ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Would you call, Madam Speaker, the bills as listed in the Order Paper.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 18--The Housing and Renewal Corporation Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing (Mr. Reimer), The Housing and Renewal Corporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société d'habitation et de rénovation), standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers).

An Honourable Member: Stand.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Bill 19--The Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) and Consequential Amendments Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 19, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), The Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant l'adoption internationale (Convention de la Haye) et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

An Honourable Member: Stand.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Bill 23--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 23, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

An Honourable Member: Stand.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing, and standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster, who has 34 minutes remaining?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure for me to be able to stand and to add a few more words to this particular bill.

Bill 23, as I indicated earlier the last time I stood up, provides for protection from liability for members of different boards who conduct themselves in good faith. The three boards or committees that are made reference to are in fact the Medical Review Committee, the Manitoba Health Board, and the formal inquiry committee.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

At times, government feels that it is necessary to have boards, and these boards are charged with responsibilities that have an impact, a very direct impact, on the lives of many Manitobans. Because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have found that it is in the best interests of board members that do act in good faith to be able to cover or to protect them from lawsuits, if in fact they have acted in good faith, that it is necessary to have legislation of this nature.

When we talk about boards, boards and committees do a wide variety of things and services for the government. A lot has been talked about with respect to the most recent board that has been appointed by government and that, of course, being the emergency services board, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have raised a great deal of concern regarding that particular board and hope to, over the next six, seven days to seek further clarification because we are concerned how these boards will ultimately assist in dictating government policy stands and so forth. The positions that they take have a very dramatic impact on what is going to be happening in our health care facilities throughout the province of Manitoba.

We hope and trust that this particular bill will assist in these boards and committees that I have just listed off and are in favour of seeing this bill going to the committee stage.

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

The question before the House is second reading of Bill 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [agreed]

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of rising to discuss some provisions of this particular bill. I would like to indicate that we, in general, in the New Democratic Party do not have difficulties with most of the provisions of this bill, but we have some very specific concerns. Consequently, unless those concerns can be somehow clarified, we intend to oppose this particular bill.

* (1440)

In general, this bill has been brought forward as a housekeeping bill dealing with some of the administrative matters and, in general, it seems to me from a review and interpretation of this bill that there is not much difficulty. The general provisions in this bill are not a major problem as they apply to allowing the department to have the ability to look at the medical practice of former practitioners as well as extending liability to inquiry committees, boards and other agencies that are involved in health. In fact, in general, we do not have difficulty with that.

I know this particular reading of the bill is not to deal with specifics, but I want to put on the record some of our concerns. Our major concerns are in the final portion of the bill as it relates to the ability of personal care homes to hold funds in trust. We reviewed that particular provision and were somewhat concerned, and we had the occasion to talk with individuals who were involved in administrating personal care homes as well as talking with other people involved in this area, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I also took the step of writing to the minister outlining the concerns that we had with respect to this particular bill, and the minister, to his credit, wrote back to me on September 29 with some explanations.

Now, I know that I am generally precluded by the virtue of the forum of this debate from discussing specifics of the bill, such specifics which will be dealt with at committee stage but, in general, our concern is the ability of personal care homes to hold funds in trust and use the income from those trust accounts for the general use of the residents of that personal care home.

I was very concerned at the prospect and we are very concerned at the prospect of having personal care homes being given the administrative responsibility and powers to handle large sums of money on behalf of residents. I understand and we recognize that in certain cases that already occurs. We also recognize and understand that there are presently regulations in place that limit the volumes and the amounts of funds that can be held in trust and limit the interest income that can be derived from those funds which can, therefore, be used for the other residents.

The point is that at present trust accounts can be held by personal care homes on behalf of residents to a maximum, as I understand it, of $400, and the interest from those particular funds can be used for the benefit of the personal care home.

Our concern is, that particular cap and that particular level can be changed by regulation. Now, the minister indicated to me the changes that were put in place in this bill were recommended by officials who reviewed the bill and said we should put in statute form some of the powers that are presently in regulatory form. That is fine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not have any objection to that.

Our concern is that the levels to be established to be held, the levels of the accounts that can be held and the interest derived therefrom are determined by regulation, and that can be changed at any time by Order-in-Council.

I have to outline, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we on this side of the House are generally quite careful to scrutinize every aspect of change or so-called reform brought in by the government, because, so often, change is brought in under one guise or for one purpose and, in fact, it is being done for other purposes. The many examples, for example, of the multitude of cuts in the health care system are again and again defended by the government as attempts to make the system better when, in fact, they are nothing more than cutting of the system in order to claw back money from the health care sector back into the government's general revenues.

Over and over again, we see massive cuts and changes in programs that, in fact, do not improve the quality of health but, in fact, markedly result in a decline in the quality of health care in this province under the guise of reform, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It is quite understandable why we on this side of the House would be very careful to scrutinize any and all changes that they are invoking by the Department of Health. Therefore, we are very concerned, firstly, by virtue of this bill, that the statutory power will be provided, although it is presently provided to personal care homes to hold these funds in trust accounts and use the interest from these funds for the, quote, betterment of all of the residents.

However, that particular provision can be changed by regulation, which could possibly mean that personal care homes can begin to accumulate funds on behalf of residents and use the interest from those funds for other residents. It might be appropriate at small levels, but it is completely inappropriate when you are dealing with larger sums of money. For example, if a resident should come in with some kind of income or estate in the tens of thousands, or I dare say hundreds of thousands of dollars, and if by regulation the government changed the regulation to take off the $400 cap, therefore, the income from that trust account could be used by the personal care home for, quote, the betterment of residents.

Now, I am not saying that personal care homes would not use the money for the betterment of residents, in general, but I am asking two questions. Firstly, is it appropriate to take funds from an individual who is paying after all massively increased rates to be a resident in that nursing care home as a result of government changes in the past few years to that 46 percent increase in nursing home rates? Is it fair to take that person's money and their life savings and use that in addition to help fund a nursing home? In principle, in fact, is that a correct course of action that more sums of money and that a person's total income be used to fund the nursing home?

Secondly, would there be some operators--and I am thinking specifically of the private, for-profit nursing homes that this government has allowed to expand in the province of Manitoba--is there an opportunity for some of those funds to be used to fund the operating costs of the nursing home, lessen the costs therefore for the proprietor, and therefore increase the profits for the shareholders of that nursing home?

