, but I have maintained my respect for them as professionals through all the debates we have had from one end of the country to the other, whether in Victoria with the special parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, or in the committee hearings on the Canada Health Act.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I think some of the things which have gone on lately have brought shame to the vocational integrity of the medical profession in Canada. I am genuinely, deeply disappointed. There must be thousands of doctors who feel as I do. I certainly hope that is the case. I am confident that is the case. I hope they will make it known to their various leaders that they have had enough of being embarrassed in the way that they have been embarrassed, particularly in recent weeks, by some of the advertisements we have seen in the Ottawa area. It is to pile dishonour upon dishonour to have the National Citizens' Coalition declare itself to be in alliance with the position the doctors have taken.
March 26, 1984

This is a terrible thing, Mr. Speaker. I hope the opportunity will present itself for all right thinking doctors to speak out. They may disagree with this Bill and that is fine. Disagreeing with this Bill is a legitimate political stance as long as one is willing to debate it within the bounds of reasonableness.
We do not know what the effects of the Canada Health Act may be. We do not know whether the penalties will have the desired effect in Ontario. We are only talking about what may happen. Provinces still have the freedom to do as they wish with regard to extra billing. Referring to that as civilian conscription, talking about having heart surgery done by civil servants, is the kind of tactics, unreasonableness and fear mongering that is completely unacceptable.
I hope that this debate might mark the beginning of a reform movement within the medical profession itself. I hope that the "old boys' club" could be broken up so that new doctors with fresh ideas of how the medical profession works in greater harmony with other health care practitioners and more accountability to the community might say that they cannot afford to let those in the Canadian Medical Association or Ontario Medical Association represent them throughout the country because they are doing a poor job. I hope that small group within those associations is doing a poor job in speaking for ordinary doctors who often work under difficult circumstances to do their best to care for their patients. Nobody has denied that. I hope the CMA and the OMA are doing a poor job of representing those ordinary doctors in the sense that I hope they are not representative of the views of ordinary people, as we have discovered in our travels throughout the country.
I am disappointed by the medical profession and its participation in this debate. One receives messages from them that are incoherent and quite childish, referring to political fraud. But having said that, I support this amendment because in spite of the doctors, I support fairness for them and a balanced approach to the elimination of extra billing.
I was one of the first to suggest in committee that without an amendment such as that proposed by the Hon. Member for Oxford the legislation would not meet the legitimate needs for some kind of balance as expressed by the doctors. If the Government does not support the amendment it should remove the Conservatives' amendment altogether, since it is merely a poetic or rhetorical addition to the Bill. It does not require anything of the provinces.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It is a statement.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Perhaps it is. I am simply trying to point out the legal meaninglessness of it. I am acceptable to arguments for leaving it in but I am simply saying that it does not have much effect as it is. It may be legitimately argued that it should be left in because it has some symbolic effect, similar to the amendment for the health care practitioner. In that respect, perhaps it would be better to leave it in.
Canada Health Act
The provinces do not seem to understand the purpose of the amendment, which is unusual, because usually there is close communication between the CMA and the provinces. The provinces are concerned that the amendment in its present form, without the subamendment by the Hon. Member for Oxford, is far too aggressive and places them in a difficult position. This shows a political irony because the Progressive Conservative Member for Oxford is suggesting that we should be more intrusive. That does not disturb me because I have always wanted the federal Government to be more intrusive in the case of medicare and the preservation of its principles. I am pleased to welcome the Hon. Member for Oxford aboard and to express my happiness that he finally realizes the responsibility of the federal Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the oration by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), I am not sure whether his support is an advantage or disadvantage. I will have to weigh what he said very carefully.
In any event, I would like to speak briefly to the amendment that has been put forward by my colleague for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) because Clause 12(2), as it exists in the Bill before us, is in itself an amendment. The words of subsection 2 have been agreed to in committee although they were not the first preference of the Conservative Party members who sat on the committee on Health and Welfare.
The amendment that was put forward in committee by my colleague for Provencher (Mr. Epp) would have provided a much firmer and more equitable system of reasonable compensation than we have before us today. I wish that the Government, in recognizing that there had to be a balance between the removal of extra billing and the provision of a regular schedule of fees for the medical profession, would have accepted what my colleague put forward. If it had done so, the necessity for the amendment by the member for Oxford would have been eliminated.
The amendment by the Member for Provencher would have indicated to the doctors, the provinces and other interested parties that the necessary equality has been carried out in order to make the entire system work. While we have accepted the fact that there should be no extra billing, we have provided a mechanism whereby medical practitioners can be assured of reasonable compensation for the services which they so willingly and devotedly give to Canadians. It would have been a proper step to take, but it was not accepted. Instead, we are faced with the Government's amendment to Clause 12(2) as it is now before us. That amendment embodies the concept of what my colleague from Provencher put before the committee but does not have the strength and therefore, in my view, will not prove satisfactory in the long run.
There are inherent weaknesses in the amendment which the Government has incorporated in this Clause of the Bill. It is in that light that the Hon. Member for Oxford sought to strengthen the Bill, if only minimally. Nevertheless, that

