1992-03-26

Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Air Ontario crash at Dryden, Ontario, and the Minister of Transport's initial response to the recommendations of this final report.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Pursuant to section 61 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour on behalf of the Minister of Justice to table the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for the year 1991.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of railway employees from western Canada. They point out that railway employees who are suspended for accidental violation of the Canadian rail operating rules are currently being unjustly penalized under sections 28 and 30 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
They are asking Parliament to take immediate steps to indicate specifically that accidental violation of the Canadian rail operating rules does not constitute employee misconduct under sections 28 and 30 of the Unemployment Insurance Act and are asking us to take immediate steps to rectify this very serious situation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, Madam Speaker, the petitioners are from British Columbia and simply indicate their opposition to any plan to divert a fresh water river from Canada into the United States and northern Mexico as presently being planned on the North Thompson River.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: It is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of Quebec, from the City of Quebec, Sillery, Gatineau, St-Jean-Chrysostome, and also from Ottawa, who are concerned for the families of people who have come to Canada and have been declared to be refugees. Their concern is because of the damage done in the separation of the families for several years.
Therefore, they ask Parliament to urge the minister of immigration to issue minister's permits for spouses and dependent children of refugee claimants who have been permitted to apply for landing from within Canada, including persons in the backlog and persons accepted under the new legislation, and to allow them to be reunited in Canada for inland processing.

March 26, 1992
Supply


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I also have another petition from residents of West Lome, Ottawa, Chatham, Quebec City, Val Therese, Nepean, Thornhill, North Bay, Belleville and from Grand Falls, Newfoundland. These petitioners are concerned for the status of foreign domestic workers under the government's program.
They call on Parliament to urge the minister of immigration to give foreign domestic workers the option not to live in the homes of their employers outside working hours, that work experience should take precedence over any formal training, that domestic work be recognized as an occupation needed in Canada, and that the necessaiy points be awarded toward permanent resident status.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North) moved:: That this House express its concern at the threat to Canada's health care system expressed by the stated intention of the Liberal premiers of the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland to forgo universality and embrace user and deterrent fees for health services.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, in a process which is often used now on opposition days, I want to announce to you that the first speaking time for the New Democratic Party will be shared between the
members for Surrey North and for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.
They will each have a 10-minute presentation followed by a five-minute question and comment period.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I rise to lead off the debate on this motion.
Canada has a reputation world-wide for one of the best health care systems, not only because of the quality of health care, but also the fact that it covers all of our citizens regardless of their financial means.
However, Canada's health care system is under a tremendous amount of pressure and is in grave difficulty because it is being attacked from a number of sources.
First of all, we do have a serious problem in the very quick escalation of costs. Health care costs are rising because of a number of factors.
New technologies particularly built into institutions are very, very expensive. Many of these new technologies have not been proven, but we still embrace them because we want to make sure that we keep up with the latest in technology.
There has been far too heavy an emphasis on acute care hospitals simply because of the way our health care system was developed. We are beginning to realize that providing more hospital beds and putting more people in hospitals is not the way to improve health.
Drug prices are escalating dramatically. The highest and most rapid increase in all our health care in the last number of years has been through an increase in drug prices. This has continued and has been made more difficult because of the government's stand with Bill C-22 and the extending of patents to multinational drug companies. It has increased our drug costs 30 per cent.
It is not accidental that the person who is the spokesperson for the multinational drug companies is Judy Erola, the former Liberal consumer affairs minister. There is the person who was responsible for protecting consumers in this country, and now she is the person who is the front for the multinational drug companies. It is like the shepherd becoming the front for the wolves.
We have pressures because of increased costs around physicians services. There is a growing recognition in this country that we have trained too many doctors and that the doctors are poorly distributed.
March 26, 1992

Therefore, we have on the one hand pressures because of escalating costs. On the other hand, we have the federal government reneging on its responsibilities to share with the provinces the cost of health care.
This government and the previous Liberal government have systematically off-loaded on to the provinces. By the turn of the century, $64 billion will have been cut from health care and health care transfer payments to the provinces by the federal government.
These cuts started in 1977 when the Liberals abandoned the concept of 50/50 cost sharing and forced the provinces to block funding. Even after block funding was put in place, it is the Liberals who started the off-loading with their six and five program and with the revenue guarantee withdrawal.
The western provinces this year will be losing $2.4 billion in transfer payments from the federal government. Out of that, $738 million or one-third will be as a direct result of the cumulative effect of the Liberal cutbacks in the early 1980s.
In the province of Ontario the operating deficit this year will be $5.4 billion. It would have been only $1.8 billion if it had not been for the offloading of the federal government. The province of British Columbia has a deficit of approximately $1.7 billion in this current year, of which $1.1 billion is the direct result of the offloading by the federal government. This year alone, all of the provinces will lose close to $9 billion. The money the British Columbia government will lose over the next period of time amounts to $6.8 billion, of which $2.6 billion is the direct result of the cuts initiated by the Liberals in the early 1980s.
It is all very nice for the Liberals to stand up and condemn the present government, as they well should, for its decision to abandon its responsibility in shared programs with the provinces, but it is hypocritical when one looks at the fact that one-third of all of the cutbacks are the responsibility of previous Liberal administrations. They are not the responsibility of this current government. It simply learned from the Liberals and now do it with more oomph.
Supply
What we have in Canada is two way pressure on our health system; escalating costs and reduction of funding from the federal government.
There is no question that we have to undertake restructuring in our health care system to provide more community based services and to provide more preventable programs. We must do so within principles that are accepted by the Canadian public, principles of universality, accessibility, public administration and the fact that there will not be user or deterrent fees.
What we have seen over the last several months is Liberal administrations, Liberal premiers, one after another, advocating the introduction of user and deterrent fees.
Clyde Wells has stated: "We may have to look at the whole principle of universality in our social programs and look at the extent we might have to limit universality". Frank McKenna again has called for the introduction of user fees and expresses the point that he does not see why we should not be able to introduce "some modest deductibility", as he said, which is a euphemism for user fees.
We have both Mr. Cote and Mr. Remillard of the province of Quebec calling for the introduction of user fees and for the federal government to change the health act to allow it. We have them introducing legislation to allow user fees in acute care hospitals. The only other major politicians advocating user fees are Preston Manning and the Reform Party. They clearly are on the same wave length as the Liberals premiers. Preston Manning has said very clearly that he does not think we can pay 100 per cent of the bills for 100 per cent of the people. That is going to result in a two-tiered health care system, and will mean that the affordability of health care is going to be taken away from the poor.
I would like to close by contrasting what the Liberal premiers have been proposing with the stand taken by New Democratic administrations. I would like to quote the statement of finance minister Glenn Clark of the province of British Columbia, speaking on behalf of all NDP administrations in this country. He said:
All three NDP administrations will be leading the attack on the
federal government if Ottawa tries to water down the Canada Health
Act to allow those other provinces to impose user fees. At a time

March 26, 1992
Supply
when our health care system is in crisis, we cannot abandon our
principles.
This House must reconfirm our commitment to the principles of medicare, to universality, to accessibility, to the prohibition of user fees and deterrent fees. We must reject clearly the solutions being proposed by Liberal premiers.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, let me begin by giving a warning to the Canadian public. Anybody who thought that this was going to be about Canada's health care system, forget it. This is going to be a debate about political advantage. This is going to be another instance in the House of Commons where the New Democratic Party is going to show its holier than thou attitude. "We sit on the sidelines and criticize".
It was not the socialists of Canada that created the health care system. It was the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker who introduced hospital care. It was successive Liberal governments that fostered the health care system and I give them credit for that. We have reached a stage where we cannot carry on with the current hospital and health care system.
The abuse within the health care system has created a situation where we cannot afford to progress. The reason is there are no caps. There are no caps internally, there are no caps externally; the health care system is running itself. As responsible government, as responsible persons, we have to step in and ensure that we can fund the health care system.
We will hear the members of the New Democratic Party describe the level of service in Canada. Health services have declined in Canada for the last five years. Anybody will attest to that fact. There are line-ups in hospital emergency sections, it is difficult to book surgery and so on. So we have to do something. For anybody to stand and say that we must continue the attitudes, the concepts and the principles on which our health care system is based is nuts.
Let me talk about universality. How can we continue the concept of universality? It was a concept designed to avoid things like means testing systems and so on. Now it is starting to destroy the system because universality, the principle which the New Democratic Party mentioned, is affecting accessibility. We cannot have them both unless we are willing to unleash millions and billions of public
and taxpayers' dollars. Responsibility dictates that we cannot do that. Let us hear the New Democratic Party come up with some real solutions to the problems.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is very obvious is that the Tories have completely abandoned the Prime Minister when he said that universal social programs were a sacred trust.
The member stands up now and says that the Tory party no longer believes in universality. Universality must be protected because it ensures that the weakest are eligible for service. We cannot maintain the principles and develop alternatives within our health care system to allow for the continuation. The minister of health-and I must say he has been steadfast on this, under great pressure from even his own province-had the foresight to say that there will be no user fees. We will not allow those Liberal administrations to introduce user fees. Although the minister talks a good principle, unfortunately he is part of a government that is cutting back on resources of the provinces to be able to meet those principles and to be able to meet those standards.
I want to talk a bit about Established Programs Financing. The government always tries to pretend that it controls it because of the escalating costs. The transfer payments to the provinces under Established Programs Financing had nothing to do with the costs. They were based on the growth in the gross national productivity of this country. In other words as the wealth of the country increased the transfer payments increased. That is the only way they increased except with the addition of population.
This government has said that in spite of the fact we have an increase in our growth of productivity, increase in our ability to pay, ability being based on the increase in the economy, we are going to slash our transfer payments arbitrarily and cut back on the formula for transfer payments.
That is what has happened. It is not that there has been a slowdown up until the last year or two in the economy as much as the fact that this government has simply said that it is not going to meet its responsibilities for a cost shared program. It is going to break its responsibilities for a joint partnership with the provinces.
March 26, 1992


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The five-minute period for questions and comments has already expired. We now begin the second ten-minute period of debate. I therefore give the floor to the hon. member for Saskatoon- Clark's Crossing.


Mr. Flis:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the 20-minute period has been cut down to 10, but I understood that after each speaker there would be a 5-minute question and answer period.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It was held. There was a question from the hon. member for Halifax West and there was an answer. As both the question and answer were long, the five minutes have expired.


Jesse Philip Flis: I apologize, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, it is important that Canadians know where the various political parties across this country stand on health care. It is important because Canadians rightly view their health care system as an indicator of how society is organized and how it reflects our concern for those who are less well off.
What we have done in Canada, to Canada's credit and in fact with the participation of all the political parties, is institute a health care system which is the pride of Canada and the envy of the world. We have managed to develop a health care system which ensures that nobody fears for their home, for their security, or for their family in the event that they get sick. It provides for a system in which they are provided with health care services to the extent that they need them when that need arises.
That is an important indicator of how Canada and Canadians feel about addressing issues and concerns of people who are in adversity.
It is also important that all political parties stand and be accounted for with regard to their view on health care. We have seen over the last few years cuts by the Progressive Conservative government into the support services, the financial support to the provinces to maintain their health care systems. In doing so, the present government built upon cuts which were instituted by the Liberal governments before it.
At the federal level we have seen both Conservative and Liberal governments cutting financial assistance to our health care system, in a sense pushing the costs of health care further to the provinces and in the end
Supply
building pressure as we have seen for user fees and deterrent fees for Canadians themselves to be forced to pay some of the costs.
It is important at this time in our history to know that Liberal premiers of Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland have been arguing for, pushing for, and asking for the right to institute user fees and deterrent fees. At a time when Canadians are buffeted by a recession, by increasingly high unemployment rates, and by tough, tough times, these Liberal premiers are pushing a further burden and a further worry on to Canadians citizens by telling them that they want to institute user fees for health care, that they want to institute deterrent fees for health care.
We all know-and the studies show it clearly-that the institution of user fees in the health care system would, as Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, the well-known Canadian expert on health care indicated, simply deter the poor and have no effect on the demands of those in the middle and high income categories.
In other words, if we institute user fees it is a direct attack on those in Canada who are less able to support themselves and less able to access the services that they need.
Pushing for user fees is a direct attack on the rights of those Canadians who are less able to fund the services they need in times of health problems.
In Canada we essentially have a conspiracy against our health care system in which we have the Reform Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party ganging up on health care and ganging up on the right of Canadian citizens to access health care free of charge, paid for through the tax system but free to them at the time at which they access those services, free to them at the time when they most need it, and free to them at the time when they are most desperate.
At the beginning of this month we had Preston Manning of the Reform Party arguing that we should do away with the universal aspects of medicare. He said that we should charge people for hospital services and institute user fees.
We have, then, the Reform Party arguing for user fees. We have resolutions passed at Conservative Party conventions arguing for the institution of user fees. We have the former minister of health, the member for Provench-er, arguing for user fees in discussions in Manitoba. We have important elements of the government arguing for an end to universality and institution of user fees. We heard just a minute ago from the member for Halifax

March 26, 1992
Supply
West indeed pursuing that argument, arguing for the end to universality.
As I have mentioned, we have heard clear statements from the premier of Quebec, from the minister of health in Quebec and from the minister of finance in Quebec that it is time Quebec be permitted to institute user fees. What the Quebec government should be doing clearly is protecting Quebec citizens from financial ruin in the event of the need to access health care. It should not be loading a further financial burden on them when they become sick.
When Dr. Augustin Roy, head of the Quebec Corporation of Physicians, was faced with the suggestion that the Quebec government wanted to institute user fees, he said that it would be the end of the Canadian dream of free universal and accessible health care. "It is only a matter of time", he said, "before a two-tier system emerges: one for the rich and one for the poor".
That is what this issue is about. It is a question of whether or not Canadian political parties are standing up for a health care system which is the same for everyone, or whether we are looking for one which is privileged for the rich and less accessible and more expensive for the poor.
The Liberal premiers of Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland have clearly chosen that we should go toward a system which is two-tiered: one for the rich and one for the poor. We in the New Democratic Party and Canadians as a whole refute that suggestion complete, entirely and without any question.
This is not an issue which is debatable to Canadians. Canadians are proud of their health care system. It serves them well. It is unbecoming for the Liberal Party to attack medicare, to attack the very health care system which has served Canada so well. It is also unbecoming for the Reform Party to attack medicare and pretend that it does not want to undermine universality, when quite clearly it does and when quite clearly the leader of the Reform Party has made it plain on a number of occasions that that is his and his party's wish.
We have significant elements of the Conservative caucus and the Conservative Party, both at conventions and in caucus meetings, for example the Alberta caucus of the Conservative Party, arguing for user fees. We have important parts of the government side arguing for the institution of user fees too. What we have here is a gang-up of parties which represent the rich and the elite in Canada. The Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Reform Party are ganging up on our health care system, which is something that Canadians quite clearly do not want.
As all Canadians know, at the time of Tommy Douglas and the CCF in Saskatchewan in 1962, the New Democratic Party instituted the health care system in Saskatchewan, ran it without any financial support from the federal government, and argued and pushed for it right through the federal system so that in the end it was introduced by the Lester Pearson government.
The New Democratic Party, the CCF, has been committed to health care from the beginning, remains committed to health care, and will continue to be committed to health care. It is unfortunate that neither the Liberal Party nor the Conservative Party can maintain that commitment.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I hope you saw the halo around the head of the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing when he was speaking. Unfortunately the NDP has never learned how to put motions on the Order Paper.
We could have had an excellent debate today had the New Democrats learned how to table a motion. They make an important issue like Canada's health care a partisan issue. Here they are attacking three Liberal premiers and immediately it turns into a partisan debate, not a debate around our health care system.
I would like to ask the hon. member why the NDP motion did not include the fact that the premiers of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario, the NDP premiers of those three provinces, are closing health centres, are closing beds, and are laying off health care personnel, with nurses going to the United States. Three
March 26, 1992

NDP premiers have already broken the universality. Why was that not included in the NDP motion?


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the member raises an important issue. He asks us why we would want to make this a partisan issue.
It is quite clear that there is one party only which speaks for health care in this country, one party that speaks for the interests of Canadians in health care. In my province of Saskatchewan, for example, it is the case that some hospitals are going to be closed. The population is changing and it is necessary to reassess how we deliver those services. But it is not necessary to reassess whether or not we are opposed to user fees, whether or not we are opposed to deterrent fees. Canadians are opposed to them. Liberal premiers should be opposed to them. The Liberal Party should be opposed to them. Members on the government side should be opposed to them but they are not; they are arguing for user fees.
The member may be upset that this becomes somewhat a partisan issue, but it is clear the New Democratic premiers and the New Democratic Party federally are supportive of a universal, accessible health care system. We will never accept user fees and deterrent fees, unlike the premiers of Quebec, Newfoundland and New Brunswick.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I am used to being surprised by the NDP, but my surprise today is something different. I understand that it is always defending what is best for everybody.
However, if the NDP wants a political debate, that is fine. Canadians have a lot of questions about their health care system. Many times I said with regard to user fees and the great principles of the system that we stand on those principles. I said that last week and again yesterday. I stated publicly in terms of user fees that I was opposed and that so far I believe there is no contradiction.
What surprises me is today they are coming with something where they are concerned about the provinces. I am wondering why they do not go to Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and ask the legislatures to pass something they want. Instead, they raise the question in the House.
Supply
My own perception is there is a vast and strong majority of members of Parliament who agree with that. If they want a political debate, that is fine. I believe that it is typical of the NDP, create a problem when we know that the problem is not there. They want to be the defenders of the system. We already are. They created it and we continue it.
I do not understand. I would like to emphasize again that if they want to make a political debate, that is fine, but this is not the place when it concerns the provinces. I stand on what I said, but they will not prevent Canadians asking questions about their system. They are worried.
We saw the premiers yesterday. Even NDP premiers, I can say, maybe not officially, are worried about that. When we have a $13 billion deficit, we worry about a lot of things in the system.
I say that if Canadians ask questions about the system, that is fine, but why do my friends raise that question here today when the question is not relevant to the kind of statement I made? I believe this has been the government stand since the beginning.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, first of all perhaps I could thank the minister for his statements opposed to user fees, consistently arguing against user fees under some pressure, I am sure, from his own colleagues and from his own province. I think it is important that the health minister for Canada argues strongly for the Canada Health Act and the provisions of that health act. This motion, as the minister will know, is not criticizing the minister's position on this question.
I think it is important for Canadians to know where the political parties in this country stand on health care. It is one of the issues that they will be addressing when they go to the polls at the next election. It is important that they know that Liberal premiers across this country are saying we should have user fees when Canadians do not want them, that there are significant segments within the Conservative Party arguing for user fees when Canadians do not want them and that the Reform Party is arguing for user fees too.
Each of those parties is undermining the universality and the accessibility of our health care system. It is important that Canadians understand that. It is important that Canadians know that the New Democratic Party stands for a universally accessible program and will not ever give into user fees or deterrent fees.

March 26, 1992
Supply


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise and speak to this debate. Certainly, I have spoken on this issue a number of times. I would like to now bring to this Chamber my thoughts.
On March 19, 1991, barely a year and a week ago today, I stood here on behalf of the Liberal caucus asking that this House reaffirm its commitment to medicare. My request was quite simple: "That this House, with all its members, reaffirm its commitment to medicare", which underlines the Liberal commitment to universal medicare. The government, led by the then former minister of health, voted the motion down.
How about the NDP? My hon. friend from Surrey North who brought forward the motion today turned to the then health minister during debate and said: "I must say that for once I agree with the minister. There is no question that this motion", referring to my motion, "is being put forward facetiously by the Liberals in the hope that the government will vote against it". In truth, I never brought forward a motion of dubious intent. I ask if the member for Surrey North can make the same claim today.
I note that this motion put before us asks:
That this House express its concern at the threat to Canada's health care system expressed by the stated intention of the Liberal premiers of the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland to forgo universality and embrace user and deterrent fees.
This is one of the most ill placed, illogical, underhanded attacks on the Liberal Party that I have ever seen, but I will not dwell on that, nor on the ethics of the member from Surrey North who introduced this motion.
I will speak to the real problems of the health care system: the cuts, the limits in transfer payments, particularly cash transfer payments by the federal Conservative government and the need for solutions.
Every province in this country is fighting to provide adequate health care. Last night's national news carried the stories on the efforts of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick to reform their health care systems, but even reforms come at a cost.
New Brunswick will close 300 to 400 hospital beds and turn three hospitals into out patient health centres; 250 health care professionals will lose their jobs. Hospital boards will be dissolved.
These reforms are a bitter pill to swallow for this province which was left a legacy of user fees and health care troubles by the Conservative government before it. During the New Brunswick throne speech last month, New Brunswick committed itself to severe restructuring, but it was not without bitterness toward the federal government. Health Minister Russell King said he told the federal health minister that his province and others are having a hard time keeping up with health costs when Ottawa continues to cut back on transfer payments.
Nonetheless, New Brunswick bit the bullet. Its premier and health minister are trying very hard to manage costs without jeopardizing national standards. Can we not give them credit for this instead of calling the minister a threat to universality? I say what absolute rubbish on the part of the New Democratic Party. What absolute hypocrisy, Madam Speaker.
I have closely watched the movements of the government and health department of British Columbia whose royal commission on health care has suggested innovative ways to cut costs and increase efficiency. Last night I saw examples of community-based health care at its finest in a special project in Victoria that aims to help seniors in their homes instead of bringing them into hospitals. I hope it will prove successful and be adopted in all regions of the country.
May I draw members' attention to the fact that all provinces, even so-called wealthy provinces like British Columbia and Ontario, run by New Democratic governments, have had to cut jobs and close beds because of cuts and limits in federal transfer payments. Regardless of political stripe, I applaud any effort by provinces to make health care reforms by trying not to sacrifice service and care. I think efforts like these deserve the approval and respect of this Parliament.
In Saskatchewan, run by a NDP government, hospitals are preparing for a $113 million cut in grants from the provincial government. Again, this is a bitter pill to swallow, but Saskatchewan cannot afford other options. Across the country, Ontario, Newfoundland, Nova Sco-
March 26, 1992

tia and Quebec, all provinces have been forced to cut and cut and cut again, but none of the provinces have compromised the Canada Health Act, and I am glad.
I admit I am concerned about the possibility of a $5 emergency room user fee in Quebec. I have made myself clear on this issue on several occasions in and out of this Chamber but thankfully health minister Marc-Yvan Cote of Quebec seems to be rethinking that controversial move. On Monday he announced that the fee would not be implemented.
I hope that 12 months from now our situation in Canada will be changed and no user fees will be introduced in this country.
This motion by the NDP has criticized, among others, Quebec, accusing it of intending to impose user fees. Is this criticism fair? I too will be concerned if the Quebec government proceeds with the application of user fees. But I did not pass judgment. The government of Quebec, in its 1989 report labelled, Improving Health and Well-being in Quebec-Orientations states and I quote: "Some of the advantages generally attributed to deterrent charges are mostly theoretical and this formula has major drawbacks that outweigh its advantages".
The report concludes and I quote: "Therefore, recourse to deterrent charges cannot be an acceptable source of financing and the department favours turning to alternate sources of revenue".
If only the New Democratic Party health critic had done his homework, had read this report, he would not be so quick to prejudge and impute ill intention to the Quebec government. This type of political cheap shot certainly detracts from national unity and does not serve to unite us to find solutions to our health care crisis in the country.
This brings me to the second part of my debate, changing our situation. With skyrocketing medical costs, reform of the system is inevitable. But it is reform through the size of a gun, a gun held by the federal government that we must question, through Bill C-69 and Bill C-20 which limit increases in transfer payments and provide penalties to provinces. The provinces have suffered unbearably.
In my own province of Manitoba, the hospital where I used to work, the Health Sciences Centre, has been forced to close over 120 beds and lay off 500 hospital staff. Health Minister Donald Orchard said he had no choice. That is a Tory health Minister in the province of
Supply
Manitoba. He has been steadily reworking the health care system for the past year and a half.
Meanwhile in Newfoundland, Premier Clyde Wells points to blatant unfairness in the federal position. His province does not have the tax base to recoup lost cost transfer payments. His health care system has been slashed to the bone. Last year alone 438 acute care beds were eliminated and some 300 hospital nurses lost their jobs.
Waiting lines are longer. Hospitals have cut back services. In one case a pregnant woman in Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, had to travel to a full service hospital and spend a week in a hotel room at her own expense waiting for her labour to begin. Her own community hospital could not provide care for her due to budget cuts.
In Ontario, 35 nurses from the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario lost their jobs because the hospital said it could not pay their salaries. Ontario, with a rich tax base, is suffering from a double whammy of federal cuts and recessionary woes. Like Newfoundland, Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and the rest of the provinces, drastic changes have become the order of the day.
Financial troubles sit like spectres beside every hospital bed in Canada, but our country is not alone in its struggle to service its citizens. There is trouble all over the world. Anyone with an eye on the American and British election campaigns will notice health is a hot topic. Health insurance and two-tiered systems have come up in speeches and advertising campaigns. For the United States, the push is for a national health care system. For Britain, the Labour Party is claiming the Conservatives have drifted too far from universal health care rules.
There is no question that health care is held dear not only by Canadians but also by people the world over. Healers from time immemorial have retained a special place in our social value system. They helped others realize good health. Anything that stands in the way of accessing proper care and medical guidance also stands in the way of good health. User fees are such a thing.
Our party brought medicare to Canadians as a concept in 1919 and delivered the Canada Health Act in 1984. My party and I do not believe in user fees. At our national convention last month we voted for universality. The New Democratic Party, with its selective memory, completely forgot about that.

March 26, 1992
Supply
It was not my party that called for user fees at the national convention. It was not my party executive who wrote to the finance minister asking that user fees or user pay become policy for the government. In fact, I am very proud that during a recent trip to Washington the leader of the Liberal Party defended medicare while others remained silent. Even the NDPers were silent. Did they come and join our forces? It was the Liberal leader who stood before all Americans and said that the Canadian health care system is the best.
What a hypocrisy on the part of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. members:: Where are they?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Nowhere to be found. If you do not believe that I, as Liberal health critic, have defended the Canada Health Act with every ounce of my strength then you must have been asleep for the past four years. Inside this House and beyond I have never ceased to protect our right of citizenship to our health care system.
I have articles here from The Montreal Gazette, the North Times in my constituency of Winnipeg North, The Ottawa Citizen, the Winnipeg Free Press, The Globe and Mail, The Medical Post and Saint John's The Telegraph-Journal all telling the country just how I feel on this issue. I will not belabour the point and quote them at this time. Anyone, particularly the member for Surrey North who brought this very unsavoury motion, can call my office and I will urgently deliver all these clippings.
Without question I believe and so do my colleagues, that user fees will block access to medical treatment for the poor. The need for user fees is unfounded and their collection calls for additional bureaucracy. Fees also tie up the time of doctors, nurses and administrators. They deter patients from seeking medical care, often delaying diagnosis until the illness is much more complicated to treat. I must emphasize that this has been proven over the past two decades by study after study after study that has been done both in and outside Canada.
I know the member for Surrey North will ride his old hobby-horse that it was the Liberals who first changed the method of cash transfers to the provinces followed by
the Conservatives five times in eight years. But let me point out to the member that the Liberal Party is indeed a very dynamic party. We listen to the times and we propose initiatives. We commit ourselves and re-commit ourselves to the Liberal principle of universal medicare for all.
It is a party that has done the right thing at the right time for the right reasons, but would never have wreaked havoc upon the system with the same Tory pattern. I tell the member for Surrey North that one cannot get away with making that comparison.
Yale University political policy professor, Ted Marmor, was recently interviewed by journalist Frances Russell. He explained his surprise by the way the business community believes and our government is fighting the deficit, declining productivity and stagnation by cutting and privatizing the health care system.
He says: "The truth is opposite. Canada has managed to arrange broad health insurance coverage to its entire population, to deliver in general quite decent care, and to pay about 25 per cent less of its gross national product".
As well he pointed out that Canada holds down over-all costs without the gaps, ills, and despair prevalent in the American medical system.
Now I ask the hon. member for Surrey North whether it is not time to realize the Liberals are not the threat to medicare. We are not the enemy; we are the defenders. We want the federal government to reconfirm financial support. That should be our common goal, not wasting our time on facetious motions such as this one.
Everyone in this chamber knows the federal Conservatives are not prepared to back down from their stand on transfer payments. No amount of pressure from us or the provinces can make them see the damage they are inflicting on the provinces.
So our path is clear. We must bring down this government. Let us turn our attention and energy to this task, a task which may end in the resurrection and preservation of our medicare system.
March 26, 1992

In conclusion I move, seconded by the member for Eglinton-Lawrence:
That the motion be amended by deleting the period and by adding the following:
and implemented by the actions of the NDP premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia to close health care centres, dismiss health care personnel and reduce health care services, all of which is a direct and inevitable result of the withdrawal of the federal government from its long-standing obligations to support health care in Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will reserve on this and come back to the House on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague from Winnipeg North with regard to the health care system. I do share some of his concerns and would like to ask him a question.
First, I want to reiterate that the minister of health and welfare has stood behind the Canada Health Act, has stood behind the five pillars, and his party certainly supports what is contained within the Canada Health Act.
It is very interesting that over the last few years there have been seven or eight-I know of seven-national studies done with regard to the health care system in Canada. All of these studies have said that it is not more money that is needed; it is indeed that we have to become more effective and more efficient.
This appears to be one area where, I believe it was Victoria took a lead with regard to a community hospital in servicing the constituents in the Victoria area outside the hospital and indeed lowering the costs. As more and more of us not only in this House but also all across the country get older it is going to increase some of the costs. Leaving that aside, we have to become more efficient and more effective.
I wonder if the hon. member has had any discussions with the health care minister in his province or with any other ministers across the country.
The minister of health and welfare has met three times in the last nine months that I know of, and perhaps more, discussing the national health care act and the effects of it on Canadians and the need for improvement. He has also made a commitment to meet with the
Supply
health ministers and the finance ministers of the provinces within the next two months to discuss this particular issue.
Let us take a look at the ways to improve the efficiency and to improve the delivery. Let us get rid of the, if I may be so bold as to use the word misuses-I did not say abuses-within the system whether they be on the public's part, the institution's part, the medical profession's part, or the consumer's part. Let us be more interested and let us see how we can take the good system we have and improve it.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to respond to those comments and questions.
First I would like to say that indeed we have been monitoring the health care system in the country. We have been in contact with the provinces. At the proper time we will let you know the results of those consultations.
In so far as the comment made by the hon. member about the misuse in the system is concerned, I have a document here. It is a study released in April 1991 by the National Health and Welfare Department of this government looking at the effectiveness of user fees.
It is clear that the cases of misuse and abuse that have happened in the system are few and far between and that is not the major problem confronting the system. We should lay to rest this myth. There has not been any abuse that could be documented to a great extent on the part of the providers of health care, doctors, nurses, and others, as well as on the part of the Canadian public, the consumers of health care.
We should respect and we should recognize the commitment of these people to deliver service and the responsibility and respect that Canadians have for the health care system. When Canadians go to see a doctor, when they go to visit a hospital, it is truly because patients need to be assured that they are healthy.
There is no doubt that the limits in transfer payments, the cuts in transfer payments, are causing problems. If there is a problem in a system akin to a patient with illness, one does not kill the patient first and then start to revive the patient in an attempt to cure the patient later.