We are diametrically, unequivocally and 100 percent opposed. I guess I cannot stress it in any greater terms, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are opposed to that particular change. With these amendments, that power will be granted and can be changed by Order-in-Council and therein lies our opposition to this particular bill.

Now I hope I have explained clearly our concerns with this bill because there, of course, will be afforded an opportunity when the bill goes to committee for government officials, for the minister and for the public to make representation in this regard and perhaps deal with this fundamental issue. But, notwithstanding the fact that we will have the opportunity to discuss it and perhaps make amendments at committee stage, we want to put on the record very clearly our difficulties with the provisions of the bill as they relate to the utilization of funds that are owned by residents of personal care homes.

* (1450)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there has been in the province of Manitoba in the past few years an increase in the number of personal care home beds. That, of course, had to happen given the massive slashing and cutbacks in beds in the province of Manitoba. In fact, using the department's own figures in its latest annual reports, over 500 hospital beds have been closed in the province of Manitoba. To put that into perspective, I remind members that that would constitute two hospitals in the city of Winnipeg or five to 10 to 20 in rural Manitoba.

So let not members opposite, who love to stand up and talk about other provinces, forget the fact that they have closed the equivalent of two hospitals the size of St. Boniface Hospital. They have closed that many beds, and still they cut. The point is, in order to take care of some of that offload, some of that offload has been recaptured by putting in place these personal care home beds. Now, the majority of these personal care home beds have been for-profit personal care homes. Many friends of the government have had the opportunity of having profit personal care homes open under this particular regime.

That I have to indicate is a problem for us and has always been a problem. Health care is not a field where it should be open willy-nilly to profit making, because those few dollars that the minister always talks about should not be going into the pockets of shareholders, wherever they may be located, when in fact those dollars ought to be going to benefit the health care of Manitobans. One cannot help but be somewhat suspect, therefore, of a provision in this bill that allows personal care homes to have the capacity to utilize funds of residents for the benefit of the home. I hope--

An Honourable Member: They are against that.

Mr. Chomiak: The member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) indicates from his seat that we are against that. I urge him to review the comments I have just made the last few minutes in Hansard in order to understand the situation and, perhaps, he will join us in questioning the wisdom of this particular aspect of this particular bill.

The potential for the utilization of these funds is, I think, both philosophically wrong, structurally wrong and has a potential for a fundamental change in the way that personal care homes are operated and the way that funds are generated for the operation of those particular facilities.

It is fairly clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that with the proliferation of for-profit nursing homes, with the proliferation of for-profit home care services, with the proliferation of for-profit nursing services and with the proliferation of for-profit--good heavens--consulting firms, which are doing very well, I might add, under this regime, the potential for for-profit nursing homes to derive income from this is potentially a problem. Consequently, as a result, we have to be opposed to it.

Unless somehow in legislation the cap can be enforced, which I do not think would be a normal statutory provision, it would be very difficult for us to accept this particular provision in this particular bill because of the fact that by Order-in-Council the government retains the ability to determine what the cap is on these funds and, therefore, at the whim of the provincial cabinet can change the capping provisions and thereby invoking our concerns and thereby causing difficulties, potentially resulting in some of the conclusions that I have posed in my earlier comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, members opposite might suggest that that provision was merely administrative or that provision ought not to be taken out of context or they might suggest, oh, do not worry, we have had that particular Order-in-Council and that particular regulatory cap in place for a number of years, and we will not change it, but I could cite case after case after case in the health care field where members on that side of the House have made one statement and the result was completely the opposite.

Let me cite one example as an example of why we are very suspicious about the motivation of the bringing in of this particular bill. For example, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me talk about the consolidation of pediatric services at one particular hospital. I remember very well comments by the then-Minister of Health and by officials from the government that the consolidation of all pediatric services at Children's Hospital will result in better quality, faster services, et cetera.

Now, there are experts in this case, as opposed to the emergency ward closures case, who talked to me whom I talked to who said that, in fact, that was the case, that the consolidation would work and would improve the quality of service. I give them credit. I did not agree with that, but experts told me that, and there was at least a justifiable argument on the part of the government to say that perhaps that was the case.

But we have found since the consolidation that precisely what we were on this side of the House worried about has happened. They consolidated and closed the wards, placed all of the children at Children's Hospital and then proceeded to cut back the services at Children's Hospital, so that in this Chamber as recently as the summertime, the last sitting of the session, we had to demand and ask of the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to open beds for kids who had no beds, and fortunately, because of public pressure, we were able to do that, and as recently as three weeks ago, we saw the cutback of drug programs to children, and we were again forced to bring it to the attention of the minister to try to change that policy.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what we see and what we hear from the government on health care matters are often two different things. On the children's matter, they said, do not worry, we will consolidate and put all those resources into Children's Hospital and there will be plenty of services, and in actual fact what we saw was, we saw the consolidation, but we saw less funds now going in general to children.

I do not need to begin to talk about what the situation is with respect to the closure of the emergency wards at the community hospitals and the relationship that that has to what the government is saying and what is in fact happening, because in that instance and this instance, the instance of emergency services, I have not found a single expert, I have not found a single person in the health care field who has, in fact, been able to agree with what the government has done.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, so, when we raise concerns in this bill and when we point out to the government that we are very concerned as to what their motives are and where we ultimately may end up at the end of day with regard to this bill, I think we are very, very much justified by recent past developments, history of health care in this province. In fact, events that are happening as we speak with regard to emergency wards clearly demonstrate that we must be wary and we must be questioning of this government's motives at all times with regard to anything that happens in health care. I am sorry to have to say that. I truly wish I did not have to say that, but clearly the track record and developments with regard to health care have been such that we have no choice but to question vigorously every single initiative and every single motive of this government.

As I indicated earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciated the fact that the minister responded to my queries with regard to our concerns regarding this bill but, unfortunately, his response is not sufficient to permit or allow us to pass this bill in the form as it exists.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the bill came out, aside from talking to people who are involved in the personal care home field in the form of administrators and others, I had occasion to talk to individuals who represent seniors groups. I said, in principle--obviously, I have a position on this bill--but, in principle, can you tell me what your view of these changes are? Not to my surprise, they related to me the fact that they were very, very concerned that the government would be providing statutory authority to personal care homes, particularly the profits, to hold and use funds of residents. So those comments of individuals representing seniors organizations solidified our suspicion and underlined our concern and I think justify our opposition to this bill and those particular provisions that have been put into the bill.