March 26, 1984
Canada Health Act
amendment does bring some strength and depth to the procedure of providing for reasonable compensation that the present amendment lacks.
When I spoke to other amendments before the House this morning, I talked rather encouragingly-something I do not always do-about the way the Minister and some of her colleagues had been generous enough to at least accept the concept of the amendment, if not the wording, that had been put forward by opposition Parties in committee. They took some steps toward meeting what we thought were those qualities of fairness and justice that were so clearly delineated by Mr. Justice Hall. However, the Government was not totally receptive.
One of the advantages of the report stage of any Bill is that it gives the Government the opportunity for sober second thought. It is not only the other place that has that opportunity, it is provided in our rules and procedures for the Government to come to that stage itself.
1 believe that this amendment allows the Government to take a second look at the proposals it has put forward. I am sure that in the light of sober second thought the Minister will see the reasonableness of this amendment, and the need for it. I know that later this day she will want to advise her colleagues that this very small but very important amendment should be incorporated into the Bill because it would strengthen the mechanism that we are now introducing. That would reassure many people who are concerned about the lack of any kind of balance in the Bill. It would reassure them that there is a willingness to see that these difficulties are met, and that in the long run once again we will have a better Bill.
I commend the amendment to the Minister. I am sure she will give it that degree of sober second thought that I have urged upon her. I will be only too happy to see her and members of her party stand in their places later today and indicate their support for this amendment.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, may I commend at the outset to Hon. Members in this House and to those in the press gallery a reading of the first draft of Bill C-3, the Health Care Act. It went through the proceedings of this House up to and including second reading. I would like Hon. Members to compare that draft with the Bill we have before us this afternoon. After that careful consideration if they do not come to the conclusion that major surgery was done on the Bill, and I refer specifically to clauses 3 and 4 being the objectives and the purposes of the Bill, I would then ask them to refer to clause 12. Just before someone says it is not relevant to the issue let me state that clause 12 itself contains such words as "adequacy of funding" for hospital care, and "reasonableness" of remuneration to medical prac-tioners in the delivery of medicare.
Those words were part of the first draft and part of the indication by this Government when it introduced Bill C-3 that there was going to be a new era in medicare. Witnesses, one
after another, came before the standing committee indicating that, yes, while Bill C-3 was limited in its approach, this was simply phase one or stage one to a second or third stage which might quickly follow.
They were disillusioned after they saw the amendments that were introduced by Government Members and the changes that were made to the Bill itself. I supported the continuation of the term adequacy of funding for hospitals. But that was eliminated. The Government did not, and I am glad it did not introduce any resolution with respect to eliminating the word "reasonableness" for medical compensation to our practioners.
The Hon. Mr. Justice Hall, who has often been referred to as the founder of medicare in this country, commissioned as he was to conduct a review ten years after the implementation of medicare, did indicate there was a potential for erosion through user fees and extra billing. He said in his report, and he said during the committee's deliberations, that it was a potential only, that there was no present erosion to the degree that we were not first in the world with respect to medicare, but it had a potential and that, therefore, something should be done about it.
Having regard to suggestions about disturbing, or failing to disturb the equilibrium, obviously that distinguished jurist had in mind that if you eliminate extra billing there has to be something else in its place to protect the income of medical practioners. He suggested as part of that balance that there be compulsory arbitration. First reading of Bill C-3 did not contain any such provision of arbitration or a compensating process. Only after committee deliberation was clause 12(2) introduced, having to do with that arbitration process.
I suggest that even with the introduction of that arbitration process there is no guarantee the Government can deliver on its clause 12 "reasonableness" of compensation if there is no agreement reached between the provinces and the medical profession in each of those provinces, because the default clauses, clauses 14 and 15, do not apply to provisions of this nature. They only apply to whether it is dollar for dollar adjustment of block funding. They only apply where there has been, perhaps, some extra billing by a province or an abuse, if you call it that, with respect to user fees. There is no way that the federal government can guarantee our medical practioners that reasonableness of income.
It is incumbent upon this House to protect those practioners of medicine as far as we can possibly go. That is one of the reasons our party insisted that there be included in the Bill an arbitration process. If today, or before this Bill is finally given Royal assent, we can protect them even further, it is the duty and the responsibility of Members of this Houe so to do. That was the purpose and the intent of motion No. 4 as introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halli-day). If those medical practioners are not to be adequately compensated here in Canada, then I repeat what I said this morning, that the greatest threat to accessibility of medicare is not through extra billing and user fees, the greatest threat will be the lack of skilled practioners in medicine. That is not a risk which this country nor Canadians should take.
March 26, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Lloyd Reid: It becomes incumbent upon us this afternoon to impress upon the Minister the desirability of strengthening clause 12(2) by the inclusion of that single word "only" and the responsibility of the Government will only be eliminated, will only be diminished, if the federal Government sees each province enter into a written binding agreement with its medical practioners that will provide them with reasonable compensation for their efforts.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate and to address the issue raised in Motion No. 4 proposed by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). I can understand the Hon. Member for Oxford presenting this kind of an amendment to the House of Commons. It is consistent with his view. He is honest and logical in his view. He has been sincerely concerned about the procedure for compensation and arbitration for the medical profession with or without Bill C-3.
What is very hard to understand, however, is how a party that has, at least up to now, given itself the vocation of not only respecting provincial rights, but defending provincial rights, can be so hypocritical in this kind of situation when it is prescribing, because that will be the effect of the amendment.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) says there are only a few words when in fact there is just one word, the word "only". But the effect of inserting the word only in the Bill at this time would be to prescribe to the provinces and to the legislatures of the provinces an arbitration procedure in advance. It would be the Parliament of Canada involving itself in a crude intrusion into the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures to prescribe an arbitration procedure, not only between two professional groups, which is bad enough, but between professional group and a provincial government in the establishment of a fee schedule. It is pure hypocrisy for a Party to support this kind of amendment, a party that wants people to believe that it respects provincial rights.
There is another reason why I am against this amendment and against prescribing to provincial governments the detailed kind of arbitration procedure set out in Clause 12(l)(c) on page 9 of the Bill. Under a variety of statutes Parliament provides compensation, grants, investment tax credits, loans, loan guarantees and all kinds of assistance to industry or groups in the country without prescribing how their workers are to be compensated.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) wants to be fair to the medical profession-which is a change of heart-and in this case when Parliament, through spending power, provides money to provincial governments under certain conditions he wants to make sure that there is a reasonable and fair compensation or arbitration procedure. Through IRDP, under the Ministry of Regional Industrial Expansion, and through a variety of other programs we provide assistance
Canada Health Act
to provincial governments, companies or groups and do not require that an arbitration procedure be followed. In fact, in many ways the federal Government allocates money to groups that employ workers who are not unionized, but are at the mercy of provincial labour laws.
This amendment is a crude intrusion into the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures. Therefore, it is not acceptable that Parliament should pass it without the agreement of the provinces. It is also inequitable. It says that in the case of the medical profession Parliament should start prescribing arbitration procedures when giving money to provinces for medical care or hospitalization, but this is not prescribed under other programs where money is given to provincial governments for equalization or post-secondary education, for example. Under federal law, many Departments provide money to groups, individuals, provincial governments and business enterprises.
I think the Progressive Conservative Party should make up its mind; either it wants to respect the spirit of the Constitution, the federal-provincial balance when the federal parliament uses the spending power, or it is going to cater to any group in the country that can mount an effective lobby. I think it is trying to show medical practitioners that it is very sympathetic to them; that it did not want to ban extra billing without the doctors having an arbitration procedure. However, it is not ready to say to the medical profession, "Sorry Messieurs et Mesdames, you missed the opportunity when Mr. Justice Hall brought in his report in 1980, when the Parliamentary Task Force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements reported in 1981, and when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), at the request of the Province of Saskatchewan, offered to define and control extra billing and twin that with a fair compensation system and an arbitration procedure for the medical profession."
At the time the medical profession totally ignored that and determined it was going to fight the issue of extra billing and user fees at the ideological level. It made the political error of thinking it could convince Cabinet and Members of the House that this was a time of so-called neo-conservatism, that the public wanted less government and it could win by stopping political action on the part of Parliament to discourage extra billing and user fees. It is too bad it made a political mistake. It misread public opinion and it misread Parliament.
Now the Conservatives want to say that they would give a little bit when they know very well that if this amendment were adopted it would be a crude intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. Provinces would take the Bill to court and would probably lose in the Supreme Court. Perhaps that is what the Conservatives want. Perhaps they are afraid to face up to the tough decision to discourage extra billing and user fees. Perhaps this is all a plot on their part to make sure that some provincial governments bring the Bill to court. In that case medicare would go down the drain.
In committee the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) proposed an amendment that would have had the same effect as the one now before us. He justified it by saying that if Parliament moves on extra billing and user fees without pro-

