1984-04-10

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that tomorrow would be an allotted day. Although the fact remains that tomorrow will be an allotted day, I should also like to designate Friday of this week as another allotted day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren (for Mr. Lalonde) that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking previously to this Bill, I was arguing that the Government should be expanding funding for post-secondary education rather than reducing the amount of funds that are available. I have also argued that these reductions in the amount of money that the federal Government is prepared to spend on post-secondary education will have a more serious effect, I believe, on both deaf and hard of hearing Canadians. At the present time access to higher education is limited for deaf and hard of hearing students. There is a lack of program services and facilities. Among other problems, there are insufficient note-takers, interpretative services, special preparatory programs, sound amplification systems and other facilities to give them equal access to post-secondary educational opportunities.
[DOT] (mo)
The need for greater access to advanced technical programs for the deaf and hard of hearing is critical. Modern technology and computer sciences will have an enormous impact on our society. Our hearing impaired population can stand to benefit greatly from extensive training. It is estimated that there are between 30 and 40 deaf students in Canadian universities.
Statistics are not available as to the enrolment of hard of hearing students in Canadian universities. The universities and colleges with hearing impaired students have attempted to provide some support services. Such services may take the form of notetakers or sign language interpreters but these services are not structured into an ongoing program.
In the past and until as recently as the fall of 1982, deaf students capable of progressing to a higher education had the limited options of attempting to compete with their hearing peers to gain access to a regular university or community college and then struggle through the program with or without support services, depending on the availability of such services.
Another option is to seek access to an existing institution which has initiated some form of support services or even the Gallaudet College entrance examination for acceptance into a program specifically designed to meet the needs of the hearing impaired. There are about 120 Canadian citizens currently attending Gallaudet College in the United States.
The third option is no longer available to deaf Canadians at the preparatory level because the rubella epidemic in the United States in 1963-64 created an unusually high number of college-age American deaf students seeking admission to Gallaudet College. It is worth while pointing out, as I did previously in this debate, Mr. Speaker, that there is absolutely no Canadian institution for deaf or hard of hearing students. If a deaf or hard of hearing Canadian wants to be educated or even gain access to post-secondary education, he or she has to go to the United States.
In addition to the problem of admittance, Canadian students are encountering other difficulties at Gallaudet College. Tuition fees have been increased and on-campus housing is limited. This has resulted in additional expenses for students as well as possibly increasing difficulties in finding suitable housing in the vicinity of the campus.
Given American statistics which show that 30 per cent of U.S. graduates of residential schools for the deaf will attend post-secondary institutions, it is expected that a similar percentage of Canadian deaf students would also want to pursue higher education. At this point it is crucial to indicate that even if the facilities of Gallaudet College are available to Canadian hearing impaired students, this College provides services only in English and is not accessible to deaf Francophones.
It is evident from the situation I have described that the time is long past when Canadians can safely rely on American institutions in order to educate their deaf youth at the university level. American Government-supported facilities must, by definition, give priority to their own citizens and should not be

April 10, 1984
Established Programs Financing
expected to compensate for the shortcomings of the educational system of another country, in this case Canada. Furthermore, it is highly questionable whether it is justifiable, both morally and financially, to deprive young people who will become the leaders of Canada's deaf community of a large part of their Canadian heritage by forcing them to be educated in a foreign country. To be effective Canadian leaders, they must be given the opportunity to grow in a Canadian environment, learning about Canadian society, politics, institutions and culture.
Hard of hearing students have special needs of their own which are usually not recognized unless specifically brought to the attention of the educational institutions. Usually these students are left to struggle through university or college with little or no support services. A hard of hearing student may need some simple and inexpensive sound amplification to supplement the personal hearing aid, the assistance of a note-taker or an overhead projector or some other appropriate device which could be provided if the facilities of universities and colleges were sensitized to the needs of hard of hearing students. Such sensitization will only come into being when formally structured, subsidized support services are made available as a matter of course.
More often than not a Canadian hard of hearing student would choose to continue to study in this country rather than in the United States-in this case in Washington-thus avoiding a move to another country and another culture. Gallaudet College is primarily intended for the deaf and the environment is rich in deaf culture.
This lack of opportunity about which I have spoken exists because post-secondary education of the deaf and hard of hearing has never been addressed on a national scale. Until the problem is addressed by way of a federally-funded study, then this problem will remain with us and will continue to squander a facet of one of our most important resources-Canadian hearing impaired youth.
In my view-and it is shared by my colleagues-the Government of Canada should fund a national study of postsecondary education of the deaf and hard of hearing. The national study group should include representatives from various organizations, institutions, as well as appropriate individuals. The purpose of the committee should be to focus on studying the development of multi-disciplinary facilities with emphasis on technical training, with full access to deaf and hard of hearing students. These facilities should encompass applied research and human resource development and should act as resource centres for the purpose of networking with other existing universities and colleges where there is an overlap of interest. I would hope that the recommendations of the proposed study committee would be supported by federal funding, which would then result in a solution of the difficulties confronting deaf and hard of hearing Canadians in their attempts to seek higher education.
The urgency of this matter cannot be over-emphasized. For too long the post-secondary educational needs of the deaf and hard of hearing have lacked attention. As 1985, the International Year of Youth, approaches, it is particularly timely that action be taken on this important issue. The Canadian Coordinating Council on Deafness presented a brief to the Minister of State responsible for the disabled on this very important issue of access to the hearing impaired and deaf in the country.
Provincial and federal governments have been cutting back on post-secondary education for young people, but not because of any lack of resources, as has been argued by the federal Government and provincial governments, in particular in my case the Government of Ontario.


An Hon. Member:: A Conservative Government.


Neil Young: As my colleague indicates, it is a Conservative Government, as is the case of all governments of the provinces, in effect, with the exception of Manitoba.
What will this mean to the Canadian student population? It will mean a denial of access to post-secondary education because of a lack of personal financial resources on the one hand. On the other hand, for those who can afford it, it will mean an increase in tuition fees. In fact, I was talking to some of the pages who serve us so diligently in the House, and in Ontario many of these students are being asked to spend something like $1,200 a year just to gain access to the university system. That is all right if the student manages to obtain a job, which is extremely unlikely in today's economic environment. It may be helpful if their parents happen to be in the upper income levels of society and can afford to provide the necessary tuition fee. However, for may people, particularly those at the low or middle part of the income scale, it will be practically impossible for them to see their children enter the university and college system. As I mentioned previously in this debate, and as my colleague from New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) pointed out ad nauseam in this House-
[DOT] (M20)


Ms. Jewett:: Me, ad nauseam?


Neil Young: Yes, ad nauseam in this House. She has done a very effective job attempting to persuade this Government that what is needed in this rapidly expanding technological society is that rather than cutting back on funding for necessary educational purposes at the post-secondary level, this Government should be expanding those facilities, making entrance into those facilities and institutions more accessible rather than restricting access, as will be the case with this Bill. I see my time has run out, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: At this stage in our proceedings a ten-minute period is provided for questions or comments relative to the Hon. Member's remarks. Are there any such comments and questions?
April 10, 1984


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment and question the use of a particular Latin phrase. I wonder whether the Hon. Member intended to say that my concern about this matter led me to debate ad infinitum.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, ad nauseam; he was right the first time.


Neil Young: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. It was ad infinitum, but with this Government you have to repeat an argument ad nauseam in order to have it penetrate their little ears.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned with some frequency, and attached some considerable importance to, educational services for the hearing impaired. Since I sit beside the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), I wonder if he could advise where I might find one of these institutions that can help my left ear a little bit.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member asks the question in a light vein or not. As my colleague and friend from Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) mentioned, it would be rather difficult for that particular Member to receive education in any facility in Canada.
The important point that has to be made is that for those who are hard of hearing or deaf, there is absolutely no facility in Canada which provides that individual with access to postsecondary education. That individual must go to the United States in order to receive an education. In a country as rich in resources as Canada, it is a national shame, if not a national disgrace, that that kind of situation is allowed to continue to exist. Surely we have a responsibility to all Canadians, whether they be the hearing impaired, hearing individuals or children with physical disabilities other than a hearing impairment, to ensure that, regardless of their physical disability, they have equal access to education, no matter where they live in this country, or whether they need extra assistance in order to gain access to education within Canada.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. He spoke very movingly about the problem of the hard of hearing getting an education. I reckon the situation is bad. Could he give me some information on the problems of some of the other handicapped, such as the blind and the physically handicapped? Are the facilities and opportunities for them as bad as they are for the hard of hearing?
[DOT] (U25)


Neil Young: There is absolutely no question about that, Mr. Speaker. Shortly after the last Parliament convened, I along with other Members of the House served on the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith), by the way, was the Chairman of that particular committee. I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to mention that one of the hardest working members on that committee was the late Hon. Walter Dinsdale who had devoted much of his adult life to the concerns of the disabled in the country.
Established Programs Financing
The testimony that we on that committee heard from witness after witness concerned access to education. Access to education for a person who happens to be disabled is extremely limited for a number of reasons. We cannot talk about access to education for someone who is disabled in isolation because it is so integral to the participation of the handicapped in the mainstream of Canadian life.
If we are not prepared to provide a disabled person with adequate access to education, then we are denying that disabled person the opportunity to find gainful employment, access to transportation, access to recreational facilities and access to all kinds of things that we able-bodied Canadians take for granted. That is why education is so crucial to a person who happens to be disabled. We must recognize that individuals such as blind Canadians who are attempting to gain access to the university education system or even to junior school require additional assistance that able-bodied Canadians do not need. Very often the family resources cannot provide for that and I would strongly argue, as our committee strongly argued, that the Government must play a role in allowing the handicapped and disabled to gain access to the various institutions in the country that we as able-bodied Canadians take for granted.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member another question. In the studies done by the committee of which my hon. friend was a member, was there any indication that if people who are blind, deaf or in any other way physically handicapped were given an opportunity to get an education, then they can indeed find employment? If they can find employment, it means that they will no longer be a burden on their families or, when they become adults and their families cannot support them, on the state. I am trying to ask the Hon. Member if we are not being penny wise and pound foolish.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question that that is so in a number of ways. First, the individuals I have encountered since I came to this place and since I was a member of that committee clearly indicated to me that the old stereotype of a disabled person being locked up in an institution and kept away from the mainstream of society no longer holds true at all. A person with disabilities is quite capable of being educated in the same way as anyone else. In fact, the stereotyping has got to the point where anyone with a disability has been considered to be somehow mentally deficient, and that is the worst kind of stereotyping I have ever encountered.
We should take a look at the straight economics of the situation, Mr. Speaker. Let me refer to figures based on estimates that are three or four years old; I am sure the figures are quite different today. However, if society continues to institutionalize individuals simply because of a disability or a handicap, it is not economical on a straight cost basis. It costs something like $35,000 and probably more like $40,000 or $50,000 a year to maintain a person in an institutional setting. If you provide them with the means to live within the community and with adequate community support services, the com-