March 26, 1992
Supply
If, as has been predicted by health economists, the federal Tory government in trying to cure the ills of the health care system first continues to withdraw, as has been predicted by health care economists, its contributions and obligations to cost share health care in this country to a substantial extent, we may not have a system to reform at the end.
I submit and I challenge the government, as we reform the system, to continue to provide the adequate and necessary financial resources the provinces at this time badly need.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, of course I was pleased to second the amendment to the motion of my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North.
As will have been noticed over the course of this last hour, it was thanks to his intervention that we introduced an element of sanity and intelligence in the discussion. The Liberal caucus does take this debate seriously even though we were finally graced a few moments ago with a lone representative from the New Democratic Party that submitted the original motion.
We care about the issue. We have dealt with it on a continuous basis. I want to compliment the member for having laid out all of the principles of the issue itself.
There is a concern that I have in representing constituents from my riding in the Toronto area. In Ontario and specifically in Toronto an erosion of the health care system is seen. The erosion has been witnessed rather unfortunately by many of my constituents and many other citizens of both Toronto and Ontario generally in the last couple of years as the current government cuts back on the amount of expenditures and amount of commitment both in principle and in finances that it puts at the disposal of our health care system.
Perhaps part of that reason is that we are in a deep recession. I am being very kind, because statistics indicate that we are in a depression.
Economically speaking, and from a revenue side, from taxes, the population of the province of Ontario contributes annually approximately 45.7 per cent of all revenues that are drawn by this government.
Over the course of the last couple of years, because of the enormous negative impact of the recession on the economy of Ontario, we have seen a drop in manufacturing output by 13 per cent. We have seen a decrease of 23 per cent in employment in the manufacturing sector.
I do not want to talk about the other sectors just yet, but the net effect of all of that is that there has been less in terms of revenue available and there have been greater demands on the system.
How did the Government of Ontario respond? You will forgive me, I hope, for making this comment. I ask the indulgence of my colleague who has moved this amendment because I do not want to engage in a blatantly partisan debate. The fact of the matter is that what has happened is that the Government of Ontario, an NDP government, went from a surplus situation in the budget to increasing the deficit portion of its budget to $9 billion.
One would have thought, as a citizen of that great province, as a contributor in taxation to those provincial revenues, that the $9 billion would have been utilized in order to enhance the kind of systems that we in this House have established for all Canadians.
Medicare is one of those pillars of social stability. It is $9 billion from 1990 until this year. It is supposed to go up to about $11 billion. As a taxpaying constituent of that province, I look upon that government, that NDP government, that guardian, that saviour of medical social programs, and I ask, what did you do with my money?
My colleagues from the NDP in this House stand, bold faced with the hypocrisy that is unmitigated, and say to me as a constituent of the province of Ontario that the medicare program is being threatened by Liberal premiers in other provinces in Canada, knowing that in Ontario we contribute 45.7 per cent to general revenues in all of Canada, that we do have a base and we have a government in Ontario that is supposed to be the guardian of all those programs.
How can those members stand here before this House and insult the intelligence of all members by being absent when my colleague lays out all of the issues of the medicare program, or worse, impose upon this House a decision to debate-

March 26, 1992


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. The time for questions and comments has expired.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate.
Let me say, in case there is the slightest bit of confusion anywhere, that this debate today is not about medicare. There is a need for a debate about medicare. There is a need for a serious, constructive and genuine debate about the future of health care delivery services in Canada. This debate today, initiated by the New Democratic Party on a so-called urgent basis, is not about medicare.
Seldom have I seen this. Let me make myself clear. In all parties we are all guilty, we should be honest enough to admit, on occasion of seeking partisan advantage, seeking to establish the ideas and policies of our opponents in less than a healthy light, seeking to propose that the policies and proposals of our own party be seen in the best possible light. That is part of the competitive political process. That is normal. That is healthy. That is what the British parliamentary adversarial system is all about. We are all guilty to a degree in political life or in any competitive venture, whatever it happens to be, of manoeuvring to the best advantage.
Even in an adversarial political environment, seldom, if ever, has Parliament seen such a hypocritical, selfserving, fundamentally dishonest motion as the motion put before the floor of this Parliament today. It is absolutely incredible. I pick up my news clipping service first thing in the morning, with my cup of coffee and my muffin which I should not have because my waste is expanding much quicker than my brain ever could as a consequence of reading this paper.
I pick up the paper and I read a big banner headline: "Saskatchewan cuts social spending". I quote the minister of finance for the NDP in Saskatchewan: "We are going to have to cut several hundred millions of dollars. We are going to have to look at every expenditure the government makes. We are doing that. We are looking at every program the government delivers to determine which programs we may be able to eliminate. Nothing is
Supply
going to be sacred. We have a long way to go. We are determined to live within our means".
Let me get personal. I hope I have the indulgence of my wife for this. My wife is an employee of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. My family lives here in Ottawa because otherwise, like many MPs, I would not have a family life. My riding is so far away. My wife is a part-time employee, a term employee. My wife, along with many others in the intensive care unit of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, got her letter, compliments of the Government of Ontario, two days ago, advising her that she had been laid off.
Which government sent that letter? Which party is in power? The New Democratic Party of Ontario is in power. It sent my wife her letter telling her that due to cutbacks being imposed upon the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, she, along with many others, would no longer be employed on the current basis on which she is employed at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.
When I see the New Democratic Party bleeding all over the rich green carpet of the House of Commons, holding in its ribs as it loses itself in grief and in turmoil, tantalized and tormented about the loss of health care services in Canada, and putting forward a motion alleging to want to save health care in Canada-a silly, vexatious, juvenile, hypocritical, false, transparent and foolish motion-I find myself moved to come to this Chamber and respond to this motion. I said in the beginning the motion is not about health care in this country; not at all, not in the least. It is a motion purely designed for the most transparent and despicable political motive. That is what it is, a motion which says this House condemns actions that may be taken by Liberal provinces.
How much more transparent can you get? How much more self-serving could a political party be? Frankly, lest I have not made myself clear, how much more stupid could a political party be? What an insult to the intelligence of Canadians. Does this party believe that all Canadians are somehow mushrooms-keep them in the dark and feed them some moist product from time to time and they will grow? Does it feel that Canadians are unable to see this transparent and despicable political move, that they will not see the game that is being played?

March 26, 1992
Supply
It is the second time this week I have seen this party engage in the most base kind of politics. Earlier this week, the constitutional critic for the New Democratic Party, who says he has spent the last year of his life, along with others, in the interest of Canada trying to keep this country together and united, trying to keep this country from severing into many pieces, stood up in the House and commented on a story that was in the news about RCMP break-ins, illegal break-ins, of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec.
Even though there has already been a royal commission of enquiry into that affair which has laid out all the facts before tire people of Canada, which has said that the RCMP acted illegally and without the knowledge of the government of the day or the Cabinet of the day, in the interest of national unity, the NDP said: "Let us have a royal commission of enquiry into the royal commission of enquiry.".
The NDP was saying it should have received an award as best supporting actor of the Bloc Quebecois. The NDP was saying that in the interest of scoring cheap political points, it was prepared to tell the sovereignists of Quebec and the separatists in Quebec that about their worst nightmare, the notion that somehow a national government, any national government, is conspiring to spy on people; that any national government, Liberal, NDP or Conservative, would go out and engage in illegal activities is a valid assumption. The NDP attempted to validate the worst kind of nonsense about federalism in the interests of narrow, partisan political advantage. That is what it did and it should think about what that kind of statement does to this country. It should think about what that kind of gesture does to the glue-what little is left-that keeps this country together?
That is exactly what the NDP has done again today with this motion. It is pure hypocrisy. I come from Newfoundland and Labrador, one of the poorest provinces, if not the poorest, in Canada. Just as has happened in NDP Saskatchewan, NDP Ontario and NDP British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador has had health care cutbacks. I do not like it. Nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador likes it, and we have had those cutbacks because there has been a reduction of the transfer payments from the national government to the provinces for provision of health care in this country.
Does anyone know what the single biggest contributing factor to the continuing decline of health care in little old Newfoundland and Labrador is? The biggest single
contributor to cutbacks in health care in the poorest provinces of Canada is the stalled economic engine in the province of Ontario. Who has their foot on the gas in the province of Ontario? Who has got the gear shift stuck in neutral in the province of Ontario? Who is running the wheels right off the car in the province of Ontario? Premier Bob Rae and his NDP administration.
I hope those members of the NDP, who have crawled out of this Chamber, who have gone to find cover out by the coffee machine, understand intrinsically in their heart of hearts that this base political motion today is indefensible. I hope they understand that the debate today is not about health care, as initiated by the New Democratic Party.
I am convinced there were members opposite who were embarrassed in their seats. They know that I speak absolutely the truth. Some of them are going to be forced to get to their feet and show what great hockey players they are, what great acolytes of Gretzky they are, as they tiy to stick-handle their way out of the embarrassing mess they have created today.
I hope at least one of them will come clean and admit that the country needs a discussion about health care. Those of us who believe in universality of health care need to pull like-minded people together. We need to ensure that our health care system survives, because it is one of the few benefits of Canadian citizenship that is constant across this land. It does not matter whether one lives in Newfoundland or Labrador or in Ontario. It does not matter whether one is rich or poor, whether one speaks English or French, or whether one is gentile or Jew. It does not matter whether one is black or white. As a condition of citizenship in this country one is offered the best service that can be provided, and it ought to remain that way. We are committed to that kind of universal access to our health care system.
However, we are not going to defend health care by playing political games. We are not going to defend health care by trying to shoot the messenger. The reason there have been cutbacks in Newfoundland is that money has been cut back for health care to Newfoundland, a Liberal government. The reason there have been cutbacks in Saskatchewan is that money has been cut back in the province of Saskatchewan, an NDP government. The reason there have been cutbacks in Nova Scotia is that money has been cut back in transfer payments to Nova Scotia, a Progressive Conservative government. The reason there were cutbacks in British Columbia before
March 26, 1992

the last election is that money was cut back in transfer payments to British Columbia, a Socred government.
It makes no difference the colour of the political stripe of the government in the respective province. If the money is not there it cannot be spent. The question is whether or not we collectively as a nation hold up as an important value and condition of citizenship the provision of quality accessible medical care in this country. That is what matters.
This important debate is something that ought to unite the country at a time when it is fractured. It is something that ought to pull us together at a time when a great deal pulls us apart. It is something that ought to appeal to those things we believe in rather than appeal to those things we oppose. Trying to turn this one little bit of crazy glue, if I can put it that way, that still keeps this country together into something for partisan advantage is a tragic mistake.
If the New Democrats retain one iota of that traditional sense of being able to rise above it all, to put aside the game of power, the outs being out and the ins being in and the outs trying to get back in, and to speak of values once again, if they can find even a last smidgen, a residue of that conviction in their now tortured political partisan souls, they will stand and apologize for this motion. They will withdraw this motion. They will say that they understand, as I do, that medicare is too important in the context of the current debate about unity in this country to be so tainted, to be so stained, to be so warped, to be so twisted, to be so used in the worst partisan way. They will withdraw this motion. They will apologize. They will cease and desist from these cheap partisan attacks.
I know that there is some discomfort for New Democrats in seeing their party go down in the polls consistently for the last number of months while the Liberal Party has gone up in the polls consistently for the last couple of months. But I want to tell my colleagues something. They should no more be alarmed at their consistently going down in the polls than I am taking any great joy in the fact that the Liberal Party has consistent-
Supply
ly gone up. The only election that counts is the one when the public decides at the next general election who is to occupy the seats in this place. It is wrong, short-sighted, unprincipled and unhelpful to have their actions, to have their so-called beliefs or to have their values jettisoned or dictated as a result of the latest opinion polls.
I say to my colleagues who sit to the left with whom I do not always agree: "Please put aside such transparent partisanship, such self-serving rhetoric, such nonsensical motions". I say to them: "Please find a residue of your heretofore souls, come to your senses and once again make a contribution, as little as it is, to serving Canada rather than contributing to its destruction".


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has put on his usual Wayne Gretzky performance of rhetoric and insult, but it is clear that his main object was to take people's attention away from the embarrassment-perhaps he feels an embarrassment or perhaps he does not; I will give him a chance to say so-of the fact that his premier stated an intention to change one of the fundamental principles of the health care system we have.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Where is the quote?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: He is putting forward the suggestion that we should consider user fees. User fees would be a fundamental attack on the universality and the public funding which are principles of the medicare system.
Instead of addressing that issue the hon. member has chosen to attack some of the NDP provinces for having announced cutbacks in the programs of certain hospitals and other medical facilities. I guess he is predicting that the third NDP province will in its budget.
Nobody is proud of lay-offs. No party, certainly in this House, advocates lay-offs for the sake of lay-offs. Whether it be the NDP governments of this country, the Liberal governments in the provinces of this country or Conservative led provinces of this country, the lay-offs in the health system are certainly a matter of regret. They are not in themselves an attack on the medicare system, nor are they an attack on the principle of universality. If there is less money, there is less money.

March 26, 1992
Supply
The Ontario government has had a greater reduction in federal social assistance payments than eight other of the provinces. Eight of them have been held at 50 per cent as the federal share, but Ontario has been cut to 31 per cent by the federal government. The only other one that has been cut below 50 per cent so far has been British Columbia. We have yet to hear from British Columbia.
Ontario has been cut by a very large amount of money by the federal government in some of the programs on which the Ontario government relies. That is the reason for the lay-offs.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Question.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: It would be the reason for the lay-offs in any other province as well.
I ask the hon. member, since he has been interrupting me with comments, to stand and explain the action of the premier of Newfoundland in his statements regarding fee for service, his statements suggesting that there should be better health care if the so-called rich were asked to pay more but without defining how far down the rich would go to introduce the idea of fee for service, or if any kind of payment other than out of the public purse for health care would endanger the health care for the large majority of people in Newfoundland as well as the large majority in Ontario.
I ask the hon. member to tell us where his premier stands.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, the member says I was interrupting him. Indeed I did, to say to him: "Where is the quote?" He is telling us what Premier Wells allegedly has said. I tell the member, given that he is going to stand and put words in the premier's mouth, that he ought to have the care, the consideration and the veracity, which means conviction to express the truth, to tell us what Mr. Wells said, to quote directly from him. The member conveniently did not hear me. It is not surprising he did not hear me because he is not representing accurately, truthfully or correctly what is being said by some premiers in this province and in this country.
What are premiers saying? Premiers are saying that if you continue to cut unilaterally and arbitrarily hundreds of millions of dollars from the health care budget, if you are operating hospitals and health care facilities on the assumption that money is being transferred and suddenly large junks of that money are no longer being transferred, you borrow some more if you have the capacity to borrow. Newfoundland does not have that capacity. Ontario might, I do not know, but it is fast losing it. Alberta and British Columbia might, but Newfoundland does not have that capacity to borrow.
What do the premiers say? The premiers said: "If I am not able to borrow, I either have to make cuts or I have to consider bringing in additional revenue". That is what the premier said. The premier did not say it was the policy of the government to bring in user fees. The premier did not say he was going to announce user fees. The premier said: "This is what the health care system is being driven to". It was a cry of alarm.
The member for St. John's East who is across the way knows that his city has seen dramatic cutbacks in the health care service. His province is currently undergoing an advertising campaign by the nurses talking about the quality of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador. The same is happening in New Brunswick because nurses themselves who are the primary caregivers are seeing that the health care system is sick.
What is equally worrisome, and I say with great respect perhaps equally sick in the context of how my colleague is thinking, is when he says that it is the policy of the New Democratic Party that cutbacks and lay-offs in the health care system of and by themselves are not an attack on universality.
Let me make clear to the member that the Liberal Party of Canada, the Liberal Party as represented in this House of Commons, the Liberal Party as represented by the leader of our party who went to Washington and defended Canadian health care, believes that these unilateral cuts in transfer payments to health care are an attack on universality. We are not prepared to play little semantic games. We understand that the reason that cutbacks are happening in every province, be they Liberal, NDP or Conservative, the reason people are being laid off and the reason the quality of health care is being reduced is the cuts to transfer payments.
March 26, 1992

I am appalled and amazed that my friend from the New Democratic Party, in the interest of defending Bob Rae or Roy Romanow or his colleague out in British Columbia, the newly elected leader out there, would say: 'You know, those cutbacks being made in Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia, those lay-offs of nurses and of health care professionals, the closure of some wings of hospitals, the elimination of beds, are not attacks on universality, because even if we reduce our health care system to a band-aid station at least we will all have the same access to the same band-aids". That is the NDP mentality. As long as the lowest common denominator is equally available to everybody it is not a cutback.
That is outrageous. Our battle cannot just be to keep the system universal even if what is universal is our accessibility to a poor system. Our battle has to be to keep a quality system, not to allow one level of government to dictate to every other level of government the quality of health care; to have an intelligent, informed debate about choices; and to ensure that health care is maintained in this country in a manner that it becomes a matter of pride and right of Canadian citizenship.
I fear for my colleagues in the NDP. I fear they have lost their way. I fear they are still trapped in the politics of yesterday, the division between right and left, the promotion of class warfare, this whole notion of making the rich pay or making the poor pay, and the setting of one segment of society against another segment of society. They are so lost in the politics of yesterday that they miss the onslaught of change that is upon us and the requirement for modem day political parties to manage change, not merely to stand and be drowned by it.
I say to my colleague that I understand the great and glorious days of the revolution, but the revolution is over. Canada must move forward into the 1990s and beyond.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Madam Speaker, there is never anything in this House quite so entertaining as the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte when he is in full flight.
I certainly do not intend to even try to compete at the rhetorical level with the hon. member or with the pious way he set upon his NDP colleagues for this motion. The
Supply
way in which he responded points up the existence of some sensitivity in the Liberal ranks with respect to the whole question of user fees.
I would like to respond to something that was said earlier by the hon. member from Etobicoke. He talked about the Ontario NDP government on one hand and blamed it for the deficit in Ontario, after having earlier gone on about the incredibly deep recession that Canada was experiencing, particularly Ontario.
If we want to talk about not seeking unfair partisan advantage and not bending the truth in order to suit one's political agenda, the Liberals cannot have it both ways with respect to Ontario.
They cannot talk about the tremendous effect of the recession in Ontario and then in the very next sentence blame the deficit in Ontario on the Ontario NDP government. Surely, there is some connection between the recession in Ontario and the deficit that the government there has had to create as a result of the economic conditions that prevail in that province.
It was also certainly stretching the truth to say that the Ontario NDP had inherited a balanced budget. We know that is not the case, but that was the impression that the Liberal government of the day tried to create during the election campaign that brought the NDP to power.
In listening to the hon. member from Newfoundland, he pointed out something that maybe is at the heart of the debate here. He said that if the provincial budgets continue to be squeezed, to have the life squeezed out of them by unilateral federal cutbacks in Established Programs Financing, in Canada Assistance Program financing, in equalization payments or whatever the case may be, then at some point, particularly with respect to health care, provincial governments are faced with this choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, so to speak.
We have to respond either through cutbacks or through seeking out new sources of revenue. This is where the argument about user fees comes in.
The member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte did not want to make a distinction between the introduction of user fees and cutbacks in health care, seeing them both as equally an attack on medicare.

March 26, 1992
Supply
What we have before us here in the form of the NDP motion is a motion which says that we do not accept that way of looking at the problem, that cutbacks and user fees are sort of equivalent.
I will try to explain why we do take genuine offence at the suggestion by Liberal premiers that user fees are somehow the solution to the problem.
What we are talking about here is problem and solution. The problem in the first place is unilateral federal cutbacks to health care dollars, a violation of the agreements, written and political, which existed in the 1960s and 1970s with respect to medicare being a federally and provincially cost shared program.
That is the source of the problem, and I say to the hon. member that it has its origin in the Liberal government of which he was a part, and in which he may even have been a cabinet minister in his dying days.
It was the Liberal government of 1982 which brought in the first unilateral cutback to Establish Programs Financing. The same government went to a great deal of trouble through the Canada Health Act to prevent user fees.
Obviously the Liberal government of that day, whether this member accepted it or not at that time, made a distinction between cutbacks and user fees. The same government cut back on health care dollars but at the same time brought in tough legislation to deal with user fees. That government then made a distinction, which the member was unwilling to make today, between the effect that user fees have, not just on the practical, but also on the philosophical underpinnings of medicare and the effect that cutbacks have.
I would agree that at some point cutbacks themselves become a threat to medicare. If your publicly funded health care system is so devastated, so much a shell of its former self that people come to think negatively about it, then that becomes an attack on medicare by virtue of the fact that people then begin to want and seek out alternatives to that publicly funded health care system.
Cutbacks can be a threat to medicare in and of themselves. The cutbacks we have seen, which began in
1982 but which accelerated under the Progressive Conservative Party starting in 1984, are a threat to medicare.
An even greater threat to medicare is when premiers, whether they be Liberal or anybody else, and in this case they happen to be Liberals, say that the solution to that problem is the reintroduction of user fees. That is where there is, I would hope we can admit here, a genuine distinction to be made between the problem, which is federal cutbacks to the provinces, which in turn leads to provincial cutbacks in health care services, and a legitimate disagreement about what the response should be to that reality. Some Liberal premiers have suggested that user fees are part of the legitimate response to that problem.
What we are saying here today is that we reject that as part of the solution. We reject it because it is part and parcel of what we have always been about, and that makes us different from the Liberals. We do not have a history. It is not the NDP in Saskatchewan that fought the introduction of medicare the way they did at that time.
There is a mixed bag over there when it comes to medicare, although it was a Liberal government that brought in medicare in the 1960s. This is to be acknowledged, but it was not something that the Liberals would have done if it had not been for the pressure brought to bear on them by the existence already of medicare in Saskatchewan, and by the fact that they had minority governments at that time and pressure was brought to bear on them by the NDP in the House at that time.
This is all a matter of historical record and is not designed to take away from the fact that I am sure there were some Liberals at the time who were genuinely keen on finally bringing into reality the promise that the Liberals had made at their convention in 1919.
The fact is that there is a distinction to be made between introduction of user fees and other ways of solving the problem that we now have.
The real solution is the reintroduction of full federal cost sharing. The solution is to restore the partnership. The solution is to not have the federal government slowly but surely getting out of the business of living up to its commitment to these federally and provincially cost shared programs.
March 26, 1992

That does not seem to be in the cards this side of the next election. We have a government that seems committed to off-loading its deficit on to the provinces in a way that is not only wrong from the point of view of off-loading the deficit, but also has this effect on fundamental services, such as health care, that the provinces are there to provide.
Unashamedly, in spite of everything that the member said, we condemn anyone who suggests that the solution at this point is user fees. There is a problem.
I was the NDP health critic for four years, between 1980 and 1984, and I spent most of my time trying to encourage the Liberal government of the day and health minister Monique Begin to bring in the Canada Health Act to deal with user fees. There was a consensus in the country that user fees were inimical to the value system of medicare. There was a unanimous vote in this House in April 1984 against user fees.
When we get up and condemn anyone who suggests that user fees be brought back, all we are speaking from is not just a consensus, but a unanimous action of the Canadian Parliament taken in 1984 with the passage of the Canada Health Act.
I say to the hon. member who takes such offence that we should be critical of those who would suggest going against the spirit of that unanimous act. What is it that he has taken offence to, unless he is embarrassed by the fact that it is his Liberal colleagues who have made this suggestion?
With respect to the cutbacks that are being brought in by various NDP governments in health care services, no one enjoys this, and particularly I know New Democrats do not enjoy it. I think the hon. member, if I understood him correctly, tried to make the point that this is happening all across the country.
Why is it happening all across the country? It is happening all across the country because all provinces are affected by the federal withdrawal from this program. It does not really matter whether you are Progressive Conservative, NDP or Liberal, if you are a provincial government, you are affected by these unilateral withdrawals from these programs. The temptation is to point fingers and say that one cutback is worse than the other
Supply
or that if a certain party were in power this cutback would not happen, et cetera.
The fact is that cutbacks are happening. They are happening because we have finally got to the point at which that train of events which was started by the Liberals in 1982 is beginning to have its worst effect. We are not trimming fat any more from the system; we are trimming the system. That will be a threat to medicare.
The solution is not user fees. Study after study has shown that user fees, unless they are really hefty, cost as much to collect as they bring in. Not only that, but they tend to discourage the wrong people from seeking out health care services.
That is why we are dead against them. I venture to say we would be dead against them if in desperation some NDP premier were to suggest it. I would quarrel with him as much as I would quarrel with Mr. McKenna, Mr. Wells, or anybody else who has suggested that.
We do have a problem. It is not exactly a problem that has just arisen. I refer to Hansard, April 2, 1984, third reading of the Canada Health Act, and I quote from page 2605:
There are questions having to do with the allocation of health care dollars because there is not an infinite amount of money, and there will be difficult decisions to be made -there are difficult decisions about the allocation of health care resources. Canadians will have to pay more attention to how their health care dollars are being spent. We will have to find a way as we did through medicare when we found a way to go beyond the allocation of health care resources by the marketplace and we will have to find a way to go beyond the present system which lays itself open more and more to the charge that bureaucrats are allocating health care resources by political and fiscal imperatives instead of health care imperatives.
That is what we have now, exactly what I predicted on April 2, 1984. The Minister of Finance might as well be the minister of health in the provinces and in the country, because all the health care decisions are being made not by the medical community or the medical community in co-operation with other people who are concerned, which is the way it should be, but by bureaucrats in the Department of Finance.
That is wrong. There is a problem. We do have a health care system which more and more looks like it is making infinite demands on a finite amount of money.

Supply
There is also the question, as predicted in this speech, which some people might want to have a look at, if they are interested, of the demographic problem which was building then and which is even worse now. I suggested at that time that we try and build the kind of infrastructure that would help us to deal with that demographic time bomb that was gathering at that time with the aging of our population. Nothing was done by the Liberal government of that day or by subsequent governments.
Finally, there is the question of the expensive technologies, diagnostic and therapeutic, which more and more place a strain on our health care system. We are going to have to find a way to say what things we can afford to do and what things we cannot. That will be difficult because some things which are very expensive are also very personal. For instance, if you are talking about quadruple bypasses or whatever the case may be, something very expensive, individualized treatment, that person has a name. The person who is eligible for that treatment and who did not get it because there was a waiting list or who died before it was available or whatever has a name and can be identified.
That kind of acute treatment is very prone, and I do not say this is wrong but it is a fact, to the manipulation of our emotions and our natural sense of caring about that one person. The same amount of money that is spent on some of that high tech stuff could be spent on cleaner water for reserves or some other preventive kind of thing. None of those people have names. None of those people have faces. You do not have a big article in the local Sun about the baby who was saved because there was cleaner water on the reserves because you do not know which baby it was that was saved by cleaner water. All you can know intellectually is that many were saved by cleaner water.
We have this tug on our emotions, how to spend this money on the identifiable individually speaking or on the non-identifiable socially speaking but which nevertheless might be money better spent depending on what we finally decide.
To be honest, medicare was conceived in a day and age when people could not foresee the never ending spiral of technological advances that have driven up the cost of health care the way they have. Ultimately we would all
be safer if we were accompanied by a doctor wherever we went. Perhaps, depending on who the doctor was.


An hon. member:: Then you would need a lawyer.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Someone says then you might need to be accompanied by a lawyer wherever you went, or a priest.
In any event, the fact is that there will have to be limits to what can be publicly funded. Nobody really argues about this. There are things which are not funded by medicare. There may have to be more things which are not funded by medicare. But we do not want to make those decisions as a result of having our backs falsely to the wall because the federal government is pulling out of its commitment to medicare. We want to have to make those tough decisions about what we can afford and what we cannot once we have both the federal and provincial governments living up to their commitment to the system. Whatever problems we have after that will be real problems rather than the political problems that are foisted on us by a lack of commitment on the part of a particular government to medicare.
Once we solve that problem, we can get about the very, very difficult decisions that will have to be made. I think they will be difficult for NDP governments as well as Conservative and Liberal governments. They will be difficult for everybody concerned. The solution will not be an uncritical return to the notion that user fees somehow will get us out of the mess we are in.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, the problem with opposition days is that you sometimes do not get to know what is on until you get the Order Paper in the morning. When I saw the topic on the Order Paper this morning I immediately became very angry because I felt what an excellent debate we could have had in this House had we kept partisan politics out of it. The NDP, as always, takes every issue and turns it into partisan politics instead of having a good debate.
I contacted the hospitals in my riding to see how they are affected by the cutbacks and so on. It goes all the way from the cut in transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces, and then the New Democratic government's cuts to the hospitals. I found out, for example, from Mr. Cliff Nordal, president and CEO of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital right in my riding-and I wish they could be given the Award of Canada or something for the excellent service they are giving-that there has been only a 1 per cent increase for hospitals

this year, with 2 per cent in the next two years for health care in general, but the costs are going up much more than that.
He claims that the changes in federal benefits-that is the UI, CPP, workmen's compensation-are adding 15 per cent to the hospital costs. That is nothing the hospital puts on, but they have to pay their workers' UI, CPP and workmen's comp.
The Ontario Nurses Union has just negotiated an 8 per cent raise. The other unions are coming up for arbitration, and they will probably get the same. Another factor that is hurting this hospital, and I am sure others, is pay equity. Pay equity alone is making a big dent in the budget. The whole thing has left the Queen Elizabeth Hospital with a $2.8 million deficit, and has forced the closure of 82 chronic care beds. This is a loss of jobs but, more important, with the aging population and the demographics of our community this is a loss in our ability to care for the people.
I believe in pay equity, but if the provincial New Democratic government brings in that legislation, surely it cannot expect the hospitals to pick up that additional cost. Would the member agree that if the New Democratic government has brought in legislation on pay equity, it should then come in with the bucks also? I would like to pose that to the hon. member.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may, before I give the floor back to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, I would like to tell the House that we have many problems with the amendment as presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I would suggest at this time that we go on with the period of questions and comments after which, before we start on debate again, I would be prepared to listen to some argument. I want to give the opposition time to prepare and then we can decide on whether or not this amendment is admissible.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the member for Park-dale-High Park follows in the tradition of some of his colleagues who spoke earlier. On the one hand they want to blame the federal government, which is appropriate, for cutting back moneys to the provinces, in this case Ontario, and at the same time hold the province of
Supply
Ontario responsible for the consequences of those cutbacks which they themselves, that is to say the Liberal member and his colleagues, place the responsibility for at the foot of the federal government. They cannot have it both ways.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, I first of all want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg Transcona for a very thoughtful speech on this issue that the debate today is all about and to credit him for a speech he made previously about some of the concerns our provinces are having about health care.
My question to him relates to some of the very important problems faced by many of us representing northern, remote and rural ridings, and that is the way our health care system has developed. There are some legitimate arguments that in large urban areas there is evidence that we are actually overdoctored. They may be fine for the urban areas but it is a real problem for those of us who represent rural areas where communities have a difficult time attracting medical practitioners and others.
In the case of my riding I think of two communities. Valemount at the eastern end of the riding has to advertise in magazines in the U.K. and elsewhere and most recently another community, Fort St. James, a two-hour drive from Prince George, is having the same problem.
I would like to ask the member, from his experience on this issue, how we can deal with the current problems in health care and also be able to respond to the needs of the smaller communities that have a difficult time in attracting medical practitioners.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I am glad the member raises the question of health care services in remote areas. I might refer him to the same speech of April 2, 1984, where I do not talk about his riding in particular but I say:
There are many other questions we will have to face, but I do not have the time to go into them. There will be the question of transportation in northern Ontario, for instance, and other remote parts of the country where people do not, in a sense, have equal access to hospital care. They must spend a lot more money than people living in urban centres to provide their families with the kind of hospital care which may be recommended by their physicians.