March 26, 1984
Canada Health Act
vincial agreement, it should be able to move on the question of arbitration without provincial agreement. What he did not say then, and what he did not say today, is that we are not proceeding legally to ban extra billing or user fees. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill made that point, however.
Technically and legally speaking we are not touching the very crucial legal question of extra billing and user fees. What we are doing is putting conditions on moneys that Parliament provides to provinces under its spending power. We are saying that under certain conditions the appropriations to these provinces will be reduced and we are prescribing the extent to which they will be reduced.
The opportunity was there in 1980, it was there in 1981, it was there in 1982 for the provincial governments-with the support of the medical profession if it had seen the writing on the wall-to make sure that Parliament would not move unilaterally in the area of extra billing and user fees unless there was a recommendation, through agreement with the provinces, for an arbitration procedure. The doctors fooled themselves, Mr. Speaker. They made a bad political error and a bad error of judgment. Now they are in the position in some provinces that they do not have any arbitration procedure.
Contrary to the views of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, I believe that the Government has proposed a meaningful opportunity for the provinces to elect a certain arbitration principle and procedure and that the law would provide that that would satisfy the provision in Clause 12(1 )(c) for reasonable compensation. This is important because it provides a model and a moral impetus, a political impetus, to the medical profession in the provinces to get their provincial governments to agree to an arbitration procedure. I believe that kind of moral pressure on the system is good for Parliament and it is within our rights to do it. It will provide a model that we hope some provinces will adopt right away. I believe that two or three of them will apply it right away, and that will mean that the medical profession will have the tool to pressure those provincial governments politically to make sure that they get some kind of arbitration procedure. They deserve it.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, that was an incredible speech. For the Hon. Member to stand up in this House and say that the doctors have made a political mistake is to underline in part what is wrong with the Government's approach to health care in the country. I would prefer-and I think most Canadians would-a doctor capable of diagnosing my gall-bladder problem, my heart problem or my disease. We do not expect doctors to go to university for ten years to study politics. If the health care system is regarded as something necessary to turn doctors into politicians, then I think we have identified one of the key problems of the Government's approach to health care generally.
We are dealing with Clause 12, Mr. Speaker. It begins with the following phrase:
In order to satisfy the criterion respecting accessibility, the health care insurance plan of a province-
A number of subclauses follow. It is a clause dedicated to assuring Canadians access to quality health care. However, does it deal with the issue of accessibility as it may be experienced by a patient? May I suggest to the House that for the most part it totally ignores the problems in the Canadian health care system as they affect the issue of accessibility.
If I were to walk out the front door and get hit by a taxi cab, Mr. Speaker, the first issues of accessibility which would concern me as a patient would be the availability of an ambulance, a hospital bed and a well trained professional to look after me. The problems that exist in the country relating to accessibility are not in the order of paying $5 and having to give up seeing a movie. The problems are the absence of a hopsital bed when needed, the absence of a piece of equipment when needed, and the absence of a medical practitioner when needed.
I have heard the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party say that he does not understand the relationship between the quality of health care provided by a professional person and the fee or income of that professional person. To say that is to live in an environment like that of Alice in Wonderland. We are asking people to commit their lives to health care professions. When they do, what do they face, Mr. Speaker? They face first a long training period. A medical doctor will pay for his education for six to 10 years and gives up income.
When a health care professional graduates, what do we say to him, Mr. Speaker? We say that he should be available to his community 24 hours a day, seven days a week because illness does not respect the clock. Illness is not very pleasant to encounter, neither for the person who is ill nor for the person who cares for that person. We tell health care professionals that we want them to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with their knowledge, expertise and compassion to provide a service to people. We then hear a spokesperson for the Government stand up and talk about labour relations.
Do we want people to enter the health care professions who are more concerned about whether a work day should be seven hours, six hours and 40 minutes or seven hours and 20 minutes; whether a coffee break should be precisely 15 minutes long? Do we really want to apply a labour relations model which was developed for use in factories and assembly line tasks to health care professionals? Do we want to impose that on people who are supposed to be committed, who spend a long time being trained and who professionally upgrade themselves year after year and day after day? Do we want to impose a factory and assembly line model on those people?
When we tell people that they must have a fee schedule, we are telling them that a particular treatment or diagnostic procedure is worth $10, $15 or $22. When talking to patients, we frequently hear them say things like: "Yes, I got in to see my doctor. Sometimes I waited an hour, sometimes I waited two hours but the one thing that I do not feel very happy about is that my doctor did not spend enough time with me. I do not
March 26, 1984

really feel comfortable that he knows about all of my symptoms or all of the things that are wrong with me. I am not really sure about the diagnosis so maybe I will have to try and go back and see him in another week or two." Senior citizens in the country will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that 10, 20 or 30 years ago, that did not happen. The relationship between a patient and a doctor was more fulfilling for both the doctor and the patient.
We now have political Parties, and 1 put the NDP and the Liberal Party in this category, that view health care as an issue of labour relations and promote models that will lead to assembly line type care in a profession which requires commitment to people. The Government chooses to intrude on the lives of Canadians, patients as well as practitioners, by tackling one tiny part of the accessibility concern and not the most critical part. It chooses to tackle it by saying that it will fine or double tax those people in the province who do not do what the Government tells them they must do. If the Government is going to do that, the thought of the quality of health care professionals I am likely to encounter 10 or 20 years from now scares me to death.
The Government must be willing to try to counterbalance that provision with a provision which will provide some sense of equity and fairness for current and future professionals in the field. If there is no assurance for individuals who choose to enter health care professions that they will be treated equitably, fairly and will be allowed to practise their profession in a caring and compassionate manner, then how can any of us in the chamber encourage the best and brightest of our young people to choose this kind of a profession? How can any of us deal with our children who may be 18, 19 or 20 years of age by saying to them that they should go to school and study medicine, nursing or physiotherapy? How can we say that to them in all good conscience if we also say to them that a group of civil servants and politicians who they will never meet or influence are going to tell them how to do their job, not because that group has any training or experience, but simply because society gives it the power to do so? That is what is wrong, Mr. Speaker.
What is wrong with the approach taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to medicare in the country is that she has no compassion for or understanding of the long-range need for qualified, bright and compassionate people to serve their fellow human beings as health care professionals. She is in danger of doing more damage to the potential of our health care system in the long run than perhaps she really imagines. It is all right to sit in the front row of the House of Commons and be chauffeured around, but out there on the streets people are being hurt, people are sick and those people deserve the best quality brains and compassion the country has to offer. Does she want to treat health care professionals like machines on assembly lines? If she stands in the House later this day and turns down the two amendments proposed by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), then she is asking to have assembly line workers providing health care in the country instead of the best, the
Adjournment Motion
brightest and the most compassionate professionals. I urge the Government to change its mind before it is too late.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 4. [Translation]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11) the recorded division stands deferred.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Provencher (Mr. Epp)-National Revenue- Registered charities-Department's interpretation-Churches opposition to divorce legislation; the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields)-National Energy Program-Cost of Canada Lands exploration-Oil sands potential; and the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish)-Employment-Approval of funds for projects on Indian reserves-Formula for allocating grants.