April 10, 1984
Established Programs Financing parative cost is around $8,000 per year. Even on a straight economic basis it is much more effective for society to provide those individuals with the means to live within Canadian society as able-bodied Canadians, and to give them the opportunity to reach their own level in society.
Disabled Canadians have an expression for the able-bodied. They call them "tab" persons-that is, "temporarily able-bodied". Even while we enjoy good health and physical attributes, at some point in our life either through accident, illness or aging the possibilities of becoming disabled are extremely good.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-12. The first point I should like to make refers to statements made by the Hon. Minister when he moved second reading of the Bill on January 27. As reported at page 814 of Hansard he said:
-federal assistance to each province for post-secondary education will be increased by 6 per cent in 1983-84 and by an additional 5 per cent in 1984-85.
He emphasized the word "increased". A little later he said:
The purpose of this change is to clarify the fact that the federal Government contributes huge amounts to the provinces. Over $13.5 billion was contributed for 1983-84 to assist the provinces in financing post-secondary education and health programs.
The Hon. Minister continually used the word "increase", but when 1 look at the Bill I do not see anything in it about increases. As a matter of fact, on the first page of the Bill Clause 3 reads as follows:
"the fiscal equalization payment to each province for a fiscal year shall be reduced to the amount obtained-"
Not "increased", Mr. Speaker, but "reduced". On page 5a of the Bill a very tricky formula is set out under which the numerator is the per capita Gross National Product for the calendar year ending immediately preceding the calendar year ending in the fiscal year, and the denominator is the per capita Gross National Product of the fourth calendar year. It also refers to the cube root of the fraction, not the square root or result but the cube root. Anyone who knows anything about mathematics knows that the cube root is much smaller than the square root and much smaller than the actual result. This is another way of reducing the amount. As everybody knows, the cube root of 64 is 4 and the cube root of 27 is 3. The square root of 64 is 8. Here we have the cube root taken to find the amount of money going to the provinces.
An explanatory note to Clause 7 reads in part as follows:
-would provide for a 6 per cent limitation in the growth of the per capita entitlement applicable in respect of the education program to a province for the 1983-84 fiscal year and a 5 per cent limitation in the growth of that entitlement for the 1984-85 fiscal year.
Why did the Hon. Minister leave the impression with all those who heard his address but who have not had access to the Bill that the funds are going to be increased by the Bill? That is a pretty sneaky way of trying to fool the public. I do not think it is proper for a Minister to mislead the people.
Just recently a teacher said to me: "I heard we got an increase because I heard the Minister". I said: "How do you get an increase when you take the cube root of something?" She looked at me very oddly. I said: "Do you get an increase when you reduce the amount of money that is going to be paid to the provinces?" She said: "I do not know what you mean". I showed her the Bill and told her what has been happening. She said: "I was completely misled". When qualified teachers are misled, what about the general rank and file of the public? This is no way for the Government to act, Mr. Speaker. I deplore the method used by the Hon. Minister to make people think we are getting an increase when there is actually a decrease.
Let us examine the figures that are being applied. The Minister also applied the tax transfer agreement. That simply moved percentage points of the income tax from the federal Government to provincial governments. The same tax is applicable to the people of each province. Instead of the federal Government collecting the money the provincial government does so; then it is provincial money and not federal. Yet the Bill continually refers to the money being collected under a transfer agreement. If the federal Government wanted to use that figure as part of its contribution, then why did it transfer the percentage points in the first place? There is no reason for it, but once it has transferred the percentage points it becomes provincial money and the federal Government should not try to make people believe it is part and parcel of the program.
The Bill reduces the cash going to the provinces. Throughout the Minister's speech I do not think the word "reduction" was used once but the word "increase" was frequently used. That is very misleading.
The Bill applies different growth rates to education taxes for 1983-84 and limits the amount for 1983-84. In other words, it is retroactive legislation. This is 1984 and it is limiting the grants for 1983-84.
Another thing that I do not like about the Bill is that it is a unilateral change, not a change negotiated with the provinces but a change forced on the provinces whether they like it or not. That is not the way Canadians are used to doing business.
It seems to me that there is about $100 million that should be going to the provinces for education. But where is that money going? We have received no explanation from members of the Government. Where is the money going and what is it being used for? I think people are entitled to know that. As a member of this Party mentioned just the other day, the total tax grab is about $380 million. In 1983 it was $118 million and in 1984 $260 million. That money is being taken away from a proper allocation to the provinces.
When the Minister mentioned the 6 per cent and the 5 per cent that he is now going to use, in effect he is saying that the Government is going to chisel the provinces out of more than 2 per cent under the former Act. Actually the increase should be over 8 per cent instead of 6 per cent and 5 per cent. In other words, the Government is again chiselling the provinces out of money that the former Act gave to them.
April 10, 1984

O)
Something which has become very commonplace throughout the years during which I have been watching the present Government in action is the encouragement given to the provinces to expand programs, to introduce new programs. Then when they introduce them, the federal Government withdraws its support and leaves them up to the provinces to continue. It has done this in many cases. This is a bad way for the Government of Canada to operate. If the federal Government wants to inject itself into the educational facilities, then once it does that, it should stay there and not continuously change its plans and programs unilaterally as it has been doing.
This Bill not only reduces the amount of money to the provinces but will actually lower the quality of education in this country. I realize that that is a serious charge and I make it only after reflecting on it carefully and studying the Bill. It cannot help but lower the quality of education in Canada and let me tell the House why. The cost of education is not going down. It is going up. Salaries of teachers and professors are going up. These salaries have to go up; otherwise the teachers and professors would not be able to meet the cost of living because the cost of living is going up. The cost of equipment for our universities is going up. Almost every type of equipment purchased by our high schools and universities today costs more than it did three or four years ago and much more than it did in 1977. Books are costing our libraries more money today, excessively more, and they have to be purchased; but there are going to be fewer books purchased and consequently our students will have less access to the wisdom of the world.
What is very serious, as far as I am concerned, is the quality of education for the people generally. It is not right and proper today to provide education only for the rich of this country. Some of the highest positions in Canada today are held by many who were born into poor homes; some of them were in my classrooms in school. They hardly had enough to eat through the Depression years but their parents sacrificed and worked so they could get an education. They went out and found jobs and by dint of hard work they were able to get an education. Some of them today are holding the highest positions of reponsibility in this country, in our churches, our economic life and our political life. They were able to do that because they were able to get an education. However, those men and women, had they not secured that education, would be on our relief rolls today or standing in a bread line, as many young people are doing today.
I quote from a recent article in Maclean's magazine:
In 1981, according to Statistics Canada, 3.5 million Canadians were living within its definition of poverty. In 1982 the number jumped to 4.1 million. The 1983 figure, which will not be available until Fall, will probably be roughly 4.4 million.
There are 4.4 million people living within the Government's own definition of poverty, and that is something of which no country can be proud. Yet when we reduce the amount of money for our universities and educational facilities, we will
Established Programs Financing aggravate that figure. There is no way we can do other than aggravate it because, in the first place, more and more of our young people will not be able to go to university. I know what that means. I would have liked to be a doctor. When I was a young man I yearned to be a doctor. But I came from a family of 10. My father was a hard-working man but he could not find work in the Depression years. My brothers worked hard in the coal mines and by dint of sacrifice they managed to send me to normal school and to university for one year so I could teach school. That was all they could do. My father passed away, some of my brothers married and had responsibilities of their own, and I took on the responsibility, along with other brothers, of looking after our mother and younger members of the family. In my case, university was out of the question because of economics.
I went to school with scores of other young people who could not afford to go to university and so the contribution they could have made to this country was lost. They had great ability, much greater than some of the rich boys in our class, and much greater than even I thought of having, but they were denied their opportunity. Their potential was lost because they were unable to get to university, not because of a lack of ability but because of a lack of money. It should not be so hard for our young people to get into university.
The federal Government started a program of assisting post-secondary education but now it is going to withdraw to a degree and leave it up to the provinces. That will be hard enough on the rich provinces but it will be very tough indeed on the poorer provinces. That is not fair to young Canadians. We talk about a standard in this country that we want no Canadian to live under, but what will happen to the maritime provinces which have little resources compared to Alberta, British Columbia or Ontario? We are simply telling the young people in the maritime provinces that they are going to be handicapped for life because they cannot go to their own excellent universities. That is not right. This Bill is wrong in principle because it is denying our young people the right to an education.
I enjoyed the comments made by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) regarding the deaf and I could not help but think about the blind and the handicapped, those in wheel chairs and those who were born as slow learners, not stupid but slow learners. What are we going to do about these people? It takes extra money to teach the handicapped. I was proud one day to step into an office in the City of Calgary where I was greeted by a lady in a wheel chair. She had gone through university and was holding her own with everyone in that office. I felt glad to be a Canadian. But we are condemning people who are slow learners, who are blind, who are deaf, who are handicapped, to a life perhaps of poverty. Perhaps they will be part of the 4.4 million people below the poverty line which Maclean's magazine spoke about. That should not happen just because they were not born to parents who have a million dollars, although I do not begrudge these people their money. They probably earned it. But I certainly do not appreciate the fact that those who come from poor homes are going to be

April 10, 1984
Established Programs Financing
condemned to poverty for all their lives because we deny them an education.
When I was just a kid I talked to a preacher from a foreign country. I was complaining about having to go to school. He said to me that I was a very lucky young man. I could learn to read and write. I could reach almost any apex I wanted to reach if I had the ability and worked hard enough. In the country where he was a missionary, very few boys and girls learned how to read and write. They would give their right arm just to be able to read. Yet here in this country, this rich country with all its resources, we are saying to our young people: "You are condemned to poverty because we will not provide the facilities for education. In fact, we are cutting them down". We are applying the "cube root". How can we face our young people and tell them we are going to help them get work and then refuse them access to education?
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) has been advertising courses in newspapers, but when young people go to apply the employment office does not know anything about it. I was at a meeting in a place called Brogg Creek. Someone told me he was interested in improving his education and he saw this advertisement in the newspaper, which must have cost the Government a considerable amount of money, but when he went to the employment office they knew nothing about this program. I wrote to the Minister asking about this but have not yet received a reply. Maybe there is an explanation. However, we spend money advertising and building up the hopes of people. It is the same with programs under UIC. How many scores of those who want to cannot get into the training classes because the quotas are used up?
The Hon. Speaker is showing me one finger. That means I have one minute left. I had wanted to speak in detail about the native people of this country. In Gleichen there is a school called the Old Sun College. It is a wonderful college. It is fighting to get enough money to keep its head above water. It is a college that will give Indian boys and girls an opportunity to compete. In Drumheller there is the Votex Training school for the subnormal. I was in that school the other day. Eighteen people aged 12 or 13 up to 50 are learning to make things. I was proud of the fact that they are no longer on welfare, as they would have been. Now they are making toys, benches and tables. They can do it if we give them the opportunity. We have a tremendous country. We have tremendous resources and tremendous people. Let us make sure that every one of them has an opportunity to reach his or her greatest potential.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments? Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain).