* (1500)

Returning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to some of the other provisions of the bill, as I indicated earlier in my comments, in principle there are basically three portions to this bill, the portion dealing with the ability of the government to investigate and deal with former medical practitioners, the second portion of the bill deals with the area of liability from boards, committees and others involved in the health care field, and the third deals with the amendments that we are particularly opposed to, those relating to personal care homes.

One of the reasons that extended liability, I guess, has been added to The Health Services Act is because the government, on our recommendation, I might add, has put in place a number of review committees to deal with some of their less-than-popular and less-than-effective decisions relating to various aspects of home care and various aspects of personal care homes.

The government when they made the massive changes and the massive slashes to Home Care several years ago, and the massive increases to personal care home rates several years ago, we, of course, were very concerned. One of the suggestions we made was that, at the very least, the government ought to put in place committees, ought to put in place a board or independent third party that can deal with these changes. That was not our preferred route. We are strongly on record, of course, as opposing those ill-fated measures.

Nonetheless, the government did, at least, at a minimum, put in place some independent third parties to review these matters and allow the public with at least an opportunity to express their viewpoints in this regard. So in principle, I guess, and I suspect that the proliferation or the increased number of committees that have been put in place require increased liabilities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is incredibly ironic, I think, and a sad commentary in fact that during this session of the Legislature we are dealing with a bill that is largely administrative, dealing with health, and, at the same time, some of the most massive changes to our health care system are going on generally and in secret out of the minister's office as we speak. It is unfortunate that there is not more that has been brought to the floor of this House.

In fact, one would have hoped we would have seen at least in draft form within the context of a bill dealing with The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act, some of the changes so the public of Manitoba could have some ability through their elected members to comment on some of the changes, such changes as the slashing of $20 million over the Health Sciences budget over the next three years, $19 million over the next three years over St. Boniface Hospital, the closure of beds, the closure of the emergency rooms at the community hospitals, the massive changes to the regional board system.

All of these could have been dealt with in a bill of this kind, or at least addressed in draft form so elected members would have an opportunity. Instead, what we have in the bill under The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act are administrative changes. Even those administrative changes, the government cannot get right.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that members opposite have had an opportunity to review the provisions of this bill and perhaps take a second look, and I look forward to an opportunity to discuss these issues in committee, but I can indicate that, for the reasons stated during the course of my comments, we will be opposed to this particular bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Yes, standing in my name, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak at this time.

I want to thank the indulgence of the House in being able to have this matter remain in my name, and I do want to speak on it, because I know we do have some other speakers on this bill, but we do wish to move this bill into committee.

I think it is important to note, as the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) referenced in his remarks, that this is a bill that deals with a number of amendments to The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act, deals particularly in regard to a number of areas. I just want to mention this at the beginning because I think it is important to, first of all, look at the focus of the bill, which looks first of all at prosecutions in terms of offences under this particular act, application to former practitioners, protection from liability, which refers to the members of the board, the medical review committee. Essentially, that is the area we are dealing with in terms of the current bill.

I think it is fairly important as well to note the debate that has taken place thus far on the bill, because I know we have raised questions in regard to both the bill--also not only what is in the bill, but, of course, what is not included. I think that is important, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Quite frankly, I think it is appropriate because today there were some suggestions earlier in Question Period by the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) that I thought were very misguided, were very unfortunate, and that is in regard to the very constructive role that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has played in the debates, the discussions, on health care in this province. I think the member for Kildonan should be commended for his efforts on behalf not only of his constituents but the people of Manitoba for fighting for the medicare system, because, essentially, that is exactly what we are dealing with: the very need to preserve our health care system.

I thought it was unfortunate earlier today, and I think it is something that should be referenced in this specific bill, that the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) suggested that somehow the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) was only speaking for himself, was not talking from the perspective members of the public.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, not only is that not true, I would just suggest that members opposite, particularly the Minister of Health, take the time as we will be doing today, our caucus, at a public meeting in the city to listen to the people of this province. I know it is an issue that is very much one that you have received calls on, I am sure--health care.

Indeed, we are getting the message very clearly from Manitobans, and I think that is something worth noting. It has really crossed the province at the current time. Today, we saw questions involving The Pas. I will be asking questions about the Thompson General Hospital. We have faced cutbacks. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it just seems to be very coincidental that when I speak on issues such as this--there was a bill the other day that I referenced and you, Sir, were in the chair at the same time, something that you have been involved with. And here we are talking about health care--and I know and I say this not only directly but rhetorically that health care is an issue that is of concern--

* (1510)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member that we are dealing with Bill 23. This is not the time to have a general discussion on health care. If the honourable member could be relevant to the bill, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in talking about health care and talking about your own concern about health care, if you are suggesting that it is out of order to reference your own concern about health care, I withdraw that remark unequivocally. I apologize to the House for even suggesting that you are indeed concerned about the overall issue of health care. I thank you for your admonition. I am sorry, but I just could not resist it. It was one of those fortunate sort of circumstances that we--[interjection]

An Honourable Member: Speak to the bill.

Mr. Ashton: Indeed, the minister opposite says speak to the bill. I am wondering specifically what section would he like me to reference, in the general sense, of course, since we cannot reference.

An Honourable Member: Well, I do not really care.

Mr. Ashton: The minister says he does not care.

An Honourable Member: I am not listening anyway.

Mr. Ashton: He is not listening anyway. Well, him and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) share that. I guess that is one of the privileges of sitting in this Chamber for awhile that one can do that and actually say it and get away it. I remember when the Minister of Agriculture said a similar thing in committee a number of years ago.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I only raise that and I encourage any member opposite, in fact, anyone who wishes to hear my comments, or our caucus's comments on any specific section of this bill, any of the basic principles. The government House leader, what would he like specifically I reference to?

An Honourable Member: Section 1.

Mr. Ashton: Section 1. Well, Section 1 deals of course--I cannot mention the section directly, but it does deal with the amendment to C.C.S.M., which are statutes of Manitoba, Continuing Consolidated Statutes, c.H35, and I will not mention the specific reference of the bill; that is not what we do on second reading--but it deals with prosecution within two years. It indicates that a prosecution for any offence under this act or regulations may be commenced not later than two years after and later goes into some detail about prosecutions.