March 26, 1984
Canada Health Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-3 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 31 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"made, and said order shall not come into force unless it is affirmed by a
resolution introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of those
Houses."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is symbolic, shall we say, of a number of amendments I moved in committee, all of which, if accepted, would have had the effect of providing more parliamentary accountability in the process by which the Government of Canada, within the context of the Bill, could have reduced transfer payments to provinces which were not meeting program conditions other than those concerning extra billing and user fees.
As we know, where violations exist concerning extra billing and user fees there is a non-discretionary formula of a dollar for dollar. What we, and a number of people, were concerned about, as well as witnesses who came before the committee, was that with respect to other criteria there was too much authority given to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to decide on what the penalty would be to any particular province.
In committee I suggested that instead of the matter being referred by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the Governor in Council and Cabinet, if the Minister arrived at a judgment that a province was violating principles of accessibility, portability, provision of information, visibility, or whatever, that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. In that way Parliament would have an opportunity through one of its committees to look into whatever judgments were being made about a particular province's health care plan by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
This would have had two effects: First, it would provide a forum in which provinces could go beyond the limited opportunities provided to them for dialogue between themselves and the federal Government with respect to whether they were violating the principles of medicare. It would have provided a forum where their case could have been heard. Presumably, if the provinces had a half decent case, there would be at least one Member of Pariament, or one political party, willing to put its case before the committee. There would be an opportunity for the principles of natural justice to be observed and for the provinces to have more of a hearing than they will get in the process provided for in the Bill as it stands.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I believe such an amendment would go a long way toward meeting some of the objectives which were set out for the future of Parliament by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures, which were, and I feel rightly so, that more power should be in the hands of parliamentarians and in the hands of committees of this House, and less power in the hands of cabinet, the Governor in Council and individual Ministers. This amendment would meet that kind of concern, Mr. Speaker.
Instead of this kind of one authority versus another, the Minister of National Health and Welfare versus the ten provincial ministers of health, or a particular Minister of Health, there could be a Committee of the House of Commons involved in the process. This amendment provides that in the final analysis, if the Minister wants to make a reduction in a federal transfer payment to a province, the Minister simply cannot do that by fiat. The Minister would have to do that with the approval of Parliament. This is what this amendment is all about, Mr. Speaker. I believe that all who are concerned about increasing the accountability of cabinet, the Prime Minister's Office and bureaucracy in general-and federal-provincial relations, for that matter-to Parliament, can see in this amendment an opportunity to advance that particular perception. I hope that I will receive support from Hon. Members on those grounds.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to consideration of Motion No.
6.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Motion No. 6
March 21, 1984-That Bill C-3 be amended in Clause 20
March 26, 1984

(a)	by striking out line 28 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor: "to the province
(a)	in respect of the first fiscal year in which the province fails to comply, an amount equal to one dollar for every dollar,
(b)	in respect of the second fiscal year in which the province fails to comply, an amount equal to two dollars for every dollar, and
(c)	in respect of the third or a subsequent fiscal year in which the province fails to comply, an amount equal to three dollars for every dollar;";
{b) by striking out line 41 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor: "the province
(a)	in respect of the first fiscal year in which the province fails to comply, an amount equal to one dollar for every dollar,
(b)	in respect of the second fiscal year in which the province fails to comply, an amount equal to two dollars for every dollar, and
(c)	in respect of the third or a subsequent fiscal year in which the province fails to comply, an amount equal to three dollars for every dollar,
that".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment addresses the very heart of the Bill because this is the crunch, really, as to whether these penalties will have the effect of actually eliminating extra billing and user fees. As has been said so many times, this is one of the few things which the Bill sets out to do.
We and everyone who supports the Bill have to ask whether or not these penalties will in fact result in the Provinces moving to eliminate extra billing, either by agreement with the medical professions or simply by imposing one regime or another. 1 kind of go from optimism to pessimism to optimism to pessimism. My first judgment was that for Provinces like Ontario and Alberta, where it so happens that we have the biggest extra billing problem, the penalties as they now stand are fiscally insignificant. The Provinces could decide to absorb these penalties if they felt ideologically attached enough to extra billing and user fees. The hope was that these penalties might be politically significant, that political criticism from within the Province of a Government which consistently chose to forfeit the revenues represented by the penalties in order to meet the needs of a minority of doctors would at some point become unbearable, and action would be taken against extra billing and user fees. That is still possible. What we are concerned about, which leads to my fluctuating view of a happy outcome, is that recently we have seen the Ontario Minister of Finance, Mr. Grossman, predicting that there will be an increase in Ontario taxes and OHIP premiums, or several other effects flowing from the penalties imposed on Ontario through this Bill. But none of the effects he has speculated upon have anything to do with the elimination of extra billing.
We already know the position of the Minister of Health in Alberta. He defends extra billing and user fees as an extension of his free enterprise view of reality. He sees all of this in somewhat the same vein as the National Citizens' Coalition, that it is part of the creeping communist conspiracy.
Canada Health Act
I think this is a legitimate concern about the penalties. 1 am sorry it has not been shared by the Government or by my Progressive Conservative colleagues, with whom I have had an opportunity to collaborate on a number of amendments. I realize when it comes to penalties that we in the NDP are alone in this respect and alone in this amendment.
We propose that a Province which continues to allow extra billing and user fees be penalized in an escalating fashion. After the first year, when you have a dollar for dollar penalty, we then go to a $2 for $1 penalty in the second year and a $3 for $1 penalty in the third year, and that it stay that way until something is done.
We have left in the three-year period of grace so that if the Province of Ontario, after its three-year agreement with the doctors has expired, wanted to put an end to extra billing it could get all its money back. There is no problem there. The increased penalties would not be permanent if there was the political will in Ontario to find a solution.
We agree with the perceptions of several of the witnesses who came before the committee, notably the Canadian Health Coalition and others, who think that the penalties are too light. 1 realize the Government feels that if it had more than a dollar for dollar penalty, it would be crossing some kind of political quasiconstitutional line, and it is not willing to go beyond a dollar for dollar penalty. The Government never really made available to Members of the Committee or this House the specific advice or judgment on which it based its opposition to the notion of escalating penalties. But I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that if she really expects the Canada Health Act to work, something in the order of escalating penalties would have been well advised in combination with what I suggested in motion No. 7, which was ruled out of order, that of some kind of positive incentive to Provinces who want to clean up their act with respect to extra billing and user fees. You would have a carrot approach for those Provinces who wanted to respond to the national consensus against extra billing and user fees, and a more effective stick for those Provinces you already know do not want to respond and are going to find every way they can not to respond. They are simply hoping that at some point in the future they will find a federal Government more friendly to their perceptions of how the health care system works. 1 hope that will never be the case. I hope that the consensus we have seen in the last two or three months against extra billing and user fees will hold.
I hope the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) will continue to speak for health care for the Progressive Conservatives and not the Hon. Member from Calgary and others who have spoken today and indicated the more traditional Tory line on these matters. I sometimes wonder how they are ever going to get it together and get up and vote for the Bill, because when you listen to them they sound like they are speaking against it.
I recommend these penalties, Mr. Speaker, as I have before, albeit futilely, to Members of the Government and my Progressive Conservative colleagues. I want to put on the record once again our concern that these penalties as they stand, in the