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it would appear to me that the Government is very conscious of biblical obligations. It looks as if it were establishing in perpetuity a memorial to the statement: "To him that hath
shall be given and from him that hath not it shall be taken away". That is exactly what we have in the Bill before this House at this moment in time.
I would first like to address in general the remarks made by the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau). He was the Chairman of the parliamentary task force in federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. In response to what he has said I would say that that task force made recommendations across the board which have been ignored and denied in section after section of this Bill. Any attempt to justify this Bill by any remarks of the former Chairman of that committee seems to me to abdicate the responsibility which he and I both have with respect to our province and to other provinces in a like position.
For instance, he has continued to follow the Government's policy of pulling blindfolds over the Canadian people in respect of the $190 million which appeared to be a windfall at one moment in time in Atlantic history. That $190 million which he has described in his remarks, the details of which I shall not go into, was as a result of, and has been repeatedly stated to be as a result of, a miscalculation of federal statistical authorities. As a result of that miscalculation the Atlantic provinces were short-changed in payment in the years concerned. The $190 million has not been advertised by the Government and its speakers as a statistical error at the federal level, but rather it has been trying to expand upon the great largess of the Government of Canada as it relates to the Atlantic provinces. That is misleading, inaccurate, inappropriate and inexcusable.
No matter how the Member for Gloucester wishes to dabble in extraneous statistical material to arrive at the conclusions which he expressed in his remarks, it just does not wash with reality. This Bill is contradictory to the total principle of federal assistance which has been necessary for those have-not provinces of Canada as described by Justice Emmett Hall in his study. The established programs financing was introduced as a block fund and the financial data are reported in this manner. The expenditures include all spending on health-related and post-secondary education programs as agreed to by a joint federal-provincial committee.
Federal contributions include the cash transfer of established programs financing plus federal contributions for health care received under the cost sharing arrangements. The established programs financing tax transfer is not reported as a federal contribution because these taxes are collected under provincial law. It is the provincial government and not the Government of Canada which takes responsibility for raising these revenues.
I would like to give you some statistics, Mr. Speaker, in respect to the impact of the block funding structure and the funding arrangements agreed to in 1977. Provincial expenditures on health care and post-secondary education in 1977 were $345.3 million in New Brunswick. In 1982-83 they reached $712.2 million. When the cost was $345.3 million the federal contribution was $123 million or 35 per cent. This escalated until eventually in 1979-80, under the agreement of 1977, the federal Government had reached a level of 41.1 per
April 10, 1984

cent of the cost of the cost-shared programs in New Brunswick. This was up not quite 6 per cent.
Since the new trend has taken place in federal budgeting and since we have decided that we are going to save money, the decline has amounted to exactly 12 per cent of provincial expenditures supplied by the federal Government. The total expenditures for the province have more than doubled, from $345 million to $712 million. The federal contribution has not quite doubled. It was $123.7 million and is now $207.6 million. At one point in time it was 41 per cent of the cost of those provincial expenditures. It is now 29.1 per cent. No matter how you cut this cake, when you cut 12 per cent of the expenditures of the province from federal allocations to the province you have dealt it a crippling financial blow.
This does not deal totally with post-secondary education as this Bill is supposed to, but that is only part of the pie. The first major federal-provincial cost-shared program was hospital services. This program, introduced in 1958, provided for the federal Government to cover about one-half of the cost of approved federal services with the provinces covering the other half. In the late 1960s the medicare program was introduced. Here again the federal Government agreed to cover on average-please note the phrase "on average"-half the costs of provincial medicare programs. The average implied that there should be recognition of those provinces with less economic capability than others.
I was a member of the provincial legislature of the Province of New Brunswick when hospitalization was introduced. At that time it was agreed that the federal Government should accept something in excess of 60 per cent of the total cost of hospitalization for the Province of New Brunswick. Likewise, when medicare came in the federal Government shared in excess of 50 per cent of the cost of that program. I guess the provinces were smarter than the feds; they estimated more accurately the needs of the provinces than the federal Government estimated its expenses for the programs which it had structured.
Having underestimated the cost of these programs, in Bill C-12 the federal Government is now trying to transfer to the provinces that are beleaguered by financial problems, as is the federal structure, more of that expense. Those provinces cannot afford that. While the suit can be cut to fit the cloth year after year, eventually some part of the financial body will be naked. That is what will happen if this Bill begins a perpetual trend in the fiscal responsibilities of the federal Government as they relate to the provinces.
The third major cost-shared program involved federal grants for post-secondary education. In 1967 the federal Government offered to pay the provinces 50 per cent of the operating costs of post-secondary educational institutions, or $15 per capita. New Brunwsick opted for the $15 per capita.
The original arrangement worked quite well through the 1960s but the problem began to emerge in the 1970s. The provinces were having difficulty coping with the rigid program
Established Programs Financing and spending guidelines laid down by the federal Government. Those guidelines that were set by the federal Government displayed an effort to influence provincial politics by federal expenditure through the power of the purse. It is a betrayal of the relationships which should exist between the Parliament of Canada and the provinces.
The provinces were having difficulty coping with the rigid program and spending guidelines laid down by the federal Government which, in many cases, directed provincial spending to high-cost rather than less expensive program areas. The federal Government was concerned about the open-ended nature of its financial involvement in which it had to match provincial spending. However, the Government still wanted to guide how that spending should take place.
Beginning in 1972, the Government began to take steps to reduce its financial commitments when it placed a cap on its contributions for post-secondary education. The introduction of caps and ceilings was absolutely contrary to the intention of the original agreement.
In 1977, federal arrangements replaced federal conditional grants to the provinces in support of medicare, hospital services and post-secondary education with a new program called Established Programs Financing. Again, that worked favourably for the provinces until there was a 6 per cent increase in the share borne by the federal Government. The provinces out-foxed the federal Government because they knew more about their needs and anticipated requirements than the federal Government.
Once that plateau was reached the program at the federal level started to go downhill again. We cannot afford to let this happen. Once a standard in any social sphere is established, one must be very cognizant of the fact that someone will be embarrassed if that standard is cut. The intent was to embarrass the provinces and it is unacceptable for the Government of this day not to fulfil its responsibilities by backing away from the costs of a program which it prescribed.
The Established Programs Financing was set up. According to this program a single cash grant and a transfer of personal and corporate tax points replaced the cost-sharing arrangements under which the federal Government helped to finance medicare, hospital services and post-secondary education. With EPF, the federal contributions were no longer determined by the provincial program expenditures, as they were before. It was no longer the set percentage of provincial expenditures; they were tied to the rate of growth in Canada's economy. This gave the federal Government greater certainty about its financial commitments. Of equal importance, it placed upper limits on its financial obligations. This less attractive financial arrangement was made acceptable to the provinces because the federal Government assured them that EPF would give provincial governments more flexibility in program decisions.
I have sat in the House and listened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in particular, enraged in her ideology, demean the provinces about their expenditures in a contemptible way. Yet the intent of this

April 10, 1984
Established Programs Financing
program was to get the finger out of the pie of provincial management. That was the understanding.
The provinces were asked to seek ways and means to gain more effective control of the expenditure of provincial and federal money. Let me quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He said:
(EPF) ... suits the current and future imperative, namely fiscal restraint, in that provinces will have a greater incentive to implement what are admittedly difficult measures designed to restrain spending in these fields to reasonable levels.
That is a statement by the Prime Minister. This meant that the provinces were free to manage their own affairs without political or financial interference by the Government of Canada. They were able to govern themselves under their own circumstances. For the most part, the provinces favoured the move to EPF, although it was recognized that, particularly after EPF was phased in, provincial costs for medicare, hospital services and post-secondary education would grow more rapidly than federal contributions. The provinces recognized this from the beginning.
One of the key features of the EPF arrangement was that it was designed to produce long-term certainty for both the federal and provincial governments. The federal Government obtained certainty that no matter how much the provinces spent on these programs, its contributions would not exceed the growth in the national economy. The provinces obtained certainty that the federal Government would refrain from applying arbitrary caps and limits to its contributions, and so could plan accordingly.
This Bill is in absolute contradiction of the federal-provincial negotiations which were presumably carried on in good faith. In fact, limitations are now being imposed as a result of withdrawing funds from the field to which we were so committed and which the Prime Minister addressed in such a very positive fashion.
Established Programs Financing worked fairly well from 1977 to 1982. However, over that period and within the last year, the federal Government has done much to destroy the principles upon which EPF was based. It has launched counter-productive quarrels with the provinces and caused serious distrust between the provinces and the national Government.
Less than two years after it convinced the provinces to accept the EPF arrangement, the federal Government wanted to change its terms and thereby reduce EPF payments to the provinces. On this occasion the provinces successfully resisted those attempts but the federal Government responded by cutting other transfer programs and terminating discussions for a new block funding arrangement for social services. It terminated those discussions and applied other financial pressures.
In the 1981 federal Budget, the Government announced that it planned to cut over $5 billion from EPF funding over the period 1982 to 1987. This cut was implemented in the spring of 1982, contrary to the recommendations of all the provinces, the Economic Council of Canada and an all-Party parliamentary task force chaired by the Hon. Member for Gloucester
from New Brunswick. In 1983, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) announced that federal EPF contributions would be arbitrarily capped in so far as post-secondary education was concerned.
In view of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), we must consider the consequences of capping post-secondary education expenditures, especially at a time when virtually every Minister of the Crown is saying that the Government will promote more training. However, this legislation will ensure that it is not done at the post-secondary education level, since its financing will be capped. That is precisely what this legislation will do.
The Province of New Brunswick spent over $700 million on these programs in 1982-83, or approximately 29 per cent of its total Budget. Against this, the province received about $200 million from the federal Government for health care and post-secondary education.


Mr. Evans:: I thought it was post-secondary education alone.


Fred Alward McCain: I challenge any Member of the House to look at the statistics in Atlantic Canada to determine how much money was spent on post-secondary education. I suggest that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) will find they exceeded that. If the figures are distorted by the measurements made by the Member for Gloucester in his speech, the Member for Ottawa Centre has grounds for shaking his head; but when the distortions are removed, my statement will be unequivocally substantiated.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that my time is almost up. May I have unanimous consent for some extra time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Does the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) have unanimous consent to continue?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its generosity.
I mentioned once before, and this was contradicted also by the Hon. Member for Gloucester, that the Province of New Brunswick was labouring under the highest tax rate of virtually every province in Canada. Virtually, not all; Newfoundland is higher.


John Leslie Evans: Try Quebec.


Fred Alward McCain: Yes, Quebec in some instances is higher, but not in all.


John Leslie Evans: Sixty-five per cent.