March 26, 1992
Supply
This was a problem which at that time was brought to my attention by a fellow who lived in Thunder Bay, who is now the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, but who at that time was veiy active in the promotion of improved health care services for people in northern Ontario.
The problem the member raises is related in the sense of how to get doctors into these communities. I come from a tradition in the church where people are expected after their graduation to serve in remote communities as a condition of their education. It costs a whole lot less to put somebody through the ministry than it does to put them through medicine. Yet we have all kinds of people, and we do not begrudge them this, who are getting a very expensive education in medicine. It seems to me that instead of all going to the lower mainland in B.C., or the golden horseshoe in Ontario or whatever the case may be, although it is not quite as golden as it used to be, that they should be expected in some way or another to put something back into the community by rendering some significant service in these more remote communities.
Part of the problem with the health care system now is that we have no way of rationing the number of doctors who are all trying to make a living out of the same population. We get areas in which there is a very high concentration of doctors, and it is only natural that they are going to be in a system which is demand driven but open-ended in the sense of the government reimbursing positions for the fees that they charge, but you are going to run into problems.
What we need to look at is some way of rationalizing the distribution of physicians. Some people have suggested, and it has even been implemented, only having so many billing numbers in a certain area and things like that. I am not convinced that is the answer. We do need to look, particularly when it comes to remote areas, at how we get doctors out into that area. It has something to do with an expectation that is either laid on or very much encouraged that these people have something to give back to the country that provided them with their education.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: On a point of order, this is the first supply day in which the government has not put up a minister, parliamentary secretary or even a backbencher to defend
medicare. I am wondering if we can get some indication from the government whether its silence is that it is now tacitly agreeing with the ending of universality.


Mr. Reid:: Madam Speaker, as a backbencher in that list the member mentioned, the government is very anxious and interested to debate medicare. So far, all we have debated are the political intentions of one party or another, and I suspect when we discuss the health care system in this country, which is critically important, you might see the government participating. So far, frankly, it is great entertainment to watch people stealing out of each other's milk bowls.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Madam Speaker, another comment on the same subject.
Our concern rests with the fact that a few weeks ago at an earlier federal-provincial conference, I believe it was the Prime Minister, or perhaps another spokesman for the government, who was very quick to disassociate and distance himself and the policy of his government regarding universality when the Liberal premier of New Brunswick had opened up that possibility.
Comparing the silence that has existed in this debate and in the last few days to the continuing questions regarding universality raised by other Liberal premiers makes us worry that perhaps the government, having seen this idea thrown around a little more broadly, is doing some rethinking on its part. We would welcome, and the Canadian people would be very much assured in this matter, some continuing commitment from the government that despite the advocacy of inroads on universality by the Liberal premiers, its policy is still going to be constant with regard to the principle of universality and medicare.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the reason we do not have the minister of health here or the kind of defence of medicare that we might otherwise expect is that there is no commitment to medicare on that side of the House.
I sat in this House for four years as the NDP health critic and not once in that so-called medicare crisis did an Official Opposition member, a Conservative, raise the question of user fees, which were a problem in the early 80s.
March 26, 1992

If it had not been for the combined efforts of the NDP in raising the question with the government and the personal commitment of the minister of health and welfare at the time, Monique Begin, nothing would have happened. It certainly would not have happened as a result of the efforts of the Official Opposition.
The only commitment that exists on that side of the House is not to reveal, in any open way, the fact that it does not have any commitment to medicare. It was against it from the first.


Mrs. Marleau:: Madam Speaker, I have been advised that you are prepared to rule against our amendment based on the fact that you claim there are some new concepts being introduced in our amendment.
Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, that this motion is about the threat to our health care system and that you certainly recognize that health care is a shared responsibility of all levels of government in this country, and that governments are interdependent under our system of co-operative federalism.
This opposition motion expresses the concern of this House about the threat to the Canadian health care system by the actions of incumbent government cutbacks.
It is this motion which introduces the concept of incumbent governments. The amendment merely enlarges on the descriptive part of the motion. The motion itself refers to the expressed intentions of certain premiers of some of the incumbent governments which threaten the health care system.
Our amendment adds to this bill of particulars the actions of other incumbent governments and provincial premiers and really sets the situation in its proper context.
The provincial premiers are being compelled by the federal government into this action. It is the federal government which really poses the threat.
In other words, the amendment does not add any new concepts to the main motion. It merely clarifies the nature of the threats referred to in the motion. That is why I believe the motion is in order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I would submit that this opposition day motion before the House has a clear scope. It is an expression of concern for views expressed by the leaders
Supply
of three provincial governments, specifically the Liberal premiers of Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
What the Liberal amendment seeks to do is add an entirely new element to the motion. It adds references to the actions of three other governments, as opposed to the opinions of three leaders.
Beauchesne's sixth edition is clear on this point. Paragraph 579(1) states:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
This is based on a Speaker's ruling of 1923 which has been consistently applied over the past decades. I am sure that when you have had an opportunity to consider the matter you will see that the motion we have before us in the form of the Liberal subamendment is out of order on the face of it.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I would like to debate and argue that our amendment to the motion is very much in order.
Why do I say that? Citation 929 indicates:
On an allotted day, during consideration of the business of Supply, an amendment must not provide the basis for an entirely different debate than that proposed in the original motion.
Fortunately, Madam Speaker, before you could have had the time to decide on the procedural correctness of the amendment, debate in the House has already ensued.
We already heard the argument of the member for Winnipeg Transcona that there is a relationship between user fees and cutbacks from the federal government. That is now a fact in so far as an argument is concerned.
You cannot divide user fees and cutbacks. That is what the member from Winnipeg Transcona said. It is part of the debate. Who made the cutbacks? The federal government made it. You cannot isolate the federal government from this debate or we will have no debate.
If you look at the main motion by the NDP, the main focus is the threat to Canada's health care system; the system itself. It is not the stated intention of the Liberal premiers. It was only used as one.
Is the New Democratic Party telling us, the members, that the threat to the health care system is due to only one factor? During its arguments it has admitted it is not. I would submit, to allow for full debate on this issue, that the Chair allow the Liberal amendment to prosper so that we can have a healthy debate.

March 26, 1992
Supply
Canadians can listen to all the pros and cons. Let Canadians decide, and not on a procedural basis. We have to nip in the bud a fundamental principle of reality today.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to understand the reasoning of the members of the NDP who would argue against our amendment.
The essence of our amendment is that as a result of the withdrawal of the federal government from its longstanding obligations, the health care system is in peril. Section 81(11) says that opposition motions may relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.
The argument is very clear. If our amendment is not acceptable because it is not related to the principle of the motion, and our amendment relates to the federal government, then the original motion should not be allowed. An opposition motion must relate to an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.
The argument is very clear. Our amendment must be accepted, and if our amendment is not accepted, it can only be on the ground that the original motion itself is out of order.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, the last two speakers who are trying to cite that this amendment should be in order have convinced you of the opposite.
This is a different debate. The original motion focused on two main elements: the opinions of the three Liberal premiers' administrations and on the introduction of user fees.
This amendment totally shifts the debate to a different subject. Based on the citation from the member from Winnipeg, the Chair clearly has no choice but to rule it out of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I ask for the indulgence of the House to take into consideration for a little while longer the new arguments which have been brought to me. I will come back to the House in a few minutes.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, normally I would be very glad to take part in such a debate. But today I have mixed feelings. Why?

As I indicated, I am usually quite enthused about participating in a discussion such as this one. Today, it is not really the case.
Intellectually I want to talk about the problem, but I am also angry because the motion, with all due respect to my colleagues, some of whom I respect a great deal, is particularly petty. It is a motion that takes a singularly important issue to Canadians, the health care of all Canadians, and trivializes it.
It debases it. It makes it totally, completely, uniquely political by trying to identify three Liberal premiers as the victims, if you wish, those who have perpetuated this. I am really disappointed.
Why has the NDP not talked about the real problem, the cause of where we are today and what we might be able to do in terms of something constructive and positive and respond to the health needs of all Canadians?
We all know that all provinces have been adversely affected. We all know that is as a result of the federal cutbacks, but there are other reasons as well and I shall go into them. Why did my colleagues from the New Democratic Party single out just Liberal premiers? Why did they not single out actions by the Saskatchewan government, an NDP government, I might add? Let me quote from an article dated today: "Saskatchewan cuts social spending". I want to quote from a Canadian press article: "The Saskatchewan government is cutting $115 million in funding for hospitals, schools and municipalities". It goes on. It warned yesterday that the provincial budget will include even deeper cuts. Why did they not mention the New Democratic Party of Saskatchewan, the New Democratic Government of Saskatchewan?
What has Bob Rae's NDP government done in a province that has been among the better-off financially, recognizing that it has had problems? Let me quote from
March 26, 1992

a recent article: "As a result of actions by the New Democratic Party, the New Democratic Government of Ontario, the Ontario Hospital Association has issued serious warnings; lay-offs of up to 13,000 hospital employees and 3,600 bed closures in hospitals". How do you like that? That is one of the actions.
Here is another article: "Hospitals will have to close and they will have to lay off staff". This is a New Democratic failure to preserve the medicare system.
I will quote another article about the behaviour of the New Democratic government in Ontario: "2,000 Ontario Hospital Jobs at Risk. The 1 per cent funding increase for Ontario hospitals this year could bring the loss of
2,000	hospital jobs across the province, said the finance minister".
Another article describes the situation of two individuals who are suffering from schizophrenia. One is able to get a drug that permits that person to cope with that particular difficulty, while the other does not. Why? The New Democratic government of Ontario will not provide the necessary kind of assistance.
I quote these particular articles because we need to acknowledge that all governments are having difficulties. It is inappropriate, insensitive and blantantly political to pick on a few individuals to try to make political hay out of an issue that is of such great importance to all Canadians. As I indicated, it trivializes it, it debases it.

Frankly it is disgusting and Canadians will see it that way.

What kinds of attitudes should we be taking on this issue? Let me quote my colleague from Winnipeg North who said on March 19, 1991, on an opposition day by this party dedicated to this topic: "Mr. Speaker, yesterday I sat in the House in amazement listening to a partisan New Democrat painting his party as a champion of medicare. His holier than thou rhetoric failed to mention that all first ministers of all political stripes and the Prime Minister agreed to discuss user fees at their meeting last night". This is not the first time that they have tried to do this.
Why? Obviously they have been looking at the polls. Obviously they are more concerned about the popularity
Supply
of the Liberal Party of Canada than they are about the issue of medicare, about health care for Canadians.
I have another one here: "Medicare belongs to all of us, to all Canadians. It is shared by every member of this House and all of their constituents. Medicare is no less prized in Winnipeg North than it is in Kelowna, British Columbia, or Port aux Basques, Newfoundland. Medicare is the undeniable right of every Canadian citizen. It belongs to my sons and their children to follow. It belongs to the children of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his colleagues and their children. It is perhaps the most precious thing all Canadians have to pass on to the next generation".
That is what my colleague from Winnipeg North said. He goes on: "Medicare is not a partisan issue and ought not to be". That is the kind of attitude we need. That is the kind of leadership that we need if we are going to come to grips with this critically important issue to all Canadians.
Using an issue such as health care, picking on certain premiers because of their political party membership, while premiers of other political parties have done the same or more, is political pettiness, political smallness at its worse. I expected much more from the NDP. I am sorry that we have had to stoop to that particular level.
I would have wanted the truth. Why is the current health system having difficulties? Clearly there are cuts to health care. Between 1986 and 1995 there will have been 20 billion fewer dollars transferred to provinces. Obviously, that is a lot of money and it is difficult to accommodate to those kinds of changes. Let there be no doubt about it. That is a major problem.
There was the made-in-Canada recession. This recession has caused a lot of difficulties in health care, in education and in other social programs. There are people who want more and better care. That is a change in attitude that has taken on some significant importance.
I had hoped that the NDP would have mentioned that one of the problems-I am delighted and I hope I am one of the individuals who will enjoy this-is that Canadians are living longer. They live longer and therefore they need more health care for longer periods of time.

Supply
I had hoped that it would have mentioned that health costs are increasing at alarming rates and tried to understand why that is so. I had hoped that it would have recognized that we need a different kind of response to health care problems today if we are going to respond to the health of Canadians.
What might some of these be? I go to some former debates. I recognize again the contribution and the leadership that my colleague from Winnipeg North has given. I want to quote from that particular opposition day dedicated to health care by the Liberal Party of Canada, on March 19, 1991. He said: "Daily our health care system is becoming more taxed and stricken with debt and fiscal restraint". He points out that the purchase of new equipment, even the maintenance of old equipment, becomes extremely difficult to fund. He points out as well that research funding has been cut. He goes on to say: "I believe by not focusing more attention on prevention we cannot hope to maintain services while coping with burgeoning health costs".
He points out some other difficulties: "I believe by not focusing more attention on the prevention we cannot hope to maintain services". He also says that we have to become more creative in responding to the needs that are out there. He points out as well that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find qualified nurses and qualified doctors, and this is particularly so in smaller, more isolated areas, and for a certain particular population, very often those which have particularly unique problems that have to be dealt with in the health care area.
My colleague also has identified the need for treatment facilities for new diseases and for the elderly. "Care centres for the elderly are desperately needed as their numbers swell with the addition of the baby boom generation".
Here are some of the points that my colleague has made, that other colleagues as well have identified, ones we need to come to grips with. We have fewer dollars being transferred to provinces. We have a changing demography in this country; people living longer, wanting more health care and better care.
Because of these various factors, the situation is changing.

When things change it is often extremely difficult for this government or any other to deal with the changed situation.
People often try to find targets and criticize instead of proposing creative solutions. That is what bothers me today. I am very troubled that such an important issue for all Canadians was used for political purposes, knowing that if we had chosen to discuss and talk things over together in order to find solutions we might have been able to do something good for our people.

A more appropriate motion might have been to collectively discuss, in an open kind of way, what kinds of solutions we could find to maintain and hopefully improve the health system for the benefit of Canadians. I would hope that perhaps during the rest of the day, in the time that is left, that is exactly what we would do.

I would like to recapitulate very briefly, since I am getting to the end of my speech. It is unfortunate that today and on many other occasions important issues are exploited for political purposes, for purely political gain.
I realize it is only human to want to put your best foot forward and try and woo Canadian voters. I think it is quite acceptable in certain situations, but I think we should be sensible and realize that there are times when it is appropriate to try and play certain political games, and times when we must consider the major issues of the day and try to find solutions that will help Canadians and help our country come up with programs that will provide a more satisfactory response to the needs of Canadians.

Therefore, I would like to come to the end of this particular discussion by asking my colleagues to commit themselves for the rest of the day to looking at solutions to these problems. There are fewer dollars; there are changing demographics; there are changing attitudes of the people who want better and more significant care. All of this is there and there are many, many more issues as well. Surely it would be a much more productive day if at the end of it all we could say: "Here is an idea, here are two or three ideas that might do something significant in terms of responding to the health care needs of
March 26, 1992

Canadians, all Canadians, whether they live in urban centres or in smaller communities or in isolated areas of our great country".


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I have a brief comment and two questions for the member for St. Boniface.
We have heard a great deal today and in the past of those across this country in senior positions in political parties who have argued for the introduction of user fees. We have heard it, as the motion indicates, from three Liberal premiers across this country. We have heard it from the leader of the Reform Party; we have heard it from the former minister of health, the member for Provencher, and from caucuses within the Conservative Party.
We have not heard it and we will not hear from the New Democratic Party any suggestion that user fees should be introduced into the Canadian health care system because of the danger and the damage that it will cause. We have heard it from the Liberals, the Reform Party and the Conservative Party.
I have two questions for the member. Does he not feel that it is important that political parties clearly put on the record for the Canadian people what their views are with regard to user fees and deterrent fees in the health care system? Does he not think that it is important to ask where these political parties stand on this question?
The second question is does he or does he not agree with his colleagues, the premiers of Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick, that user fees should be introduced into the Canadian health care system?
These are very simple questions.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the questions and I wish those questions had been asked in the way in which my colleague has just presented the questions. I think they are really quite fair. They do not smack of this political pettiness that I mentioned before in their particular motion.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Ron J. Duhamel: My colleague will have an opportunity to stand up and debate me if he would like to. I would
Supply
welcome that challenge. This motion is political pettiness. My colleague has just asked two important questions and I shall answer them.
First of all, he talks about three Liberal premiers having made statements to the effect that they would welcome, endorse or implement user fees. I would like to see the proof. Put the proof on the table where that has been stated unequivocally, and no fudging.
Yesterday on Canada AM one of the premiers was asked whether he endorsed user fees-one of those three premiers. He said no. Who is right in all of this? Are your colleagues trying to take advantage of you? I would like you to answer that question. Perhaps your own colleagues have not done their homework. They are getting trapped and at the end of the day they are going to hang because they have been petty, because they have been cheap, because they have debased the political process.
Is it important to ask the question? Yes. I applaud the way in which you have asked it and I thank you.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague who has again demonstrated that, at least from this side of the House, the Liberal party is more than interested in getting into the substance of debate rather than engaging in what the NDP has put forward in its motion in a misperception of what might be construed as an issue.
Again, even in the questions that have been raised by both my colleagues, both from the great City of Winnipeg, we have had no substance.
That last question I asked my colleague referred to a "may", a "consider", and a possible review that is alleged to have been voiced by the three provincial premiers, none of whom have anything to do with this House. It was a direct attempt to try to put the Liberal Party of Canada in this House on the record as defenders of the provincial premiers, people who have been elected by their provinces, by their electorate, for issues that are germane to their provinces. They are going to try to make the Liberal Party of Canada the defenders of those provincial interests.

March 26, 1992
Supply
As my colleague has indicated, the Liberal Party of Canada is more than prepared and willing to come to to the defence of Canadians everywhere, no matter what their stripe.
It is instructive to keep in mind that the proponents of that motion fail very selectively to indicate that at the premier's conference of February, all premiers together, with the Prime Minister of Canada-that does not include the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada who was already on the record as being very much in favour of universal access to medicare-agreed to review the medicare process in Canada. It was only after the conference that the NDP premiers came out and said: "Guess what? We did not like what transpired in that discussion. It was not to our advantage, and so we have rediscovered our support for universality of the medicare system. We do not believe in user fees. We do not believe in any kind of limitation". They sure as heck believed that when they went in and accepted that as an agenda item in that First Ministers' Conference. We were not there, but your representatives were there.
My colleague from St. Boniface has introduced some very important items in this debate. I wonder whether my colleague would be so good as to reiterate for the NDP movers of the motion that we are here to discuss substance, and would he please advise them what the essence of that substance might be.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for his comments and for his questions.
There are three points I want to make. If my colleagues from the NDP want to be as fair as they claim they want to be, they will acknowledge that the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has publicly defended universality.
I would like to see one of them stand up and say it.
Second, I take serious offence with the NDP's manipulation of data, and I want to give one example with respect to Quebec. Please listen. You have one seat and I have to tell you it is going to get worse from here on in.
I want to read this into the record. This motion by the NDP has criticized Quebec, accusing it of intending to impose user fees. Is this criticism fair? I too would be concerned if the Quebec government were to proceed
with the application of user fees, "but I did not pass judgment", says my colleague from Winnipeg North.
The government of Quebec's 1989 report Improving Health and the Well-being of Quebec: Orientations states: "Some of the advantages generally attributed to deterrent charges are most theoretical and this formula has major drawbacks that outweigh the advantages."
The report concludes: "Therefore, recourse to the deterrent changes cannot be an acceptable source of financing and the department favours turning to alternate sources of revenue."
If only the NDP health critic had read this report he would not be so quick to prejudge and impute ill-intention to the Quebec government. That is the blatant kind of political cynicism that is going on.
With respect to the issue, it is a very simple one. There are a number of changes that are occurring. From 1986 to 1995, $30 billion fewer dollars will be transferred for health and education. Roughly $20 billion of that was for health. That is a major problem to which the provinces need to respond in order to attempt to accommodate current realities.
I mentioned the changing demographics. We have a population that is living longer. We have more people in the seniors range. When people live longer, normally they require more health care. As they become more and more sensitive and knowledgeable as to what is available in terms of health care, they require and request better health care.
We have those various factors at play.
What is it that we need to do? Rather than trying to be petty and suggesting that someone has done something to someone else, what we need to do is come to grips with those basic problems.
How are we going to find the nurses and the doctors for the smaller and isolated areas? How are we going to provide the health care that Canadians need? That ought to be the essence of this debate.
As I said at the closing of my remarks, I would hope that the whole rest of the day would be focused upon finding solutions, rather than make petty political points because the Liberals happen to be higher in the polls than the NDR It figured out, finally, that we are its biggest political enemy.
March 26, 1992

What silliness and insensitivity when we are talking about the health care of Canadians.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I find this an interesting debate today because it is perhaps an exercise in classic Liberalism.
The concept of making the rich pay is not new in Canada. It was first, as I recall, put forward by the Maixist-Leninist party some time ago in Canadian politics and has only recently been adopted by the Liberals in some portions.
I was interested in the previous speaker not being clear as to which of the Liberal governments have put forward proposals in a very specific way for user fees. One would have thought he might have been aware of a bill put forward by the Quebec Liberal government in bill 120, which proposes, among other things, a tax for those who can afford it on medical services received yearly or a $5 fee for every visit to a doctor, and several other practices that have to deal with the receiving of care and extra charges or user fees, as they are well known.
One would have thought if the government of Quebec had gone so far as to table a study paper on the matter and introduce proposed legislation, Bill 120, that members of the Liberal Party here in Ottawa might have been aware that it is pretty specific. That is writing it down; that is putting a document in the public domain; that is introducing legislation. That ought to be a fairly clear indication, even to them, that some of their provincial counterparts are pretty firmly on the hook for user fees.
They seem not to have read people who have gone out of their way to put on public record their positions. They seem to be rather unsure of the proposals made by Premier Frank McKenna who was quoted in the Toronto Globe & Mail on February 10, 1992. It is not a widely read Canadian newspaper. Sometimes it is referred to as a bit of a rag.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: It is a rag.


Michael James Breaugh: The member for Don Mills just reaffirmed that the Liberals seem to feel that The Globe & Mail is a rag. I will quote from The Globe & Mail of that day. Premier Frank McKenna said:
I believe that the wealthiest of Canadians are prepared to pay
some deductible for their health care in order to ensure that we can
Supply
continue to provide the poorest of Canadians with universal accessible health care. I don't believe there is another nation in the world that has such an open-ended system of health care where they simply give the dollars out no matter what the amount to health care providers and recipients without asking for some modest deductible in return from those who cannot afford to pay it.
The Marxist-Lenonists used to have a much less wordy version of that: "Make the rich pay".
I would also refer to another paper which is perhaps not widely read in the Liberal caucus. It is a local paper here in Ottawa, The Ottawa Citizen. On December 30, 1991 it was quoting the premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells:
"We may have to look at the whole principle of universality in our social programs and look at the extent that we might have to limit the universality. Canadians would probably be open to such changes if politicians are honest about the state of the country's finances", he said. "I do not think people would be hostile to that type of change as long as they are aware of the economic problems that we face", he said.
It seems to me that there are at least three places on record, on paper, pretty specific, in which a Liberal provincial government has indicated that it is going toward the area of user fees. It seems to me that those members, and they have now left the Chamber, seemed unsure of what their provincial counterparts had to say on the matter. We cannot impose an obligation on them to read newspapers like The Globe & Mail or The Citizen or The Montreal Gazette. If they were unsure or unable to get that kind of information through their caucus brothers and sisters, we now have attempted to provide them with that service. The Liberal Party, in at least three of our provinces, has come very clearly on record in favour of user fees.
I have heard some abuse of my good friend and colleague, Mr. Robert Rae, the premier of Ontario, and I want to rush to his defence this morning. I do not always do this, but today is the day.
I noticed the conference of the first ministers in Toronto in which the premier of Ontario was beginning to fight back against a federal government that has caused a great deal of anxiety. I want to say that it is about time that the premiers of all the provinces decided to kick the government in the shins a little bit to put on the public record just exactly what has transpired in the

March 26, 1992
last decade or so concerning the transfer payments to the provinces which have a direct impact on their programs.
If people do not like it, so be it. Bob Rae, congratulations to you. Kick the government in the shins again. The government deserves it. It deserves to be a matter of great public controversy precisely whether the government has carried out its responsibilities. In my opinion, and I would suggest that it is now shared by every provincial government in the country, it has not. That ought to be a matter of great public debate and dialogue, and if the federal government does not like it, tough luck.
It has put the boots to Canadians in hospitals, providing medical care in a wide variety of circumstances across this country for long enough. It has put provincial governments and municipal governments and local hospitals at risk for long enough.
It should not be a mysterious debate about who has the best finance department. It ought to be a substantive debate about what one level of government, the federal level, has done to the provinces, the municipalities and their local hospitals by clearly reneging on its own financial responsibilities.
We will continue this debate later in the afternoon, but it will not get any softer.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As we rise for lunch, I would like to tell the Elouse that I have chosen to consult with the Speaker over this lunch period. One of us will rule after Question Period.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

M. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, today I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Father Rolland Brunelle.
Recently Father Brunelle was made a knight of the National Order of Quebec. He was awarded this high honour by the premier of Quebec, in recognition of his exceptional contribution to the community.
This award was well deserved. Father Brunelle has dedicated his life to teaching music and for more than 50 years has passed on his love of music to hundreds of young people, some of whom have become famous musicians.
Throughout his career Father Brunelle won the admiration and respect of the community in Joliette, which expressed its appreciation by celebrating his 50th anniversary as a teacher of music last year.
Father Brunelle's contribution and his dedication to young people and the local community are examples to us all.
On behalf of the House I wish to congratulate Father Brunelle on receiving this well deserved award.


MYANMAR
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is beyond understanding that Canada still recognizes and supports the current military dictatorship in Myanmar which continues to rule by force and which has been twice rejected by Myanmar's 40 million citizens through widespread demonstrations and the ballot box.
In attempts to further delay transferring its power to the National League for Democracy, which won the 1990 general elections, the illegitimate dictatorship is waging a cruel war against Muslims and ethnic minorities, causing almost 200,000 refugees to flee to neighbouring countries. Indeed, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva issued an urgent plea for assistance, saying the situation has turned into one of the world's major refugee crises. Amnesty International has confirmed reports of widespread human rights violations, including torture, rape and killings.
I call on this government to recognize the Myanmar national coalition government as the government legally elected by the people, support UN economic sanctions and an arms embargo on Myanmar, suspend all Petro-Canada operations and to redirect all government to government and multilateral assistance to the refugees and those in legitimate need.
March 26, 1992


NATIONAIR
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Laval-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I support what was said yesterday in the House by the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie about the resumptions of negotiations between the union and Nationair in the presence of Mr. Courchesne, the mediator appointed by the Minister of Labour.
Time is of the essence, even if Mr. Nolan, the Toronto based leader of the flight attendants union who is also employed by Air Canada, has said repeatedly that closing down Nationair did not bother him at all.
It is hard to understand why a union affiliated with the QFL, whose president, Mr. Daoust, says he is very concerned about the well-being of Nationair employees, could make such inappropriate and indeed dangerous statements.
The campaign to boycott, smear and destroy Mirabel's biggest carrier most stop.
In any case, in view of QFL leader Daoust's dedication to the interests of Quebec workers, I am confident that with a show of good will on both sides, negotiations will be resumed.
It is time a settlement was reached. The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie and myself are prepared to provide some form of special mediation, if necessary, to speed up the settlement of this dispute before it is too late.


THE LATE BARBARA FRUM
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I join with others in the House today to express my sadness and that of my party and leader at the death of Barbara Frum. Ms. Frum had a long, varied and accomplished career in journalism. Throughout and until the end she brought curiosity and insight to virtually every interview and every issue she approached.
She became one of the pre-eminent journalists in our nation's history. She succeeded because she knew the issues. She made them understandable for the rest of us. She asked the questions people wanted answered and cared about how the issues touched our lives.
She accomplished all of this as a woman in what had been a very male profession. She was, is and will be for a long time, a role model and inspiration to generations of young women. If the face and character of journalism have changed in Canada, Barbara Frum was certainly at the centre of that change.
My leader said today that perhaps more than anything else, Barbara Frum was a guest we welcomed into our home every night. Her presence will be missed. The sadness we express today is a sadness I know that is shared by all Canadians.
On behalf of myself, my leader and my party, I offer our heartfelt condolences to Ms. Frum's family and her friends.



Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, echoing the comments of my colleague for Kamloops, like many millions of Canadians, I am shattered by the death of Barbara Frum.
As a journalist by profession, I met Barbara and associated with her on a number of occasions. I was even honoured to be interviewed by Canada's finest woman journalist on radio's As It Happens and CBC-TVs The Journal over the years from heaven knows where.
I did not necessarily share Barbara Frum's political views, but I am one Canadian who greatly admired her objective approach to journalism and her unabashed way of questioning anybody who needed to be questioned.
Barbara's sense of values and her forthright statements of those values, which you could sense just by watching her eyes, made her one of the giants of the Canadian broadcasting industry.
Barbara Frum will be missed by her legion of Canadian fans. I know I will miss her.

March 26, 1992



Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, we were all saddened this morning when we woke to the news of the death of Barbara Frum at the early age of 54. She had struggled valiantly these last few years with leukaemia, heroically never letting her pain show to millions of Canadians every night.
One of Canada's greatest journalists, she was a role model and pioneer for women and set extraordinary standards of professionalism.
We first became aware of Barbara Frum's insightful interviewing skills on CBC Radio through As It Happens, as we were kept updated on Canadian public affairs.
In 1982 she left radio, breaking into CBC television with The Journal. For a decade Barbara Frum entered our homes nightly, bringing us in-depth interviews with world leaders from a Canadian perspective, as well as keeping us informed about issues affecting Canada in an ever probing way. She shall be sorely missed by family, friends and the Canadian public. Heartfelt condolences.
May her memory be blessed and may the mourners be comforted among all those who mourn in Zion and Jerusalem.
Y'hee zichron baruch. Hamakom yinachem etchem betoch shaare tizion vYerushalayim.


SARNIA, ONTARIO
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton) Mr. Speaker, the April 1992 issue of Chatelaine has recently hit the news stands. Included in this issue is an article listing the top 10 towns and small cities in Canada in which to live. The article boasts that those chosen towns and cities have an irrepressible spirit, while being safe, affordable and neighbourly.
It is with great pleasure and pride that I inform all members that Sarnia, Ontario, has been included in this top 10 list. With a good regional employment rate, relatively low housing costs, an established economic base and a strong sense of community, Sarnia has always topped the list for myself, of course, and all residents of our area.
I am pleased that the magazine has acknowledged what the people of Sarnia have known for a long time.
Now all Canadians will know what a great place Sarnia is to live, work and raise a family.

Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, the future of Canada's only national English as a Second Language organization is in jeopardy.
TESL Canada, a non-profit organization, depends largely upon grants from the federal government for funding. Seven months ago, there was a proposal submitted to the Secretary of State to continue a program entitled "Community Support and Participation Program" for the development of an ESL learners' national network.
This is the fourth year of the program. The decision to fund or not to fund is at the minister's discretion. When an official was asked whether the program would be funded, the official answered: "I do not know".
Will this government commit today to funding the ESL program? Will this government commit to the future of new Canadians? Will this government recognize the contributions of immigrants to our society?
Finally, will the minister ensure the survival of this important program?


DEVELOPMENT ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES' LANDS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, speaking to members of the Canadian Club in Montreal, including 10 representatives from Hydro Quebec, Chief Billy Diamond of the Waskaghanish Cree stated that aboriginal people wanted to be partners in resource development on their lands so as to enjoy the financial benefits and limit any negative impact on the natural and human environment. He went on to say that it was necessary to set up a partnership with non-native entrepreneurs and establish a better relationship with the government so that native concerns would be given due consideration and long-term development would benefit consumers in the north as well as the south.
March 26, 1992

According to Mr. Diamond, private and public developers will start taking aboriginal people seriously when they have no other alternative.


MERCHANT MARINERS
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, today in Halifax the Minister of Veterans Affairs has finally announced that the government will introduce legislation to recognize the service in wartime of Canada's merchant mariners.
On my own behalf and on behalf of our party, and particularly the member for Regina-Lumsden who has worked on this cause for years, we applaud the announcement as far as it goes.
Regretfully, however, the announcement falls short of acceptance by the government of the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs which called for the full recognition of merchant mariners as veterans with the same status and benefits as Armed Forces veterans.
In World War II and other conflicts, Canada's merchant mariners served this country with courage and sacrifice. Finally they are getting some of the recognition they deserve. I am sure all members of this House will honour their contribution to freedom and pledge to work to see that the promised legislation fully meets the recognition to which they are fully entitled.



Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a great day for Canada's merchant seamen. Just a few hours ago the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced in Halifax that Canada's wartime merchant mariners will soon be enjoying all the benefits now available to veterans of our wartime Armed Forces.
Merchant mariners do have some access to most of the programs and benefits available to other veterans, but
there are significant omissions and differences that really rankle them.
New legislation will be introduced to close all the gaps. This means that long-term care will be available to the merchant navy veterans. More of them will have the opportunity to qualify for the veterans independence program. The old six-month restriction has been torpedoed, as have obstacles to disability pensions.
Ever since the end of the Second World War, merchant mariners have been fighting for veteran status. I am proud that my government is the one to do something about it and I commend this minister for making it happen.
On March 17 I told the House about my late uncle, Captain Ernest Shatford of the merchant navy. These changes have come too late for him, but I know he would be absolutely delighted that his shipmates have won their battle.


CORE AREA INITIATIVE PROGRAM
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the Core Area Initiative Program of Winnipeg has five days left to live. It is losing funding from both the Tory federal government and the Tory provincial government. Meanwhile, Winnipeg and particularly inner city residents stand to suffer.
How can this government allow a Liberal initiative that has taught job skills to over 2,600 citizens, most of whom remain employed, to die?
As well, the core area initiative works to get young Canadians off the streets and helps revitalize the face of the inner city. Is the problem with this government lack of commitment, failure of leadership, or both? I tell this government it has only five days left to prove its worth to Winnipegers.
Give the core area initiative a new lease on life. Do not let this success story perish. It has served Winnipegers well.

March 26, 1992
Oral Questions


THE LATE BARBARA FRUM
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton - Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in celebrating Barbara Frum's life.
She was more than the reigning queen of Canadian broadcasting. She was a case study in courage.
The first time I met Barbara Frum was in a Toronto television studio 10 years ago. We arrived at the makeup room at the same time and I was struck by her appearance. After watching her on television for so long, I was surprised to see that in person her hair was thin and her features troubled.
Only later did I learn of her battle with leukaemia, a battle which would have ended weaker lives a lot sooner. Barbara's battle, not to excel in life but simply to keep on living, was an inspiration.
I came later to meet her entrepreneurial husband, Murray, and her son, David, who has become in his own right, an outstanding journalist. The Frum family, by any standard, is exceptional and special.
This day we are sad at Barbara Frum's passing. But we are also inspired by her.
Those of us who knew her, who were challenged by her on national television, who felt her energy and her bite, know that this is not just the loss of an important journalist, it is the loss of a person who had an appetite for life. It is the loss of someone who challenged disease and death the same way she took on the politicians and that, as many of us in this House know, was with a fury.


MERCHANT MARINERS
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing our appreciation on the recent announcement by the Minister of Veterans Affairs in considering merchant seamen for veterans' benefits.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on Defence and Veterans Affairs which studied this matter. The testimony that we heard from the merchant seamen involved and those who participated on behalf of their colleagues, the merchant sailors who were involved in the world wars and particularly World War II, was commendable.
I recall, as a young boy in Newfoundland, the experiences of those involved even in the coastal trade, plus the Atlantic Canadians who were involved in very dangerous trips across the Atlantic and indeed up as far as Murmansk.
I am speaking on behalf of my party and the leader of the Liberal Party, who is delighted to see that this action has been taken by the government and that the brave action of those merchant seamen who helped us in the wars at sea and their contribution are finally being fully appreciated by the government.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want this government to invest in their future. This government does not have to take my word for it, it only has to read the results of a recent survey from the hon. member for Mississauga South.
More than 70 per cent of respondents were in favour of allowing unemployed Canadians to continue to collect benefits while attending school and more than 80 per cent of the respondents were also in favour of the government spending more money to finance training programs.
It is imperative, however, that the training funds should not be taken from the unemployment insurance account. The government pulled out of its financial commitment to the account through the adoption of Bill C-21 at the beginning of this recession.
It is time for this government to get back in and show its commitment to the future of Canadian workers.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and concerns the release this morning of the report on the inquiry into the Diyden crash.
March 26, 1992

Oral Questions
I would like to say at the outset of this series of questions that I am sure all Canadians were relieved to hear Justice Moshansky say this morning that some of his concerns about aviation safety have been and are being acted upon. However, he also was clear in stating that the Air Ontario crash at Dryden did not just happen, it was allowed to happen, effectively laying at the foot of this government the death of 24 people.
This conclusion is a very serious one to which the government must respond. Will the government, in the face of this conclusion by Mr. Justice Moshansky and the grave consequences of such a fundamental mistake in the government's policy, accept its responsibility? How does the government propose to make retribution for its policy mistake?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Ottawa South, who was at the press conference this morning, knows that I have indicated that safety in the air in Canada has improved tremendously over the past decade. In 1981 there were 700 aircraft accidents in Canada. In 1991 there were 449 accidents.
We will never be satisfied until we have a zero accident rate, but I think the fact that the situation has improved by 35 per cent over a period of 10 years is an indication that our priority has been on safety.
The report we received this morning is very exhaustive and comprehensive. It contains 191 recommendations. I have indicated that since August of last year I have established an implementation team consisting of 20 persons from Transport Canada and all other segments of the aviation industry to implement these 191 recommendations.
Right now we have already completed 33 of these recommendations. We have indicated that we concur with 61 of the recommendations and action is underway, so already 49 per cent of the 191 recommendations have been implemented. Of the others, the implementation team will start work on them immediately. [DOT]
I have taken the commitment that I will make public an interim report on the work of that team within the next six months.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, according to the inquiry made public this morning, it is clear that the air safety of the Canadian public is not a priority for this government.
I quote the Moshansky report:
The need for increased resources within the Aviation Regulation Directorate to meet the growth and demands expected to be generated by the policy of economic regulatory reform was predicted and well documented in several reports and studies.
Since this government has not acted on the many warnings given to it, would the minister agree to set up an independent task force on air safety, which would report regularly to Parliament on the government's performance in regulating air safety?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in 1984-85 there were 456 inspectors at Transport Canada. In 1991-92 there are 569 inspectors. This indicates, I think, that safety continues to be our prime concern.
I would point out that there were five million movements of aircraft in Canada last year. We had 449 accidents. While we are not complacent, I think this indicates that our record for safety is not diminishing, it is improving and this has been confirmed by the report of the Transportation Safety Board over the past few years.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the minister really misses the point here. What happened and what Justice Moshansky has reported is that what occurred in the mid-1980s in Canada was a mid-air collision between contradictory federal government policies, that of airline deregulation and deficit reduction.
I quote from the report:
The effect of economic regulatory reform combined with deficit reduction-created a synergy that, in my opinion based on the evidence before this Commission, had an adverse impact on the effective application of safety standards."
Why did the government fail to ensure public safety in the air?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we received from Justice Moshansky this morning a very comprehensive and thorough report

March 26, 1992
Oral Questions
containing 191 recommendations. Forty-nine per cent of these recommendations are already under way.
When Justice Moshansky tabled two interim reports earlier, action was taken on these recommendations immediately, and the safety record has been excellent because we have reduced the number of accidents in Canadian skies over the past 10 years.
The indication that Justice Moshansky himself has given is that he has confidence in the safety standards of aviation in Canada. Upon being questioned by a member of the press this morning, he reiterated that he himself has no qualms about travelling with air carriers in Canadian skies.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the words of Justice Moshansky, this accident did not happen by chance, it was allowed to happen. It could have been avoided.
As far back as 1985, the Nielsen task force report advised this government to "immediately increase the resources devoted to licensing, certification and enforcement in the regulation of air safety". Increase them.
Why did the government choose to ignore that advice, actually decrease resources and thereby jeopardize safety in the name of economic policy?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to mention that I informed the public this morning that I have no problems with the 191 recommendations contained in the report of Mr. Justice Moshansky.
I have also indicated that if this report was a decision of the court, I would have immediately asked our lawyers to file an appeal. I strenuously reject and object to the language that has been used that tends to put the blame on the thousands of men and women who have been, and still are active in Transport Canada and in the employment of air carriers.
To connote that these people may have allowed an accident to happen is sheer nonsense.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the hundreds of men and women in Transport Canada, the foot soldiers of Transport Canada are not to blame. They were the ones who came to this minister and blamed the minister and his policies for this action. That is what happened.
Justice Moshansky said very clearly this morning that deregulation in air transportation came into play with an inconsistent government policy of fiscal restraint. Those are his words.
The Deputy Prime Minister received warnings from within Transport Canada, the foot soldiers we are speaking of, that safety was being compromised under deregulation. He got the advice. He refused the advice. The Deputy Prime Minister owes Canadians an explanation.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, in his statement this morning, Justice Moshansky said in part: "After more than two years of intensive investigation and public hearings, I have concluded that this accident did not just happen by chance. It was allowed to happen". Later on, he said: "thereby abetting the carriers' permissive, corporate attitude".
I think this is lacking in justice to these thousands of men and women who are still active in the aviation system in Canada or who have previously been active. They are dedicated persons who contribute all their efforts to make the sky over Canada as safe as it is. There were five million movements of aircraft last year, we had 449 accidents, which is a 35 per cent improvement over 1981.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, five different Ministers of Transport have stood up in their places in this House and said: "When it comes to economic deregulation, safety will not be compromised".
Justice Moshansky, in the report that he released this morning, pointed out how very hollow those words were. A succession of staff reports, as far back as 1984 and then continuing past the white paper The Freedom to Move warned the Minister of Transport of the dangers of deregulation as it relates to safety. A number of times in this House members rose to point the same thing out to the Minister of Transport.
Knowing all of this, why did the government not change things so that the Dryden crash could have been prevented?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, again I will repeat for my friend across the aisle that the number of inspectors in 1984-85 was 456. In 1991-92 it is 569.

.
i
March 26, 1992

This is a clear indication that we have not reduced our preoccupation with safety, resulting in 35 per cent fewer accidents last year than in 1981. This is an indication that we have not relaxed our preoccupation with safety.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister is quite committed to quoting figures in his answers today. Let me quote back to him Transport Canada's estimates for 1992-93 which on page 240, dealing with aviation regulation client base and aviation regulation workload, the graph shows a flat line between 1988-89 and 1992-93 for inspections done by his staff on air carriers.
If his own estimates show no change in the number of inspections and yet he says there are more inspectors, I want to ask the minister what has he got them doing? They certainly are not out there inspecting any more than they were five years ago.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the record stands for itself. We had 700 accidents in 1981 when the movement of aircraft was much lower than today. Last year with five million movements of aircraft in Canada we had 449 accidents.
This is no consolation for the people who have been involved, but this is definitely an improvement of 35 per cent which indicates that we have continued to be very much preoccupied by safety in the sky. Again, proof that the Canadian sky is safe is the fact that Mr. Justice Moshansky has said today that he has no qualms using the Canadian carriers.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, as the minister just repeated in the House, he said this morning at his press conference: "I can assure Canadians that Canada's aviation system is safe". That is basically the same kind of language that his four predecessors used in this House as far back as 1984.
What proof can he give to the Canadian public, other than numbers of inspectors, that it really is safer out there, that every time people get on a plane, they will get off again at their destination?


Jean Corbeil: Again, I repeat that there are fewer accidents. In 1991 there were fewer accidents with five million movements of aircraft. We had a reduction over the 10-year period of 35 per cent in the accident record. That by itself is an indication that the sky in Canada is safe and that we are still and
Oral Questions
always will be committed to safety. The prime objective of Transport Canada is to keep the sky of Canada as safe as possible.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In December 1985, the then-Deputy Prime Minister unequivocally promised in this House that he would strengthen air safety. Today, in a very damning report, Judge Moshansky says on page 887 that the senior management of Transport Canada was effectively paralyzed by the government. The Deputy Prime Minister's own credibility is at stake. Can he tell us why he did not keep his word?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, we know that the opposition party has always been very much against deregulation as it has been against so many other things that this government has done to improve the situation in Canada.
I repeat again that the record of the aviation industry in Canada over the past 10 years has shown an improvement of 35 per cent in the accident rate despite an additional number of movements. There were five million movements in 1991 with 449 accidents compared to 700 accidents in 1981. This is a clear demonstration that deregulation has not impaired the safety of the Canadian sky.


André Ouellet: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Obviously the Minister of Transport is trying today to cover up the mistakes made by the Conservative government when it deregulated. It is easy for him to say that the opposition opposed it at the time. He is right: both opposition parties opposed it, as well as the Canadian Pilots Association and the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association. The only one in step was the then Minister of Transport, and we know the consequences today. One thing is very clear: a many-page report directly condemns the government for this incident. Twenty-four people died because the necessary action was not taken. The government did not provide the Department of Transport with the funds required to have the air safety controls that the minister at the time had promised but did not deliver.

March 26, 1992
Oral Questions
Will the minister at least have the decency in this House to admit some responsibility for what happened in the Diyden accident?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Moshansky says in his statement today:
"Rarely are aviation accidents the result of a single cause. Modern air transportation is a complex enterprise. Similarly complex are the causes of aircraft accidents. This was certainly the case with the crash of the Air Ontario F-28 jet at Dryden".
He has made 191 recommendations. We have already started to act on 49 per cent of those recommendations. I have put in place an implementation team to make sure we have all the recommendations adhered to within the next six months.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The facts from the government's own department and agencies clearly demonstrate that the government's deregulation policy has compromised air safety.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, given the dramatic increase of aircraft movements following deregulation and the fact that the number of near-misses over airports since 1985 have increased over 300 per cent, why did this government freeze the number of air traffic controllers in 1985, resulting in 400 fewer controllers than are needed today to establish bare minimum safety levels? What kind of safety standards and safety planning is that?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transport has had a program in existence for three years to increase the number of air traffic controllers to cope with the increase in traffic that we have experienced over the last three years.
By the beginning of 1994 we will have in place the full number of air traffic controllers needed so that the present air controllers will have less overtime.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. Deregulation resulted in more aircraft movements carrying more passengers at virtually every Canadian airport.
I ask the minister why it is that his director of air safety and standards division today confirmed for me that there are only 31 commercial aircraft inspectors in operation for the entire country today, when a secret document from the Department of Transport three years ago, for that period suggested that they at least needed 44 inspectors, never mind the needs of today.
When is this minister and this government going to place public safety before Conservative ideology?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the member mention all these increases in the number of passengers and aircraft.
I can say that there were 3.677 million hours of flying in Canada last year, 5 million movements and 66 million emplanements and disembarkments. This indicates that deregulation has worked well for the public. It is further enhanced by the fact that we have a 35 per cent decrease in the number of accidents over that same period.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, first of all it is veiy clear from the minister's failure to respond to this report that he has no option but to resign. However, my question has to do with another report which was filed today. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Citizens' Inquiry into Peace and Security has published its report today. The report comes after hundreds of presentations from people all across Canada from all walks of life. It calls for a complete transformation of international and foreign policy for this country.
Will the government respond to what is being described as a tremendous desire on the part of the Canadian people to at least play a part in formulating Canada's policy in this area and establish a full public comprehensive study of foreign and defence policy in Canada?
March 26, 1992


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will refer the hon. member's representation to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that there is no minister directly responsible. I will come back again to the Deputy Prime Minister and ask this question.
As I said, the report calls for a complete transformation of our understanding of security so that it is more than just military security, but also environmental, political, economic and social security.
Will the government accept the fundamental recommendation of this report and agree that our foreign policy in this country needs transformation now that the cold war is finally over?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, without responding directly to this report which has just been filed I can assure my hon. friend, as I indicated in the House last week and at committee yesterday, that I have asked the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to undertake a complete review as to Canada's security to make sure in the context of all of the changes that have taken place that our priorities are right and our resources are in the right places.
The government is aware of that aspect of my hon. friend's question. I do agree that there is an aspect of it that is within the purview of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the Deputy Prime Minister indicated, she will be addressing that report when she returns to the House.


AVIATION SAFETY
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have observed Question Period very carefully. I am appalled by the reaction of the government.
Here we have a report to the effect that the Minister of Transport of the day put ideology ahead of security and people died in a plane accident in Dryden. There is a tradition in this House that when an independent inquiry
Oral Questions
blames a minister for his bad judgment he is to accept responsibility in this House.
I would like to know from the Deputy Prime Minister who was the then Minister of Transport: Does he accept the blame put forward by the judge today?


An hon. member:: He is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has put a question to a former minister. That is out of order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition may put the question again to the minister.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question of the leader of the government in the House today, the Deputy Prime Minister. When the government is blamed in a report like that, we need an answer from the government.
It so happens that the Deputy Prime Minister is the former Minister of Transport, but he is still the Deputy Prime Minister and the one who speaks for this government in this House today.
I want to know if this government will accept its responsibility and as the minister who was responsible for that disaster to face its-


Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition it is still out of order. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to know the impact of deregulation I suggest that the government speak to the regions of the country. In northern Ontario services have been cut, funding for airports has been reduced and, most important, safety has been allowed to be compromised.
I want to ask the Minister of Transport: How many more Drydens will it take before the government wakes up to the reality that public safety in this country has been sacrificed at the altar of deregulation?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member must have been writing his question rather than listening to the questions that were asked before his turn came about.
I have clearly indicated that in 1981 there were 700 accidents with less aircraft movements. In 1991 there were 449 accidents with five million aircraft movements in this country and over three million hours of flight.

March 26, 1992
Oral Questions
This is an indication that we have improved the safety record in the skies over Canada during that period. This demonstrates very clearly that deregulation has not impaired the safety record of Canada, which is second to none.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the families of the 24 victims of the Dryden crash will be comforted by the minister's lack of commitment to safety in the airline industry.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The problem now is that that kind of preamble is going to create disorder. It is not an easy subject, and I think that in keeping with the decorum of this place questions do not have to impute the character or motives of the minister.
The hon. member has plenty of room to ask questions and I ask him to put his question appropriately.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I can understand-


Peter L. McCreath: Why don't you just tell him to get out
of the gutter?


Mr. Speaker:: The comment that the Chair just heard is not helpful either.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite had seen the air crash and been there as I was, he may think a little differently about his comments.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member, who obviously has a veiy intense and appropriate interest in this, would put his question.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I do have a question for the minister.
Some 19 months after the Diyden crash, the Dryden airport lost its full-time fire-fighting service. A report issued three years before the crash stated that northwestern Ontario was a dangerous flying zone and the accident rate in this area was higher than the national average.
I put this question to the minister. Will the minister assure this House today that Justice Moshansky's recommendations dealing with the Dryden municipal airport's
crash, fire-fighting and rescue services will be implemented immediately?


Jean Corbeil: As I
mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, in August 19911 established an implementation team consisting of over 20 persons from within Transport Canada, the employers, the associations and the labour unions, to prepare a program to implement the recommendations.
We have already acted on 49 per cent of these recommendations. The implementation team will be working on all the recommendations. I have taken the stand that I will be making public a report within six months of what exactly the implementation team has done from today until that time.


MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the government had a chance to show leadership by getting people back to work in this country by launching a broad program to upgrade infrastructure across Canada. Instead the Minister of Finance spent his time insulting people.
Why did this government not act to achieve the 63,000 new jobs that a municipal infrastructure program would bring? Why will it not close tax loopholes and use that money to increase our infrastructure and put people back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the meeting that was held over the past two days among first ministers was a very productive meeting.
There were a number of topics covered including the issues of infrastructure, training, international trade, interprovincial trade, agriculture and fisheries. All sectors are experiencing difficulty.
I think that the communique or the decisions that were issued which form part of the communique clearly indicate that infrastructure is a priority, particularly highway infrastructure. I invite the hon. member to read the decision that was taken with respect to highway
March 26, 1992

infrastructure, a national highways policy, and I think he will be encouraged by that.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact there was no new money committed by this government to the program which the Federation of Canadian Municipalities suggested of $1.5 billion a year, something that would have put 63,000 people back to work. I say to the government that that is shameful.
I want to ask not just about the infrastructure program but about transfer payments too. Why will this government not simply admit that it is wrong to pay only 31 per cent of the cost of the Canada Assistance Program for the province of Ontario when it promised to pay 50 per cent of those costs? Why will the government not pay its share for the cost of the recession which it created?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, transfer payments to the province of Ontario have risen at an annual rate of 6.2 per cent per year since 1984-85. That is an increase of over 60 per cent since 1984-85, a total of $10 billion out of the $39 billion that will be provided to the provinces in fiscal transfers and in tax transfers.
The premier of Ontario wants us either to tax more or drive up the deficit. He even went as far as saying that he might want to take a bit away from the have not provinces in the form of equalization payments.


DRYDEN AIR CRASH
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the Dryden air crash.
When the Deputy Prime Minister was Minister of Transport, he stated in this House on January 30, 1986 that safety was the number one priority with regard to air safety. Again on the issue of air safety, on June 27, 1986 the Deputy Prime Minister who was the Minister of Transport at the time said, and I quote: "Neither are we prepared to sacrifice safety, nor shall we".
My question for the government is this: Why did the Deputy Prime Minister mislead Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. The hon. member has set up a preamble and then put a question: "Why did the Deputy Prime Minister mislead Canadians?"
The hon. member may want to say: Why did he inadvertently mislead Canadians, but the way the question was put I think it is a straight allegation that
Oral Questions
whatever he was doing must have been pretty well intentional.
I would ask the hon. member who knows that we cannot accept that to consider his position and put a question which I can accept.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government was negligent at the time. The minister assured this House and assured Canadians that it was safe to travel the skies, to take aeroplane rides in this country. We now know, through the work of a royal commission and through the words of a Supreme Court judge, that this accident was allowed to happen. Someone had to allow this accident to happen.
Surely the issue is one of responsibility. This government and that minister must take responsibility for the fact that 24 people were killed in an airline crash at Dryden in 1989. Will the minister accept responsibility on the part-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I think the questions are moving rapidly out of order. I am going on to the next question.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the First Ministers' Conference on the economy reached little agreement on any questions of substance, and that at the very time the United States and Mexico are marshalling all their resources to take advantage of North American free trade.
In place of the so-called prosperity agenda that this government launched, what is this government prepared to do to help Canadians meet the competitive challenges of freer trade? Why must it take three more years to achieve freer trade even among our own provinces?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Tkade):: Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to both the preamble and the question.
The government has done a number of things to help companies become more competitive. Five items in the recent budget of the Minister of Finance are directly related to improving the competitiveness of Canadian companies. Just before Christmas there was a package of announcements that helped the trucking industry meet the competitive challenges it is facing. Those are two examples that provide in a very fundamental way assis-

March 26, 1992
Oral Questions
tance to Canadian companies to become more competitive.
My hon. friend asks about the interprovincial trade barriers. As far as I am concerned I would like to see those dealt with right away, but they are barriers that are established by the provinces. We have taken the initiative as the federal government in pushing the process along. We have set a timetable. We have set specific elements in the timetable, and we are committed to reaching that objective at the earliest date possible but no later than 1995.
But it is up to the provinces to make the changes in their legislation because it is their legislation which is imposing the barriers.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, it is not sufficient for this government to forgo its responsibility for interprovincial trade barriers. It knows it can provide leadership and it lamentably failed to do so yesterday.
It is not only in that area it failed to act. There was no immediate commitment at the conference yesterday to adjustment assistance or to job retraining.
Can the minister explain what retraining and adjustment programs the government plans to offer in the event of a North American free trade agreement? How will they be strengthened and co-ordinated with the provinces? What is this government doing?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member is talking about when he says that we did not provide leadership.
The federal government is calling the meetings. The federal government is establishing the timetable. We set the objective of 1995. We are forcing the issue. If my hon. friend has any other ideas as to how we can provide more leadership than that, let him say so, but let us just forget the loose rhetoric.
As far as his particular question on adjustment, there was a discussion at the meeting yesterday on adjustment, as I understand, and there is an agreement on the part of the provinces and the federal government to look at the
over 400 programs of adjustment provided by the federal and provincial governments.
As far as the federal government is concerned, we have made some significant movements in increasing the level of training as a result of Bill C-21, which his side delayed for a full year. That is increasing the amount of funding for training by $750 million. That is a major contribution to helping people train and retrain in response to the changing economic circumstances.


NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of energy.
The Atomic Energy Commission has been negotiating for many months now for the prototype development of the CANDU III reactor and the establishment of a centre for nuclear excellence in Canada to manufacture and market that reactor around the world.
Most of those negotiations for years have been going on with New Brunswick and suddenly last year a deal was struck with Saskatchewan. That province has withdrawn and I read in the Canadian press earlier this week that a deal is now being negotiated with Alberta.
I would like to ask the minister how many suitors are in line for this development. What is the status of the matter at this time?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, first of all regarding the Saskatchewan deal, the point to be made is that the deal expired on March 20. I will be meeting with Saskatchewan representatives on March 31. If they want to reverse the decision they have announced prior, I will be willing to hear that from them. We will wait for any further decisions on Saskatchewan until I have that meeting.
Regarding the Alberta situation, I was as surprised as anyone to read what was happening. I have informed AECL that it is not to follow the relationship with Alberta as it was doing the last number of days. I think that relationship has now ended.
March 26, 1992

Third, in respect to New Brunswick, the member is right, we have been dealing with New Brunswick a long time and remain open with New Brunswick to see if we can conclude a deal on Candu III.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade.
Yesterday, as the minister will know, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources threw Canada's strategic energy industry wide open to American ownership and control. At the time, the parliamentary secretary to the energy minister said that this had "nothing at all to do with" the North American free trade agreement.
This government gave up one of Canada's last levers of control over our own energy industry and got nothing in return for this astounding sell out. What else does the government plan to give away in the great Canadian fire sale; softwood lumber, water, medicare, the north?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, how about the member for Edmonton East?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: They wouldn't take him.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I responded to that question yesterday, but I will do so again.
The decision that was announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources yesterday is related to the specific condition of the energy industry in Canada which I think my hon. friend is well aware of. If he is not, he should be. The rules that have been in place have resulted in an evaluation of assets in the hands of Canadian firms that is less than the evaluation of assets in the hands of other firms. This is to put the oil and gas industry on the same basis as other industries, such as the manufacturing sector.
My hon. friend, if he was in the House yesterday, would have heard me comment on the relationship between this and the NAFTA. In my judgment there is
Oral Questions
no relationship here. It would not have resulted in any negotiating leverage, as is suggested by my friend.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
In reference to the FTA adjustment programs, the Prime Minister said: "We shall ensure that innovative and generous adjustment and retraining programs will be introduced whenever required".
With Canada now on the verge of an important trade deal with the United States of America and Mexico, is the minister willing to immediately introduce to this House the adjustment programs which were promised during the last federal election campaign?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend I am sure will realize that flowing from the Prime Minister's comments there is a commission headed by Jean de Grandpre which was designed to review the adjustment programs of the Government of Canada and make recommendations. That commission had representatives of business and labour on it. One of the key recommendations was to increase the amount of training programs to make it easier for individuals to move from one occupation to another.
As I said in response to his colleague, that has been done. We have increased that amount by $750 million. It would have come into place faster except his party held up the legislation for one full year.