March 26, 1984
Canada Health Act
absence of any positive incentives and the willingness by the Minister to reopen the question of federal funding, are likely not going to work, and somewhere down the line we are going to have to have this debate all over again.
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), he is suggesting a bit of overkill. We have no proof it will work. After all, the purpose of this new Canada Health Act is to have legislation which can be implemented and which will effectively ban forever extra billing and user fees. The purpose of the Act is not to be punitive without reason. Although I have no special legal training, it has always appeared to me as a legislator, together with my colleagues in this House, that any piece of legislation not only must be fair but must be seen as having a clear element of fairness and equity if people are to have any respect for the legislation. If you think of this measure from the practical point of view, then the same holds true. Let me explain what I mean.
The existing legislation permits the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare to apply a very serious financial penalty to provinces where extra billing or user fees exist, denying accessibility. We have not been able to use it-let us call things by their name-because of several factors, one of them being that the penalties are so big. Just to refresh the memory of my colleagues, it must be equivalent to the total monthly cash money transfer from the federal Government to the Provinces. The penalty is so big that it could easily result in a disruption of services in the province involved. Then we would not have achieved what we wanted to achieve. Just the opposite. We could create a very serious backlash against the whole institution of medicare. So that everyone could be accused of causing a fatal accident which might not have anything to do with a service or an emergency department, or what not, being closed down by the provincial authorities in retaliation for the withholding of federal funding. All of that because the penalty is much too big. We believe that we are offering something very fair and operational. The penalty on extra billing and user fees must be big enough to mean something to the provincial authorities; something to push them into banning extra billing and user fees on the one hand, but not so big as to easily call for retaliation and disruption of services to Canadian patients. That is why we thought the concept of a dollar for a dollar was very fair.
I do know, but perhaps the Hon. Member needs a holiday. I am no doctor, but he said he goes up and down, he is optimistic and pessimistic. He either needs a tranquilizer of some sort or a holiday, otherwise why would he say things like that? Perhaps he needs a doctor who will not extra bill him.
Getting back to a more serious tone, I do not understand why he worries so much. The way the penalty works no provicial authority can make money out of the system. They can have no incentive whatsoever to let extra billing continue, or to institute user fees themselves. That is what we want.
In addition, I would not in terms of fairness be able to accept an escalation of penalty over three years. Some of the provinces have contractual agreements with their medical associations that exceed one year. Some have two year agreements. To my knowledge, one has a three year agreement. I believe that should be respected. The purpose is not to get at a province. The purpose is to make sure that medicare gets back to what it was intended for when it was created by this Parliament and to get rid of a bad habit which developed in recent years in the system, namely, overcharges to patients via extra billing by doctors and specialists, or user fees from the provinces. That is the purpose.
I think it is only fair to give the provinces a chance. This is an explicit clarification of the rules of the game. Many of them have already indicated that they will respect the new legislation of this Parliament and will, either all at once, or over the three years allowed, correct the situation that exists in their own provincial governments. That is the purpose of the Bill.
We cannot be pessimistic because a given provincial health Minister announces that he will first fix a certain part of the problem and then address another dimension of the extra charges in his province. We cannot be pessimistic about most provinces of Canada. Knowing how Canada functions, I believe that it will set the tone. Except for two provinces I believe all provinces will fully apply the spirit of this Bill and do away with the extra billing and user fee situation within the first three years.
Whenever they do so, as long as it is within the three years, they will immediately be reimbursed the amount of the penalty which was withheld from them. Of course we will not pay interest on it. However, the intention is to give them back exactly what was withheld from them. As my colleague said, they will have had the stick applied to them.
However, the Bill is not punitive and simply attempts to consolidate medicare. If the situation of overcharging is corrected in the first three years after the passage of this legislation, which will be deemed to be passed as of April 1, that money will definitely be reimbursed to them.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. In my mind Motion No. 6 does not address the central issue. The central issue is the withholding for a three year period of moneys equivalent to the extra billing or user fees which have been charged in the province. Hopefully during that three year period there will be an agreement made to enable the provinces to receive the full amount of money they are entitled to under the established programs financing. In my mind this motion is punitive, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it addresses the issue at all. It is for that reason I will be voting against it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 6. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
March 26, 1984

Canada Health Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11) the recorded division on the proposed Motion stands deferred. [Translation]
The House will now proceed with the deferred divisions on the report stage of 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.
Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I believe from consultations with the House Leaders of the other two Parties that the vote we have just taken could be recorded in the same fashion for Motion No. 6 and recorded in the Votes and Proceedings as having been taken.


Mr. Pinard:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the vote that has just been taken shall be recorded against Motion No. 6?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time we would have addressed that question. You are going to have to put the motion in any case. We would agree at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion will also dispose of Motion No. 3. Mr. Halliday, seconded by Mr. Epp moves:
That Bill C-3 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 10 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"of the cost of insured health services; and (e) must provide that all medical practioners or, where applicable, dentists
may participate in the plan.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as you have noted, the vote on Motion No. 2 has disposed of Motion No. 3. Had it not been for the vote of the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki), I would have suggested you might find a disposition to apply the recorded division just taken on Motion No. 2 to Motions Nos. 4 and 5 as well. If the Hon. Member for Hamilton West intends to vote the same way on Motions Nos. 4 and 5, that could be done and the vote recorded in Hansard as though it had been taken. If, however, the Hon. Member for Hamilton West is going to treat the votes on Motions Nos. 4 and 5 differently, or, in other words, if he is going to vote the opposite way on Motions Nos. 4 and 5, he might so indicate and we could so record the vote as though the division had been taken with the exception of the Hon. Member for Hamilton West who would be shown voting the other way.


Mr. Hudecki:: Mr. Speaker, I propose to vote for Motion No. 4 and vote against Motion No. 5.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the way I understood the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), if you were to seek the consent of the House, it would be possible to apply the result of the vote on Motion No. 2 to Motion No. 4, since the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) has just indicated that he would support Motion No. 4. Therefore, the vote on Motion No. 2 would apply to Motion No. 4 and to Motion No. 5, with the difference being that the Hon. Member for Hamilton West would vote differently on this motion. I think we could dispense with having two recorded divisions.


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention the fact that I have missed the votes until now and I wish to be included in any arrangement that is made from now on.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 4.


Bruce Halliday: That Bill C-3 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 14 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"only if the province has chosen to enter into and".


Mr. Speaker:: Messrs.
Howie
Hudecki
Jarvis
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
Knowles
Lambert
La Salle
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) Malone Manly McDermid McKinnon McKnight McMillan Miller Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Nielsen
Nystrom
Paproski
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
St. Germain Sargeant Schellenberger Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Shields Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Wenman Wright Young-71.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Hopkins
Irwin
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lalonde
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
Le Blanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakcshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Watson Whelan Yanakis-126.
1 declare the motion lost.
Canada Health Act


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 will speak slowly and 1 will try again. If the vote on Motion No. 4 were to be applied to Motion No. 5, with the difference being that on Motion 5 the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) would be recorded as voting differently than he did on the previous vote, we could then dispense with the recorded division. If we could have unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, it may be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: With unanimous consent the vote that applied to Motion No. 4 will apply to Motion No. 5 with the exception of the vote of the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) which will be reversed on this vote in comparison to the previous vote.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Motion No. 5
March 21, 1984-That Bill C-3 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 31 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"made, and said order shall not come into force unless it is affirmed by a
resolution introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of those
Houses."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Yvon Pinard: Perhaps the Chair could now entertain the request made a little earlier by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans); I think he wanted the vote on motion No. 1 to dispose of motion No. 6. I realize you must first put the question, but at least we could then dispense with another recorded division.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the vote taken on Motion No. 2 shall also apply to Motion No. 6, with the addition of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)?
Does the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) wish to clarify this?