Fred Alward McCain: That means a province which has 70 per cent plus or minus the national average income of this country has to impose nearly the highest taxes of any province in Canada to support post-secondary education and other policies in that province. The people of New Brunswick may not pay as many
April 10, 1984

dollars per capita as people do in Ontario, British Columbia, or in Ottawa Centre, but a bigger portion of their income is going in provincial taxes, no matter how you try to cut the pie. It is a bigger proportion. The burden on the people of New Brunswick is relatively heavier than in other provinces.
Let me come to the Province of Newfoundland. A Cabinet Minister in Newfoundland stated on television this morning that Newfoundland's average income was 52 per cent of the average national income. That means that in the Province of Newfoundland people are labouring even harder and sharing the widow's mite even more than the people in New Brunswick. These things are not recognized. If I had one reason to criticize the federal-provincial task force, it would be because the task force was made up in its total not with the Member for Bow River, who has provincial experience, not with the Premier of Prince Edward Island with his provincial experience, but it was made up of a group of people who had never participated in and were not, with all due respect, as familiar with the problems of provincial budgeting as were other Members of this House. No Party appointed a single Member to that committee with that background. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the conclusions of the report, though very very firm and definite, were coloured by the lack of knowledge, experience and understanding of the difficulties which Atlantic Canada perceive, and which are real.
This Bill is in contradiction of Emmett Hall. It is in contradiction of the task force. It is in contradiction of the statements made by the Prime Minister of Canada when the EPF block funding program was brought in. I want to point out to you, Sir, that it is a ceiling on how much the federal Government will pay post-secondary education. Regrettably it is not the floor; there is a variable which makes it possible for an application of less than the six and five ratio of increment and expenditure, which is mentioned, but the little dog-eared section down there states that under certain statistical conditions we do not have to increase that payment even by 5 per cent. We might increase it by 2 per cent, 3 per cent, or 4 per cent on an annual basis. All this is contradictory to the means of the provinces of Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada.
I wish I had time to quote, but I will not abuse the unanimous consent I received. I refer Members of this House, including the sarcastic Member from Ottawa Centre, to Emmett Hall's statement about the need for additional federal help for post-secondary education rather than make cut-backs in the extension of federal grants for health, education, and welfare. His statement unequivocally says that if and when this happens there will be a reduction in the quality of services in an area of Canada which, even at the time of the Emmett Hall report, could not meet the standards of Canada. Instead of less, Mr. Justice Hall was recommending more.
Bill C-150 was in this House. It never reached second reading. In the interests of humanity, of education, and of the taxation incapabilities of Atlantic Canada, I pray that this Bill will never come to third reading and a vote in this House of Commons.
Established Programs Financing


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there comments or questions concerning the speech of the Hon. Member?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) referred to the "sarcastic Member for Ottawa Centre", apparently referring to myself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: I was not at all being sarcastic when I asked questions of the Hon. Member across the floor. The Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) was Chairman of the task force which looked into federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. He came into this House not more than a week ago and in his speech indicated that the Province of New Brunswick is now receiving for post-secondary education funding 109 per cent of its total expenditures. That means the federal Government is not only paying the entire cost of post-secondary education in New Brunswick, it is paying 9 per cent more than the total cost.
How can the Hon. Member sit there and say that the federal Government should, without limit continue to send funds to the Province of New Brunswick for the express purpose of post-secondary education funding when the province is not spending the money we send it now for the purpose of post-secondary education? When will Members on that side of the House learn that you simply cannot push on a string ?
Members on this side of the House, in the leadership campaign and from other parts of the Cabinet are talking about finding ways to improve post-secondary education and training, which may involve a more direct role for the federal Government in ensuring that the young people in this country receive the education being paid for by taxpayers' dollars. I support them 100 per cent, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Blenkarn:: Are you going to speak today?


John Leslie Evans: -and it is time people on that side of the House started to take their responsibilities seriously.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Why wait for spring? Do it now.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention that when the Hon. Member for Gloucester made his comments he included in arriving at that figure tuition fees paid by students-


John Leslie Evans: Of course.


Fred Alward McCain: Wait a minute; that is not a provincial nor is it a federal expenditure. The Hon. Member for Gloucester included the grants made by private individuals through alumni funds and other grants in that expenditure. That is not what they are talking about because there is absolutely no relationship between what the province spends for education, the private grants to universities and the tuition fees paid by

April 10, 1984
Established Programs Financing
students. That is an absolute and utter distortion of what we are talking about today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: We are talking about the payment of taxpayers' dollars, not private dollars or tuition fees. So the Hon. Member should remove that figure. I challenge the Member for Ottawa Centre to say that of taxpayers' dollars New Brunswick is not spending its share.


John Leslie Evans: Nonsense.


Fred Alward McCain: It is. The university structure education council got its increment in funds from the provinces of Atlantic Canada on an annual basis and they are well in proportion to or in excess of the moneys which are contributed by the Government of Canada.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) wants to contribute to this debate. I certainly think he should. However, could the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) confirm that the effect of this Bill is to reduce the amount of cash the federal Government transferred to New Brunswick-amounting to $3.3 million in the year 1983-84, and another $7.4 million in the year 1984-85-by $10.7 million? Those figures are escalated forever. Could the Hon. Member tell us how he thinks a federal Government that is concerned about training, about the new technological age which we are entering, could conceivably take away from the Province of New Brunswick $10.7 million-not tax points or anything of that nature, not fluff-that is needed to finance the education of young people and indeed people who need retraining?


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government did not have a political profile in the block funding structure. Its effort to save between $5 billion and $6 billion on an annual basis projected was in order to obtain a political profile and to put money into post-secondary education and health care. The intention was to reduce the federal commitment and at the same time raise the profile of the politics of the contribution. New Brunswick, I may say in response to the Hon. Member, cannot afford a drop of $10.3 million in post-secondary moneys which are granted for two reasons. If we examine the student population in Atlantic Canada, we find that there are more people in college per capita than there are in other parts of the Dominion of Canada. This is because a great many people go from other parts of Canada to the Atlantic provinces for college education, at least to the bachelor level. This is fact.
At no time in the negotiations between the provinces and the federal Government was the federal Government ever prepared to accept the idea of a student per capita grant to Atlantic Canada, because it would federally distort the picture to the extent that it would be giving more money to Atlantic
Canada, particularly to the Maritimes, than it would be to any other area of Canada for that purpose.
We cannot afford to lose $10.3 million. I say again that no matter how we wish to cut the pie, no matter how we wish to criticize the general stance of the Government in respect of EPF grants, we cannot get around the fact that in total-and for the moment let us not consider education-federal costsharing declined from 41.1 per cent ot 29.1 per cent, for a 12 per cent cut in the budget of the province as far as federal contributions are concerned. No matter what other arguments we may want to use, what other measures we may wish to apply or whatever justifications we may suggest for this Act, we have to justify cutting 12 per cent from costsharing programs.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, this Bill does not cut anything. It reduces the increase that will be transferred to the provinces.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: Let us get some basic arithmetic on the table. If the Province of New Brunswick spends $100 million-and let us use that just as a figure-on post-secondary education, and students and contributors in the form of donors, alumni and so on, as well as the federal Government, give the province $109 million to spend on post-secondary education, and if the province only spends $100 million of it on post-secondary education, how much does the province pay out of its coffers for post-secondary education? It would be minus $9 million. In other words, it has taken $9 million given to it by the federal Government, by the students in tuition or by contributors in the form of alumni and so on, for the purpose of post-secondary education and has used it for something else. Does that sound like the province is making a contribution to postsecondary education in the Province of New Brunswick? It sure doesn't to me.


Fred Alward McCain: That is utter nonsense. That is like asking the nation of Canada how much wood can a woodchuck chuck. It is just about the same. We are talking about federal and provincial tax dollars.


John Leslie Evans: How many provincial tax dollars went into it? It was minus $9 million, that is how much it was.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You could make a speech, John.


John Leslie Evans: I have already spoken.


Fred Alward McCain: We are talking about what should have been a sacred and trustworthy commitment by the Government of Canada to cost-share programs up to a percentage level.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Right on.


Fred Alward McCain: Any effort to try to draw in the tuition fees is ridiculous. It is a tax dollar deal at which we are looking. Not only does the Bill limit it to the six and five. If we look at it again, we will see that they do not have to honour either the six or five because there is a little codicil in there that the
April 10, 1984

Bureau of Statistics can reduce it if it wishes. They are putting on a ceiling, not a floor. As long as I speak on this subject matter I will not try to defend the Government. I will not try to mix fire with gasoline. I will talk about tax dollars paid and raised in the Province of New Brunswick, paid and raised by the federal Government and pooled for post-secondary education.


John Leslie Evans: None was spent by the province.


Fred Alward McCain: Private contributions to universities, to scholarship funds and from tuitions have never been mentioned in any educational debate which I have ever heard, except in the fashion which the Hon. Member for Bow River might mention it-it is pretty heavy for students Canada-wide. That is the only relationship which tuition and private contributions have to this Bill. The Government should forget it and not try to blindfold the people of Canada with false information any longer. We cannot afford to lose $10.3 million, nor can any Atlantic province.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please! This brings us to the end of the question and comment period. Debate. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter about which we are talking today is of extreme importance if for no other reason than the period of time in which we are living. We are in a period of time in which there is a greater need rather than a lesser need for education because the nature of the world in which we live is rapidly changing. Unlike the period of our forefathers and foremothers, we are in a situation today where there is an inconsistency.


John Leslie Evans: Oh.


Arnold John Malone: I note that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) likes to give a speech when every other Member makes a speech, but does not have the courage to rise and do so when he ought to.


John Leslie Evans: I have already spoken.


Arnold John Malone: He likes to speak while others are making their comments. I invite him to rise in his place when I sit down and perhaps the Speaker will recognize him. Then we will have a chance to test whether or not he can participate for 20 minutes.


Mr. Friesen:: They will not recognize him in the next election.


John Leslie Evans: Do you want to bet?


Arnold John Malone: We are talking about the need for more education and the need for the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to listen so that he might be further educated.
Established Programs Financing


John Leslie Evans: Not by you.


Arnold John Malone: It is important to recognize that the period of change today is so rapid that no longer can grandfather teach grandson.


Ms. Mitchell:: Or grandmother teach granddaughter.


Arnold John Malone: As my good friend reminds me, or grandmother teach granddaughter. From year to year the nature of what we need to know changes rapidly, and change in education demands a much greater commitment to education.
There was a period of time in our history when I was but a young boy starting school and the local vernacular in that rural farming community was that one needed grade 9. Somewhere during the early periods of my schooling, I heard parents discussing around farm kitchen tables that grade 9 was not good enough any longer and that one needed grade 12. Unfortunately, about the time I reached that grade it should have been utopia but people were saying that it was no good any longer and that one needed university education.
We are into a new age today where there is no such concept as termination of education. One does not reach a certain level and say that is it for life. One does not train to become a doctor and say: "Now I am a doctor for life". At least, I do not want any medical treatment from a person who graduated ten years ago and that was the last he ever read about medicine. Today education is continuous and ongoing. There should be no end to it, even for our senior citizens. I have been thrilled in my constituency on many occasions when I witnessed persons over the age of 70 years who had less than a grade 12 education but through extension programs had the opportunity to attend university.
We are talking about an enormous range of importance. On the other hand, the Government of Canada is cutting back from the federal domain payments to the provinces for 198384 of $118 million and for 1984-85 an additional $260 million. What is important is that it establishes a new base by which the Government can say in future years that from that original platform it makes its calculations into the future. The federal Government, which established a program of block funding to the provinces, has taken the position of establishing a new lower base. We will either have a situation of poor education forever, a greater burden on the provinces or a greater burden on individuals.
This is the age of the microchip. It is an age where education ought to be continuous. In one country at least, Japan, the view is that education is continuous. We have entered into a Liberal age of slogans-the land is strong; the just society; six and five. They have not demonstrated to Canadians, certainly not to the two Opposition Parties, that there is six and five less need for education. I have seen no studies, research or material to indicate that we should spend $118 million less this year and $260 million next.