So you see I am referencing the bill very specifically. It is difficult because you only are suppose to deal with the basic principles of the bill. I was referencing in dealing with the basic principles an issue--and I will not reference yourself, Sir, as Deputy Speaker--but I was talking about issues of health care, and what I think Manitobans would expect of us in dealing with a bill that deals with amendments to The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act.

This act deals with a very fundamental act in this province and at a time when we are debating many important national issues--obviously, looking ahead to Monday--I think we have to be talking positively about some of the features that make Canada unique. I really believe that one of those features is basically that we have a health care system that I think is a model for the world. I am sure you know that. I am sure all Canadians know that. That is one of the benefits of Canada.

There are limitations on that, and I want to reference specifically The Health Services Insurance Act. I had a case recently where individuals had moved back to Manitoba and were denied Manitoba Health coverage. I have raised this with the minister. They have since moved to Nova Scotia. They were denied health coverage in Manitoba because they made the mistake of saying, while they had moved back here, which is where they had maintained their address while they were overseas, they were going to be moving to Nova Scotia within a period of several months. I raise this because I think it is important on every single issue to maintain the principle of universal health care coverage no matter where one is resident and no matter where one intends to go.

We are still a country where there are certain basic rights that go with being a Canadian. I believe one of the most basic rights is something that is very unique in comparison, for example, to the United States, and that is that you are covered by health insurance, by what we call the medicare system, no matter where you live in this country. Any landed immigrant, any Canadian citizen is covered by a system that, despite its faults and despite efforts of some governments to restrict that system, the fact is it still is a much more effective system than the system we see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the United States.

That is why, when we are dealing with these amendments, I would hope that we would also look at ensuring strengthening The Health Services Insurance Act to ensure that is put in place and practised. I mentioned the example of the couple who eventually moved to Nova Scotia. They have raised this with the federal Minister of Health, and I think that should be something that should be included. There are a couple of amendments here which deal with protection from liability, for example, that deal with other aspects of The Health Services Act, including prosecution with two years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would suggest it would be well within the bounds of the kind of amendments that we can look at in committee if the government could look at this particular matter. I have corresponded with the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae). I just point out that here is an example of where the basic principle of health insurance is not being provided. Nothing in this bill deals with it in the sense that I wish to see it dealt with.

I want to suggest that we really focus on the health care system and look at some further amendments that I think also could be very much in keeping with the spirit of this bill which presumably the basic element in this bill is to bring in a number of changes, hopefully to improve the application of the act. I will not reference this in terms of the specific bill. I am not trying to anticipate the debate on the bill, but I look at The Health Care Records Act, which we have dealt with in various forms in this Legislature the last number of years, has been dealt with at the level of private members' hour on a number of occasions, has not been passed, has not been accepted by the government and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, once again referencing another debate and another issue, know that governments can and sometimes will take issues that are put forward by private members and I would suggest this would have been very applicable to this particular bill.

It fits in with some of the principles of this bill. I think it is unfortunate some of those principles have not been applied. Bill 23, which deals with the basic issues of health care services but also issues related to health care records could very easily be dealt with by amendments to this particular bill.

Now I wanted to put those comments on the record. I just want briefly to reference a few other areas that I want to express my concern about. That is why, Mr. Deputy Speaker--and I apologize at the beginning of my remarks--I referenced some comments that were made earlier in Question Period because I do think it is important for the government to realize that many Manitobans are concerned about health care, and there are going to be, I am sure, other opportunities when we will discuss some of the significant issues in health care.

I am not going to reference in any detail the questions of the emergency ward closures in Winnipeg or the cuts to rural and northern facilities, because I realize that while the suggestion was put forward by our Health critic, those issues could have been dealt with. Certainly protection of services issues could be dealt with in this particular bill. Obviously, that is not the basic principle that the bill refers to.

I do want to suggest that there are going to be some significant concerns, some significant challenges ahead for us in terms of the health care system. I really believe that the government--which spent obviously a considerable amount of effort bringing in this particular bill, Bill 23; it is one of the 30-odd bills, a fairly small number of bills that we have--obviously, the government feels this is a priority in terms of its legislative agenda.

I want to suggest that, to a certain extent, I think they are missing the boat. I am not sure how much of a priority this is. I am not saying that these amendments do not have some particular impact, but I am not sure how significant they are. I would appreciate, perhaps, even in the wrap-up and debate, comments from the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), because, quite frankly, I think the Minister of Health could deal with some of the questions that are raised and have been raised by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).

I would also point out that one thing that has fallen into disuse in this House, which is an important parliamentary tradition, has been that of ministers, on second reading, completing debate and often answering some of the questions raised in debate. I state that because on many occasions ministers have not participated in debate on second reading. I find it unfortunate, because it used to be the tradition in this House that, if a bill was brought up during that day and it was under the minister's portfolio, the minister was here to hear the debate. On rare occasions the minister would read Hansard to find the comments, but it was also clear that ministers would then respond on second reading.

Some concerns have been raised by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) and will be raised by others, and I think it is important the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) deal with those concerns in his comments on second reading. Quite frankly, I think the whole process of debate in this House on this particular bill would be helped greatly if we had the input not only from the minister but from other government members. I find it unfortunate, as well, and I referenced this the other night on the other bill I mentioned earlier, the fact that it is very rare for government members to participate in debate. I would like to know if these are the priorities of the government, if government members agree with what is in the bill, if government members have suggested amendments.

I do not see anything wrong with that process, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and even, in fact, if government members felt pressured to support the bill and speak in favour of the bill, that is positive, too, because I think then we get more of a real debate in this House. We often have what we call debate on bills, and it becomes a series of speeches which may or may not constitute debate, and particularly when we are dealing with health care.

* (1520)

I want to say I appreciate the latitude you have given members in terms of definition of relevance, because I think that your admonition earlier was a correct one, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do feel it is an important enough issue that there has to be some latitude to develop the context we are dealing with, and I think with health care, it is more particularly the case than perhaps some of the other issues.

This is health care we are dealing with, the largest single expenditure of any provincial government. It is one of the things that makes Canada have the quality of life that it does. We are No. 1, according to the UN, in terms of overall quality of life measures. One of those is health care. It is not that we cannot improve the system, but, you know, it is the bottom line that Canadians do have one of the best health care systems in the world, and I think it is something we should be really proud of.