Erik Nielsen: I am afraid with the noise that it might be recorded improperly, Sir. The same vote as was recorded on Vote No. 1 should also apply to Motion No. 6, with the addition of my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives want to vote with the Liberals, we will agree.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimity on this matter. The vote on Motion No. 1, with the addition of the vote of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), will apply to Motion No. 6.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Monique Bégin: that the Bill as amended be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there are Hon. Members on this side who want to speak on third reading, so I believe we should follow the customary and normal practice of our Standing Orders, as you have suggested yourself, and deal with third reading at the next sitting of the House.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I believe the request made by the Hon. Member is fair. We still have twenty minutes. We may consider terminating the debate on third reading at six o'clock and hear from a couple of speakers on his side.


Mr. Speaker:: The House cannot proceed at this stage to third reading without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
It being 5.40 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Volunteer Firemen



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Then we shall call it six o'clock and proceed now to the Adjournment Debate."]
Mr. Speaker:: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 69 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to allow volunteer firemen who receive no allowance from a government, municipality or other public authority, to deduct from their income, expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties as volunteer firemen.
She said: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that this only goes until six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the House otherwise decides, the normal hour of adjournment will be six o'clock.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, there is less than 20 minutes left and I am sure there are many Members who would like to have the hour to speak on the purpose of my Bill today. I would like to have had the full hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbauit):: There are ample precedents to the effect that Private Members' Hour ends at the regular hour of adjournment. On previous occasions some procedures have encroached on Private Members' Hour, like today, and the rulings have been that Private Members' Hour will last for the remainder of the hour. The Chair will have to abide by these precedents and state that the Private Members' period today will be approximately 18 minutes.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this is appropriate, but I believe I am one of the three scheduled to speak on the adjournment debate today. If it would facilitate the debate in Private Members' Hour, it would be my intention to give up my time so it would be added to Private Members' Hour. That would be acceptable to me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the occasions for Private Members to put forward their legislation have been encroached upon, trampled upon, and always taken up by some Government business. I sympathize entirely with the Hon. Member who finds that through no fault of her own Government time has take up private Members' time. To me, Government time is no more important than private Members' time. Therefore, the private Member is entitled to her full hour and there should not be this sort of poaching which has been going on for years.

March 26, 1984
Volunteer Firemen


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with your interpretation that Private Members' Hour is between five and six. That being the case it does not really give the Hon. Member the opportunity to fully debate the subject she has put before us today. We would certainly be willing to call it six o'clock and move to the Adjournment Debate, on the understanding that this Private Members' Business would have to go back into the rotation of business to be called before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: This might be feasible providing there was unanimous consent. However, the House might wish to agree to the subject matter of the Hon. Member's Bill being protected on the list. Is this what the Parliamentary Secretary had in mind?


John Leslie Evans: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: At this point there seems to be difficulty in reaching an agreement. I suggest we stay with the practice and the rule within the Private Members' Business period today and-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Highly unfair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It is fair because it has been the practice.


Coline M. Campbell: I am sorry there was not consent to allow this to go to another Private Members' day and retain its place in the rotation. I understand the Opposition said no.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Coline M. Campbell: Then who said no, Mr. Speaker?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: John Evans.


Some Hon. Members:: Your own Member.


Coline M. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before wasting any more time on that, I do not plan to speak-


Mr. Shields:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. We are already on a point of order. The House is fairly active this afternoon. May I ask Hon. Members to try to determine how we are going to resolve this.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the question was that we proceed to the Adjournment Debate and allow the Hon. Member her full 60 minutes tomorrow, protecting her position on the list. I think there was general agreement. That may have been misunderstood across the way. We on this side agreed to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: With all due respect, this point has already been decided. I asked if there was consent and there was not. The Hon. Member does not have to come back with the same point which has already been resolved.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the reason we cannot guarantee at this time that the Hon. Member's Bill would come up tomorrow is that we do not know whether she will be available to debate her Bill tomorrow. If the Hon. Member is in the rotation and we can leave it to the normal channels to have it determined as to when she is available to debate her Bill, that is fine. That is what I think the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) was saying. We would be prepared to leave the Hon. Member's Bill in the normal rotation, on the understanding that it is not essential that it be done tomorrow; that it be negotiated, as it always is, having regard to the availability of Members on both sides of the House to debate the issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent on the proposal by the Parliamentary Secretary?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Then we shall call it six o'clock and proceed now to the Adjournment Debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, at times even I am amazed at what can happen in this House, and this is one of those times. When everything seems to be going in the opposite direction, suddenly by some great stroke of luck everyone starts agreeing again.
The point I want to raise relates to a question I asked in the House respecting the operations of Revenue Canada. Members are aware of the difficulty Revenue Canada has in its dealings with Canadians; its arbitrary measures, its use of garnishee orders. But the point I want to concentrate on today is as onerous as anything which has been brought before this House in the last month.
In order for members of organizations such as churches to get a receipt for the purpose of tax deductions in the amount of donations made, there is a 20 per cent maximum limit on the amount of income which can be receipted. There has always been a debate as to what is a legitimate activity of a church, which is a registered charity. Over these last years there has been an arbitrary approach, by which the Department of National Revenue says that a church can only be involved in activities which are exclusively "for charitable
March 26, 1984

purposes", and that it devote its resources exclusively to charitable activities.
The question then comes up as to whether a church violates its status as a registered charity if it gets involved in opposition to legislation. 1 will be specific. Presently on the Order Paper of the House is Bill C-10, an Act to Amend the Divorce Act. Many churches in Canada are opposed to the provisions of the Divorce Act. Some of their members and some of their leaders have signed petitions against the Divorce Act. They have spoken out from their pulpits and in public forums against the Act. If they do that are they violating their status as a registered charity? In my mind the answer is no.
I have a letter in hand addressed to the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada signed by one Miss A. A. Conway, dated March 1, 1984. The pertinent paragraph reads as follows:
We would comment that in our view while it would be acceptable for a religious organization to take a public stand on a moral issue, it would not be acceptable for that organization to engage in a campaign designed to bring pressure to bear upon a government to implement legislative changes or adopt a policy which the organization advocates.
Those words are frightening, Mr. Speaker. It is saying that if the church recognizes that there is a moral issue they can say so. That is always what churches and their adherents have done. That is one of their responsibilities to society. They are to be the leaven in society, as are their members. However, if a Bill flows from this House that is in conflict with the moral issues for which that church stands, then that church is in violation of the regulations under which it was registered as a registered charity. In my mind, Mr. Speaker, that is a violation - of religious freedom.
Surely this country is better off when churches, their leaders and their adherents speak out against moral decay. Surely the country is better off when legislation which comes before the House is assessed by churches from a moral viewpoint. Surely law that comes here is not neutral, only legal, and has no moral consequences.
However, that is how this paragraph is now interpreted. I do not know if the Government really wants to follow up on that kind of interpretation from Revenue Canada. If it does, and if it does not clarify it today, I will tell them one thing. There are many people in the country who will see that kind of an interpretation as a direct attack on religious freedom and a direct attack upon what churches should be doing.
I will remind Hon. Members of a Bill which was before this House, C-10, through which churches were to be registered and were to give certain information regarding their membership. In fact, if a member was asked to leave that congregation, that ex-member could then go to the courts to ask for redress and, in fact, reinstatement. Is this another intrusion by the state on what I believe is legitimate activity by the church?
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify if the Government feels that it is not a legitimate practice for churches to take an active stand against or for legislation which, in their assessment, has moral implications? If churches are only
Adjournment Debate
supposed to act on what are exclusively charitable activities, how does the Government define charitable activities? What is the definition of a charitable activity? I think that all of us could agree on some, but what is the definition? I believe it is incumbent upon the Government to clarify this issue.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) is a very persuasive member, and I must say that he has almost persuaded me and others with his eloquent argument. However, I must say also that the law is the law, is the law. Mr. Bumble, in the Pickwick Papers, said that the law is an ass. Maybe it is. Maybe it is in this case as well and is something we must look at.
Having said that, the matter raised by the Hon. Member relates to the larger question of the incompatibility, for purposes of tax administration, between political activity and registration as a charity. It is a question which has been covered more than once in the House, possibly even in these proceedings, but I shall be happy to assist the Hon. Member at the risk of what may seem to be repetition to others.
Under the Income Tax Act, a registered charity must be constituted and operated exclusively for charitable purposes. However, the Act does not define charity. The Hon. Member raised this. We must therefore rely on the courts and that is where we come to the law. Perhaps it is time we provided a proper definition, or a clarification of charity and what the interpretation should be. That has not yet been done. Perhaps it is a job for Members of Parliament. Do not blame the courts for doing the job the way they see it at the present time.
The courts have said in particular that political activity is not charitable in nature, and have also concluded that efforts to procure a change in legislation can be considered to be political in nature. I must say that this appears to be stretching the point a bit. Once again, I think further clarification is necessary from Parliament.
In the circumstances as they presently exist, the Department has no choice but to decline to accept for registration as a charity an organization with political objects. In addition, any organization already registered as a charity under the Act is putting that status at risk when it engages in political activity. Perhaps it is necessary to explain as well what we mean by "political activity". I find it rather doubtful that what the Hon. Member is talking about is, in itself, political activity per se.
I am sure that the Hon. Member in these and other circumstances would want the Department to administer the law at this time as it has been interpreted by the courts. We must follow the law and that is all we can do. I hope that satisfies the Hon. Member at this time.