Mr. Speaker:: I will come to the hon. member in a moment. There may be several points of order. I know the hon. House leader of the Official Opposition wishes to raise a matter and I will hear him and I will hear the hon. member for York South-Weston.
I have to announce as follows. Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26,1992, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of supply bills.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that these bills be distributed now?

Point of Order


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, prior to me putting my usual business question, I seek the guidance of the Chair.
The Leader of the Opposition as well as my colleague from York South-Weston asked a question of the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as the leader of the government on the floor of the House of Commons.
Statements were referred to regarding comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister in his previous incarnation on the floor of the House of Commons.
The questions that were asked of the Deputy Prime Minister, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, and I seek your guidance, were made to that minister in his capacity as the leader of the government asking as to whether or not this government assumes responsibilities for a very, very serious report with regard to the Dryden air disaster.
I seek the assistance of the Chair to indicate as to why the Chair was so quick to rule those questions out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me respond to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.
I do not know that I was that quick. I was listening pretty carefully. Second, the thrust of the questions as I remember them-I do not have the "blues" in front of me-was basically directed at a former minister as to whatever capacity they may have been asked now as to whether or not that former minister ought to do something, for instance, resign.
It can be argued, I suppose, that there is a fine line here, but that is the way I ruled at that time and I guess we are stuck with the ruling. I cannot undo it.
I will look very carefully at the exchange and I will see if I can assist members. The hon. member has asked why. There is the reason. When I look at everything that was said, perhaps his question will seem very pointed indeed.
I am just saying that at the time that was my impression of the situation and that was my ruling.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, I think has another matter to raise before we get into the usual question which arises out of another argument that took place this morning on a procedural point.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, with regard to my questions during Question Period, you ruled both of my questions out of order.
The first question was ruled out of order, not on the basis that it was directed at the wrong minister but on the basis that I was accusing the minister of deliberately misleading Canadians. I did not say that.
In my question, I asked the government why Canadians were misled when the former transport minister assured Canadians that safety was the number one priority.
A judge of the Supreme Court of Alberta has now concluded that this accident "was allowed to happen but there was some responsibility on the part of this government". It seems to me that it was an appropriate question to ask.
There was no suggestion that the minister deliberately misled the House on numerous occasions in 1985, 1986 or 1987, but the facts now bear out that contention that in fact the minister did mislead the House. Safety was not the number one priority of this government at the time. Restraint was.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, I must object to going on and on, repeating into the record that misinformation and so on.
The hon. member stood up and quoted remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister when he was formerly the Minister of Transport and then asked why the minister misled the House and misled Canadians. In other words, he implied that what he was saying was false and then said: "Will he resign?"
Citation 367 of Beauchesne's is very clear, very straightforward. "A question may not be asked of a former minister seeking information with regard to transactions during his term of office".
The question was out of order, quite properly decided so by the Speaker. I do not think this should be as an opportunity to repeat accusations by way of this point of order which was ruled out of order in the first place and
March 26, 1992

ought not to have been asked by someone who respects the traditions of this House.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I know you have made your ruling and I accept your ruling. You were going to reflect, check the "blues", examine Hansard, perhaps check the tape.
I just want to clarify for the Chair that the Leader of the Opposition did not ask for the resignation of any minister involved in the process. In fact the Leader of the Opposition asked as to whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister would assume responsibility on behalf of the Government of Canada, which I suggest to the Chair is quite a distinction in terms of what the government House leader has just said to my colleague for York South-Weston. There is a major distinction.
I do not think it inappropriate that colleagues on this side of the House, when ruled out of order by the Chair, rightly or wrongly, however one wishes to perceive that, should have an opportunity to ask questions of the Chair so that they can clarify any misunderstandings or interpretations that they may have of the rules of this House in order to preclude another opportunity in the very near future to ask a question which might be out of order.
That is the intent of the hon. member. I find it rather disconcerting that the government House leader would stand in his place and try to dictate the policy which the Chair should follow and indeed what this House should follow.


Mr. Speaker:: Let everybody back up for a few moments. Much of this Question Period has been taken up with what amounts to a national tragedy. As a consequence, some very tough questions have been asked. Some answers have been given. We have had a bit of a procedural disagreement as to whether or not some questions should have been allowed or should not have been allowed.
I do not think it is in keeping with the gravity and sadness of the issue to carry on now and get into a long procedural debate about what the "blues" may or may not show.
I am trying to co-operate with all sides on this matter. I will look at and consider it. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond does accept my ruling and does realize that once having made the ruling, that is where we are.
Point of Order
I have not been adverse to hearing members from time to time if it is helpful in asking for some clarification. Perhaps I can do that. I think we should let this go for now and accept the fact that I will look at it and discuss it further with members.
I am concerned about one other matter. Several perhaps. One, there was an argument about noon with respect to an amendment. I would not ordinarily do this because the argument was pretty well closed off. If the hon. opposition House leader wishes to address me shortly on it, I will hear it. Then I will have to go and make up my mind. I have already done some consideration. If the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond wishes to do that, I will hear him briefly.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I might just pose a business question and then give you a brief intervention with regard to the admissibility of the amendment. Perhaps the hon. government House leader could indicate to the House the business for tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday and the remaining part of the week.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the government will call Bill C-21, debt servicing and reduction, for debate at report stage. On Monday, we hopefully will be able to complete the debate on Bill C-21.
On Tuesday, it is my intention at this point in time to call an allotted day. I will confirm that on Monday. In terms of business for the rest of the week, I would like to use the usual channels and discuss with the opposition House leaders the business for the remainder of next week.


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, briefly, there was some discussion earlier this day with regard to the admissibility of the amendment which was put forward by my colleague which reads in part:

March 26, 1992
Point of Order
That the motion be amended by deleting the period and adding the following:
- and implemented by the actions of the NDP premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia to close health care centres, dismiss health care personnel, reduce health care services, all of which is a direct, inevitable result of the withdrawal of the federal government from its long-standing obligations to support health care in Canada.
Standing Order 81, subsection (11) says:
Opposition motions on allotted days may be moved only by Members in opposition to the government and may relate to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and also may be used for the purposes of considering reports from standing committees relating to the consideration of estimates therein.
I suggest that this particular Standing Order 81(11) is as wide as possible but it would prevent an allotted day on a purely provincial matter such as rural drainage, municipal infrastructure or anything of that nature.
However, in our system of complex intergovernmental relations, particularly on the subject of health care, where there is assured jurisdiction both provincially and federally, I would think that for the purposes of Standing Order 81(11), any motion put under this standing order must fall inherently within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Any matter that does not fall within the federal jurisdiction cannot, under this standing order, be put to the House.
itself is inadmissible. Therefore, the main motion would be ruled out of order.
I think that in the fitness of time, so to speak, when the Chair looks at the amendment and looks at the main motion you will see quite clearly that the subject matter we are debating is in perfect order. It is in keeping with the main motion with the exception of the words "withdrawing of federal government support".
I suggest that after a close examination of Standing Order 81(11), if one were to include the words "federal government" it is quite appropriate, thereby making the amendment an appropriate amendment in which this House should have the opportunity to give an adjudication whatever their beliefs may be.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should give the House notice. This matter was very thoroughly debated this morning. Out of courtesy, because I was not in the chair and I will have to make the ruling, I have indicated that I would hear further argument briefly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will make my comments very brief. I appreciate that we did have a discussion earlier on the appropriateness of the amendment. I want to make two points to my hon. friend, the government House leader who made a valiant effort to suggest it ought to be in order.
*

If Your Honour reads the amendment, it refers, of course, to provincial jurisdictions. I make no mistake of that. But it also refers very clearly and unequivocally to the withdrawal of the federal government from its long-standing obligations to support health care in Canada.
Just because the withdrawal of federal government is nowhere mentioned in the main motion but is mentioned in the amendment, should not preclude us as an opposition party from submitting that amendment.
When the Chair looks at the amendment it refers specifically to New Democrat provincial governments. The main motion refers explicitly to Liberal governments. Under the rule of relevancy, Mr. Speaker, if you were to support the amendment, the discussion and debate in the House would have to be focused on the amendment exclusively. In other words, the discussion would have to focus around the activities of New Democrat provincial governments, which would be in direct contradiction to the thrust of the motion.
I would suggest that if logic is to follow and Your Honour were to find, based on the grounds that this particular amendment is beyond the scope of Standing Order 81(11) because it is not within the federal jurisdiction, you would logically have to find that the motion
Mr. Speaker, obviously in your position, the rule of relevancy is enforced and I know my hon. friend, who is going to replace you shortly, always enforces the rule of relevancy. It would be impossible to do that under the amendment being proposed by my hon. friend.

March 26, 1992


Mr. Speaker:: I am getting mixed signals from the loyal opposition. The hon. House leader.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, there is only one Official Opposition in this House, if I might remind the Chair. I suggest to the Chair that my hon. friend from the left has made his point.
He talked about relevancy. The issue and the test ought to be, that if one is so certain of the substantive part of the case, the case ought to be made in order to give the test which has been drawn to the attention of the House, so that all members will then be in a position to make a final adjudication on the floor of this House.
To suggest, because one provincial government versus another provincial government is irrelevant and ought not to be put to the House is in my view backing off the debate and being very afraid to put the case before this House.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, you mentioned that this was debated earlier. I was here through the whole morning, through the entire debate. Madam Speaker raised this but she did not allow any debate on the floor.
I went with the mover of the amendment to one of your advisers and we had a brief discussion. I used to give your adviser the same arguments as our House leader made and that is why I will not take the time of the House to repeat them.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I may have received some gross misinformation. I thought that there was quite a number of members up on this matter. The hon. member has indicated that there was not. I am puzzled.


Jesse Philip Flis: It is my error, Mr. Speaker. I understand there were brief interventions but the Speaker reserved to rule on it.
My argument to your adviser was that if the amendment is out of order, then the motion would also have to be ruled out of order because it is dealing with provincial matters, not the federal government.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can take the matter away and look at it carefully. I will come back as soon as I can. I thank hon. members for their interventions.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Karpoff (p. 8826).
Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I believe I had something like 13 minutes left for my remarks.
I want to begin with a little bit of history which I think is important. Medicare began in this country in one of the poorest of our provinces in the middle of very depressed economic conditions by a government that did not represent a large population.
It is important to take it back to those roots. It clarifies something which is vital to understanding what medicare is all about. Medicare is not free medical care for anybody. Medicare is about the co-operative movement. It is about people bonding together to provide for themselves as a group those things which they really could not accomplish as individuals.
I watched Canada AM this morning. I saw a very prominent Canadian physician talk about free medical care. That is wrong. There is no free medical care in Canada that I know of. You and I, Mr. Speaker, all of us in Canada pay for our own medical care through our taxation process. It is a co-operative movement. It is not about getting something for nothing. It is about sharing all of our resources collectively to provide for a common need: medical care.
Until about 1977 there was an agreement in force between our provinces and the federal government that the cost of his particular program would be shared evenly between the provinces and the federal government on a roughly a 50 / 50 basis.
I happen to have been the health critic for the New Democratic Party in the Ontario legislature at the time when block funding was introduced. At that time many of us had a concern that centred around that shared cost.
There were many advantages, I suppose, to block funding, to changing the funding formulas. They became more complicated. Supposedly they provided more flexibility, but the one thing that concerned many of us was

March 26, 1992
Supply
that it would take away that basic share, that simple straightforward notion that the provinces and the federal government would be equal participants in medicare.
That, of course, has turned out to be the truth. The shift has been downward. One can argue and of course many will that more dollars go to some provinces than others, that more dollars go now and the percentages may be less, but the truth is that most of our provinces are well below the shared equal funding technique that was used in 1977. Most of them have dropped to somewhere in the low to mid-thirties as a percentage of the funding for medicare that they get in their province.
In a place like Ontario, or Quebec, or any of our industrialized provinces that are very hard hit by this depression, there is an immense cash flow problem at the moment. It has put traumatic squeezes on a number of things, and one of them is medicare.
As a critic who had an opportunity in the 1970s to go around and look at hospital and health care in Ontario- and many people here have had the same opportunity- as you go across Canada you will see some magnificent concepts in providing medical care. You will see some of the world's finest technology. You will see some of the world's finest practitioners. You will see some of the greatest facilities we have ever been able to conceive in terms of providing medical care in place. You will also see some of the problems that people talk about, hospitals across the road from one another that do not even talk to one another, let alone co-ordinate the care that they provide as new technology comes into the field of health care.
Vast expenditures of money are needed now that were not even conceived of 20 or 30 years ago. We have equipment that costs $1 million or $2 million just in capital costs to get the equipment in place. Then of course one facility wants to have exactly the same kinds of equipment as the facility across the road, and across Canada.
Many people have tried their best to co-ordinate the provision of health care services, to provide district health councils, to look at community health care clinics, to look at health care centres, to provide for prevention, to look at a number of ways in which one could be more cost effective in the providing of medical care for our citizens.
It is not an easy task and there are those who work in the health care field across Canada who have been aware of this for many years now and have been trying to improve the use of tax dollars. They know it is difficult. There are a number of vested interests at work that have key decision-making positions.
I am often reminded that in many of our urban centres with high-tech facilities, downtown Toronto being an example, some days you will find the world's finest physicians practising medicine, with great technology and great care, and great back-up teams.
Other days you will find virtually no physicians at work in that hospital facility and the care is provided by nurses, technicians and other people who have been given special kinds of training on special kinds of equipment.
The nature of the provision of medical care has changed a lot in the last two decades, and it is about to change a good deal more. Provincial governments all across Canada are struggling now to turn the provision of health care into something that is non-traditional.
In many parts of the country others who were the first people into the medical care system struggle, for example, midwives across Canada-even though it seems that the giving of birth is something that has been around for a long time, and midwifery as a profession has been around for a long time-have not been recognized for very long. In the giving of birth there is a range of facilities available, from midwives in the home to very high-tech units in urban centres.
We try to match up how we get people from rural areas or the far north for example into these high-tech centres and provide transportation systems that are useful. That is not an easy thing to do but I am aware that people are trying to do that. The unfortunate thing is to introduce a cost squeeze in the middle of this or to divert the argument into something like user fees as being a solution is unfortunate.
Now these are not new notions. They have been around for some time. For example, in many parts of Canada we have looked south of the border and we have said: "We are not going to establish some new technology in the provision of care for the human heart, when somewhere across the border there is a similar institution that has all of the equipment and personnel now.
March 26, 1992

Why don't we send our people down there?" We have tried that.
One of the lessons we have learned is that in the United States health care is a business, as opposed to Canada where it is something other than a business. But in the United States, the first motive driving the health care system is making money. The Americans accept that; Canadians do not.
In Canada, if a doctor challenges the right or the ability of a patient to pay for health care at the door of the hospital, there is quite a fuss about that. Every once in a while an incident of this kind happens. There is quite a fuss because Canada is a place where supposedly, you cannot be denied care simply because someone has challenged your ability to pay. That is news in Canada. That is not news in the United States. In the United States that is daily practice at almost every hospital, because almost every hospital is not a public facility but rather a private business. So there are distinctions to be made.
For a long while in Canada we used to say: "Well, in some fields we simply do not have the facilities". An example of this would be in matters of addiction, drug addiction in particular. "Why don't we use some of those wonderful facilities we hear about in the United States and send our people down there?"
We soon find out about the business part of health care in the United States. We soon find out that there is absolutely no accountability in the process at all. If an American hospital is offered an unending amount of money, it will take the unending amount of money. No question about it. And the provision of care is the second consideration, not the first.
We have learned some hard lessons. In many of our provincial governments and in many of our local hospitals we are now going through the long tough grind of trying to provide reasonable, rational health care for our citizens. That is not an easy task.
If there was a simple solution to this it would have been thought of long ago. There is one thing that is just beginning to dawn. This whole concept is just beginning to come back to people like myself, the politicians in Canada. That is that there is very little we can do in Canada that does not sooner or later wind up at the door of a hospital, at a medicare facility. Now we do not think of that very often, but it is true.
Supply
I was reminded a little while ago when we embarked upon great campaigns informing people about AIDS and about the use of drugs of exactly how many people die in this country because of those compared to the number of people who die in this country because of accidents on our highways. It is dramatic.
Now all of us would tend to say: "Oh yes, the use of drugs. That is directly respondent to a medical care system". But the connection between the number of people who die on our highways and in hospitals is made most dramatically by those people who are involved in the accidents, and not thought of often by those who are not.
Workers who die in the workplace because of the conditions there are not always thought of as being a medicare matter. It is sometimes considered to be workers' rights or occupational health and safety. Occasionally environmental considerations come into it. But when workers get sick because of the place where they earn their living, the second place they go to is the hospital, the medical care system.
We had a committee on child poverty. They began to talk a little bit about how sensible it is to take a young mother with poor nutrition habits, who has a child within her, and refuse to feed her before the child is born. At a certain point in time, people say that a child is an expense and when the child is bom we will know how to cope with that expense. But until the child is bom we do not recognize that and we are not prepared to deal with that. Even a hard-headed business person ought to be able to recognize the cost effectiveness of seeing that the mother and child are fed properly as opposed to not doing that and then dealing with the medical ramifications for the rest of the child's life. Those of us who have been teachers have seen that in our schools. Those of us who have been social workers have seen that on our streets.
The ramifications of almost all that we do in our society come back to our medical care system. That is a tragedy that has not been dealt with. One should look at the hard-headed economics of this. I suspect the government of the day wants only to look at the economics of it but look at the long-term economics of it. Look at the cost to Canada, the cost to our taxpayers. Look at the cost to our citizens of not providing decent health care, a

March 26, 1992
Supply
rationalized system, but as good as we can for the dollars that we have. That is what is missing today.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments made by the previous speaker especially because of his experience in the provincial legislature before coming to this House.
When I heard that this was the debate this morning, I called the hospitals in my riding, St. Joseph's Health Centre, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the Runny-mede Chronic Care Hospital, which serves my riding, the west end of Toronto, and a bit of Etobicoke. The complaint that I hear most often from the hospitals is that the costs of running a hospital have gone up drastically. This is through no fault of the hospitals.
As an example, they tell me of the increase in UI payments that the hospitals have to make, in workmen's compensation payments, the OHIP costs and the pay equity costs. These are all additional costs that have been brought in by the federal government with the UI increase and by the provincial governments with the pay equity. That total varies from hospital to hospital, but the increases have gone up as much as 15 per cent and more.
Now they tell me that what the government, the provincial NDP government, is giving the hospitals is a one per cent increase. Now how can a hospital operate when two higher levels of government have laid on a 15 per cent increase in operating a hospital and the NDP government comes along and gives a one per cent increase.
With the hon. member's experience here and in the provincial legislature, I would like to hear some concrete suggestion how we can come out of this. The hospitals cannot survive at this pace. Hospitals that are providing love and care and dignity in people's senior years, especially chronic care hospitals such as the Runnymede Chronic Care Hospital, are going to fold.
It is the motion of the NDP. I wonder if we could have a concrete suggestion here to solve this dilemma.


Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question particularly since I visited most of those institutions, when the Tories were the government in Ontario and later on when the Liberals were the government in Ontario. The arguments have not really changed a great deal.
It comes down to this. Through three political parties, we have all come to the same conclusion. There is a need to sort out, not in the short-term but in the long run, how our institutions function. For example, I saw the premier of Ontario address the problem in a way that I think is substantive and worth while and I would recommend to governments across Canada.
The Liberals, when they were the government in Ontario, closed hospitals down. It did not do much good. That has been tried. That is not a solution. When the Tories and the Liberals were in government in Ontario, they closed hospital beds. That is not a solution. The alternatives, user fees, closing beds, closing hospitals, are not solutions because they are not the problem.
The solution that has been put forward by many across Canada now is the one that all of us should use as our model and should start to think about. That is, all who are part and parcel of the health care system, not governments on high, not administrators on high, not doctors on high, not anyone on high, but everyone who is involved in the process must now sit down and rationalize the whole system of providing medical care.
It should go from top to bottom, not excluding anyone, starting with the chief administrative officer in any hospital and going right down to the person who cleans the floors. Each and every one of them should be an active participant in evaluating and assessing and deciding how the system will go from there. That is part of the solution.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, as a constituent of the province of Ontario, one of the so-called have provinces, I have been watching what the NDP government and the premier of that province have been doing to our health care since they got elected.
I have been watching carefully the erosion of our right to have medicare. The member said that we in Canada are given care and if we are denied the care, it makes headlines.
It is not unusual that in the States, when going to a doctor, the first thing looked at is that gold American Express card. If you are lucky to have similar other cards, those will be looked at. But some of our constituents and
March 26, 1992

some of our people do not have these American Express cards or anything else.
Yet, we in the province of Ontario clearly are facing the deterioration of our medicare. I know he will agree with me, but what I want to say to the member is that the approach taken by the New Democratic Party today was maybe not the right approach that we have to sit down and talk about medicare, as the minister said: "We have to discuss it".
It should not be one-sided, and it should not be partisan. The question that I have to ask him is the following: Does he not see that if we go into NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement or if we go into free trade the way that we went with the United States, then we are moving into that situation of using a gold American Express card in order to get an operation? This government should take responsibility for that. Clearly that will hurt the medicare system in Canada.
Does he not see that that clearly will put a burden on our medicare and the way that we are going to look after our citizens?


Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were the government in Ontario I supported the introduction of what was referred to as a smart card. It was an OHIP card which would allow the province of Ontario to track who was using the medical system and what kind of services were provided to them. It would keep track in a more efficient way what was happening in the health care system.
That is a good solution. It is not an ultimate solution. It did not solve a whole lot of problems, but it is one of the things that we do not know about the provision of medical care services in Ontario and in Canada that I think we should know. That has not been exactly a crashing success, but I remained undeterred. It was a good idea at the time and I said so. I still think so.
The member has raised an interesting concept for all of us. As I said in my remarks, in the United States health care is a business, without question and without apology. It is a simple and straightforward business proposition for profit. That is about as far away from the medical care system that we in Canada know and enjoy.
Supply
Unfortunately, in places like Mexico and many other countries in the world, it is neither a medical care system such as we know it or a business as the Americans know it. It exists in no form that we would even recognize, much less so than in either of those two well-established countries.
I share a little bit some of the concerns about the free trade agreement with the States and with the North American free trade agreement. That will be further erosion of what we in Canada have come to treasure as being very important to the nature and the culture of our country. I share that concern with him.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Oshawa a question, recognizing his immense experience in the provincial legislature as it relates to health care. Of course, his constituency and mine are side by side. We have experienced similar problems in probably all issues, but certainly in the health care issue.
The province of Ontario is undergoing some problems in health care, not unlike the rest of Canada. I have heard the minister of health in the province of Ontario say that in fact it is not the money that is the problem.
The member made reference that the solution is a combined solution that everybody must participate in. With that comment in mind, I would wonder why it is that the New Democratic Party has been so critical of the federal government when it says: "These are the dollars we have available for you. That is all you are going to get", when the minister of health for the province of Ontario is saying the same thing to the hospitals: "This is all the money we have available for you. This is all you are going to get. You will have to collectively work within that framework". Is that any different than what the federal government is saying to the provinces when it says it is only going to give 2 per cent more, or whatever the dollars are?


Michael James Breaugh: The member and I share a certain part of Ontario and that is about all we share together. I do not mind that, it is fair ball.
The question he has put to the Flouse is an interesting one. Were we not in a self-generated depression here, the cries of financial failure from all across Canada would be somewhat different. The political reality is, as someone else said, that Ontario is a have not province.

March 26, 1992
Supply
In the good old days, Ontario was a province that could share with other provinces in Canada that did not quite have the same economic and industrial base. It could share moneys without any difficulty at all. But today, in the middle of this depression, Ontario unfortunately has joined the ranks of those who do not have extra cash. Therefore, that poses the initial problem.
The second thing is that it is compounded when the federal Government of Canada reneges on its agreement. When the federal Government of Canada does not pay its fair share, the province of Ontario has more than a right, an obligation to join with other provinces and cry foul.
Those agreements are things that the provinces and the people of Ontario have a right to expect the federal government to respect to the very iota of intent. That is why they are crying foul. It is not one province, it is a lot of them, all at the same time saying that the federal government is not carrying its fair share of the responsibility. That is an argument this government had better listen to.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. When the member for Oshawa began his remarks, he cited remarks made by the Quebec premier on Bill C-120 where they talked about possible user fees. He quoted Premier McKenna and Premier Wells talking about this dilemma of health care. He was very selective in his remarks about Liberal governments.
It is very important that he remember what the NDP treasurer for the province of Ontario said on January 13, 1992, talking about this dilemma we have with health care and the difficulties we are all in. I am certainly not condoning the federal government's cutbacks in transfers to the provinces, but it is important that we have on the record what the NDP have said in the province of Ontario, and I quote: "Unless we get the system operating in a way that is in keeping with our ability to pay for it, we will see user fees or free enterprise medicine. God help us all". That was Floyd Laughren, the treasurer of the province of Ontario.
I am not trying to take a shot at the member for Oshawa or Mr. Laughren, but I get a little bit uptight when the NDP sometimes comes on like they are the only ones with answers and the only ones who really care about the health care system in this country. We all care. It is a difficult issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not know whether that is a comment or a question. The hon. member has an answer. If he would like to comment briefly, I will listen to him.


Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, very briefly. I want to apologize for reading into the record the quote from The Ottawa Citizen from Clyde Wells and the quote from Frank McKenna in the The Globe and Mail. I think we also read from The Montreal Gazette. I apologize for reading into the record of the House of Commons the direct quotes from newspapers across Canada of various Liberal governments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Before I recognize the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence, the Speaker would like to make a ruling.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, shortly after Question Period there was a further extension of a point of order which had been brought this morning relating to the amendment by the Official Opposition to the motion which has been proposed in this allotted day by the New Democratic Party. As I say, there was argument this morning and further argument this afternoon. I of course am indebted to all hon. members for their contribution. By the way, I have read back through the arguments that were made this morning.
The Chair has considered the arguments that were raised earlier today by hon. members on the proposed amendment by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. As stated in Erskine May's 21st edition, page 339:
The effect of moving an amendment is to restrict the field of
debate which would otherwise be open on a question.
I am going to repeat that:
The effect of moving an amendment is to restrict the field of
debate which would otherwise be open on a question.
The hon. member for Sudbury pointed out that the intention of the amendment was to expand the scope of the debate, and although it may be a laudable objective, unfortunately it is, in my view, out of order procedurally.
Other members, including the members for Winnipeg Transcona and Winnipeg North, mentioned a new proposition being introduced or made reference to citation 929 of Beauchesne's sixth edition. The Chair feels the amendment must not provide the basis for a different debate.
March 26, 1992

Furthermore, as explained in the Chair's ruling of March 16,1971, when the opposition parties agree on the choice of subject for an allotted day, and I am quoting Speaker Lamoureux: "the spirit of fair play would require that the day not be taken away by means of an amendment".
The Standing Order requiring notice would be pointless if, after notice had been given, the motion were amended to make possible the consideration of an entirely new facet of the question.
There was further argument given of course this afternoon and I certainly listened to it, but I do not think I need to make further comment than what I have done. As a consequence, for these reasons I will have to rule the amendment out of order. That of course does not preclude another amendment being moved.


ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-HEALTH CARE
Nelson Andrew Riis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Before I listen to my hon. friend from Eglinton-Lawrence, and I await his remarks with interest, I simply want to remind the House that today we are debating appropriation bills. One is $1,175 million and the other appropriation bill is $13 billion-plus. This is a very serious debate. Obviously this is an opportunity for members to register their concerns.
Depending on which speaker we are listening to, we are hearing concerns in terms of the erosion of health care in the country.
I was simply wondering if my friends from the government party plan to participate in the debate. It just seems to be inappropriate that we should have such an important debate without any participation from my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have questions as to why someone is or is not rising. I do not think the Chair can intrude. I am going to return the chair to my colleague.
As I have said, hon. members may wish to put another amendment, keeping in mind of course the comments of the Chair.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, several points have been made over the course of debate
Supply
in the morning and have carried on over the course of the afternoon. To show that we are not partisan at all in this debate and that we do have the interests of all Canadians at heart, I want to compliment the hon. member who just completed his debate because, quite frankly, it took me a little bit by surprise. Up until that point, the party that had been moving the amendment had been completely fruitless in its presentations, totally devoid of substance and completely off the mark when we were talking about medicare. What they had initially started to talk about was simply a finger pointing exercise. The hon. member in spite of his presentation had begun with a finger pointing exercise directed at provincial premiers of the Liberal Party.
He has now changed his tune. He wants to talk about the substance of medicare. The rest of his intervention read like an apology for what is going on in Ontario specifically, but with all NDP governments throughout the country. It is unfortunate that we are reduced to this kind of a debate. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Oshawa was reduced to making an apology for members of his own party who have been indicating that they are the stalwart defenders of all that is holy and all that is sacrosanct in this country, including medicare.
All through the debate they have been more scarce than government members and government ministers. I am glad that there is at least one to listen so that we can get some of the things on the record.
My hon. colleague from Oshawa indicated earlier that he was willing to debate substance. He did that in response to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg-St. Boniface. While my colleague from Winnipeg-St. Boniface is not here to throw out the challenge again, and throw out the gauntlet for him, he has suggested that there is an opportunity for us to debate the substance of medicare and our relative position on it.
Since the NDP has reneged on the opportunity to do so in the House today, my colleague from Winnipeg-St. Boniface, or in fact anyone from this side of the House, is willing to debate the member for Oshawa, if he can muster up enough support of any other member from the rest of his caucus on the question of medicare and social assistance programs, anywhere. We will even go to Oshawa.