I would suggest in the next years to come that there are a number of areas we have to look at. We are dealing with service delivery issues in this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that is fairly important. We will raise those concerns. I personally believe that there is a significant role for community hospitals, whether it be in the city of Winnipeg or whether it be in my own community of Thompson or in The Pas or Flin Flon. I am very concerned when I see what I would call the bureaucratization of our health care system, because what I see from the government, and I even see it in this bill in terms of what obviously are the priorities of the government, is what I would call a bureaucratic approach to health care reform.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, let there be no mistake about this. I fully supported, in fact, argued for health care reform when I was health care critic a number of years ago, and we had the document released in 1992, I believe, the so-called blueprint, and I use that word advisedly because it was actually printed in blue ink and I think very much had the imprint of the party in power at the time and the party currently of which blue is the color.

But one of the things about which I am very concerned about health care is the bureaucratization of the so-called health care reform we are seeing. I heard the minister earlier today reference the situation in The Pas and say, well, these experts made the decision, and we have to follow through with those experts' decisions.

Well, first of all, the funding guidelines are provincial guidelines. They are not something that was invented by the hospital administration, and, second of all, by the way, the criteria that were used by the group that sat down and had to deal with this were essentially the criteria established by the government, which is one of reducing the expenditures. Third of all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the bottom line is I have talked to people part of the process and they said it was a farce. The minister cannot hide from responsibility for the fact that his government set up the criteria in the first place for this review--it wanted the review to take place--and the consequences of its actions are essentially it has to take responsibility.

The government cannot hide behind any of these committees it has established. The government cannot hide behind hospital boards. It cannot hide behind other structures that it is looking at establishing, such as the regional health facilities which, by the way, I think is a good concept. We will see how it applies in practice. It cannot simply withdraw into this kind of attempt to establish some sort of suggestion that in terms of health care we are actually, Mr. Deputy Speaker, dealing with a situation where it is actually the bureaucracy that makes the decisions and the government really says, I have nothing to do with it. I mean, let us get serious.

The last election, health care was a significant issue. A lot of the support we received was because of people who were concerned about health care, 33 percent of Manitobans, and I would suggest many of the Liberal voters in this province. One of the reasons the government was returned was because the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said, trust me on health care. I think we all remember the ads. He got out of the canoe in 1990 and talked about health care and, Mr. Deputy Speaker--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has been given a fair bit of leeway here but under Citation 665 in Beauchesne, it is clearly stated that on second reading of an amending bill it is the principle of the amending bill, not the principle of the act. I would appreciate it if the honourable member was relevant to the bill. I have allowed you some leeway, but I believe you have drifted a little bit too far.

The honourable member for Thompson to continue.

Mr. Ashton: I apologize if referencing the Premier saying, trust me on health care is not appropriate to this bill and I almost choked on the words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even when I said it. But I would say, perhaps to make it even absolutely directly relevant to this bill, the Premier said, trust me on health care. I think that is an accurate statement. We saw the ads. I saw the ads. There were many of them.

I assume when we are dealing with this bill one of the basic principles we are being asked here again is to trust the government on health care. That is why I raise in the context of this bill and indeed of health care generally, from what we have seen since the Premier said trust me, can we trust the government on health care? Can we trust the government? Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the underlying debate on this issue. The government brings in this bill and says, trust me. The minister earlier today said, trust me; we have a bureaucratic process. Today we are having to deal with this issue. The fundamental principle that I think Manitobans have to decide with this government is can they trust them on health care.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will once again give me an admonition if I talk about the betrayal of that trust even since the last election. I will not get into great detail about that, but the fact is that is the essential issue that we are dealing with, the single largest expenditure in this province, health care, the single probably most, I would say the greatest characteristic of Canada in terms of social programs--because I believe health care is essentially a social service.

I ask the question again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you--pardon me, I am saying this rhetorically--but would you trust the government, based on what has been happening the past six months, and would anyone trust the government based on its record the last six months? I could--[interjection] The new member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) talks about the federal government. You know, we can talk about that, but I most definitely would be ruled out of order if I mentioned the federal government, but we are talking about the provincial government. That is the bottom line question.

I know the answer that people in my community would give. The answer is no. I know the answer the people in The Pas give. It is no. I know the answer that the people in Flin Flon give, because they are well down the line of many of the kind of cuts we are seeing but, you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you were to ask tonight at a meeting that will take place that will be dealing with concerns of one community hospital affected by emergency ward closures and ask them that single question, and you will be probably best equipped to ask that question, do you trust a government that says, cut first and worry about the impact later? You know the answer will be overwhelmingly no.

I want to say in conclusion that this is a really important issue because, my experience with politics, and there are others in this Chamber who have had more experience than I have, is that old adage about, you can only fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

You know, it is one thing in an election, with highly powered commercials, political ads to say, trust me on health care, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) did, but actions speak louder than words and even in the long run perhaps even louder than campaign commercials.

We have not forgotten what the promise was in the 1995 provincial election campaign on health care. It was, the Tories said, trust me. Remember, you know, think of all those positive experiences with health care.

We hear on a daily basis, you know, the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) never answers a question. Basically he tries to sort of say, well, trust me, you know, it is all going to work out in the end. The bureaucracy is dealing with this. This committee is dealing with that. We are not really doing it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I raise this question because I believe over the next several years one of the fundamental political issues in this province will be whether anyone can trust this government on anything when it is clear after six months that they cannot trust them on health care.

With those few words, I am very pleased I had the opportunity today to speak out on behalf of my constituents and as one of our caucus members on behalf of our caucus for whom one of the central issues in Manitoba has been and will continue to be the maintenance of our health care system from any of the actions that the members of the Conservative government have brought in in the past and will continue, I am sure, to bring in which will detract and will attempt to destroy medicare.

But they cannot and they will not take medicare away in this province, because we will be pushing them on each and every time that they betray that trust. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

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

The question before the House is second reading, Bill 23, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

* (1530)

Bill 32--The Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 32, The Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les procédures contre la Couronne), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson. Stand?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had adjourned this, but some of our caucus members have comments, including the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), so I defer to the member for Crescentwood.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we view this as a very serious bill because in principle it intends to put before the House a measure that would amend The Statute Amendment Act so that firms and individuals and other levels of government could have a remedy before the Court of Queen's Bench in order to impose a fine or some other kind of judicial sanction under the Agreement on Internal Trade.