March 26, 1984
Adjournment Debate


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM-COSTS OF CANADA LANDS EXPLORATION-OIL SANDS POTENTIAL
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, last week I addressed a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). I asked him how he could justify spending $12 billion on PIP grants for development in high risk exploration. I am talking about the offshores, in the tundra and the far north. His answer, as reported at page 2283 of Hansard was that:
Helping industries carry out exploration in Canada's North and off the coasts of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is of fundamental importance to Canada because we must know what our resources are and how much our petroleum and natural gas reserves are worth, if we are to ensure self-sufficiency and security of supply-
I am not denying for a moment that getting an inventory of the oil and gas reserves we have in Canada Lands or on the offshore is of fundamental importance.
Clearly the Minister is evading the question because basically we are not going to achieve oil and gas self-sufficiency. The practise of the Government, through its National Energy Program and the PIP grant system taking taxpayers' money in the form of the petroleum gas revenue tax, and transferring it directly in the form of grants, totalling $12 to $14 billion since the implementation of the National Energy Program, is totally ludicrous. To suggest that there is not another way to gather the information and get the inventory in place in Canada Lands and in the off-shore is silly. Activity was going on offshore and in Canada Lands. The large companies were ready to gamble and take the risk. All we had to do was put the proper incentives in place to allow these companies to go ahead.
In northeastern Alberta we have the Athabasca Tar Sands which contain the single largest known oil reserve in the world. We have that in Canada, and we have the technology in place to extract the oil from those oil sands. We have the qualified people to do it. One single plant would create 30,000 to 40,000 jobs across the country. Why are we not focussing the attention on our oil sands? I made this suggestion to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). He indicated that he had signed agreements on three small plants in northeastern Alberta, the in situ plant at Cold Lake and two others. They are relatively small but work is going ahead, not because of the National Energy Program but in spite of it.
The National Energy Program completely killed oil sands activity. The Minister is now modifying the Program by removing some of the onerous taxes on these plants and is allowing them to go ahead. It has been proved conclusively, by the millions of dollars that are now being expended around Bonnyville, Cold Lake and Grand Centre, on the Wolf Lake and the Cold Lake projects, that when the Government removed the restrictive taxes put in place through the National Energy Program exploration would go ahead.
William Hopper, President of Petro-Canada, announced as recently as last week that Petro-Canada is prepared to go ahead with a mining operation north of Fort McMurray if this Government removes some of the restrictive taxes that are in
place under the National Energy Program. He made that very clear.
I say to the Government, put the incentives in place and the companies will develop the oil sands. I say put the incentives in place and the major companies will explore the off-shore off Newfoundland, in the Arctic Circle, in the tundra and in the so-called Canada Lands.
Let me remind Hon. Members of the original discovery at Leduc No. 1 in 1947. Prior to that major companies came to Canada, invested money, explored for oil and drilled dry hole after dry hole. They were doing what is called wildcatting. They finally struck oil. At that point in 1947 there was not one Canadian oil company of substance in Canada-not one. We did not have drilling companies, seismic crews or companies, mud companies, logging companies, nor any of the multitude of companies that service the oil industry. Today these types of companies are close to 100 per cent Canadian owned because the companies that were encouraged to take the risk had the funds behind them to do so.
I say the Canadian taxpayer should not be paying $12 billion to $14 billion over the life of this National Energy Program to drill in high-risk exploration when we have oil sands ready to be developed. The same encouragement should be given to Canadian companies today. It would create activity and jobs across the country. This is just silly. We should be encouraging the majors to do it because they have the wherewithal, not enticing small Canadian companies to go into the offshore and the Arctic. When it comes to production time the small Canadian companies do not have the financial backing to enable them to put the oil onstream if and when they find it.
Hon. Members should remember that we have the largest, single, known oil reserve in Canada in the Athabasca tar sands. We have the people, we know where it is. We need it for energy self-sufficiency, but we are going to lose the opportunity that we have.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in his question of March 21 concerning the costs of Canada Lands exploration, the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) referred to expenditures of taxpayers' dollars on high-risk exploration in the amount of $12 billion by 1986. For the record, I would like to point out that the forecast of expenditure under the Petroleum Incentives Program for the period January 1, 1981 to the end of 1986 is $8 billion on all lands in Canada. This includes payments under the program for Alberta, financed by the government of that province, which, together with Petroleum Incentives Program payments for programs in other provinces, account for close to 30 per cent of the total program. Consequently, Canada Lands exploration will receive something in the order of $5.6 billion over the period 1981-1986, not $12 billion. There will be an equal distribution of the $5.6 billion between Canada Lands in the north and off the East Coast.
March 26, 1984

Turning to the Hon. Member's objective of generating thousands of jobs through oil sands development, the primary purpose of oil exploration and development is to open up the country's oil resource potential for present and future generations. The extent to which this primary objective generates jobs is a very welcome consequence and, in this connection, Canada Lands exploration is producing jobs in areas where they are badly needed, particularly in the Atlantic provinces.
The argument is sometimes made that we should put all of our effort into the oil sands because the oil is there and the technology is known. The fact is that oil sands development is not without its risks and, in the matter of technology, reference could be made to a recently published statement by C. W. Bowman, head of the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority, who said: "-in spite of progress to date, further quantum jumps in technology will be required before the full impact of the oil sands is realized".
The policy of this Government is to proceed on all fronts in working toward the objective of oil self-sufficiency. The results off the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia coasts have demonstrated the value of this approach.
At the same time, federal policy is very actively directed to oil sands and heavy oil development. The federal Government operates major incentives for the opening up of these resources including the provision of earned depletion allowance, relief from the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax, the world oil price, and special provisions to encourage heavy oil processing and marketing. The fact that the Cold Lake, Wolf Lake, and Elk Point oil sands projects are underway is evidence of the effectiveness of these measures, and of the royalty reduction provisions of the provinces. Other similar projects will not be long in coming.
In these brief comments, Mr. Speaker, I have emphasized the importance of an integrated program of oil resource development. Results show that it is paying off in terms of new resources while at the same time generating economic benefits for regions most in need.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time is up.