March 26, 1992
Supply
The apology that the member would have us all consider includes the fact that poor Ontario no longer has any cash, so it cannot deal with medicare in the way that it would have wanted to deal with medicare. That does not prevent members of the NDP from pointing fingers and saying: "Look at those nasty Liberal provincial premiers. They are actually talking about considering ways to take a look at medicare. They are looking at perhaps restructuring the way that we deal with the finances of medicare".
Meanwhile Ontario, my province, much to my chagrin, although it is not my government, has already given an indication of what it will do. In fact, the premier of Ontario lets his actions do his talking and not his accusations. He will be judged by what he has done. Remember what we are talking about is the principle of universality and accessibility to a medicare program.
Even a few government members have taken the trouble to point out that it has been Liberal federal governments that have established the building blocks of medicare and hospital programs throughout this country. Even they acknowledge that we are on the side of what is right because history speaks with its facts on behalf of what we have done. We will be judged by our record.
Here is the NDP record. I am only going to read part of it here, largely because I cannot see all of this writing without my glasses. In the central region in this last budget, can you believe because we are talking about universality and accessibility, you have got to have a facility to go to. You have got to have health professionals for any assistance that you need. But where are they? You can maintain the principle of universality and accessibility to everybody, but if you close the door on them, and you do not provide the service, what good is that rhetoric?
In the central region, York County hospital will lay off 90 employees and close 90 acute care beds. In metropolitan Toronto the NDP Government of Ontario, the premier of the NDP, host of defenders of what is right at Mount Sinai Hospital, in an attempt to save $3.6 million will lay off 59 full-time and 31 part-time employees on April 1. What a surprise, including 51 registered nursing assistants and laboratory workers.
In the Hamilton-Niagara region, Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital plans to lay off 80 full-time and part-time employees. In addition to staff reductions, the hospital will close a 34-bed acute care unit, cut another by 12 beds and cut financing for its community health service centre.
If this is what the NDP government of Ontario wants to put forward as its indication, its hallmark, its standard of what constitutes universal health care and medicare, what it considers is standard for the principle of universal access to medicare throughout the country, then I would hope that the mover of this motion would have the courage to stand up and say, "Yes, we will be judged by our actions while we wag our tongue at those nasty Liberal premiers who are actually considering what might happen".
And for what? Because the member for Oshawa says we must take a look at all the ways to save money. We have to look at this because we do not have any extra cash.
Is this in fact true? I indicated earlier in a question that the province of Ontario, when the NDP government took control, was in a surplus situation, no deficit.


An hon. member:: Oh, come one.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: It seems we have discovered that when truth speaks even stones hear.
We went from a surplus situation to that first budget by an NDP government when there was an increase to a deficit situation of some $9 billion.
I was pretty good in math but I still cannot count that far. In one year the government, the NDP Government of Ontario, went out and gathered up, through debts, another $9 billion to do what?


Mrs. Gaffney:: It's all those Amex cards they carry around.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Of course it must be some of those credit cards. You are right.
If the principle of universality was not the main theme, if the medical health program was not the main theme, if the hospital system in Ontario was not the main theme, or the encouragement of all health care professionals to stay in the province of Ontario, then for what did they raise this money?
March 26, 1992

If we are going to be judged by our actions then the NDP members who have proposed this particular motion should do a mea culpa. Perhaps an examination of conscience might be a first step.
The province of Ontario is suffering greatly, there is no question. I indicated before that the recession induced by the government opposite has created a terrible economic environment for Ontario. Its manufacturing base is decreased by about 25 per cent. If we cannot raise taxes from Ontario, from where are we going to get funds to distribute to all Canadians.
What we are doing is killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
That does not mean that the money is not there for Ontario. In fact, when it comes to transfers from the federal government to Ontario for health care and services, Ontario received 41 per cent of the over-all total. Now that is my province with 36 per cent of the population.
Yes, there have been reductions. I regret those reductions but I cannot accept the argument that there is no money coming to Ontario. What I can accept is that the government of the day is being irresponsible with the way it is using that money. It is being irresponsible in the same way that the government is being with its economic policies.
Then it comes crying to the general public and says it has no money. It has to close down these hospitals, but it still believes in universality.
It says it is sorry that patients have to wait from two to eight months before they can get to see a specialist, before they can receive the care that they need because the province does not have any money.
But it really does believe that everybody should have access to health care whenever they need it, whenever they want it, but do not need it for another eight months my friend.
Some of this silly frivolous nonsense is spilling over on to the NDP. They are using an allotted day to point their fingers at other premiers who are thinking about ways to get around the problem. The province of Ontario decides that the solution is to borrow $9 billion last year, $11 billion this coming year, to provide the kind of
Supply
services that it says is essential. I believe they are essential but that the province should be responsible in the way that it administers the money it borrows.
There is no question in my mind that what is happening is a great scam and the NDP caucus at the federal level is now standing up for the provinces at great risk to itself by introducing such a frivolous motion. It is a silly motion to hide the fact that the provincial Government of Ontario and the other provincial NDP Governments of Saskatchewan and British Columbia are going to engage in some massive tax increases that are going to make them very unpopular by trying to point the finger at federal or at Liberal provincial premiers elsewhere.
Canadians are fed up with that kind of tactic. Canadians are fed up with tax increases. The Conservative government opposite since the 1989 budget alone increased taxation by 16.5 per cent. That followed what they trumpet as the largest and the most productive economic period in Canadian history. They would have had more money from the economy than they ever would have needed, yet they increased taxation by a further
16.5	per cent.
Worst than that, they did what the NDP government in Ontario and the NDP government in Saskatchewan is doing, and what the NDP government in British Columbia is threatening today and that is increase the public debt and the deficit in order to save the day. The government opposite since 1989 increased the public debt by 27.3 per cent. I shudder to think what the NDP governments in those three provinces, including my own province, are going to do in the upcoming budget.
I shudder because I know I have to pay that bill. I know that my colleagues and my constituents have to pay that bill. I know as well that every time the government opposite at the federal level increased its rate of taxation, the provincial governments sneaked in with an additional portion. They received a cut of that tax increase without having to admit that they were raising taxes.
My colleague for Broadview-Greenwood would say this would be a great time to talk about a single tax. I hope he gets an opportunity to deal with that. At least, it would deprive some of these provincial premiers of the opportunity to scam a few more bucks out of the unsuspecting taxpayer.

March 26, 1992
Supply
What I do object to, aside from the fact that taxation has increased so much, is that as it takes your money out of your pocket, it turns around with crocodile tears and says: "But really, we do not have any money, we have to cut services. We cannot give you health care, we cannot give you education grants any more, we have to reduce this, we have to reduce that. Believe me with my hand on my heart, I believe in universality. I believe in the public good. We are pristine still in the way we abide by our ideology. Please do not ask us to prove it because the proof is in the pudding".
What we see are tax increases, cuts in services and a total abdication of the responsibility that comes to an incumbent in office.
I do not agree with my colleague who spoke earlier about there being an equal partnership in the medicare system. In principle it is true. But what has happened is that on one side the government of the day at the federal level is saying: "It is time the provinces carried their load". And on the other side the NDP provincial governments, especially in Ontario, are saying: "I am sorry, but we are going to wash our hands of this. Our federal cousins please point the finger elsewhere". We cannot have that.
Therefore, I am going to move an amendment to that motion. My amendment is seconded by my hon. colleague from Broadview-Greenwood and the hon. member for Winnipeg North who is not in his seat. He is anxious to be part of this.
All my colleagues present have come to this House like the rain in spring-which we finally see today-and which brings new life to Parliament and to this debate.
I move, seconded by my colleague from Winnipeg North and my other colleagues here:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the
word "system".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: May I have a copy of the amendment? The hon. member can continue with questions and comments while I have a look at the amendment.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before the Speaker rules on the validity of the amendment I would presume that he will give us an opportunity to take a look at it and present arguments as to whether we think it is a legitimate, appropriate and a procedurally correct amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think once the Speaker rules on it, it will be validity enough. Yes, it is a good motion.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your wise decision. In fact, there was a meeting of minds on this important issue, because after the Speaker and you yourself, advised by the able officers of this House, had ruled the first amendment we submitted to the House out of order, I immediately went to see those same advisers at the table and suggested they insert a period. While I was discussing this with our friends and advisers, our critic, the member for Winnipeg North and also the member for Eglinton-Lawrence already had the text of this amendment, which is quite in order. I want to thank you for having ruled immediately, prima facie that it was in order.
We can now debate "that this House express its concern at the threat to Canada's health system". That is what the NDP should have said, instead of trying to embarrass members who have a lot to say about our health system. There is widespread concern among Canadians, and what was said by my esteemed colleague from Toronto and other members has certainly raised some questions in my mind.
In a society, there are a number of choices to make. When public moneys become scarce, certain priorities must be identified. Obviously, the first thing people in my riding think about as they grow older is health care, which is the centrepiece of our social programs and must not be tampered with. Although I try and see them as often as I can, I must apologize to the people who are listening and who would like to see us more often. Unfortunately, in Ottawa the House sits five days a week, eight or ten months a year. And the same applies to hon. members opposite. When we visit senior citizens' homes, their main concern is not where to spend their holidays, because often they cannot afford holidays, but they want the assurance that they can count on proper medical care.

I regret that the NDP has chosen this kind of approach for such a very serious subject. By politicizing this important issue, we are obliged to become partisan. As far as I am concerned, the government has the responsibility which it will take when it votes. We have the responsibility to talk about a real subject. I am glad that my colleague from the opposition-there is no such a

Tr
r
March 26, 1992

thing as an Official Opposition. There is only one opposition, and other parties. It is a concept that we always say the Official Opposition and the other opposition. There is in the British parliamentary system only one opposition, it is Her Royal Majesty's Loyal Opposition; the others are simply parties.
They have chosen to attack only Liberals. As we say in law "face value". It is, I regret to say, almost ridiculous. It is like everybody else, the three NDP parties, as my colleague said, were perfection on earth. Mr. McKenna in New Brunswick and M. Bourassa in Quebec and, as far as Newfoundland is concerned I will pass, no comment.

Finally I would like to say that Quebec is certainly not a novice at health care administration. The minister and the cabinet are doing everything they can to have the best health care system in the world.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I understand that you found the amendment of the member from Eglinton in order, which means that all the words after the word "system" are deleted.
Can you explain to me whether that means it would be in order to discuss the particular policies and practices and statements of particular provincial governments or provincial officials, or would it not be in order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I find no problem with that. I think that is relevant.
Do you have another point of order?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: One further clarification.
The objection being made by some members of the Liberal group was that we should not be talking about certain premiers and their statements, and so on. I had supposed that the purpose intended by the amendment, which you have accepted, was to rule those out of order. Therefore, I thought it would perhaps be in the same way out of order to introduce criticism of people who had made that criticism.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will watch the debate very carefully, and if I feel that members are stepping out of line I will call them back to relevancy.
Supply
If the hon. member for Saint-Denis would come to a conclusion, please.


Marcel Prud'homme: I will come to a conclusion, and I always like listening to my dear esteemed colleague from Toronto.
It is only a comment I was making for the true meaning and intention of what was put to us for discussion. The true meaning of what was in front of us for discussion has been put aside by Mr. Speaker as a result of our amendment. So I will bow to that and be more relevant.
I can say that this House expresses its concern at the threat to Canada's health care system. People always like to do some Quebec bashing. I was only, as a good member of Parliament from Quebec, as you would expect from a member from Ontario, defending my government when it needs to be defended here. That is what I was trying to do.
Having said that, I will come back to that later on in my speech, most likely. But I wanted to say that I was extremely stimulated by the comment made by my colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence. That was why I spontaneously got up while I was preparing for an amendment that was already put forward by my colleague, and I thank him for that.
I shall come back during the debate, if time allows.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Denis. I feel obliged to accept his compliments and I hope that in future if something I say makes him want to take part in the debate, he will do so. That would make me quite happy.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my hon. colleague. He talks about the fact that we should talk about the record. I would ask him to make a couple of comments about the record of the federal Liberal government when it was in office as it relates to the cutback in expenditures for health care. He is very careful to say that it is the Tories who have been cutting back on transfer payments.

March 26, 1992
Supply
Let me just give a couple of figures and then I would like him to comment. In 1979-80 transfer payments to the province of Ontario accounted for 47 per cent of the health care expenditures. By the time the Liberals left office in 1984, this had been reduced to 41 per cent. It was further eroded to 34 per cent and now today there are figures showing it is 31 per cent. The reality was that the erosion started with the Liberals in 1980 and by 1984 when they left, it was down to 41 per cent.
In my own province of British Columbia, by 1994-95, we will have lost $6.8 billion in cutbacks in transfer payments and EPF. Out of those, $2.6 billion or 40 per cent nearly are the direct result of actions taken by the Liberal government in 1982 and 1983.
Those are the actions of the Liberal government. It was the one that started the erosion of the health care system and the erosion of the provinces' ability to pay. I would like him to comment on those two figures. Are those not the actions of the federal Liberal government? Did it not start cutbacks to the provinces for health care?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I would have hoped that in the calculation of the numerical and financial impact of the decisions by Liberal governments of the day with respect to health care that he would not have used the actuarial type of figures that are currently bandied about with respect to all kinds of potentials that emanate from pension plans.
I would have hoped that he would have stuck with the absolute figures as they related in 1983 and 1984 dollars. He has not chosen to do that and I choose not to answer hypothetical questions from the past.
On the second item, it might be appropriate for my hon. colleague to remember that those agreements were precisely that. They were negotiated agreements between the federal and provincial governments of the day that determined what would be the proportion of federal contribution and what would be the proportion of provincial contribution. That is not the case right now.
I think the fact that three provinces took the federal government to court on its unilateral actions would indicate that initially when those cuts were made they were done in the spirit of negotiations and they were accepted according to the conditions of the day.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House put forward by the NDP is in itself a false motion. It does not tell the truth.
In other words, the mover of the motion from the NDP has been day dreaming or perhaps he had a dream last night in which he claims now that the premier of Newfoundland wants to forgo universality and embrace user and deterrent fees for health services. That is not true.
Why can somebody not now move in this House an amendment saying that the leader of the NDP is opposed to universality? Why not? This is a fib here. This is not true. It is a downright fabrication of the truth. I cannot say it is a lie, I cannot call anybody a liar. I know that, but it is a fabrication of the truth. It is not true.
Perhaps the member moving the motion does not know that it is not true. I do not know, but I am telling him now that it is absolutely untrue. How do you vote on a motion that contains false information, that has dug up something that says the premier of Newfoundland made a statement and has put forward a position which is not true? When the motion is put, how do you vote on it? Can you vote for it or can you vote against it when you know what is contained in the motion is false, completely and utterly untrue, never said by the premier of Newfoundland, never, not in writing. He has never said it in his speech, he has never said it on the radio, he has never said it on television. It is a fabrication, an outright untruth by the NDP, spreading rumours about what a premier of a provincial government said.
If the NDP had shown the honesty that they should be showing, they would have gone back and found out what the premier of the province of Newfoundland said and they would have discovered-


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I am requesting clarification of your ruling that the Liberal amendment was in order. The way I interpreted what you had said is that you agreed the motion would stop at the area where it says health care system, that the other parts of the motion that had been moved by the New Democratic Party were no longer permissible for debate.
March 26, 1992

The hon. member is getting up and he is not focusing on the first sentence that is now what is before this House. He is focusing on the very subject that the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I was listening very carefully to the hon. member and I was going to call him to relevancy. I was busy talking to another member here at the chair. I appreciate what the hon. member for Surrey North has said and I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls would come to relevancy, please.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was coming to the point that I wanted to make, but I first of all had to make it be known that there is a rumour circulating around here, put forward by the NDP, that the premier of Newfoundland made certain statements which he did not make and which are not on the official record anywhere.
Now, getting to my point. My point is this, Mr. Speaker, and I will be very brief about the point I am about to make. The most important thing in this county is our health care system. The most important thing in this nation that we have to protect is our health care system and provincial governments in this country, especially the poor ones, that is the poor provincial governments that do not have the funding to enable them to provide the same level of health care that we have in some other provinces in this nation, that have to close hospital beds, that are unable to buy the equipment necessary to provide good health care in 1992, having the equipment and being able to put up the heavy cost of operating new equipment.
The provinces find themselves in a position where they are just unable to foot the bill. The very area where this federal government has cut back is in the transfers for those very things.
As the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood has pointed out on many occasions, they have allowed through our tax system, a decrease in the amount of money that flows to the Government of Canada through our income tax system from very wealthy Canadians and very wealthy corporations in this country. It thereby decreases again the revenues flowing to the provincial governments through our income tax system.
When filling out an income tax form, if you are residing in the province of Newfoundland, you fill out
Supply
the form and come to the federal tax payable. Then you take 62 per cent of it and that is what goes to the provincial government.
When there are individuals in this nation who make $500,000 a year and pay not one penny of income tax as we have under this government, and the numbers are rising, then you know that the revenues to the provinces are drying up.
The Auditor General put it quite simply back in 1987 when he said in his report that members of this Chamber and the Parliament of Canada are always trying to produce a more energy efficient engine and no matter how much they make it energy efficient, they are still finding that the same amount of fuel is being consumed, until they discover tiny holes in the gas tank. The Auditor General called it tax expenditures.
The Government of Canada has done nothing about it. Provinces like Newfoundland have found that through the tax system their revenues have dried up. Their revenues have started to go down. The transfers from the federal government have started to go down. And here they are trying to operate a health care system and hospitals on both those decreases in revenues.
In conclusion, I take strong exception to anybody who makes a statement about the premier of Newfoundland who is trying to do his best, honest as the day is long, day by day trying to run a province on very little money. To have anybody misquote him in a statement before this House, I hope the NDP now will have the honesty to stand up and say that he did not make this statement ever and that they withdraw it from the record of this Chamber.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, in response to my Liberal friend from Gander-Grand Falls, he got rather excited as is his tendency and that is fine. This is the place to get excited when you feel strongly about things. He seemed to suggest that the basis of the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party today was somehow based on falsehoods.
Particularly he mentioned comments that we suggested the premier of Newfoundland had said. Quoting here from The Ottawa Citizen of December 30, 1991, the newspaper story was: "Social programs. Wells questions universality", and I quote Premier Clyde Wells of Newfoundland: "We may have to look at the whole principle

Supply
of universality in our social programs and look at the extent that we might have to limit the universality".
He goes on: "Canadians would probably be open to such changes if politicians are honest about the state of the country's finances".
He goes on further: "I do not think people would be hostile to that type of change as long as they are aware of the economic problems that we face".
I do not think it is stretching anyone's imagination too far or even a little bit to suggest that quote as I just read it, if it is reasonably accurate, and we assume that it is because we have not heard anything specifically to the contrary, lends full credibility to the suggestions put forth by the New Democratic Party in its motion today.
If there are any apologies to be forthcoming regarding this matter, I would suggest that they come from my friend from Newfoundland and certainly not from the New Democratic Party.
We stand by the submissions we have made. We think the point we have been making all afternoon is well taken.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, here is the NDP again.
Based upon a quote in a newspaper, a newspaper column quoting a provincial premier as the hon. gentleman put it, the NDP puts forward a suggestion in this House that the premier of Newfoundland, because of that quote in The Ottawa Citizen, wants to forgo universality and embrace user and deterrent fees for health services.
I can tell you this. I listened very carefully to a discussion on television and later on national radio concerning the premier of Newfoundland and what he meant when he said what he said. He did not say what he was quoted as saying in that newspaper article. I listened to it for two days in a row on our national radio and national television system.
I think I got it pretty clear as other Canadians who heard it and saw it did, as to what the premier of Newfoundland meant when he made the statement that he made which was not the statement that the hon. member claims he made in a newspaper that quotes him as saying he made a statement he did not make.
The premier, in his statements, was referring to the fact that in our society today, it has become all to common to have people of extreme means, people who have hundreds of millions of dollars pay nothing to the maintenance of our social security safety net at all. That is what he was talking about when he made his official statement in a speech in southern Ontario.
The premier of Newfoundland is the biggest defender of our health and welfare systems. I can assure you of that. I have known him for many years and I can tell you he is. But it is getting pretty difficult with the cuts that are coming from this government and also the examples given by NDP governments that are cutting back everything.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on from where my colleague from Gander-Grand Falls left off.
I do not think there would be anyone in this country who would ever doubt that Premier Wells has always talked about national programs with national standards. If there is one thing that this country will remember him for, it is the fact that he went to the wall over maintaining national standards.
Most Canadians would really question the NDP's sincerity when it comes to taking a shot at Premier Wells caving in on national health standards. This is just one point that Canadians are not going to buy.
There is a consistency here though with the NDP. During the last election, and I really think we should remind Canadians about this, I remember my leader at that time, the member for Vancouver Quadra, fought a tremendous campaign against this free trade agreement. Most Canadians would agree. If I remember correctly, it was the NDP who tried to suggest that the Liberal Party should just fold up its tent and it would be a two-party system after the last election.
Had the NDP really been sincere about its campaign against free trade, I do not think those cheap shots at our leader would have been taken. We will make sure to remind NDP members if they get into this game too often. All of a sudden they seem to think there is a bit of a surge or something happening in the polls, although I
March 26, 1992

do not see it right now and instead of taking on the government, they take on the Liberal Party.
To politicize the health care issue the way it has today and I am a member of Parliament from Toronto, I am from the province of Ontario, Canadians will not buy the fact that the NDP care more about the health care system than other members in this House.
I want to read some quotes from NDP ministers. I hate doing this because on a debate like this today we should really be putting our creative processes to work. We should be finding ways to be more efficient with the health care system in this country, certainly without cutting back on the service, the access, or all the things we cherished in this country, and the things that have made us so special.
Here is a quote from the treasurer of the province of Ontario, Mr. Floyd Laughren on January 13, 1992: "Unless we get the system operating in a way that is in keeping with our ability to pay for it we will see user fees or free enterprise medicine". God help us all.
I want to read another quote from Frances Lankin, another prominent NDP member, on November 9,1991: "I don't know if there is a way in which we can build a system, a drug benefit program that is fair. It might involve looking at a co-payment structure".
Here is Michael Decter, the deputy minister of health, November 14, 1991, and I quote directly: "Do we want to pay for cholesterol-lowering drugs for people over 65 when the advice is that they do almost nothing to reduce their health risk? Should we continue to pay for useless treatment? We are looking very hard at the type of services delivered and what are the outcomes". And I quote directly from the NDP deputy minister of health: "For instance, we spend large amounts of money treating lung cancer which frankly does not do much good".
Regretfully I lost my father to lung cancer about three months before I was elected to this House. I want you to know that the hospitals in Ontario, the Princess Margaret Hospital, and other hospitals in that province do not feel they are wasting their time and they feel that those services, trying to save lives, are every bit as important.
I am so upset at this NDP motion today. In my riding of Broadview-Greenwood there is Riverdale Hospital.
Supply
It is the largest chronic care hospital in this nation, close to 800 beds. This is a hospital that is 100 years old. In Toronto's oldest community newspaper The Cabbagetown News for Riverdale: "Future of Riverdale Hospital Remains Uncertain, Community Gathering to Discuss Options".
I cannot believe that that would be happening in my riding which had been an NDP riding for 25 years. Just the fact that they are even tampering with health care is beyond belief. The NDP is causing so much uncertainty in health care in the province of Ontario that it has no right to put forward a resolution in this House today casting aspersions on all other members of this House. This kind of sanctimonious stuff is not going to sell across this country. This is a tough and complex issue and Canadians know it. There is no way that we are going to let the NDP get away with this one-way trip.
In the central region of the province of Ontario, York County Hospital laid off 90 employees and closed 90 acute care beds last year. The Mount Sinai Hospital just laid off 59 full time and 31 part time employees, including 51 registered nursing assistants and laboratory workers. The Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Hamil-ton-Niagara is shutting down beds and laying off people. The county of Bruce General Hospital in the southwestern region, a hospital that enjoys a number one efficiency ranking when compared to its peers across the province, will lay off nine part-time nurses, freeze salaries and close 20 beds. The Sudbury Memorial Hospital in the northern region laid off 12 people, the majority of whom are nurses. The Kingston Hospital in the eastern region is closing beds. I could go on and on.
The problem is that the financial resources that this nation requires to maintain the health care system of this country are large and Canadians know it. It is a tough and complex issue.
I had hoped that the NDP would have put forward a motion today where it would have challenged all members to put forward some creative ideas. I want to give you an example. St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto last year on efficiency in linens, towels, bedsheets, et cetera, operating linens, in one year saved $250,000. If that is multiplied by every hospital in the province of Ontario or every hospital in the nation then we could maybe get at things.

March 26, 1992
Supply
In my riding of Broadview-Greenwood, I have two of the finest hospitals in the province, Riverdale Hospital, as I mentioned earlier, the largest acute or chronic care hospital in the country, and the East General Hospital. In the last six months, both of these hospitals have come under attack. I think if the NDP is really serious about health care in this country then it should be asking all of us in this House for help.
The NDP right now is in charge of the largest hospital care unit in the nation, namely in the province, and it needs our help. When it starts to politicize the issue, the debate goes nowhere.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question of my colleague from Danforth. Before I ask the question, I would like to say this. I have been really saddened to hear the debate and to read this motion that is before us today. I think that we have slipped as parliamentarians for the people of Canada. We have slipped and slipped very badly.
When a motion by a party is put forward of the type that we have here today for debate, when we have a health care issue in this country that, as the member for Broadview-Greenwood said, we should all be discussing, that we become this partisan for someone's own personal reasons, I think it is a disgrace. I find it absolutely disgraceful.
I would like to hear the comments of the member for Broadview-Greenwood. He did mention the fact that during the last election the NDP did not challenge the government on the free trade issue. The Liberals were the only party to challenge the government on that issue.
I am thoroughly convinced that we would not have a Conservative government in this country today if the NDP had fought the free trade agreement as we did in that last election.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier to my colleague, I would not be sitting here today if it were not for the debating skills of the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. If the NDP had not taken so many cheap shots at him who knows where we could have been, maybe on the other side of the House.
But I want to address your point about politicization which you made in your opening comments.
I have a paper here in my hands from Michael M. Rachlis, MD, who wrote the book Second Opinion. He is a constituent of mine. He is a member of the New Democratic Party and is probably one of the most brilliant people in this country when it comes to reform and change in the health care system in this country. I am sure that members of the New Democratic Party agree with my judgment on Dr. Rachlis.
I have put this paper forward. I have put his book forward on the floor of this House more than once, and I will continue to do so. The NDP should go to Dr. Rachlis' book which talks about ways and means of reforming and bringing more efficiency to the health care system of Canada. Had that been the thrust of our debate today we would have served the people of Canada a lot better.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the member talk about Michael Rachlis' position. If members have heard his position, one of the things that he diametrically opposes is any form of user fees, a two-tiered health care system or deterrent fees.
What I find very interesting in this whole discussion today is that the Liberals are standing up and saying we should not have raised the issue. Shame on us, we should not have raised the issue. I have not heard any of them stand up and flatly say: "We in the Liberal Party at all levels, federally and provincially, repudiate the introduction of user fees."
That is what is sticking in their craw, they cannot say that because there are several prominent Liberals in this country who are repeatedly advocating that as a solution to medicare.
We have not denied that there are problems, that there have to be changes and innovations. We certainly have not denied that the financial squeeze that the Liberals and now the Tories have put on the health care system is creating problems. But we have said clearly: "One solution is we will not abandon our principles".
I would ask the member if he will stand up and on behalf of his party, at all levels of government, repudiate the introduction of user fees and deterrent fees.
March 26, 1992


Dennis Joseph Mills: The people of Canada-


An hon. member:: Will you or won't you?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Yes. I will tell you one thing, for the Liberal Party of Canada-


Cyril (Cid) Samson: You are attacking the federal NDP.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Yes, I am attacking the federal NDP.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: You are attacking the provincial NDP.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I am giving you direct quotes from the province of Ontario. I can only speak for the Liberal Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada has always maintained that in no way, shape or form should we tamper with the health care system of this country. When it comes to universal health care, my leader has said that, my former leader has said that, and all of our leaders will say that, and Clyde Wells-


Cyril (Cid) Samson: The provincial Liberals, do you support them or not?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would appreciate very much if you would allow the hon. member to answer. I still have another questioner.


Dennis Joseph Mills: As the member for Gander-Grand Falls said earlier, there is no stronger person in this country committed to national standards and national programs and not just in health care. We all know that in this country.
I think he cited the premier of New Brunswick. I cannot speak for the premier of New Brunswick. I do not speak for the city of Toronto, any more than he speaks for Premier Romanow.
When I was responding, I was giving direct quotes from the position of the NDP in the province of Ontario. I was only giving those direct quotes to point out the fact that even in the province of Ontario, which is a fairly wealthy province, they too as NDPers are finding it very difficult to deal with this complex issue.
In the process of debate, in the process of looking at options and alternatives and ways of maintaining the health care system, some of their own members, including their treasurer and their health minister and their deputy minister of health have put forward ideas that suggest they are not endorsing national standards.
I will put it right on the record now. I for one moment do not believe that the remarks of Frances Lankin or
Supply
Michael Decter are carved in stone, that they are against treating people with lung cancer. He is throwing out hypotheses here, not very bright, for advancing debate.
My point is in the process of advancing debate, do not grab some little clip that somebody makes and try to make it a national story.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast on a very short question or comment.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member. As I do not have much time I would like to ask him a short question. He was mentioning St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto.
As we know, the budget for hospitals has been increased by 1 per cent. St. Michael's was obliged to close 100 beds, so naturally the service cannot be as good. They have discovered at St. Michael's that they have a debt of $63 million that apparently was lost somewhere in the accounting, but now they are aware of it.
Naturally there is a question of debt for some of the hospitals and if there is no increase in funding, I wonder how he sees them managing to provide good services.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, as I have been saying all afternoon, this is a very tough, complex issue. In order to handle the deficit, the debt of this nation, we have to expand wealth. We have to create more wealth. I make no secret, I am a single tax person. We have to reform the tax system. That gets more productivity going in this country, which will generate more wealth. That will ultimately give us the resources we need to look after the deficits of these hospitals.
This is a long, complex equation we are involved with here. I certainly am not trying to simplify the difficulty of it. If we are going to expand wealth creation in this country, we are going to have to start treating people more fairly through the tax designs. I think that is our only shot and the current system we have in place is a disincentive to that wealth creation.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, this is a supply day debate. I would like to read what it says about this: "It is a fundamental element of the principle underlying financial procedures of Parliament, the idea that Parliament does not grant supply until the opposition has had the opportunity to demonstrate why it should be refused. This opportunity takes the form of debate on designated supply days".