I want to speak against this bill in principle, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will understand that my remarks touch on the Agreement on Internal Trade to a great extent because this bill intends to bring before the House a measure to enforce that agreement, and I think we need to pay very careful attention to the substance of the Agreement on Internal Trade, which, in fact, has never been before the House.

So I say that to anticipate, I think, your concern, and I understand your concern that we speak in principle at this reading. The principles of this bill are to put in place a bill which has never been before the House, and, indeed, it has never been before any of the Legislative Assemblies in Canada.

I also want to say that I have learned in preparing for this debate a great deal from a book that I would commend to all members. It is C.D. Howe Institute, so it is sufficiently conservative that it should not upset their sensibilities. It is called Getting There, and it is the assessment on the Agreement on Internal Trade by two very well-known trade specialists in Canada, Michael Trebilcock and Daniel Schwanen.

I have also reviewed the legal opinions on the pending federal legislation under Bill C-88 in the federal Parliament, which is currently, I believe, in second reading, and that is the bill to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade, and I will say in a few moments why I think this is also problematic for this House. I have reviewed submissions of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, as well as Bill 36, which is a bill before the Alberta Legislature to do essentially the same thing as our Bill 32 does, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

So, first, let us look at Bill 32. It purports to establish an enforcement mechanism for the Agreement on Internal Trade, which came into effect July 1, 1995. Specifically, this bill would allow the award of costs as a result of a dispute panel mechanism to be entered as a judgment in the Court of Queen's Bench, thereby providing the parties with the ability to enforce the findings of the dispute mechanism through the panels created for this purpose.

Let me say at the outset that we have grave concerns about the enforcement mechanism itself, Bill 32, as well as the Agreement on Internal Trade, which it intends to enforce. I will try to make clear why we have these concerns, but I would urge honourable members to do two things. One is to actually read the Agreement on Internal Trade, which would, I suspect, be an interesting experience. I doubt that very many members opposite have even seen the document, let alone read it, and also to read and review two different books on the subject which I think both raise very serious concerns from a very nonpartisan point of view about the effect of any dispute mechanism and about the nature of bills like Bill 32.

First of all, then, let me put Bill 32 in some historical perspective. From the 1970s onward there have been a number of attempts on the part of the central government of Canada and the larger provinces, Ontario, Quebec and Alberta in particular, to reduce or remove interprovincial barriers to trade. Provisions were put in the 1980 run-up to the Constitution patriation to achieve this goal. They were repeated in both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown documents. The MacDonald royal commission spent some considerable time trying to advance proposals to free up internal trade.

Following the failure of the Charlottetown Accord in 1993, Minister Michael Wilson announced a new approach to this issue of internal trade and the dispute settlement and the remedies that Bill 32 speaks to. Essentially the approach he took was to mimic the approach the World Trade Organization was taking at that time to the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations. It is what Trebilcock and Schwanen have called a macro approach, putting everything on the table and then only negotiating backwards those things which provinces could not accept. So it is to put a comprehensive agreement on the table and then write exceptions to it.

After much hard work, the provinces and the federal government reached an agreement in July of 1994 which was completed and signed on behalf of all governments in September of 1994.

To understand the Constitutional context of the Agreement on Internal Trade and Bill 32, we have to remember that under Section 92 of the Constitution Act, the provinces have control over trade and commerce within their boundaries, while the federal government, under Section 91.2, already has the power to regulate interprovincial trade. Historically, provinces, properly valuing employment and their own diverse economies, have used their control under Section 92 to erect both tariff and nontariff trade barriers in areas, particularly, such as brewing, tobacco and alcohol sales and their production, the trucking industry and transportation, and, in some cases, culture.

Provinces have sometimes required residency of individuals or corporations as a condition of their being able to own farmland or to undertake construction projects or other forms of business.

Alternatively, and these still exist in substantial form, the provinces have established preferential bidding procedures in which local companies get preference through some subsidy of 5 percent or 10 percent or some other such percentage. Manitobans, of course, are very familiar with this through the long-term discussions with Flyer Industries and New Flyer about whether buses should be able to be sold to Quebec and whether we should buy Quebec buses.

The federal government, in fact, while appearing to have a great deal of power to regulate interprovincial trade, has actually faced a lot of reductions of that power through decisions of the Supreme Court over many decades. It is interesting that the first decision in this case goes back to 1881, and it is a famous Canadian constitutional decision. It is called Citizens Insurance Company versus Parsons. There is a long history of the outcome of that initial case which circumscribed the federal power to regulate trade in the country.

Essentially, a free trade agreement seeks to reduce all of these sorts of barriers. The economic theory we are all familiar with, each region, province or area should do what it does best, the market will adjust, labour will adjust, move its wages or move its ability to work, so that the market will become very efficient as long as no other distortions take place.

However, as most of us know, the real world is very different from that world. In the real world, scale of manufacture often means, for example, no matter how efficient a Canadian brewery is, it does not matter how efficient it is, the unused brewing capacity in the state of Minnesota is sufficient to supply the entire western Canadian brewing requirements. So there is some point at which this argument about free trade breaks down, because when the economies of scale are so massive that one state could supply the entire area of western Canada with brewing resources, and, thereby, unemploy thousands of Canadians, then the question of public good has to come in rather than simply the question of efficiency.

Manitobans are also familiar with the fact that many goods can most efficiently be produced on a massive scale in the agricultural area, chickens, for example, pork, and in the machinery area, cars. If we were simply interested in only the maximum efficiency of production, then there would be very little reason to locate very many things in Canada, if that was the only interest, because scale of production will ultimately be the end of our agricultural industry if that is indeed the only question.

However, quality of life frequently means that social concerns, environmental concerns, health and eduction are all factors to be weighted along with economic costs. For many people, living in Winnipeg has values and virtues which are possibly not always simply subject to bottom-line economic concerns. I have heard members opposite, and I know members on this side of the House have made many such comments.

* (1540)

The theory that undergirds the idea that local rights and needs should have some preference over simply economic maximum efficiencies is called subsidiarity. It means, for example, that an argument should be made on grounds other than purely economic grounds, that it would be to the benefit of a community to maintain a resource, even though a pure economic case could be made for letting it go. Thus, for example, we can make a short-run argument that huge factory farms are the best way to raise chickens and milking herds. This means the end of the dairy industry in Quebec, and it means the end of the chicken and poultry industry in the rest of Canada.