April 10, 1984
Established Programs Financing
We are living in the age of the slogan. We have the slogan of six and five. This Government has bankrupted itself with PetroCan, Canadair, Mirabel and Pickering and other wasteful spending, and is now cutting out education. It is too simple to recognize and realize that education is an investment in the future. If you look at any advanced society, you see a society that is educated. Therefore, slogans such as the just society and six and five do not meet our needs.
We need an in-depth analysis of what our optimum education ought to be and at what levels we ought to expand. Had some commission made an in-depth study of that requirement, we could then accept the numbers more readily. Not only do we not have any research indicating what the levels of expenditure ought to be; we have unilateral action taken by the federal Government. The federal Government entered into an agreement with the ten provinces. It is unilaterally breaking that agreement. It is decreasing the amount of block funding. On the basis of that decrease, it tries through speeches by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to pretend that we in this country will have participatory democracy and renewed federalism. How can you have renewed federalism when you have a dictatorial attitude on the part of one of the 11 partners, telling the other ten that it has decided they will get less and there is to be no discussion? There have been no federal-provincial discussions on this matter. The Minister in charge has not travelled about the country to determine what the burden on the provinces will be if the funds are decreased. The Government simply writes out new legislation saying the provinces will receive $118 million less next year and $260 million less the next. It presumes there will be some gratification because when speaking to the Bill the Minister said that less was more.
This is all part of the double-speak of the Government; silk cloth, smoke and mirrors, the magic show of felt hats and rabbits, trying to make less look like more. The Government says that 6 per cent is more than zero per cent, but fails to recognize that it is less than the traditional commitment. It describes it as more when in fact it turns out to be less. The Minister knows that the provinces are not happy. He has not had any agreement with the provinces with regard to this legislation.
More important is what this Bill does. It freezes the ratios into an inflexible straitjacket. We have before us a presumption that the calculations of the federal Government as laid before us today are accurate, that 50.5 per cent should go to hospital insurance, 17.4 per cent to medicare and 32.1 per cent to post-secondary education. If we could make the presumption that the federal Government was correct in those ratios, I challenge any Member on the Government side to stand and argue that they will be the correct ratios for Canada for all of our foreseeable future.
Is it not possible that somehow down the road there may be a breakthrough in preventive medicine and this will result in decreased costs? Therefore, we could shift our ratio to greater needs for education. Is it not possible with the advancement of the microchip that society might advance so quickly that, in
order to get into the mainstream of whatever point the world is at at that time in history, the ratios may need to change?
In 1984 the federal Government would freeze forever a ratio system. It does that on the basis of the national average. That challenges the other presumption. Are we to presume that the ratio needs of Prince Edward Island are the same ratio needs of Alberta? Is Quebec to be presumed to have exactly the same needs in health as that of Saskatchewan?
I challenge one partner in this federation coming up with a set of numbers. It fails on two presumptions; first, in its future implications and, second, in its regional differences. We are in a situation where the amounts of money granted are such that we need to separate those ratios into at least having input on a continuing basis from each and all of the provinces. It was not the prerogative of the Government unilaterally to make the choices, to establish its brand, to claim its need.
In the past, the federal Government issued block funding for a number of social services. It is now running this magic show by us, changing the title of the Bill and breaking that block funding into prescribed measures. The more the feds prescribe, regulate, define and dictate how block funding is to be broken down and spent, the more they intrude into provincial jurisdiction.
The Government may feel comfortable in its heart and soul defining that block funding will not go as a block, but as all of the parts of the block. By the power of the dollar, it will become the administrator of the provinces. If it can control that block in all of its parts and define how each individual part is to be spent, it takes away the flexibility of the provinces to shift ratios toward health or away from education, regardless of whatever the individual provinces may feel is their need.
The federal Government today not only shortchanges education but damages federalism and provincial jurisdictions. It lords itself over the provinces as a powerful central Government which the country ought not to experience.
I do not speak against central governments or unitary governments simply as an automatic reflex. A unitary government may well be a satisfactory form of government in England, Belgium or Holland. However, it is not a satisfactory form of government in a country that is the second largest in the world, stretching from Vancouver Island to St. John's, Newfoundland, some four and a half thousand miles. This is a country that, by its very breadth ahd scope, requires regional input. When block funding is broken into all of its component parts and its spending is prescribed, the result is a federal Government which intrudes in a very direct way in what ought to be and is prescribed by our Constitution as being the jurisdiction of the provinces.
There are those two faults, the federalism concept and the fact that the Government tries to apply a national average to all parts of the country as if all needs were equal. The people who form the Liberal Government are trying to pretend to us that averaging is somehow a satisfactory way to go in terms of a Canadian objective. I will say through you, Sir, to a Liberal;
April 10, 1984

"If you had your head on a firebox and your feet on a block of ice, on average you would feel pretty good". I submit that Liberal members have not recognized the uniqueness of the north, the Atlantic provinces, the western prairie provinces or the West Coast. They have not recognized the different cultural milieux that exist in the big cities and various regions of the country.
To lower funding for post-secondary education is quite literally to lower our income expectations. It is no new fact to anyone in the House that those nations which have a lower standard of education have a lower standard of living. They not only have a lower standard of living in terms of dollars but they have a lower standard of living in terms of the soul of the person. Education provides us with an opportunity to discover our outer limits. It is a chance to find out who we are and what we can become. When we in a society like Canada deny a person, young or old, the opportunity to say yes to the challenges that come his or her way and the ability to say yes to an opportunity to grow and expand, we end up with restricted people with restricted souls. Education is the key that unlocks the universe. It is there for us to discover.
I dare any person to say yes to the challenges that come his or her way. People who say no to challenges, who say they cannot and do not dare to discover new things, live in a rut. A rut is simply a grave with both ends kicked out. Education opens up a new universe and allows us to bombard our own outer limits.
The federal Government's response to the age of the microchip is to say that it will cut back funds for education. I can tell you, Sir, that nothing could be more out of concert with the needs of our time. We are in an age today when the new information that comes to the fore year after year makes obsolete that which we were taught only a short time ago. In a time when there should be an enormous expansion of education, we find that the federal Government is cutting back by literally millions of dollars on its federal obligation.
I ask Members opposite how they justify that perspective when members of their Party are going around the country attesting to their leadership qualities and some of them are saying that there will be zero unemployment within five years. How can there be a zero unemployment rate without giving more funding to education? Surely a look at the world tells us that it is the educated nations which have the opportunities for more jobs. Education must first of all be broad-based. It cannot become elitist. It must not be something only for the privileged.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time is up. We will now have a ten-minute question and comment period. Are there any questions?
We will resume debate.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it seems incredible to me that we are spending so much time on this particular subject when it is so obvious that the Government should be looking at withdrawing the Bill or withdrawing
Established Programs Financing
the portion of the Bill which will affect post-secondary education across the country. This Bill amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act. This amendment gives to that Act a new name but it is still the same old Act with only a few variations.
The main purpose of the Bill which is before us is to apply the six and five principle to post-secondary education transfers from the federal Government to provincial governments. The Bill has to some extent taken into consideration the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements task force report, though it has taken very little of that report into consideration. It has considered only those parts of that task force report which it thought would reduce the amount of cash it would have to pay out.
The Bill does follow one of the recommendations of the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements task force report by separating health care funding and secondary education funding from the other block funding. It provides also for a minimum of accountability. I say a minimum of accountability because it only requires that information on the manner in which transfer moneys are spent be tabled in the House. It does not particularly require that all of the transfer moneys which are to go to secondary education or health care be spent in that particular way.
We in the New Democratic Party thought that that amendment should have been incorporated into the Bill. However, the amendment which did pass was taken almost directly from the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements task force report and does require the kind of accountability by provincial governments which would require them to put before the House information about the manner in which the money was spent. In that case, some of the arguments which we heard this morning of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) and the previous speaker who comes from New Brunswick should not have taken place. That kind of information would have been before the House.
I must go back to the real purpose of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I do not understand why the Government would make a move like this at this particular time. The significance of the move itself is obvious; it will take approximately $378 million from post-secondary institutions across Canada in the next two years. Part of that reduction is retroactive; it is money that the institutions have already committed or have spent. What is probably more important is that the $260 million being taken from 1984-85 will establish a base for future payments to secondary education. Surely there has not been a reduction in the need for education. If anything, the need has been increased by the recession, the downturn in employment. People are looking for new ways to make a living and education can help them find new directions.
The amount of money the Bill establishes will govern the kind of education which post-secondary institutions are able to put before the people who need it so badly, the people without work. If we do not give the money to the institutions-I do not

April 10, 1984
Established Programs Financing speak only of universities but community colleges and technical institutions, which also come under the Bill-then people's ability to find a job will be affected.
The costs of education are increasing, therefore the funds provided by government must also increase. Reducing the money that the federal Government pays forces the institutions to cut back on existing programs and not create new ones which would provide the kind of education required to make people feel a little more secure in the future.
It is all a question of priorities. The Government has decided to save money in the area where it is easiest to do so, and that is the transfer of funds to the provinces for post-secondary education. If that money is cut off the effects will be felt this year, next year, the year after and for many years to come, but it could be done immediately without drastic effects. A few thousand students would not get into the programs they choose and for another few thousand the programs that would equip them for jobs in the future would not be available. This result will be felt three or five years from now.
For a long time the Government has been saying that its priority is employment and that it is going to spend millions of dollars to provide jobs for the youth of the country. Then almost in the same sentence it suggests the kind of restraint which would not allow youth to train for those jobs.
Training programs will be important for youth during the next few years. It is not as if the federal Government had accepted the idea that it does not have some responsibility in education-which many of the provinces would argue is the correct decision-that it does not have responsibility to provide training. Over the years the federal Government has accepted the responsibility and has made many incursions into the training field. That started with training for World War II. A lot of training was necessary at that time and the Government undertook it. After the war, with the huge development that took place after 1945 and in the early 1950s, the federal Government developed institutions and provided per capita grants for training which was directly related to the jobs that were available.
After the war we had to go to the European countries and even to South American countries to find people with the skills that we wanted and which were necessary to help us develop as a country. Because there was a great need for training at that time the federal Government took its responsibility and got into the training field. It did so through direct capital grants to help build the institutions that were necessary and through per capita grants for the number of students actually in training. It made changes and put the money where it was needed. Later it backed off that decision and instead of paying a per capita grant in 1977 moved to block funding which would allow it to operate on a formula. The basis of that formula was that it should be able to give the provinces and the federal Government some idea of the amount of money available for education in the next year or the year after. That was a base which everyone recognized.
What has happened is that the federal Government has changed the base and will not increase funding as it has in the
past. It will reduce the base from that of two years ago, the percentage increase will be reduced and will not be that which was agreed upon. Instead of taking into consideration the need for training and the need for flexibility among people, the Government decided to reduce the amount of money available for education. That will make it less possible for our youth and older people looking for jobs to get the training they need.
It is easy to reduce the money paid to colleges and universities. It seems that in the process you are not making some kind of priority decision, but in the long run that is exactly what you are doing.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please! It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair to return at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to understand the actions of the Department of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) in deleting $45,000 from the funds of the Ottawa Multicultural Women's Centre. This money, Mr. Speaker, is needed to rehire badly needed co-ordinators for the Centre in order to maintain and improve programs to assist immigrant women in the important task of adjusting to the Canadian way of life. As is well known, Mr. Speaker, immigrant women do have special problems in this area and badly need this assistance.
To cut off a program which is needed and is proving successful, is another example of the total absence of common sense. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reconsider this decision and restore the cutback to the Multicultural Women's Centre. Failing this, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Collenette) to take a serious look at this problem with the view to filling in the possible void if no action is taken by the Deparment of Employment and Immigration.
April 10, 1984