March 26, 1992
Supply
In this House this afternoon we have not had a debate because the federal government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I would just like to say to the hon. member that the next speaker is the hon. member for Victoria. He will have 20 minutes, plus 10 minutes questions and comments.
The next two speakers will be the hon. member for Beauhamois-Salaberry for 10 minutes plus 5 minutes questions and comments and his follow up will be Carleton-Charlotte for another 10 minutes and 5 minutes for questions and comments.
If we have more time, I will come back to you.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me to begin my remarks by wondering what has happened to the government members. This is supposed to be a debate on supply, but we will have an opportunity, I gather, to hear from some government supporters before the debate is over.
This motion is before the House to give all of us an opportunity to look at the growing concern there is in this country about health care and to examine the position of all parties in this House, including Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which purports to hold itself out as an alternative government in this country. It is important that the people of Canada get an opportunity to hear the position of the Liberal Party on this critical issue because all Canadians have been concerned increasingly about the state of our health care and, in particular, our medical insurance program in this country.
The concern began with the successive cutbacks in federal support for medicare, health and education programs. The concern rose further during the free trade debate when it became clear that the government was trading away vital protection for our social programs and beginning to join with the United States in driving down our medicare, our health programs and our social programs in order to harmonize, as the word was, our economy with that of the United States. Concerns were raised during the election campaign and never properly answered. We have seen since that election the government continuing on its path to deprive the provinces of the necessary financial support to sustain a universal,
public medical care program in this country. Now that program is under attack.
What we see in the Liberal provinces of this country are the cracks beginning in the principle of universality, accessibility of public medicare in this country. It thus becomes critically important that we hear from the Liberal Party in this House its position. What is intriguing is that in the debate so far, we have not heard the federal Liberal Party make a clear, unequivocal commitment against user fees and deterrent fees for health care. We are still waiting for the federal Liberal Party to make that commitment.
I rise in this debate because I want to recall for the Canadian people some history about medicare.


Beryl Gaffney: Ha.


John F. Brewin: My Liberal friend says "Ha". She says "Ha". Let us take it back a bit. The Liberal Party first promised health insurance in this country in 1919. In 1919 it was promised. Election after election after election the Liberal Party promised health insurance and election after election, despite the fact that in virtually all of the elections after that period they formed a majority government, they failed to deliver for the Canadian people.
It was only when the government of Saskatchewan in 1962, without any assistance from the federal Liberal government of the day-


Mr. Harvard:: Who was the government in 1962?


John F. Brewin: My friend makes a good point. It was the Conservatives that were the government in 1962.


John Harvard: Thank you.


John F. Brewin: I withdraw the allegation: without any support from Liberal governments despite 50 years of promises. When they were finally thrown out by the Canadian people in 1957, what happened? It was only then that the NDP government in Saskatchewan, all alone, without federal support, introduced medicare into Canada. It was at that point and only that point, with the federal Liberals in a minority position in this House, that a national medicare system came into being.
I was in Saskatchewan during the doctor's strike in 1962 against the NDP legislation introduced by the Woodrow Lloyd government, following the government of Tommy Douglas. It was the Liberals who were on the
March 26, 1992

front line of the Keep Our Doctors Committee who opposed and fought and withdrew the services of doctors against the democratic decision of the people of Saskatchewan to bring in a medicare program. It was the Liberals who turned up later as candidates who led the attack on medicare in Saskatchewan.
I can remember the Hon. Paul Martin, Senior, who was Minister of National Health and Welfare for many years, who took the kind of typical Liberal line of the day, going back to Mackenzie King saying: "We believe in health insurance, but we cannot do it this year". There were always excuses as to why the Liberal party could not produce medicare. It was only when they were politically forced to by the pioneering legislative act of the government of Saskatchewan that the Liberal Party finally caved in and adopted a national medicare program.
Here we are now with government revenues in trouble as a result, I may say, of Liberal tax policies in the 1960s and the 1970s, giving away billions of dollars to the corporate sector in this country, putting the government in irremedial debt, compounded by the high interest policies of this government which has driven us into a recession so that our health services are now again in trouble.
One thing needs to be clear. That is that our party is unequivocally committed to a universal medicare program. We have been in the past, we are today and we will be in the future. We are unalterably opposed to the use of user fees or deterrent fees as a way of bailing out the health care system from the economic ruin the Conservative and Liberal governments successively have put this country into.
It is clear from all of the studies that user fees will not do what is advertised for them. They will not reduce health costs. They will simply transfer the burden of health costs on to those who are least able to afford it. We cannot take a step in that path.
It is a real shame that we in this House have to debate the issues of the increasing pressure on this national institution of medicare. I think if Canadians were asked what it was that held Canada together, if they looked for a single symbol of Canada, it would be our medicare system. The underlying philosophy of the medicare
Supply
system is not that it is simply a service provided by government, but rather it is an obligation we as a community have to each of our citizens.
We have decided as a country that we want to ensure that medical services are available to all regardless of income and that income is no deterrent to access to medical services. That fundamental social reform that was enacted in a pioneering way in Saskatchewan and then spread across the country has become for Canadians a part of our national heritage and it must not be touched. We must work to preserve it, but we must ensure that in finding the funds necessary to establish an efficient, effective and accessible health care system that we do not look to the poor, but we look to those who have been given so many breaks under the tax system of successive Liberal and Conservative governments.
Here we are fighting to hold a system that is in place. I wish to finish my remarks by saying that I hope that we do not see medicare as the last great social reform in this country. Not only can we preserve our medicare system as a right for all Canadians, for all members of the human family, but we begin to look at other programs in which this principle might be applied.
We have as we look around us the clear reform this country must now move to after we settle our medicare program in place and as we preserve it. Recently in Victoria, I had an opportunity to talk to many parents and child care workers. It is clearly evident that our child care system is in chaos. The workers are underpaid and in many cases, under-qualified. The opportunities and places are inadequate. It is clear that we must take the principles that underlie our medicare system, our universal, accessible, high quality medicare system, and apply that to child care so that the people in this country, particularly the new generation of this country, can have equal opportunity and access to good and high quality services. We owe it to our children.
We have seen in the comments made by Liberal premiers in this country that the Liberal commitment such as it was to medicare is now ending. We have not heard Liberals in this House rise to refute the substance of the argument. They shout with fury at the fact the point is even on the floor of the House.

March 26, 1992
Supply
It is important that this issue be clarified. I think we have heard the answer today and I look forward to the support of the rest of the members of this Elouse on this important motion.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could seek the unanimous consent of the House to waive the customary 10-minute question and answer period so that the government members who are finally going to get up are allowed to speak their full amount of time.
The House will adjourn at 5.45 p.m. If we take another 10 minutes the two speakers are not going to get the opportunity to stand and enter into the debate. We in the New Democratic Party would be willing to waive our right to a 10-minute answer and question period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: I have heard the request from the member. I have already had requests for questions and answers.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton - Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, we are more than delighted to take part in the debate. Whatever your decision is, we will certainly go along with you.
The question to the member is simply this. Reflecting on part of what he said at his opening, somehow they always drag in the old free trade debate going back to the 1988 election in the sense that it is going to endanger or threaten our health care system in this country. It does hit a raw nerve.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it has just been drawn to my attention the fact that you signalled me to an end with only 10 minutes to go. I have 20 minutes in my speech. You signalled-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: The point is that I was not signalling you to an end of your speech. I was trying to signal the person who was going to ask the question because I had two people asking me. Indeed I am sure if you have more that you wish to use, you have another eight minutes. I am sure the House would agree that you do so.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite content to leave my eight minutes and turn them over to a member from the government side if the government member would like to use it, if I have that right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: You did sit down. I believe the government is prepared to put up speakers. I do not think there is any problem this way. In fact, you have used some of the time they would have used. So can we let the hon. member continue his question and then you will answer.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, normally there is a period of comments and questions.
I think you did not allow that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: I thank the hon. member for his advice, but I was trying to do that when I had a group of points of order.
I would like to proceed with questions and comments.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, after watching this in the last five minutes, it is no wonder the Canadian people are puzzled as to what we actually do in this House.
To try to sort through some of it, and going back to the member's comments, I do appreciate the fact that there was a little confusion on his length of time. I appreciate his giving up his time to allow us to be engaged in this.
Going back to the old free trade debate, and the one that is always held up, and the idea that engaging in any kind of a trade agreement with any country in the world threatens our health care system, I want to go through a couple of numbers that I would like the hon. member to respond to.
They are in relation to the percentages of Gross Domestic Product, in other words, the resources of Canada that actually go into maintaining a health care system in this country versus the United States.
I agree with the member. We have the best health care system in the world. The fact is that we dedicated fewer financial resources to maintaining the best health care system in the world than the Americans did. They have one of the worst health care systems in the world.
In specific numbers, we dedicate about 9 per cent of GDP to health care, and in the U.S., the figure is 12 per cent. It leaves out 30 per cent of the population.
This idea of that threatening our system is bizarre. Why would we abandon a system that is cheaper to deliver than the American system?
March 26, 1992


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that the American system is a complete hodgepodge and many employers in the United States do not have to pay any health insurance costs whatever.
Because of the free trade agreement, our companies and our employees are obliged to compete often against companies in the United States which pay no such costs. It is very clear that the government knew this when it signed the free trade agreement and it has imposed this pressure on the Canadian economy.
That is one element of the pressure that is now on our health care system, and we are seeing it come to pass. Another product of the free trade agreement is that we are in a terrible recession. Job after job has been lost and government revenues, particularly in the central provinces, have virtually collapsed.
The free trade agreement is a contributor to the problem, but it is not the only contributor to the problem. There have been others, and certainly the more recent economic policies of the government, the high interest rates, the GST, have driven the whole country into a terrible position. We all know that. The country knows that and I do not think we need to look past it to understand why our medicare system is now in a crisis.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, when I was listening to the member for Victoria during comments and questions, he talked about Mr. Paul Martin Sr.
I would like to indicate that he was an illustrious member of this Chamber and is a Canadian who tells us he has a real love for the country. He gives a real example of a social conscience in his books which I recommend that the hon. member read.
I am glad that for the first time-I had made this point repeatedly in the past, which the NDP had not acknowledged-the NDP, through the member for Victoria, has acknowledged that it was the Liberal Party that conceived of the idea of medicare in 1919.
Like any human being, an idea has to have a beginning. From the idea, the federal Liberal Party gave birth to our Canadian health care system.
In 1984 we continued to nurture it. Last year on March 19, 1991 we introduced in this House a motion that
Supply
recommits us to medicare. I am very pleased that for the first time the NDP has acknowledged that the Liberal Party of Canada conceived medicare, gave birth to medicare, and continues to nurture medicare.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the memory of the member for Winnipeg North on these matters is a little short. The fact remains that the Liberal Party had to be pitchforked into it and despite promises election after election, it failed to keep it.
However, I do appreciate the belief and conviction that my hon. friend brings to the subject of medicare. It is unfortunate he has found himself in the wrong party. He was the one who correctly characterized Mr. McKenna's suggestions about user fees and deterrent fees when he stated in an article in The Globe and Mail: "It was part of a brainwashing approach" to build support for user fees. I am aghast even at the suggestion. They are certainly building the pressure. I am afraid that it is becoming a trend. All the studies in Canada show we should not adopt user fees. It would hurt the poorest and neediest. The cost of administration would be enormous and it is likely to damage efficiency and equity.
The member understands. Unfortunately his party does not understand and cannot be counted upon to protect universal medicare in this country.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, as many people have stated here today, we are in a time of great financial crisis across the country. We are finding that hospitals are laying off staff and closing beds. At a time when health care is in a financial crisis, the New Democratic Party of British Columbia has ordered its hospitals, ignoring democratically elected hospital boards, to perform abortions. It has ordered these hospitals to do so. The vast majority of these operations are not medically required. The same philosophy permeates the Government of Ontario.
I wonder how the member from Victoria can justify these actions at a time when there are line-ups for life-saving medical treatments.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the member for offering me an opportunity to say how proud I am at the action of the Government of B.C., particularly the minister of health who provincially represents the same area that I do in the federal House, the hon. Elizabeth

March 26, 1992
Supply
Cull, who has had the courage to offer the women of British Columbia, particularly the interior of British Columbia, the choice of medical services in this respect. I am very proud of what she has done and I am very glad the member has given me an opportunity to put that on the record.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to pose a question to the hon. member for Victoria.
Everybody says we have the best medical care system in the world. The problem is that to have a bypass operation in Vancouver, British Columbia, you have to wait a year. It was suggested that some people should go to the United States to have the operation performed there. How does he explain that?


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that is not true.
I acknowledge that there are some terrible difficulties in the medical system in this country. The issue is how we resolve them. One of the real practical problems is generated by the genius of medical science, which has created all kinds of opportunities to keep some of us older folks living a lot longer than we might otherwise live. We get into questions of priorities and choices that we have never had to face before. At least we are trying to struggle with the concept that the choice should not be determined by the size of a person's wallet.
I certainly support the B.C. government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberiy and then the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, those watching us on television this afternoon must really wonder what is going on in this House when New Democrats continually attack Liberals and Liberals attack New Democrats. It is time for some members on this side to get up, but I suspect that it was arranged with the Liberals, because they are so eager to be in power that they told the NDP, "Attack us. We will know what it was to be in power".
Mr. Speaker, I commend you for your wisdom in accepting an amendment to the resolution. Everyone should perhaps look at what happened yesterday and the day before, March 24 and 25, in Toronto, even though some partisan attacks were made at the first ministers'
conference. The worst thing I saw there was when a premier told the Prime Minister that to get a constitutional agreement he would have to offer some economic incentive. I find it absolutely horrible that one would put this country's future on the same level as public works announcements or things like that.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on accepting the motion that would remove all partisanship from it. I am pleased to mention that on the 25th and 26th, the first ministers met in Toronto. They came back with the agenda they had decided on February 10 and they agreed to share among themselves the various issues that they had put forward then. They worked together on ten fields of activity.
Mr. Romanow and Ms. Coumoyea agreed to handle the famous issue of effectiveness and efficiency in social programs, especially the difficult and critical matter of health care. They will speed up their work and I think that we will have at least preliminary results in two months.
Bob Rae and Mr. McKenna will look after training programs. Gary Filmon agreed to direct the work on interprovincial trade. Foreign trade will come under Mr. Harcourt, agriculture under Mr. Romanow, and infrastructure will especially interest or at least come under Mr. Cameron of Nova Scotia.
Fisheries will be Premier Wells' responsibility. The federal government agreed to concentrate on the issues of fiscal and financial co-ordination, another difficult and crucial area.
Regarding health care, it was decided to speed up the proceedings. Two months from now, there will be a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers to discuss health care services. As I said earlier, Mr. Romanow and Ms. Coumoyea will be in charge of this sector.
In fact, the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada agreed, and perhaps we should realize this in the House as well, that all social programs including health care depended on the economy's capacity for generating employment and wealth. Earlier, my colleague referred to these difficult times. The fact is, to quote a colleague sitting behind me, they always want to blame it on free trade. Unfortunately we are in a period of economic restructuring, and we have to live with the problems this creates. There are considerable challenges to be faced, but there is no point in looking for scapegoats.
March 26, 1992

At the First Ministers' Conference agreement was reached on a number of principles, in order to help increase the economy's capacity to generate employment and wealth. For instance, in the discussion on trade barriers, it was agreed that it was vital to speed up reduction of those barriers. The Minister for International Trade referred to this again this afternoon. The question is often brought up in the House, but it is not something the federal government can deal with alone. Trade barriers are also and mostly a matter of provincial legislation.
However, if we take down interprovincial barriers to trade, there may be times when we have instances of unfair competition between various provinces. In any case, this item will be given careful consideration.
There will be a joint review of the potential trade challenges facing Canada abroad during the next decade. We are now talking about free trade between Canada and the United States, between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and we are faced with new developments in Europe. How will these trade challenges determine our position during the next 10 years? What about our relations with the Asian bloc, South America, and so forth? It is important for Canada to determine ways in which it can become a major intervenor.
Another item on which the first ministers agreed was that Transport ministers would consider what could be done about our national highway network. Some felt this was a modest beginning, but it is a start.
We must also consider that by developing our social programs to include an increasing number of programs for training and retraining, we may be making some people too dependent on the system, so that once these people have gone through the whole process of manpower training, social programs, social welfare at the provincial level, unemployment insurance, and so forth, it will be very difficult for them to get out of this potentially vicious circle.
We will have to start looking at ways to prevent this dependency on social programs. We also would like to encourage the private sector to invest in training. My riding, Beauhamois-Salaberry, is located along the
Supply
American border, and I think it would be wonderful if we could do some of the things that are being done in other provinces to discourage cross-border shopping. That is one of the items on which the 11 first ministers were agreed and where they intend to take some kind of action.
We were talking about economic growth. In conclusion, I would like to repeat what was said by Matthew Barrett, President of the Bank of Montreal, in referring to the economy but especially to the unity of this country: "The message is clear: a divided Canada will be far less able to meet the competition than a united Canada, and the sum of its parts will not be equal to the value of the whole".
These are difficult times for the economy but we are also going through a difficult time in our histoiy as far as national unity is concerned. The repeated partisan attacks we saw this afternoon in the House are certainly not very edifying for Canadians who are listening. I think we should use our precious time to do what we were elected to do and concentrate on the real problems, not only the problems besetting our economy but the problems of the neediest in a rich and prosperous country that is the envy of the whole world.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest and I found it interesting that when a government member finally decided to rise and discuss this matter, he avoided discussion of health care and federal transfer payments completely.
I would like to ask the member if he is aware that the EPF program was based on the idea that money would be transferred to the provinces based on the increase in the Gross National Product. In other words, if the economy did not grow, the dollars being transferred would not grow.
We had a decision, initially by the Liberals in 1982 and then in 1983, and then again twice by the Conservatives which said that they did not care that the economy was expanding, that the money was there for health care, they were going to unilaterally cut back on transfer payments.

March 26, 1992
Supply
Was the member really aware that the EPF was based on an expansion in the economy and that the expansion took place but the Tories reneged on that formula?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I first thank my colleague for congratulating us on taking part in the debate. If he and his colleagues had been less obstinate, we would perhaps have had an opportunity to participate before.
I know what my colleague said. In the beginning, we thought about creating this program. A problem we have in our society is that when our economists think of a program of course they always think in terms of growth at a constant rate. That is very common. When the health program was thought up in the early 1960s, there were going to be more and more people paying into it and fewer and fewer at the top drawing on it. On one hand it is true, but on the other hand we must still live with certain realities. The population growth rate has diminished, but when I look at the figures for the province of Quebec, and we have them for all the provinces, in 1984-85 transfers to Quebec for health were $8,153 billion. It is ironic to say that they declined because in 1992-93 they are $11 billion.
In Ontario they were $6 billion and are now $9 billion. In Manitoba they went from $1.1 billion to $1.9 or nearly $2 billion. In British Columbia, the hon. member's province, they were $2,260 billion and are now $3,292 billion.
The problem with these transfers though-and I agree with my colleague there-is that the amount transferred is always a little less than the demand. But in real terms it goes up.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in your absence just a few moments ago, I was on my feet in the question and answer portion of a member's debate. I mentioned the fact that if the Canadian people were watching today, they would be totally confused as to what we were talking about, and some say arguing about, in this debate. It looked like NDP versus Liberal most of the day. They were not attacking us; they were attacking each other.
What I want to do is to read the original motion. I know there have been some changes to it. The motion put forward by the hon. member opposite states:
That this House express its concern at the threat to Canada's health care system expressed by the stated intention of the Liberal premiers of the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland to forego universality and to embrace user and deterrent fees for health services.
Looking at this motion objectively we can understand why it created so much concern on the opposite side of the House. If I or any member of this House wanted to go on the attack, to attack any provincial premier, it is pretty easy to do.
I can stand up here today and rail, point fingers at and criticize the province of New Brunswick. Yesterday they had to deal with certain realities in my home province of New Brunswick. It is the reality that comes with assuming power.
That is something that members opposite do not understand. It is a responsibility that you take on when you form the government. It would be easy for me to stand up here tonight and point my finger at Premier McKenna back in New Brunswick. I will allow the opposition in New Brunswick to do that but I am not going to do it. It serves no useful purpose for me stand up in this House and condemn Premier McKenna for some of the decisions that he had to make.
Why would any premier want to cut services in his home province, whether it is Clyde Wells, Frank McKenna or someone else. Even Bob Rae is an example. Why would they want to do it? The only reason they do it is because that aspect of responsibility that members opposite do not understand because they have not been there. They do not have to balance the sheet at the end of the day. They do not have to be responsible to the taxpayers. All they have to do is tilt and rail and criticize. Nothing will be accomplished in this House if we continually do that. It is awful easy for us to fall into that particular trap.
Yesterday in the province of New Brunswick the premier had to deal with that reality of governing. There are two things that he has to take into consideration, that this government has to take into consideration when it comes to dollars, we have to manage the finances of this country and we have to manage the resources that the Canadian taxpayers give us.
March 26, 1992

We are finally realizing in this country, and the provinces are realizing it as well finally, that there is only one taxpayer. There is only one of us and it does not make a bit of difference whether we are talking provincial, federal or municipal taxes. It is the same person who pays those taxes. It is the same person at the end of the day and the family of that person who pay the price if those taxes are not spent wisely.
That is the mistake we have made in this country for the last 25 years. I think the former Minister of Finance expressed it best about six months ago when he said: "For the first 100 years of this country we lived off of our resources", a statement which no one here will argue with, no one. In the last 25 years, do you know what we did? Again referring to the minister, "we lived off our credit".
The amazing thing we are finally realizing as governments and regardless of what party we take part in or belong to is that we cannot live on credit. At the end of the day there is a huge price to pay for pulling out that credit card every time we want to deliver services. That is what we have done in this country regardless of political stripe.
If we made a mistake as a party after coming to this place and forming the government in 1984, it is probably realizing that too late. I am not quite sure that the public was ready to accept the types of things we have had to do as a government to bring everything into line, but finally it is because we set the example in this House from the day that I was elected.
All of us in this House are the first generation of politicians elected in 1988 that have not been able to go back to our constituencies with cheque-books in our back pockets to fix every difficulty in the riding. That is the easy trap that politicians have fallen into in this country in the last 25 years: If there is a problem in the riding, write a cheque; the government will come good for it.
Finally we realized that all of those good intentions had a price and it has created a huge mountain of debt over this government. It has created a huge mountain of debt over provincial governments. The interesting thing about this is that the NDP of Ontario is finally realizing what that mountain of debt does to the ability of the premier to fix things back home.
Supply
Bob Rae will bring down his budget in the next couple of weeks in Ontario.


An hon. member:: Who?


Gregory Francis Thompson: Bob Rae and his finance minister. If you want to be technical, the finance minister of the province of Ontario. When they have to come to grips with reality it is going to make us feds look like little pikers, because they have some real difficulties that they cannot dodge. They cannot duck that bullet of reality that is coming right straight at them, in the face.
He is going to have to do the same types of things that the premier of my province had to do yesterday. He did not want to do that any more than I would want to do it or Bob Rae will have to do it, but again it is called reality. It cannot be dodged. We cannot duck it any longer.
The interesting thing is that government in a sense reflect society as a whole. There is a strange chemistry that works out, that sorts itself out at the end of the day. If we look at government debt in this country in relation to Gross Domestic Product, do you know where we are in terms of percentages? We are right about at the 80 per cent range. In other words, with all the goods and services bought and sold and everything produced in this country, at the end of the day, we are right up there on the debt side, to about 80 per cent, which is very high.
On the provincial, municipal and federal sides of the equation it totals about 80 per cent. The interesting thing is that in the private sector we are almost at the same number. The other interesting thing about this whole equation is that on the individual side of it, individual consumer debt, you and I as citizens of the country are just about at the same percentage level.
Governments over the years have forgotten where those tax dollars came from and have just continued to overspend in these last 25 years. Finally we have premiers, prime ministers, cabinets and governments from coast to coast that realize we have to take control of this thing. Regardless of whether it is an NDP government in B.C. or a Fiberal government in Newfoundland, from coast to coast the premiers have finally decided that we have to work together on this matter to bring it back down to reality. If that means that we have to cut services or increase taxes to get it back on the road to recovery, that is what we are going to do. That is what the premiers are saying. It has nothing to do with politics, but it has a whole lot to do with reality. That is what this government is doing.

March 26, 1992
Supply
Our increases to the provinces have continued and will continue, but we are entering that part of the equation that has been missing for many years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments as there is not enough time.
It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 81(15) to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
Accordingly the first question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Supply
++NAYS
Anawak
Blondin
Campbell (South West Nova)
Couture
Dick
Hughes
Keyes
Maheu
McKnight
Proud
Rompkey
Tardif
Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Valcourt
Beatty
Caccia
Collins
DeBlois
Hockin
Kempling
Landry
McGuire
Pickard
Richardson
Speller
Tobin
Himer (Vancouver Quadra) Wood
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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



[Stage Direction]
Anawak
Blondin
Campbell (South West Nova) Couture
Dick
Hughes
Keyes
Maheu
McKnight
Proud
Rompkey
Tardif
Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Valcourt
Beatty
Caccia
Collins
DeBlois
Hockin
Kempling
Landry
McGuire
Pickard
Richardson
Speller
Tobin
Tbrner (Vancouver Quadra) Wood
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C), 1992-93
Harvie Andre: That the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1992, laid upon the table Monday, March 9, 1992, be
concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find there might be a disposition within the House to apply the vote which has just been taken on division to the introduction of the supply bill, the second reading, the clauses of the supply bill, concurrence at report stage, and third reading of the supply bill.
Before doing so, I would just like to direct a question to the government House leader as to whether the bill is in its usual form.


Harvie Andre: The bill is in its usual form, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion and the response of the government House leader. Is the House in agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Harvie Andre: that Bill C-65, an act for granting to Her Majesty
certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1992, be read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time, read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
* *
*

Harvie Andre: That this House concur in Interim Supply as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $13,987,844,162.99 being composed of:
(1)	three-twelfths ($9,905,754,038.00) of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, which were laid upon the Table Thursday, February 27, 1992, and except those items below:
(2)	eleven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Energy, Mines and Resources Vote L15, Transport Vote 15, and Treasury Board Vote 10 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates, $198,390,500.00;
(3)	ten-twelfths of the total of the amount of Agriculture Vote 25, (Schedule B) of the said Estimates, $413,341,666.67;
(4)	nine-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Public Works Vote 15, and Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates $353,018,250.00;
(5)	seven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Labour Vote 15 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates, $1,146,833.33;
(6)	six-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 10 and 45, and Labour Vote 5, and Solicitor General Vote 5 and Transport Vote L55 (Schedule E) of the said Estimates, $174,068,000.00;
(7)	five-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Agriculture Vote 15, and Communications Vote 50, and Environment Vote 1, and Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 15, L25, 30 and 50, and Transport Vote 1 (Schedule F) of the said Estimates, $1,800,393,708.34; and
(8)	four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Agriculture Votes 10 and 20, and Communications Votes 30, 35, 75 and 100, and Employment and Immigration Vote 20, and Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 35, and Industry, Science and Technology Votes 20 and 25, and Justice Vote 1, and National Health and Welfare Vote 15 and Secretary of State Vote 25, and Supply and Services Votes 1 and 5 (Schedule G) of the said Estimates, $1,141,731,166.65.
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993.
March 26, 1992


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Considering the time of day, I wonder if you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote that we have just taken to the introduction of supply Bill C-66, to the second reading of the supply bill, to the clauses in the supply bill, the concurrence at report stage of the bill, third reading of the supply bill, as well as to the deferred division on Bill C-61.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we are going to think about it, but in the meantime I am wondering if the government House leader could indicate to the House as to whether or not the bill is in the usual form, and we will agree with the suggestion by my colleague to the left.

March 26, 1992
Supply


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the proportions requested in the bill are intended to provide all necessary requirements for the Government of Canada up until June 30, 1992. In no instance is the total amount of any item being released by the bill. The form of the supply bill is the usual one of interim supply bills.
The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when it comes up for consideration in committee. The usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion and the House has heard the government House leader. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Harvie Andre: that Bill C-66, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1993, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Harvie Andre: that the bill be read the second time.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Hawkes	Anawak	BeattyHogue	Blondin	CacciaHudon	Campbell (South West Nova)	CollinsJelinek	Couture	DeBloisJourdenais	Dick	HockinLarrivee	Hughes	KemplingLopez	Keyes	LandryMalone	Maheu	McGuireMartin (Lincoln)	McKnight	Pickard
March 26, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Proud
Rompkey
Tardif
Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Valcourt
Richardson
Speller
Tobin
Turner (Vancouver Quadra) Wood
Supply
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-98
++NAYS
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Harvie Andre: that the bill be concurred in.



[Stage Direction]
Beatty
Caccia
Collins
DeBlois
Hockin
Kempling
Landry
McGuire
Pickard
Richardson
Speller
Tobin
Tbrner (Vancouver Quadra) Wood
Harvie Andre: that the bill be read the third time and passed.



[Stage Direction]
Anawak
Blondin
Campbell (South West Nova)
Couture
Dick
Hughes
Keyes
Maheu
McKnight
Proud
Rompkey
Tardif
Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Valcourt
Beatty
Caccia
Collins
DeBlois
Hockin
Kempling
Landry
McGuire
Pickard
Richardson
Speller
Tobin
Timer (Vancouver Quadra) Wood
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
* *
*

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-61, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year commencing on April 1, 1992, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth) moved: that Bill C-289, an act to provide that Remembrance Day be included as a holiday in Public Service collective agreements, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure and an honour for me to have had this bill drawn. For those who are perhaps watching and do not know the process here, private members' bills are submitted and a draw takes place. From that draw some bills are picked which are votable motions. I have been extremely lucky in this particular instance that this bill has been drawn as a votable motion.


An hon. member:: Perhaps it was lucky for the 700,000 Legionnaires across Canada as well.


Ronald MacDonald: My colleague says: "Perhaps it was lucky for the 700,000 Legionnaires across Canada as well".
I want to go through what the intent of this bill is. It is a very short bill. It is Bill C-289 and the effect of this bill is quite simple.