Many Manitobans, government and opposition alike, would argue that the value of having smaller farms and having the communities they represent outweighs the purely economic argument for the factory farm. In my view, they would be very right in so doing. So that is the trade theory and a bit of a background to this bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

So, before considering Bill 32 itself, let us ask about the scale of the problem that it attempts to remedy, and I want to quote from a couple of pieces of literature about that. There was a very rough estimate from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association; as far as Trebilcock and Schwanen and several other authors, including people who wrote a book called the Balkanization of the Canadian Economy, as far as they can find out, it is the only quantifiable estimate of the cost of interprovincial trade, and many have pointed out that it is a questionable estimate. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association suggested that $6.5 billion was the cost of existing trade barriers.

However, I would point out that this measure double-counts much of the federal spending, and the authors of Provincial Trade Wars state that a writer named Whalley undertakes a survey of the most important interprovincial distortions imposed by provincial and federal policies. There are some technical details about how he did it, but he indicated that the result was that the interprovincial distortion of goods flows in Canada is small, ranging from less than one-fifth of 1 percent of GDP to, at most, 1.5 percent of GDP. He goes on to say that the cost in a region of only 0.06 percent of the labour bill would result--an insignificant cost. He points out further that the capital flow costs would be of a similar low magnitude. Similar comments are made by Trebilcock and Schwanen and de Mestral and others who speak about whether this is a big problem.

(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

Is Bill 32 needed? Trebilcock suggested the majority of the distortions of interprovincial trade are at the level of a few industries, ones which, in fact, have already been dealt with, the brewing and wine industries and, to a great extent, apart from a problem which is now being remedied in Ontario, the trucking industry. That has to do, as members opposite know, with the length of the trailers allowed on highways in Ontario and in other provinces.

It is a very serious issue, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the bottom line appears to be that all of the provinces and the federal government entered into this agreement on interprovincial trade without knowing the scale of the problem they were trying to remedy. There is an old saying in rural Manitoba, and where I come from as well: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. In this situation, the provinces together set out to fix something which is not demonstrably broken.

The second major concern about Bill 32 is whether it speaks to a treaty that is a free trade agreement or not. The majority of opinion in this book, which quotes about 12 authors on behalf of the C.D. Howe Institute, is that the Agreement on Internal Trade is not, in fact, a free trade agreement, and it is not binding. It is simply an agreement among provinces in a federation, not among or between sovereign states.

Because it is within a federation, any province can ignore the agreement and continue to call on its powers under Section 92 of the Constitution. Naturally, there may or may not be consequences to their so doing, but it is hard to see, for example, how Prince Edward Island could compel Ontario to abide by an agreement that Ontario could simply decide to ignore by calling on Section 92 of the Constitution.

I should point out that, of course, you are a learned lawyer, as well as a learned Acting Speaker, and when an agreement such as the Agreement on Internal Trade, Article 300 makes the point that no constitutional impairment shall come, and I will quote: Nothing in this alleged agreement alters the legislative or other authority of Parliament or the provincial Legislatures or the Government of Canada or the provincial governments or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative or other authorities under the Constitution of Canada.

If the Agreement on Internal Trade, as one of its very key components, says, nothing in this agreement abridges constitutional powers or rights, then it is difficult to see what the Agreement on Internal Trade is adding to the Constitution. In other words, it is not really an agreement on internal trade; it is potentially a set of protocols and not anything more, because it is not actually changing the fundamental nature of our federation.

Furthermore, the agreement, when you read it, is 220 pages, is really nothing more than a long list of things that people intend to do. It is really an agreement setting out a series of honourable intentions, and I would quote further that Article 100 in the Agreement on Internal Trade makes it very plain that this is not really an overarching agreement but really it is an attempt to put in place a framework which might at some point do something. The objective of the parties is to reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible, barriers, et cetera.

I think that, Mr. Acting Speaker, you know from your experience in law that when someone puts in a weasel phrase that is "to the extent possible," what they are really saying is, let us use our best efforts but, if we fall short, we did it to the extent possible, and that is what I think this phrase means in this situation.

In Article 200 of the treaty, Mr. Acting Speaker, there are a number of exceptions. It is interesting that at the very beginning of a major treaty there are five exceptions which cover a huge range of things which are not to be touched by this agreement: culture in the first one; publication distribution; sale of books, magazines, periodicals, newspapers, et cetera in print or machine-readable form, but not including the sole activity of printing or typesetting; production, distribution, sale and exhibition of film or video recordings; audio recordings; music; radio communications. So all of those are exempt from this trade agreement.

At this point, culture is totally exempt, energy production is not covered, nor are the activities yet of the municipal, academic, social services or health sectors, though there is some indication that there is still consideration of this.

Then, in Section 400, there are a whole series of other exemptions. These come under the heading of Article 404, Mr. Acting Speaker, called Legitimate Objectives. So Bill 32 is attempting to implement an Agreement on Internal Trade that leaves out seven areas, the Legitimate Objectives stated on page 10 of the treaty, and these include such things like--sorry, I have the wrong page reference here [interjection]

Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker, for filling in that gap very nicely.

There are seven exemptions under Legitimate Objectives, and I invite honourable members to listen to this list. [interjection] I wish we could too.

* (1550)

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

Here are the seven legitimate objectives, public security and safety; public order; protection of human, animal, plant life or health; protection of the environment; consumer protection; protection of the health, safety and well-being of workers; affirmative action programs. In other words, there are enough exceptions and exemptions in here through which we could drive one of those trucks that is not yet legal in Ontario.

Trebilcock, Schwanen and others, such as Dr. Morley Gunderson of the University of Toronto, express strong concerns about the failure to deal with the needs and rights of labour in the Agreement on Internal Trade. They make the point that, on page 63 of their book, that it is difficult to imagine that the forum of Labour ministers could actually issue legally binding directives to anyone. After all, when they meet as Labour ministers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are simply meeting as Labour ministers. They have no authority to issue binding directives back to their provinces on any matter. They can only bring them back to the provinces for ratification. So Trebilcock and Schwanen conclude that the final effect of the Agreement on Internal Trade is a very modest improvement on the status quo, chiefly in the areas of brewing and alcohol.