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, speaking before the National Assembly recently, Quebec's Minister of Employment referred to the pilot project designed to help ablebodied young people under 30 and stated that, if such a project is not really worthwhile, it is due to the federal yoke and that independence is the solution.
Mr. Speaker, that is a false and misleading allegation. Indeed, the Quebec Minister of Employment came to Ottawa to discuss this program with the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Miss Begin). With enthusiasm, we accepted to share the costs of that program for which, incidentally, we will be paying $59 million over two years. This is in addition to the $924 million given to Quebec for 1983-84 under the shared cost social assistance program.
Mr. Speaker, it is utterly ridiculous to make the people of Quebec believe that, if they foot the bill by themselves it will cost them less than it does now when we are paying 50 per cent of the cost. If anyone is forcing Quebecers to carry a yoke, it has to be their provincial Government which is driving them towards independence against their will.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, through their many barbaric acts the Communists have made clear their utter disrespect for human life. During the first 30 years of Soviet dictatorship, 83 million people were murdered. In Afghanistan, communist troops have slaughtered entire tribes and have gassed innocent civilians. And, of course, we can never forget, nor forgive, the downing of Korean Airlines Flight 007, in which 269 innocent passengers were thoughtlessly massacred by the Soviets.
These murders are only an example of their savagery. Their pride in their repulsive violence is even more indicative of their cruel nature. In the Soviet Union, Sunday, April 8, marked the official "Day of Anti-Aircraft Defences", hailing the downing of the Korean jetliner. A senior Soviet military official stated the destruction of the plane was a feat of arms comparable to the shooting down of the American U-2 spy plane in 1960.
For these reasons, we will never be able to disarm unilaterally, nor can we ever trust the murdering Communists in disarmament, or even disarmament negotiations.



MINORITY RIGHTS


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) proves what we have been saying for months. His address in support of the linguistic minorities is nothing more than an attempt to put Canadians to sleep. His actions contradict his words. First, he has never denounced the anti-French Members for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKen-zie)and for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart). Second, he has never told the Manitoba Members who refused to be associated with the motion in support of francophones in that Province to toe the line. Third, far from throwing out dissenters, the Progressive Conservative Party rewards those who undermine the French fact in Canada. As we will find out at three o'clock, he stands behind the candidacy of Bud Sherman, a Manitoba Conservative who has been one of the most uncompromising opponents of the Pawley project. He has just given more important responsibilities to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine as critic in the shadow Cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, like a Mafia leader who advocates-virtue, the Conservative Leader shamelessly lies to Canadians and, back home, anyone who lies is a liar.



VISIBLE MINORITIES


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats call upon the Government to act quickly and positively upon the 80 recommendations listed in the parliamentary report, Equality Now. In recent public briefing sessions held by members of the Special Committee on the Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian society, we often had comments raised about the injustices done to Chinese immigrants who had to pay head taxes of up to $500 per individual.
The first Chinese immigrants to Canada arrived in 1858. From 1885 to 1947, along with several other discriminatory measures imposed against them, they had to pay a head tax. Historical documents estimate that between 1886 and 1923 the federal Treasury was enriched by $22 million from the head tax levied only on Chinese immigrants.
We in the New Democratic Party call upon the Government to recognize this injustice and see that those who suffered in this disgusting manner are duly compensated.
In the report, Equality Now, considerable concern was expressed about the lack of advertising by the Government in the ethnic media and the visible minority media. Advertising is the life blood of the ethnic press. We urge the Government to

April 10, 1984
respond to these concerns instead of basically using the Main Street dailies to communicate with the various ethnic cultural groups.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Rolland Dion (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, UPA representatives met with several members from Quebec and the Minister of Agriculture this morning. The UPA representatives hailed from various areas in Quebec and the discussions dealt mostly with the disastrous spring of 1983.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture confirmed to the UPA representatives that he was willing to consider their requests for compensation for the losses they suffered provided these request are channelled through the Quebec Government as required by the rules of the game. In other words, the Minister is willing to consider the requests for compensation, but not under any condition. Requests must be made through the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Garon, and I urge him to listen and to meet with the federal Minister of Agriculture as soon as possible to discuss this serious problem in Quebec.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, despite the introduction last fall of another phase of the affirmative action program which was to ensure that discrimination against hiring women for middle and upper level positions within the Public Service would be abolished, the Government is still only paying lip service to recognizing and fully appreciating the abilities of Canadian women.
An example of how well this affirmative action program is working was vividly brought to my attention. A well qualified, competent woman was insulted and degraded during an interview for a rather unconventional job opportunity in the Public Service. She was told by a member of the interviewing board that she was only there as the token female candidate to satisfy Treasury Board's affirmative action post board scrutiny.
This woman knows she has the right to take her case to the Human Rights Commission, but will not do so for fear of jeopardizing any chance she has with future competitions for which she has applied. How many more women are there in this same position?
When confronted with this kind of neanderthal attitude toward hiring women, how can the women of this country believe they will be employed as a direct result of their ability and professionalism, and not because they are required to fulfil
an insulting and degrading quantitative goal the Government opposite hopes will secure the feminist vote? Mr. Speaker, we in the Conservative Party know full well the meaning of affirmative action for women-that merit and not tokenism should be the only factor considered in the assessment of a woman's ability to fill a position. When will the Government opposite stop treating 52 per cent of Canadians like second class citizens and a minority?


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



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Michel Veillette (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague for Portneuf (Mr. Dion) has just said, we had a meeting this morning with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I would like to thank him for accepting to meet with the UPA delegates from the Saint-Maurice, Portneuf, Lac-Saint-Jean and Quebec City areas. This meeting was arranged with barely 24 hours' notice.
I should also thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Member for Brome-Missis-quoi, as well as my colleagues from Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere, Trois-Rivieres, Portneuf, Roberval, Jonquiere, Chicoutimi and Richelieu, who were willing to attend this meeting to listen to the demands voiced by farm producers from the Saint-Maurice area and other areas in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, as mentioned by my colleague from Portneuf, the Minister accepted this morning to consider the claims submitted by the farmers and he also responded to the rumour which seems to be going around in Quebec to the effect that the provincial authorities are delaying its crop insurance payments because, according to them, the federal Government is also delaying payment of an amount of $18.5 million. True enough the federal Government is putting off payment of these $18.5 million, but it is also true that the Quebec Government has refused to meet the requirements to which the other Canadian provinces have agreed. In addition, when the Quebec Government says that, without these $18.5 million, they cannot afford to pay the producers, it is not true because the Quebec Government already has paid this amount-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the Hon. Member has expired. The Hon. Member for Joliette.
April 10, 1984



NATIONAL REVENUE


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I also share the interest voiced by my colleagues concerning the importance of agriculture in Quebec. Still, I would urge my Quebec colleagues to consider the case of tip earners in Quebec. For the third time, Mr. Speaker, I am asking this Government to restore equity and justice for tip earners who are being forced to pay income tax on their total income. Under the circumstances, knowing that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is very busy-and I can understand that-I would suggest that it may have become necessary for him to delegate his authority to someone else who would look into this situation. I therefore invite and urge the Government to remedy that long-standing injustice. The Minister of National Revenue is aware of it. I asked him a few questions on that subject and he told me that it was not his responsibility, but that of the Minister of Finance. Whether from the Minister of Finance or from the Minister of Employment and Immigration, no solution is forthcoming, Mr. Speaker. That being the case, I draw this issue to the attention of my Quebec colleagues-I emphasize the fact that, unless changes are made to the provincial legislation, they may be victim of the injustice which has been tolerated by this Government for two years. I would hope that this time all Members of the House will agree with me and that the Minister will be as concerned about tip earners as he is about his own ambitions concerning-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The time of the Hon. Member has expired. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).



EMPLOYMENT


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Conservatives are giving some attention to the report of the task force on employment opportunities. At their seminar last weekend at Mont Ste. Marie they proposed, among other things, that there be tax deductions for educational and training savings. That was recommendation No. 88 of the task force report. Most of the other reported proposals on employment training were likewise taken from the task force report.
While the Conservative action is welcome, I would be even more enthused if they and the Liberal leadership candidates supported recommendation No. 1, to implement a full employment policy, and recommendation No. 2, to establish an industrial strategy linked to employment and training policies.
Oral Questions
Full employment is possible, Mr. Speaker, if there is a political will to achieve it. On the two occasions since World War II when Liberal Governments made the commitment, in 1945 and in 1964, unemployment was reduced to 3 per cent between 1946 and 1953, and to 3.8 per cent between 1965 and 1967. Mr. Speaker, let us have a six and five program for unemployment to reduce unemployment to 5 per cent by 1986.



ACHIEVEMENT OF BARGAINING RIGHTS FOR EMPLOYEES

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to comment on the fact that the House of Commons has just been invited to take another small step into the twentieth century. Members of Parliament will be aware that 15 years ago the parliamentary committee on employer-employee relations in the public service recommended that employees on Parliament Hill be granted bargaining rights similar to other public servants. Many Members will also be aware that Governments since that day have refused to grant those rights to the employees of Parliament. Unfortunately, it is not to the credit of Parliament that these rights are now becoming a reality.
Great credit, on the other hand, must be given to the Public Service Alliance and to the Canada Labour Relations Board. The Labour Relations Board has issued a ruling that employees of Parliament fall under the Canada Labour Code, as we have suggested they did for years, and that Parliament cannot prevent this by harking back to the centuries-old tradition of parliamentary privilege.
This is indeed a great day for the employees of Parliament who have now been granted the rights other Canadians have taken for granted. It is a great day for all Canadians when a black mark such as this, which has interfered with the rights of individuals to have representation through the democratic processes, will finally be eliminated.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development. I am sure the Minister is aware of The Globe and Mail article of today reporting on a February 2 meeting of 12 Deputy Ministers. A report of this meeting was prepared for the Minister of State for Economic Developement on the future of de Havilland.