EMPLOYMENT-APPROVAL OF FUNDS FOR PROJECTS ON INDIAN RESERVES-FORMULA FOR ALLOCATING GRANTS
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this Adjournment Debate regarding a question I put to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) on February 15 as reported at page 1412 of Hansard. I inquired about the current status of projects under the Canada Works Program that had been recommended by the Saskatchewan region. I had concurred in them as I had some informal consultation about the applications.
Since the recommendations, some five and a half months have now passed. When I asked the question, there was no word as to whether or not the Minister would give the final approval for these projects to go ahead. It was beginning to look as though we would be into the summer employment
Adjournment Debate
programs soon, yet the winter works project under Canada Works had not been approved and put in place.
In my constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, there were some 11 projects of which I was aware that had been recommended at the regional level. These included Project No. 1395 of the Saulteaux Band, Project No. 1390 of the Pelican Lake Band, Project No. 1348 of the Island Lake Band, Project No. 1403 of the Joseph Bighead Band, Project No. 1409 of the Thunderchild Band, Project No. 1344 of the Moosomin Band, Project No. 1417 of the Sahgaiehcan Band at Loon Lake, Saskatchewan, Project No. 1337 of the Onion Lake Band and Project No. 1375 of the Native Youth Service from the North Battleford Indian Health Centre, as well as another project which was later approved from the Witchekan Lake Band. This makes a total of some 11 projects.
In his response on February 15, the Minister said that I had not raised this matter before. The point is that I raised it informally on many occasions with the Employment and Development Branch, as well as with other employees of the Canada Employment and Immigration Department. Finally, out of frustration and after hearing so many times that the grants were caught up in an argument between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I asked the question in the House to try to move them to some response.
I understand from talking to the Department of Employment and Immigration in Regina that they finally received notice today that those projects have been approved. Of the 11 projects, I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary which were actually approved and what amounts were actually approved for those projects.
Another problem I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary at this time is that the programs have changed over the years. In 1980, the first year I was elected as a Member of Parliament, the forerunner to the program we are talking about now was called Canada Community Development Project I; the second year, it was called Canada Community Development Project II; and the third year it was called Canada Community Development Project III. The name has now been changed to Canada Works.
The problem is not only with the change in the name of the program, but is with the change in the steps that the funds must go through. The first year under Canada Community Development Project I the projects were allocated by constituency for the general stream, for Treaty Indian people and for Non-Treaty Native People. This all went into a constituency allocation. At that time, the funds were recommended for Minister's approval through participation of employees of the Employment and Development Branch of Canada Employment and the Immigration Commission. They were also recommended for the approval of the Minister by a local advisory board that was appointed locally and consisted of nine people at that time. As well, funds were recommended for approval by the Member of Parliament.

March 26, 1984
Adjournment Debate
The next year, the local advisory board was phased out so that it was left up to the Member of Parliament and employees of the Department to recommend to the Minister how those funds should be allocated to groups within the constituency. We finally find ourselves in a situation where, under the Canada Works Program, the native allocations, whether they be for treaty, Metis or Non-Status Indians, do not come before the Member of Parliament for input any longer. In fact, the funds are no longer applied to these particular groups by constituency. They are applied to the province or by region. It is only by the good graces of employees within the Department and within the Employment and Development Branch that we are or are not consulted on the funding that goes into these projects. Our concurrence in the allocation of these funds is certainly not a formal requirement.
A couple of things happen, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that, first of all, there are expectations built up by the native people in terms of the process which the funding mechanism goes through from the time the allocations are made until they are completed. Even though I did not have direct input into the funding for native programs under Canada Works, we still are asked as Members of Parliament what is happening to the funds, why they are held up for so long? It causes a communication problem.
I believe the second problem it causes, Mr. Speaker, is a lack of local consultation. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Employment and Immigration to go back to the system where there are local advisory boards, along with the local Members of Parliament, in consultation with the employees of the Employment and Development Branch of the Department of Employment and Immigration. In this way they can sit down and discuss the allocations of these moneys which are made to groups within the constituency. I believe that is a much preferable route to be taking, Mr. Speaker, than the one we find ourselves taking now, where there is really a breakdown in communications in the program. I believe this is quite evident in the fact that it took some five and a half to six months from the time the projects for the reserves I mentioned were recommended by the region until the Minister finally gave approval to distribute these funds. [Translation]


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the issue raised by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) concerning allocations for native projects under the Canada Works Program. Contrary to the Hon. Member's impression, the Province of Saskatchewan did receive a special grant under the latest Canada Works series to create additional jobs for Treaty and Non-Treaty Native people. That provincial grant to be used exclusively for native projects amounts to $960,000, including $362,151 set aside for eleven projects sponsored by
Saskatchewan Treaty Native people. In addition, approval has been given for 16 Non-Treaty Native people sponsored projects worth $597,372. Those two grants add up to $959,523, that is $477 less than the original grant. Last February 15, the Hon. Member alleged that no project for the Metis or NonStatus Indians had been developed in his constituency.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should enquire more thoroughly about activities in his constituency under the Canada Works Program. I know he listed some 11 projects. I imagine that, as far as these 11 projects are concerned, keeping in mind what I have just told him, these projects have certainly been accepted. I do not have their numbers at hand, but I imagine that the Department will be able to provide an answer to the Hon. Member on the basis of what he has said in his comments. Personally, I can assure him that I shall check with the Department to determine whether these eleven or six projects mentioned by the Hon. Member have been accepted.
In fact, the records of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission show that three projects for Non-Status Indians have been approved for the constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. I would like to take this opportunity to tell the Hon. Member that four other projects for Status Indians have also been approved for that region.
Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 1983, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) announced that a considerable amount of money, that is $15 million would be allocated to the Canada Works Program to promote projects submitted by Status Indians. The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission is already considering proposals made by band councils even though this amount will be available only at the beginning of the upcoming fiscal year, namely on April 1, 1984, in a few days from now. The Hon. Member maintains that the amount allocated to his constituency is based on an 8 per cent unemployment rate. As the minister stated in his letter dated September 12, 1983, moneys are allocated on the basis of the surplus manpower rate, which contrary to the unemployment rate, excludes workers on sick leave or on maternity leave. All the constituencies having a surplus manpower rate higher than 8 per cent have received a basic allocation. On the other hand, regions with a surplus manpower rate of 8 per cent or more were allowed to receive additional amounts. This type of distribution guarantees a fair and equitable use of these funds. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the native people of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake are receiving considerable amounts of money for job creation and that they may very well be granted additional amounts. I believe that this takes care of the question asked by the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.20 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 27, 1984