A much more critical assessment comes from a constitutional scholar with whom the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) opposite, may be familiar, Armand de Mestral from the University of McGill. He, in a very short three-page critique, says the following: The difficulties that I see with this agreement are threefold--and I ask particularly the attention of the Minister of Labour, because this is the kind of thing that constitutional scholars love.

De Mestral says it contrives at one and the same time to involve no law, bad law and the wrong kind of law, and then he goes on to say why. He concludes his arguments with some very important observations about international law. He points out that the agreement even fails to address some of the major obstacles to interprovincial trade that exists. The agreement contrives to apply the wrong sort of law and so on, and I would commend the comments of de Mestral to the attention, in particular, of the Labour minister, because I think it is a very important little comment on the Agreement on Internal Trade.

We on this side of the House have a fundamental problem with Bill 32 in that it provides an enforcement mechanism for an agreement which the House has never considered, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Again, I say this also to the Minister of Labour opposite who as a constitutional scholar has some interest in these matters. We have an Agreement on Internal Trade that has never been tabled in this House, has never been considered before a committee of this House, has never been studied by the members of this House, but was brought simply as a public announcement and has been placed in the libraries after being signed by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and by the Minister of Trade (Mr. Downey).

So this House has never, ever studied, and I would wager I think fairly safely that there might be one or perhaps two of the honourable members opposite who have actually even read the treaty, so I would hope that they might do so before pursuing Bill 32 any further.

We have a great concern with what is happening in the federal House at this point, and that is a bill to enact the Agreement on Internal Trade. I want to table for the House, if I can find it, and am particularly interested in the comments of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) on this material, even more interested in the comments of the Minister of Trade, but I think the Minister of Labour might bring some special expertise to this.

These are documents from legal counsel in British Columbia, some very prestigious firms, who have written a very long and I think extremely thoughtful legal opinion about the dangers inherent in Bill C-88 now before the federal House. Specifically, they are asking four questions, and I think I may just have given away all my copies of that. That was not very smart. No, here we go.

They were asked four questions by the government of British Columbia, and I should say also for honourable members that there is no secret about this opinion. The government of British Columbia supplied all Trade ministers with it back in June of this year.

Four questions were asked: Does Bill C-88 go beyond the minimum requirements needed to fulfill the obligations of the federal government under the Agreement on Internal Trade? Two, what alternative language could be substituted in Bill C-88 that would fulfill the minimum obligations of the federal government? Three, could Bill C-88, as introduced, have implications regarding Canada's obligations under NAFTA, particularly with respect to the federal government's obligation to ensure compliance with NAFTA? And four, could Bill C-88, as introduced, alter the legislative or other authority of the federal government or of the provinces under the Constitution?

And that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the most serious question of all. Is it likely, as trade law evolves in this country through the Supreme Court, that Bill C-88 will be seen as changing the constitutional roles, Sections 91 and 92, of the Constitution Act?

In summary, the responses from the learned counsel in B.C. were, yes; yes, there is better language; yes, if Bill C-88 were enacted in its current form there could be significant implications regarding the federal government's extent of obligation under NAFTA. And four, would it change the nature of constitutional interpretation? They say, possibly.

Neither Bill C-88 nor the agreement would change the wording of the Constitution Act; however, they go on to say Bill C-88 linked to AIT could have a significant impact on how the legislative or other authority of the federal and provincial governments will be interpreted by our courts under the Constitution. They go on to make a great deal of detailed findings referring back to the Parsons case in this regard.

So I hope that members opposite will take the time to review the legal opinions put forward by the government of British Columbia and shared with all governments raising very serious concerns about Bill C-88. I see I am coming close to four o'clock. Mr. Deputy Speaker, could you indicate how many minutes I have left?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: You have approximately 13 minutes left at this time.

Mr. Sale: Well, I will go to four o'clock obviously and conclude at a later time. Thank you.

It is striking when you read the Agreement on Internal Trade, the degree to which the AIT mimics the language of the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA as well as the World Trade Organization. Yet, in the case of the AIT, the parties to the agreement do not have the authority to enact what they hope to achieve. Indeed, it is within the federal authority only to enforce many of the provisions of the AIT, and that is why the legal counsel for British Columbia is suggesting that there may be serious problems here.

To do what the AIT purports to do requires action of the federal government, and since the AIT clearly affects provinces' ability to regulate trade within their boundaries, that is the basis of the fear that the implementation of federal act C-88 may impair provincial authority under the Constitution, Section 92.

In brief, federal Bill C-88 intends, and I quote, to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade.

So far as I know, only one other province, Alberta, has even introduced this subject into its Legislature. The Alberta bill, by the way, is a statute amendment act--it is simply bringing definitions into alignment with AIT. It is not actually an implementation act. I have, then, a real concern about how many members opposite and indeed how many of our members have read the AIT even in a cursory form or read any commentary on it.

An Honourable Member: I will wait for the Coles notes.

Mr. Sale: Right. Trebilcock and Schwanen. These are the Coles notes. Very good.

I think if we might call it four o'clock that would be a reasonable spot to stop. I have a few concluding comments to make at a future debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is that possible?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have 10 minutes remaining.

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On a matter of House business, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, currently meeting, has not concluded its business by 6 p.m., the same committee will meet tonight at eight o'clock in Room 254 to continue consideration of Bills 5, 6, 17, 21 and 22.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On House business, I just want to ask if the government House leader could perhaps leave discussions on that. We were given short notice. We are having some difficulty getting the committees arranged and there are some other people on the committee as well. So we are open and if we can find people to sit tonight, it is not a problem; otherwise, we may want to suggest an alternate date, for example, tomorrow during the House or during the afternoon. I just want the minister, if he could just hold off on that or even reconsider, if within the next half hour if we have some difficulty with--

Mr. Ernst: That is fine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am prepared to try and accommodate members here. We have the same difficulty; we would have the same people sitting on two committees. Where we do have difficulty, in terms of time related, is to try and complete these bills. Perhaps we can have a recess for two minutes and I can speak to--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader and the opposition House leader wish to confer. We will continue on with House business and you can interrupt at a later time and we can bring forward that at that time.

The hour now being 4 p.m. and time for private members' hour, as previously agreed, debate on second readings, public bills.

* (1600)