April 10, 1984
Oral Questions
The key statement in this report is that the time to make a decision on whether to keep going on the Dash-8 program- which is the key program for de Havilland-was last month, earlier this year when the extra $240 million was put into the program.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Government hid from Members of Parliament the crucial nature of the decision to put that $240 million into the company. Why did the Government cover up on this report? Why did the Government keep that information from Members of Parliament when the House was asked to approve that amount of money?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there was no attempt to keep information from Members of Parliament. Senator Austin, the Minister responsible for CDIC, had planned to release this report on Friday of this week, I believe. It was done in anticipation by some other means. However, he does intend to answer questions in the other place. He does intend to meet the press on the subject later this afternoon. I will attempt either to answer or take notice of any questions. I have not read the report myself yet. I am sure Senator Austin will make himself available to the Hon. Member if he wants to ask some specific questions.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is this type of misrepresentations that occurred in December of 1982, and it happened earlier this year. The information was not put in front of Members of Parliament at the time that they were asked to make the decision on spending that additional $240 million.


DEPUTY MINISTER'S FINDINGS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make three references to that report. The first is that benefits flowing to the Canadian economy, which, while substantial, are "not sufficient to offset the cost of government support" under their market assumptions. The second reference is, the company "will not become commercially viable" for another 10 years at least. The third reference is: "in the absence of a further analysis of such considerations, approval is premature".
Would the Prime Minister tell the House why Members of Parliament were asked to proceed to approve that amount of money without having this information available? Why the coverup?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that there was no coverup, nor was there any attempt to conceal that information. The amounts discussed in the committee, some $240 million, I believe, were to pay past debts. That money would have had to have been paid whether the company went into receivership or not. There was no misrepresentation as to those amounts.
As to the commercial viability of de Havilland, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there has been no attempt to pretend that de Havilland will be commercially viable in the next few years. That has been stated publicly by the Minister.
It is something known to the committee members, as opposed to Canadair where the Minister has argued that that was a commercially viable operation as of now with the restructuring and the debt refinancing. The de Havilland decision was made by the Government in the knowledge that there would be no profit from that corporation over the next several years, but the Government made a decision to keep it operating in order to maintain the expertise, know-how, and technology in Canada. There are no hidden facts on that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Prime Minister is not going to get away with that one. This is the first time that it has been indicated that this company will not make money for 10 more years. If people went back 10 years and heard anyone say that the Government would have a deficit of $30 billion at this time, they would laugh. Those are the sorts of figures we are dealing with when trying to understand what is behind the Government's motives.


TIMING OF REPORT'S RELEASE
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there are many people whose jobs and businesses depend on the viability of de Havilland. Will the Prime Minister explain why this information was not given to us at the time, and why Members of Parliament were asked to make a decision two months ago under false pretences? Would he explain why this report was not made available at that time, or why it is being rushed into the public sector now just because of a Globe and Mail report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is repeating himself. Much of that question was asked in the first question. I repeat that the $240 million which was in the Supplementary Estimates was given in order to pay past debts. That is an amount that would have been necessary even if we had not decided to keep de Havilland alive. The Hon. Member seems to say that had he known that de Havilland was not immediately commercially viable-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You knew something we didn't know.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Would the Hon. Member listen to my answer? If he wants to ask the questions, the least he can do is have the courtesy to listen to the answers. Now he is asking for a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Let us hear the supplementary, but will the Hon. Member please listen to my answer?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has had two supplementar-ies. The Chair is trying to recognize as many Members as possible. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.
April 10, 1984


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister who, I am sure, at lunchtime today had an opportunity to discuss with some of the Cabinet Ministers who are seeking the leadership of the Liberal Party some of his thoughts with respect to their statements across Canada. Those statements, which were going off in all directions, were basically opposed to the fundamental cornerstone policies of the Government, such as the National Energy Policy, Employment Policy, universality of social programs, lotteries, and Crown corporation policies. That is just part of the list of areas where members of his Cabinet are attacking the fundamental principles for which his Government stands.
Has the Prime Minister in fact set down guidelines for Cabinet Ministers seeking leadership, about their public pronouncements on government policy and, if not, has he asked for the resignation of these people so that they can speak freely and not contradict the policy of his Government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I stated my view on that yesterday in the House of Commons. Perhaps the Hon. Member would refer to Hansard.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 think the Prime Minister must have thought his answer inadequate because he felt he had to have lunch today, and it is obvious that he is suffering from dyspepsia after that experience.


SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR MINISTERS' LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGNS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said of the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development that the policies being put forward by the latter Minister "strike at the heart of our economic recovery program". How can the Prime Minister tolerate the activities of his Ministers, going off in all directions with respect to the policies they are putting forward, which are in contradiction to the policies put forward by the Prime Minister as head of the Government?
Second, one of his own guidelines that he has promulgated with respect to the activities of his ministry and his Ministers deals with gifts and provides that:
Ministers shall disclose in the Public Registry any personal gift or other benefit of a value exceeding two hundred dollars which they receive from any person not connected with them by blood relationship . . .
In light of that, is he insisting that all donations to Cabinet Ministers who are seeking the leadership have to be disclosed and published in the Public Registry, so that all Canadians can see the sources of their donations for their leadership campaigns?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, first I want to tell the Hon. Member that I have lunch most every day, and today was no different. It had nothing to do with the answers that I gave in the House yesterday.
The second point is that I am grateful for the Hon. Member's concern about policy positions in this Party, and I think that somehow he is taking-


Mr. McGrath:: Government.
Mr. Trudeau -the Government's policies, and I will take to heart his sympathy for views held over here and for my position. I do not really feel as exercised about it as he seems to be. Perhaps he should be more concerned about policies or lack thereof on his own side, and spend less time looking at the policies put forward here.
As I said yesterday, we have people who are hoping to become Prime Minister of this country and I think that they are perfectly justified in telling the people how they will govern this country. If that means stating new policies or new points of view, I see nothing but commendation to give to them.
I would hope that after the Mont Ste Marie caucus meeting his Party would learn to state policies for the future. However, since they came back from Mont Ste. Marie they have only been concerned with Liberal policies. Why do they not state some of their own?
With respect to gifts, I think everyone must be smiling about the concern about gifts on our side. 1 know that the Liberal Federation is planning to enunciate some guidelines as to candidates for the leadership and the receipt of gifts, but it did not happen on their side. Why does the Hon. Member not ask his seat mate-


Mr. Nielsen:: They were not Cabinet Ministers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know, but they are presuming they never will be.


Erik Nielsen: They are, over there.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have a Leader of the Opposition who has been laying some claim to becoming Prime Minister, but we do not know what money he received. We do not know what money the giant corporations have given him. Maybe we should hear about it.


Mr. Mulroney:: What about your swimming pool?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I seem to have unnerved the Leader of the Opposition who is now talking about the swimming pool. I would like him to ask a question about the swimming pool and I will gladly answer it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions CROWN CORPORATIONS


DE HAVILLAND-REASONS FOR ADVANCING PUBLIC FUNDING
[Stage Direction]
April 10, 1984
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Prime Minister back from his combination lunch and judo session. I wish to ask him a question about this Crown corporation bail-out. After all, this is the second billion dollar bail-out in approximately two months. People who really care about workable Crown corporations like Saskatchewan Potash and the hydro corporations of the provinces really wonder what is happening.
Does the Prime Minister subscribe to what his Minister of Regional and Economic Dvelopment told The Toronto Star in an interview this weekend, that the Minister did not like the rich uncle syndrome of these Crown corporations? If the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development did not like the rich uncle syndrome, why has the Government, of which both the Prime Minister and the Minister are a part, advanced this money to de Havilland of Toronto without a real plan for making money in the Crown corporation in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Hon. Member to elaborate on the rich uncle syndrome? I did not follow the implication of that question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps he can ask his Minister, who appears to be against giving money to Crown corporations but voted in Cabinet to give money to this corporation.


SIZE OF CORPORATION'S WORK FORCE-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question about this report on exactly what is going to happen with de Havilland. The report in The Globe and Mail said the Deputy Ministers had considered a number of cost-cutting measures, which included a substantial reduction in de Havilland's work force. Is the Government's policy that it is going to grant $250 million, as well as some other tax credits, and at the same time lay off workers in de Havilland?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, either we let de Havilland go under or we do not. If we let it go under there will obviously be a major lay-off of workers. If we do not let it go under, if we make the judgment, as we have, that in spite of the fact that it will not be making profits, as we can see in the next few years, if we think it useful to keep it alive, to keep the technology in Canada, to keep those highly skilled workers employed in Canada rather than letting them go to the United States, then the Hon. Member will be on the Government's side and say that indeed we must keep it alive and that we must have a plan for the future, which the Senator responsible for CDIC and de Havilland explained to the parliamentary committee, and which he is prepared to talk about again today when the report is released. But the Hon. Member must make up his mind. On the one hand, he cannot complain about some workers losing their jobs, and then argue
that they should have all lost their jobs because we should cut loose from de Havilland.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, with respect to those jobs, these are pretty expensive jobs.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister, since I cannot ask his Minister, who is like the Crown corporation-he is not accountable to this House, he is not in this House, and so I cannot ask Senator Austin-has there been an advance of money to this corporation at the same time there is a plan to cut jobs in the corporation? Which is it? Is the Government going to continue the jobs in the corporation with a gameplan for the future profitability of the corporation? Or is the Government going to give money away and take jobs away, and not even plan for making any money from the corporation in the future? Which is it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the Hon. Member is either sincere or reflective in asking that question. Surely if he wants de Havilland to be kept alive and to keep that technology in the country, he is justified in asking for a plan for the future. I have answered the Hon. Member that that plan is there; it has been shown and it has been discussed with Members of Parliament in the committee. But when he says some workers are going to be fired, Mr. Speaker, I imagine that if the company is going to be profitable there will have to be constant rearrangements. And if it means hiring some people and firing others, it is not something the Government will oversee on a day-to-day basis.
What the Government does, and what Members of Parliament will want to do, is make sure that the options are all explored and we attempt to make the corporation profitable as soon as possible. But there is a recognition on the part of the Government that it will not be profitable in the immediate future. Therefore, the choice remains for all of us, Conservatives as well as New Democrats and Liberals-do we keep it alive with moneys from the public purse, or do we let it go under right away and let all the workers lose their jobs and all that technology leave the country? The Hon. Member is not in the position to make up his mind because he wants to argue both sides of the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who had to be dragged back into the House by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Employment and Immigration last
April 10, 1984

Friday in Calgary, when the unemployment statistics were brought down, said:
The economic recovery is drawing more people into the labour force, causing an increase in the number of people looking for work and inflating the unemployment rate-
He was saying that, Mr. Speaker, at a time when Statistics Canada figures showed that the labour force participation rate had declined by two points from that of December, over the three month period. During that same three month period, unemployment had gone up consistently. Either the Minister was misled, or he was deliberately misleading the Canadian people. The Minister owes it to this House and the unemployed of this country to own up with the truth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had the care and concern to look at the matter dispassionately he would see that over the past year the reason for the high levels of unemployment which we have in this country, and which we all regret, is not that we have been failing to create jobs in the Canadian economy, because we have been creating jobs at a very high rate compared to almost every other developed country. The reason for those high unemployment figures is because we have, in comparison to almost all other countries the extremely high entry into the labour force, coming from the young people entering the labour force for the first time, and women entering or re-entering the labour force. If he were to get off his rather pompous and sanctimonious high hat and look accurately at the figures, then he would be able to say that with some truthfulness.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to pomposity, the Minister takes second place to no one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: If the Minister would get off his pompous horse and get himself back into this House and address the problems of the unemployed-that is his responsibility-we would all be better off.