March 26, 1992
Private Members' Business
The effect of the bill is that every collective agreement entered into pursuant to the Public Service Staff Relations Act shall do a few things. First, Remembrance Day is to be a holiday. Second, no employee in a bargaining unit shall be required to work on Remembrance Day unless it is essential for the public safety or public interest that the work be done on that day. Third, an employee who is required to work on Remembrance Day shall receive extra remuneration or benefit in respect thereof.
A lot of people would ask is that not the case already? It certainly was what I thought had been the case up until about a year ago.
Let us go back and talk a little bit first about what is Remembrance Day and why we honour those who have served and have given the supreme sacrifice of their lives in the pursuit of peace through Canada's Armed Forces.
Remembrance Day is celebrated on November 11. Remembrance Day services take place at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. That was the exact time in 1918 when World War I ended. For a period of time, between 1923 and 1931 or 1932, it was called Armistice Day. It was commemorated at the same time as Thanksgiving.
That changed in 1931 when there was an act of Parliament called the Holidays Act that recognized November 11 as a holiday, as it did with two other holidays. Therein lies some of the concern and some of the confusion and most of the problem.
A holiday does not really have any legal weight when dealing with collective agreements entered into by the Government of Canada under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. That is part of the problem.
Remembrance Day was not recognized in 1931 through the Holidays Act just to give people a day off to go to the beach or to have a long weekend. That is not the intent of the Remembrance Day. The intent of Remembrance Day is clear. It is for Canadians to honour by way of a special day those individuals who gave their lives in the pursuit of peace through the Canadian Armed Forces.
I want to give a few little statistics here just so it is clear for everybody. During World War I, Canada had a lot of troops that served overseas. Of those troops that served overseas, there were approximately 60,000 who
lost their lives. In World War II, there were over one million Canadians, close to 1.1 million Canadians who served overseas. A substantial number of them gave the supreme sacrifice of their lives.
Although there were fewer individuals, men and women, who lost their lives in World War II, it was still a tragic event. Young men and women who had chosen to serve their country in a time of need, collectively to stop the Nazi movement through Europe in an effort to go and preserve peace and give freedom back to oppressed peoples, to stop a horrible war, they went and paid the supreme sacrifice.
There were many mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers who lost their most precious loved ones during those conflicts.
Finally in the last year the Korean war was recognized as a war and those who served as full veterans. In the Korean war, 312 Canadians paid the supreme sacrifice. They never returned.
Remembrance Day was a day to remember those who gave the supreme sacrifice, who gave their lives. It was also a time for Canadians to set aside everything and reflect on the horrors of war. It was a time for Canadians to sit down and remember clearly that the price of peace is eternal vigilance.
I do not have to remind anybody in this Chamber that just in the last few years we had to debate a war. Not in the 1950s or 1960s, but we had a debate on the 1990s war in the Persian Gulf.
As a member from Dartmouth I know where most of the men and women who serve in the Canadian Navy on the east coast are stationed. We have the naval air support wing and CFB Shearwater and the Sea King helicopters.
I was one of those individuals who went down on the shores of Halifax harbour and watched with a great deal of pride but a lot of fear, as we sent our men and women from the Canadian Armed Forces into a potential theatre of war. We were lucky this time because in that war they all came back. They all came back, by the grace of God and a lot of skill.
But Remembrance Day is a special day. It is a day when we should always remember those who have gone before us.
March 26, 1992

The problem that we have is one that occurred about two years ago during the collective bargaining process between Canada Post and one of its unions.
It was a tough negotiation process. Both sides were entrenched in their positions and it was not coming along very well. It became the subject of an article which was reported in the news that Canada Post had indicated that Remembrance Day was a negotiable holiday for the employees of Canada Post. That shocked almost everybody. It certainly shocked the employees. It shocked the
700,000	veterans around this country, Legion members, that Remembrance Day might be a bargaining chip that can be bargained away during the collective bargaining process, particularly in agreements under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The federal government, in negotiating contracts, did not have any legal obligation to ensure that Remembrance Day was a statutory paid holiday. Indeed, there was no weight in law that compelled any government or anybody negotiating on behalf of the government not to negotiate away Remembrance Day. I always thought it was a given.
My father, who is a veteran, served overseas and was wounded twice. He actually served with Dan MacDonald, the former minister of veterans affairs for P.E.I. He was with the hon. Dan MacDonald when Dan lost his arm and his leg in Italy. I called my father. My father said: "This is ridiculous. Of course Remembrance Day is a statutory holiday, particularly in the federal civil service".
But that is by convention, not by statute. It is a difficult issue for some of us to grapple with because I did not believe it. We checked with the department and they were not sure. So we checked with the Library of Parliament. Sure enough, it came back that Remembrance Day, although it is a holiday under the Holidays Act, is not necessarily a day that has to be given as a paid holiday in collective agreements negotiated under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, or indeed under any other act like the Canada Labour Code.
Clearly what this bill tries to do is not to change the status quo because luckily until now the status quo has been that it has always been negotiated as a holiday to be celebrated on November 11. But what this bill does is to ensure that it will always be a holiday in federal Public
Private Members' Business
Service contracts, and that that holiday will always take place on November 11.
Picture it: The further we get away from World War I and World War II and the Korean war, the further we get away from those particular awful periods in our history, the less likely it becomes that the public is going to honour Remembrance Day the way that it was originally meant to be done. We all know that.
When I went to school, when I was growing up in Cape Breton Island, I clearly remember that Remembrance Day was one of the biggest days of the year. It was not a day that was a holiday. It was a day that in the weeks leading up to it we did essays, there were always poster contests and essay contests. We had people from the Legion who came in and talked about the war.
Then Remembrance Day itself was a big day. It was the biggest day in my town of New Waterford, because on Remembrance Day there was the biggest parade and everybody came out. Everybody came out because that little town in World War II, had the highest rate of enlistment per capita of any town in the British Commonwealth, in the British Empire.
It was a big day because there were a lot of families in that town who lost loved ones. There were a lot of people like my father, for whom Remembrance Day was the best day and the worst day of the year.
It was the best day of the year because he felt proud he had served and that his community, even in all those years after the war would still come out and honour him and his colleagues.
But it was a sad day for him. It was a day when he had to stand with his buddies and after the services, after the march and after the parade, they would go back into the Legion and sit down and shed a few tears and tell a few stories, because they lost some of their best friends. They were in slick trenches next to their best friends in the world when they lost their lives. Those memories are never, ever forgotten by those who served.
This bill is timely. There is one little problem with this bill. I thought most members of this House would be prepared to put a piece of legislation in place, in the spirit of co-operation in this House. It is something that clearly does not cause the federal treasury any further encumbrances.

March 26, 1992
Private Members' Business
It is not a partisan issue. But it clearly sends a message from the Parliament of Canada to those men and women who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces, to the families of those who have given the supreme sacrifice in fighting world wars and in Korea.
The message is that we do remember and we are prepared to take unusual steps, such as this bill, a one-page bill. It simply says: 'You do not have to worry. As the world changes and as we get further and further and further from those world wars and the Korean war, because the federal government is going to make sure that at some future point we do not have to worry about Remembrance Day being negotiated away so that somebody has an extra day in the middle of the summer, so it is more attractive to trade that day for some other benefit".
That is not why Remembrance Day was part of the Holidays Act. It was not so that someone got a benefit. It was so that we would all remember the horrors of war and to give thanks that we live in a country that is peaceful. Most of all, it is that we remember those young men and women who gave their lives in the pursuit of peace on behalf of Canada. That is clearly what the bill does. It does not do any more nor does it do any less than that.
I just want to point out a couple of other things because some members are still saying to me: "Are you sure this is not covered? Are you sure that under the Holidays Act the negotiators for the government through the Public Service Commission does not have to give it?" No, they do not have to give it.
In clause M20.01, it says this is a negotiated item. This is what was negotiated. It says: "Subject to clause M20.02 the following days shall be designated paid holidays for employees". It goes through the list and (h) is Remembrance Day.
If this was in law already it would not have to be a negotiated clause in the collective master agreement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada. This is the master agreement. It is a negotiable holiday. I do not think anybody in this House thought it was a negotiable holiday.
Treasury Board has some concerns, so I am told, and I understand it. Treasury Board says: "Well, we do not know that we should support this bill. Not because it changes the status quo, but it may tie our hands in the future from negotiating things in the collective bargaining process". That is exactly what I am trying to do. There are some crazy trends going on out there.
Remember that it was the post office, a Crown corporation that said in negotiations a year and a half ago that this was a negotiable item. The post office was the first to put it on the table. Maybe at some future time, when this government or future governments are having difficulty with the Public Service unions in the country it will say: "No, we are not going to give you Remembrance Day. We are going to hold Remembrance Day over your head until you give us something back".
It goes completely against the intent of the original legislation. It goes completely against the declaration of Armistice Day back in the 1920s. It certainly goes against the spirit of Canadians who have chosen over the years to keep Remembrance Day sacred.
Treasury Board is afraid this might create a precedent. Somehow somebody else is going to come in with another day and say: "We are going to make sure this is a compulsory statutory holiday that is in law and is non-negotiable".
That is a ridiculous argument. Remembrance Day is a special holiday. There is none other like it in Canada. We have the July 1 holiday. That is a very special day for us in this country. We have Christmas and we have some other holidays as well.
This is the one day that is not meant as a celebratory day. It is meant as a reflective day. We have to remember that it is there in honour of those individuals who gave their lives for this country. It is why it is called Remembrance Day. That is why it is not veterans' day. It is Remembrance Day, clearly.
The Treasury Board's concerns are a little deeper than that as well. We are trying to address this because I know that sometimes bureaucrats get on these things and think if it comes from a Liberal and they are working for the Tory government that they automatically have to find reasons why they cannot pass these things.
I understand that. These things happen. It is a partisan place. This is not a partisan bill, and I want to make that clear. Every member in this Chamber has a legion, as least one, in the riding. Some members have as many as nine. Every legion in the country that has been apprised of this bill has fully supported the intent of the bill. The president of the Dominion Command has written to the
March 26, 1992

three leaders and has written to the minister involved, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, indicating that he wants the members of this place to support this bill, not because it gives the legion anything that it did not think it already had, but because it makes sure that it does not lose what it thought it already had.
Legion members, every year when they go down to the cenotaphs on November 11, in many towns, villages and cities across this country, find that fewer and fewer people come out. In some parts of this country, the shopping malls are still open on November 11. This bill does not seek to change that, but it says the federal government, the Government of Canada, will make that Remembrance Day will not fall by the wayside as a bargaining chip in future collective agreements that come under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The Treasury Board is concerned that if this goes into law, it will remove the ability of concerned parties to structure benefit levels. Remembrance Day is a holiday for virtually all public sector employees. This bill is not designed to alter benefit levels or change anything like that. It is an effort to by statute ensure that the status quo does not change. That is it. That is all it does.
The Treasury Board is also concerned that this bill, if passed, would mean that thousands of non-unionized public servants would not be affected by it because of taxable collective agreements. The Government of Canada currently treats those non-unionized management personnel the say way, when it gives its holidays out, as it does its unionized personnel. It is a bogus argument.
The government is concerned most of all that if this bill passes it is going to set a precedent and that all kinds of other special interest groups are going to come in here and try to tie the hands of the Treasury Board and say: "Here are the days that you cannot negotiate that are going to be in law and you are going to have to give them to your public servants".
I urge the members of this House to do the right thing. It is not because it is my bill. Anyone could have put this forward. We all have legions. We have recently debated war, and some members of this Chamber, one of whom is the member from New Brunswick, even had children
Private Members' Business
who served in the Persian Gulf war. It is pretty close to us right now.
There is something we can do here that will show that this Chamber does work, that it is not always highly partisan and that it does recognize the contribution of those who have served the country through our Canadian Armed Forces. I am asking members of all political stripes in this House to look at this bill and see if we can put a very positive statement out from this House that is currently the subject of much criticism by the public. The members of this House can work together and pass legislation which will be of benefit to all Canadians and make all Canadians proud of the service that has been rendered by the men and women who have served in the wars in which Canada has participated.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Dartmouth on his reference to my son.
It is a good point to pick up on this debate. I am not sure how old I look to the folks back home. I am not that old. I think I am the only member in this House who had a son who served on the ground in the Persian gulf war. He is only 22. I can remember the night that I had to make a big decision as to whether I vote in favour of us entering that conflict. It was probably one of the most difficult votes that I have had to take as a member of Parliament. I sided with the government and I sided in our defence of freedom and democracy and for the things we always stood for as a country. I am very proud of having voted in that way. I am very proud of what my son did in that conflict.
Now he is a veteran of a foreign war which was brought to my attention by the Minister of Veteran's Affairs one day. It is strange when he put it in that context; my son is now a veteran of a foreign war. It has a certain ring to it. Reflecting on what the member for Dartmouth mentioned, there is no group of people in Canadian society that we have higher regard for than those men and women who served us so well overseas during World War 1, World War 11, and the Korean War. We have a special place in our hearts for all those men and women. It is important for us to recognize that this evening as we debate this bill.

March 26, 1992
Private Members' Business
Their role was a very special one. We recognize in a very special way those respective roles in those wars. There is no group of men and women in the world that received more from the respective governments than the men and women who are veterans in this country.
In this moment in our history when we are struggling to keep this country together and maintain the Canadian unity we all desire, there is no group of people working harder than us for individual Canadians in the Canadian Legion. In my own riding, I have had numerous legions. As the members said, all of us will have at least one legion. I suppose if I added them up, there would be dozens of legions in my riding. It is a very rural riding and very wide spread. Just about every little town and village has its own legion. They have just done some remarkable things back in my riding in this Canadian unity debate. They set up their own little committees and their own task forces to examine Canadian unity and what it means to them.
I have tabled in this House some of their papers, some of their reports, on Canadian unity which were considered by our committee and have been sent to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. They are very reflective. They could only come from a group of men and women that had the sense of determination and search for freedom as in World War 1 and World War 11. These people certainly carry their share of a load in this country. I am speaking again for every constituency in this country.
What the hon. member is suggesting in his bill does nothing to heighten that level of observance for Remembrance Day. That is the thing we have to remember. It does nothing, because we observe it as no other country in this world does. Remembrance Day is for all the right reasons, because we know the sacrifices they have made and given for their country. In many cases they have given their lives. What it would amount to is a legislative benefit, and that is where I have a problem. A legislative benefit simply means one thing. There is a cost attached to it. If you are talking about sacrifices and costs, we can have an emotional argument which we will all accept. There is no cost too great for those people who served us. No one disagrees with that.
It does not heighten our awareness of that very special day.
Within the federal bureaucracy, the Public Service, there is a dollar attached to that recognition. At a time when all Canadians have had enough with taxes and government expense, what do we do? That is the question that we have to ask ourselves.
The best thing to do, obviously, is to pass this thing if we had no other considerations to make; just stand up and pass it, because it is the thing that would make us feel better at the end of the day.
With government comes responsibility, and it almost goes back to where I left off before we had our recorded votes this evening. With government comes responsibility, and governments for the first time are recognizing that every time we stand up in this House and pass something, no matter how small or how big, if it is a money bill, there is a price attached to it that the Canadian taxpayers have to pay. I guess we all pay because there is only one taxpayer, as I reminded you earlier today. There is only one.
That is where we have to reflect on this thing. What are we doing if we pass it? We are just putting a little bit more of a burden on the Canadian taxpayers.
Having been in business for a number of years before I arrived here, and most of the time strictly in sales in which you have to go out and make it happen yourself, every time there is a holiday and the country shuts down in a sense, it has something to do with productivity. We lose a days work or there is a day that the Canadian taxpayer has to make up for. There are only so many working days in the year.
We can count the number of government employees we have in this country. Let me go through some of those numbers. They are astounding figures. There are more than 210,000 federal employees, 187,000 of whom are unionized. The annual payroll of these employees is $7 billion.
With other considerations taken in, it comes to a total figure of something like $8.3 billion. Out of that, and this is reflective of this government and what we do for our Armed Forces, $4.2 billion is paid annually to the Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
There we go. One does not have to be a genius in mathematics to calculate what the cost would be. That is the part I want to emphasize. We recognize the holiday. We recognize the contribution of our war veterans like
March 26, 1992

no other country in the world and I am very proud of that.
Before I sit down, recognizing what we have done for our veterans, I want to emphasize what the Minister of Veterans Affairs did today for the veterans of Canada in Halifax. He announced today that this government will soon introduce legislation for Canada's merchant navy veterans. That is one that will bring a smile to the face of the member opposite because he has worked very hard for that. Many of us have.
Recognizing the special role that our merchant marine played in Canada's World War II effort is very good news for all of us.
To conclude, I want to use that announcement today by Mr. Merrithew as an indication of how seriously we take the veterans of this country. As I began, there is no group of people that has dedicated more or done more for the country than that particular group of people.
I am very pleased with what we have done as a government and I look forward to a continuation of this debate.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this debate. In doing, so I want to start out by complimenting the member for Dartmouth on his initiative. He said in his opening remarks that any member could have done this and that is true, but he did it. I think he deserves a lot of credit from all sides of the House for this initiative.
It is an important bill because in a lot of ways Canada is slowly forgetting why we gather on November 11. It is because at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month we pause to remember those who fought for Canada. A lot of people fought and died.
When I hear the hon. member across the floor say that there is a cost associated with this bill, a cost associated with ensuring that at the very least federal public employees have the day off so that should they choose to, they can join members of Parliament at the cenotaph to remember and to lay wreaths, I regret the hon. member made that kind of comparison. The cost in human lives in World War I, World War II, the Korean
Private Members' Business
war and, may I add, some of our peacekeeping initiatives as a nation cannot be measured in dollars and cents.
On the other hand, this Bill C-289 takes the monetary aspect of Remembrance Day off of the bargaining table. Neither side can use Remembrance Day as a bargaining chip to deal with wage increases or fringe benefits or working conditions or what have you. That is the underlying significance of this private member's initiative.
I would ask government members, assuming that what we just heard from their member who spoke is symptomatic of their feeling about this proposal, to reconsider.
On the other hand, I would have preferred the member, and again the onus is on me because I have not done it, to bring forward a bill that makes it a national holiday, that forces all of us to lay down our tools to remember.
I can say to you that on Remembrance Day at the cenotaph in Thunder Bay, and I am sure it is the same in Dartmouth, Winnipeg, Victoria and Iqaluit, that members of our Royal Canadian Legions will talk about why the school kids have to be in school today and why the mall is open. They are pleased that the federal public employees have the day off. They are pleased that provincial employees have the day off. They are pleased that the municipal employees have the day off. They are pleased that those members of that bargaining unit, in conjunction with their employer, have decided to make that day a holiday. In effect, they have traded off a day off to remember for some monetary or language aspect of their collective agreement. As we know, at the bargaining table you do not get something for nothing.
This is an important bill. It is important to all of us who recognize what those men and women did for us in the three major wars and the gulf and the peacekeeping initiatives which they are still involved in. We have a responsibility to them and the memory of them to set aside a day to remember them and to celebrate the democracy that we have because they gave their lives or they gave up an arm or leg or whatever. We all know them and I suspect we all have them in our own family. Members have heard me speak in this House before about my father who was a member of the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, captured at the landing of Dieppe, and spent 32 months in a Nazi prison camp.

March 26, 1992
Private Members' Business
There are all sorts of stories like that. Yes, we hear about them on Remembrance Day. Sometimes the stories are a little embellished, as good story tellers are wont to do, but there is also a tear in the eye. It is an important day and we should recognize it as something more than to be bargained for at the bargaining table.
Look at the young people, the children of the baby boom who come down with their teachers to the cenotaph, who had been instructed in the history of World War I, World War II, the Korean war and, I suspect now, slowly they will be instructed about the gulf. They look in awe at these, dare I say it, old men in their legion uniforms marching, still in step, as they make their way to the cenotaph to honour their comrades. The very least that we should do is ensure that it is not a matter for the bargaining table.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise this evening to support this bill. I wish to congratulate my college from Dartmouth on the tremendous presentation he made here tonight. I do not think we really need to add that much to what he has said to convince people in this House that this bill needs to be supported.
I am seconding the motion for this bill mainly because I believe the the six legions in my riding would like me to stand in my place here tonight and to support this bill. I am sure that all legions in my province of Prince Edward Island and all Islanders know or remember what our veterans have gone through and deserve.
I would like to also congratulate our present Minister of Veterans Affairs for his announcement today in Halifax where he announced that the merchant marine veterans would come under veterans affairs legislation. This is something that is very long overdue. These people served in dangerous waters around the world, especially during the Second World War. I congratulate the government and the minister for finally recognizing the contributions these people made.
The previous speaker said that people are forgetting. Indeed, that is correct. I know the veterans in my riding are very afraid that people will eventually forget entirely the great sacrifice which they and their friends made in the first war, the second war, the Korean war. There is a fear among veterans that one of these days in the not-too-distant future, people will forget entirely and their great sacrifice will be something which we may have read about in history books when we were kids.
We have to remember that while they are viewed as old men today, there are still a few First World War veterans living. There are still quite a number of Second World War veterans living. The thing you have to remember about these old men, these old soldiers, these veterans is that when they went to war, they were kids. They were 17, 18, 19, 20 years old and they were put in a life and death position where they had to not only defend themselves and their comrades, but they were there with the attitude and the belief that they were not there as a waste of time or they were not there in vain. They were there to defend a great principle, the principle of democracy and freedom in this world. I have an 18-year old son. If he would have been 18 at the time of the First World War or 18 years old at the time of the Second World War, he would have been signing up to go overseas to possibly give up his life. It is quite a thing to contemplate. Yet many of these people who signed up were under age.
I remember being in Vimy a year ago last November. There was a celebration there with the oldest Canadian veteran of the First World War who is now living in Maine. He had signed up when he was 15 years old. He somehow got into the First World War when he was 15 years old. To think that these people were so young. Most of these people who died were basically kids. They were not people in their 30s or 40s. These were what we call today teenagers and very, very young men who were just beginning their lives.
That one of these days that we as Canadians will forget the contribution that they made is something that we should not contemplate.
This bill is a beginning. I disagree with the government member from Carleton-Charlotte who tied this in as a cost to the taxpayer. If we are just talking about civil
March 26, 1992

servants, they already have the day off through negotiations. To take it out of the negotiating process is not adding a penny to the cost of Remembrance Day.
We are forgetting that no wars of any great magnitude have been fought in this country. It is our people who went to Europe and to Asia to fight these wars. It is the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge which was the battle as far as Canada is concerned. It was a watershed battle where we discovered our nationhood in many historians' views. We became of age in the Battle of Vimy Ridge 75 years ago.
As I said, I had the pleasure of visiting that grand memorial we have there. All around the Belgian plains and all around the French fields of Flanders you will see many monuments and many graveyards from the First and Second World Wars. The Europeans have had a long and bloody history that I guess our forefathers thought we were going to avoid when we came to North America to start a new life, that we would be no longer embroiled in the battles and the bloody wars of Europe. Such was not our fate.
In the fields of Flanders I think there are still five Frenchmen a year who are killed because of munitions that are coming up through the ground. Farmers who are harrowing and ploughing run over this still live ammunition and get blown up. There is on average still five French citizens a year who die because of the First World War.
You will see monuments there from South Africa and from the enemy which at that time was Germany. They have some fantastic monuments there remembering their dead. The thing about the Europeans is the respect, the admiration and the time they take to come to our memorials. The great respect that they had for the Canadian soldier is still there. They and their ancestors have gone through bloody wars. They have seen their country ravaged. They are very thankful for the efforts that the Canadians made to maintain their freedom, not just our freedom. It was the freedom of the Europeans, the freedom of France, the freedom of England and the freedom of all Europe. They still remember with great reverence the sacrifice that our Canadian soldiers made.
In conclusion, I ask this House to take this bill very seriously and to give a lot of thought to remembering our Legionnaires and our veterans when we are voting on this bill. I think if we do that we will be supporting this bill and we will be taking the first step into guaranteeing
Private Members' Business
that this Remembrance Day will always be remembered by the Canadian people.


Mr. William Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I am very pleased to take part in the birth of this veterans bill, as we may call it. We have to recognize the veterans.
We can be very proud of the role that they have played after the wars also. Probably when they returned, they came into a new world, after seeing a lot of destruction and everything else on the battlefields. They came back with the many experiences they had during the wars over in Europe and in other wars that they had participated in.
They brought back a lot of insight. They were great builders and have been great builders of our country. We can honour the dead but we cannot bring them back. I think that probably this is something we should be doing, we should show through our legions and through our other organizations what the veterans have done. Probably to many people this would be a lost history if we do not do something about it. This is why I am supporting this bill.
I think our veterans over the years have made contributions in many, many ways that has made Canada the nation that it is today from sea to sea.
We cannot look at just any one part of our country. Our contribution in the world wars, my friends, has been great. There is no one individual, no one party, or anyone else who can say we did this and we did that. We did it collectively, my friends, and we can be proud of this. We are proud in the eyes of the world, proud of the contribution that Canadians have made.
We are proud in the eyes of the world of what our legions have done to promote many things in our society. Look at the contribution they make to the younger generations, what they have done for our senior citizens, what they have done for all segments of our community.
You can go into rural Ontario, you can go into metropolitan Toronto, or any other major city in our country that you may wish to speak of, and I have been in to a lot of them. I have been to the legions in western Canada, I have been to the legions in northwestern Ontario, I have been in to the legions in the maritimes. We are proud. I am proud, very proud to attend a legion rally or function, wherever it may be, for the spirit that is behind it. This spirit is not enhanced in any one area, it is

Private Members' Business
a broad spirit, it is the spirit of the Canadian soldier in his war effort.
This is what we have to talk about, my friends. We have to be proud of that. We have to tell that to this growing world which is changing so very fast, changing every day; We have got to instil in them too what our soldiers have done in the wars in foreign countries, their contributions, as I have said before, to this great Canadian nation of ours.
They have helped toward building Canada into a better place to be. They have helped in fostering some group or some child who probably has had some obstacle in life that has prohibited them from taking part in the great society we have, in sports and in many other things. You see the wheelchairs the legion has provided and the programs they promote for making wheelchairs available to our seniors and our disabled.
This is why I think that we all should be very proud of our Canadian Legions. We all should be very proud when we attend Armistice Day celebrations, which our legions take a big part in. We should be proud in the community functions that would not exist without the Royal Canadian Legion.
This is why I can sponsor this bill. This is why I can speak on this bill. I want to speak on this bill in the spirit that encompasses our great country of Canada. In encompassing that great vast area that we are proud of and we talk about, we have to think we are not the only producers of our lifestyle. We have to think of these other organizations that contribute so much to making Canada what we are all so proud of today, the envy of our great nation to the south, the Americans. They would love to have some of the things that we have had and we have at this time which they probably for some reason or other cannot afford to have.
These are things that a small nation can take pride in and shows the spirit of its people. This is something we have to boast about.
We cannot leave the Canadian Legion aside when we speak about of the great spirit of our country. They have been a big part of it and we wish them to be in the future.
I hopefully will be participating at some other stage in this bill. I want to congratulate the sponsor and I think, as others have said, that it is probably something that is long overdue.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-289. I want to congratulate my colleague from Dartmouth for presenting this bill before the House and my colleague from Egmont for seconding it, which is an act to provide that Remembrance Day be included as a holiday in Public Service collective agreements.
This bill is about the traditional values that this country is known for. This bill is a tribute, as the previous speaker said, to the spirit of the Canadian soldier, the spirit of integrity, the spirit of someone who was there to make sacrifices.
When my colleague from Egmont talked earlier about the fact that some of our soldiers went over to serve in World War II at the ages of 17 and 18, he was so right. My father was a member of the RCAF. He was 17 years old when he was sent over to England and I remember him telling me on more than one occasion of his flights in Halifaxes and Lancasters, in planes that rattled and shook and the fear that they had, the nervousness that they had when they were flying over Europe.
I think that today it is almost impossible for us to imagine what it was like. I have a son 15 years old. I cannot imagine two more years from now sending him off to fight in a war, flying in a plane like a Halifax or a Lancaster. There would be no way.
It is very important for all of us to make sure that the very special day, Remembrance Day, is enshrined in the basic culture of this country. What we do not want to do is create a situation where this day can be diminished in any way, shape or form.
As the speaker said previously there is really no extra cost to the taxpayer. We are already giving this day to public servants to celebrate and bear witness. There is no additional cost.
By passing this bill we will enshrine Remembrance Day in a way that it cannot be diminished in any way, shape or form.

As time goes on and there will be fewer and fewer people with us who have that very special feeling of remembrance for those experiences in World War I, World War II, or the Korean war.
We are going to need the instrument, the Public Service of Canada, to make sure that memory is carried on. In remembering that day, we are also remembering values that are so important to making sure that the character of this nation stays strong.
This bill is on behalf of all of those people who have served in those wars for Canada, fighting for democracy, freedom and peace. In my own riding I know the members of Todd Morden Branch 10, the Royal Canadian Legion and the Greek Veterans Branch 265 would hold me accountable if I did not stand and lend by support on this bill. I am very happy to have had this opportunity.


Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, for several minutes, I have heard touching tributes to our veterans and legionnaires. Of course I share my colleagues' opinions on the importance of remembering what they did.
What I have trouble understanding is that this really has little to do with the bill that was presented. It does not seek to designate a national holiday. That is already done. What it attempts to do is to change collective agreements. It would meddle and decide for the union what should be in the collective agreement, without the agreement of the parties and without considering the federal Public Sector Compensation Act passed by the House of Commons on October 1, 1991. This is an affront to the unions which had hard times last summer, as we all recall.
Furthermore, this bill is a threat to management rights, in that our managers could no longer provide
Private Members' Business
services to the public unless public safety was involved. We have gone from the noble principle of recognizing our veterans and legionnaires to interfering in a labour agreement, and I find that unfortunate.
You will no doubt remember, Mr. Speaker, all the difficulties in applying this principle during a strike and that the Supreme Court had to deal with this question in the air traffic controllers' case nearly 10 years ago.
The worst thing about this bill is that it is unnecessary. To our knowledge, all Public Service collective agreements already provide for Remembrance Day as a paid holiday and any public servant required to work on that day is entitled to overtime. However, no collective agreement restricts management rights as drastically as Bill C-289.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling me that my time is almost up. In conclusion I will say that I am sorry but, as I said at the beginning, this bill has nothing to do with giving our veterans due recognition. If we need such a bill to recognize our veterans, I think that something is missing somewhere. In its programs the government recognizes Remembrance Day, compensates workers for it and ensures that it will always be present in the minds of all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It now being 7.35 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 27,1992