USE OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUNDS TO RETRAIN WORKERS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. How can he reconcile the fact-


An Hon. Member:: What about Schefferville?


James Aloysius McGrath: -that the labour force participation rate went from 64.5 per cent in December to 64.3 per cent in March? During that same period unemployment was going up.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, let me also ask the same Minister, who said in Calgary that unemployment insurance should be channelled into retraining as opposed to maintenance income-the Minister is responsible for UI-why does
Oral Questions
he not do that? Why does he not do it now instead of talking about it?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately increasing the decibel range of the Hon. Member's question does nothing to increase either its accuracy or its perception. The fact of the matter is that if he wants to look at the statistics over the last year he will see that my comments are accurate about entry into the labour force.
He asks with great pomposity and great vigour: "why are we not using unemployment insurance now to provide training for people?" The answer is, of course, that we are. That is exactly what Section 38 and Section 39 of the Unemployment Insurance Act now permit.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is not what you said in Calgary.


John (Moody) Roberts: That is what we are doing to the extent of something like $1 billion a year. Once again the Hon. Member has shown his profound lack of knowledge of what the facts of the situation are.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday he gave a commitment to me and to Members of the House of Commons that he would investigate the situation regarding the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development receiving funds from Indian Bands and Tribal Councils throughout this country, which the Minister yesterday admitted receiving. Has the Prime Minister completed that investigation? Would he report his findings to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did ask people in the Privy Council Office who are concerned with conflict of interest guidelines. Their finding is that none of these funds which were given to the campaign fund of the Minister were provided from public moneys. They were given by a private corporation-


John Horton McDermid: That is outrageous.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: You keep quiet, you asshole.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They were given by a private corporation which is owned and managed by the natives, and which operates various commercial enterprises like restaurants and other such operations.

April 10, 1984
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister feel that it is morally correct for a Minister of Indian Affairs, who, as late as yesterday in Winnipeg, said that Indian people suffer the highest infant mortality rate, have the greatest poverty in the country-


Mr. LeBlanc:: You demagogue.


John Horton McDermid: Never mind.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: -that have the highest suicide rate in this country, that need a half billion dollars in funds to eradicate their problems-that he is morally bankrupt in accepting money from these people for his own leadership campaign? It is sleazy. He is a morally bankrupt minister.


Mr. Cook:: Government funds, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no guidelines that would only authorize white people or rich people to give money to political purposes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And if the Hon. Member disagrees with that, I think the implications of the Hon. Member's question is that somehow native people should not be involved in the political process.


John Horton McDermid: Not at all.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member says, "Not at all." He should know that native people, those who live on reserves in particular, have some benefits from the Government of Canada, of a tax nature and others. Is he saying that they should not engage in commercial interests? Is he saying that if they do they should not be free as directors of that commercial interest to give money to political parties? I think that is an untenable position. Should we return again to the Tory leadership campaign when we know that giant corporations have given money to prospective leaders of the Party and eventually, as they think, of the Government, without even revealing the source of these funds?


John Horton McDermid: Will he reveal the source of all his?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He wants to attack some 6,000 or 7,000 Ojibways. I think that is tremendous hypocrisy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Oshawa and will recognize the Hon. Member for Yukon subsequently.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the participation of a United States agency in the mining of harbours in Nicaragua. In the past the Prime Minister has rightly expressed deep concern about superpower involvement in military affairs in this region. Yesterday the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives said the following of this action:
It is clear that it is legally indefensible.
Will the Prime Minister condemn this activity and point out that it completely undermines efforts to achieve peace in the region?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government is indeed concerned about these attacks which appear to represent a further escalation of the conflict between Nicaragua and the forces opposed to the current regime. Our concern about this issue has been conveyed to the United States Government. Any action to resolve the problems in this area must be taken within the context of the Contadora initiative. We support the rule of law, and we believe that the rule of international law should apply in relation to these matters.


CANADIAN POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my supplementary question of the Prime Minister. In his peace initiative he closely identified with peace in the regions of the world, not simply with concern about nuclear weapons as such. Given the expression of deep concern about superpower involvement, given the reality that one ship recently damaged by mines in Nicaraguan waters was a ship of the Soviet Union and that if this should happen again we could have a direct superpower confrontation, will the Prime Minister join the Government of Great Britain-I say to my Tory friends on the right, the Conservative Government of Great Britain-and condemn this activity by the United States in that region?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is currently in the Central American area, expressed Canada's concern, particularly that the requirements of international law be observed. I want to point out again that Canada is a country which has consistently opposed the use of military force and has taken the position that international law should
April 10, 1984

be followed by all countries. I point out in relation to the support of the rule of law, the example that Canada-


Erik Nielsen: Next page, turn the page.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -having a disagreement on the underwater boundary with the United States, is abiding by the decision which will be taken by the International Court at the Hague. This is consistent with Canada's approach to these matters. We again reiterate and have conveyed our position that military violence should not be involved and that the rule of law internationally should be adhered to.


John Edward Broadbent: I will try a third time to direct my question to the Prime Minister, who is always very good in lofty generalizations about peace but very short in making very specific criticism when criticism is warranted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REFERENCE OF ISSUE TO WORLD COURT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the reference of this matter to the World Court at The Hague. The United States has already indicated, in clear violation of its own traditions, to which indication many other Americans have already objected, that it has no intention of abiding by a World Court decision. I ask the Prime Minister again to lend some credibility to his own expressed concern about the rule of law, in this case international law. Will he directly intervene and at least request the United States Government to accept the decision of the World Court on this important matter?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the Hon. Member-


Mr. Crosbie:: Where is the peacemaker?


Gerald Augustine Regan: -that our concern has been expressed to the United States Government in relation to this matter. It is our belief that military action will not bring lasting peace in Central America.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary to this question. The Hon. Member for Victoria.


PREPAREDNESS OF CANADIAN MINESWEEPERS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the same subject was raised by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam who asked the Prime Minister to send a minesweeper down to assist her friends in Nicaragua. I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence how many minesweepers the Canadian navy has which are ready to go to sea today and sweep mines.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member very well knows the answer to that question.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The answer is none.


Mr. Kempling:: A big zero.


THE ARTS
Mr. Robert Gourd (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. While the Opposition is doing all of its best to undermine Government policies, no one seems to have noticed the international event which took place yesterday and the fact that Canada won not one, but two Oscars. As I know quite well that the production which won the first Oscar for the National Film Board falls well within his jurisdiction, I would like to ask the Minister of Communications what role the Canadian Government did play in connection with the film for which Canada won its second Oscar last night?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, first, I believe that all the Members of this House will want to join me in offering our most sincere and warmest congratulations to the two National Film Board producers, Adam Symanski and Cynthia Scott, for their wonderful film Flamenco at 5:15 which won an Oscar last night.

I think all Hon. Members of the House would join with me in extending our most sincere congratulations to Janice L. Platt and Atlantis Films of Toronto who produced the film Boys and Girls for the CBC, as an independent production unit.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development. As a Minister of the Crown, does the Minister believe that Crown owned gasoline retail outlets should be sold to the private sector?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Well-


Mr. Speaker:: There is a well established rule of the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 10, 1984
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is economic development.


Mr. Speaker:: -that Ministers may be asked questions in respect of their ministerial responsibility. Is the Minister responsible for Petro-Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Economic development.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a question should be directed in terms of a Minister's ministerial responsibility.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to have to do this, but either we have rules or we do not have rules.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is within the rules, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Would you care to address a question to the Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, may I say with respect that inasmuch as the Government has always contended that energy is a prime motor of its economic development plans, and that the Hon. gentleman is the Minister of State for Economic Development, it seems to me that the question is indeed entirely appropriate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And inasmuch as it has been clearly established that the Minister, for whom I have some respect, has clearly repudiated policy which he had been defending for four years, then there is someting wrong with the motor, apart from the Government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition can direct his question to the Prime Minister as the Leader of the Government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is difficult to find anyone responsible over there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know I am being very presumptuous in assuming that this Minister will give an answer. But inasmuch as he has already given one to the press, I will ask him, as a Minister of the Crown, if it is the Government's policy in the area for which he is specifically responsible, that Crown assets such as retail gasoline outlets should be disposed of immediately to the private sector?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


IMPACT OF ACTIVITIES OF CROWN CORPORATIONS ON GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead on a supplementary.


Some Hon. Members:: We want Joe! We want Joe!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head has the floor.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: The candidates opposite will note that no one on their side wants them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development whether it is among the responsibilities of his Department to assess the impact on federal economic development policy of the activities of federal Crown corporations?


Donald James Johnston: Indeed it is, Mr. Speaker. Let me say, as part of that, that good management of taxpayers' assets has always been a policy of this Government, and I hope will always be a policy of all Governments. Good management suggests that assets should be well managed. That means in some instances in economic development policy that I believe certain assets can be disposed of and the funds invested in other areas of priority. We all know there are financial constraints that afflict all Governments. I do not believe that if I take the position that any particular asset acquired during the last four years by this Government, or by a Crown corporation, should never be sold, that the principle of Cabinet solidarity deals with that kind of issue in any manner whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary. The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead.


MINISTER'S POSITION ON SALE OF SERVICE STATIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, having established the generality of that question and his responsibility for Crown corporations in general, is it the position of the Minister that the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, should, in the interests of Canadian economic development, sell its service stations? Is that the position of the Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have already ruled that the Minister responsible for a specific Crown corporation can be asked questions in respect of his ministerial responsibility. I believe the Right Hon. Member has made his point. The Hon. Leader-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 10, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


POLICY INQUIRY
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course they do not want to sell the service stations. They are going to be working there after the election-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -if they take advantage of our manpower retraining program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition was rising to ask a question. The Hon. Member has been recognized to ask a question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Inasmuch as the Prime Minister referred earlier to his consultations with Privy Councillors with regard to conflict of interest guidelines, and it seems that we have heard conflict between the Minister of Energy and the Minister of State for Economic Development, will the Prime Minister, in light of these seriously contradicting responses with regard to a policy that goes to the heart of the action he has proposed for four years, inform the House whether that which appears to be a major breach of Cabinet solidarity to the rest of the country is consistent with the view that he has been holding? Also, who speaks for the Government on such a fundamental policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on matters of energy, apart from myself the Minister of Energy speaks for the Government. He will continue to speak for the Government on energy matters as long as he holds that portfolio.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Oops!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And even after.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: After someone else is sworn in as Prime Minister it will be up to that Prime Minister to decide what the policy is as regards energy and other matters, and up to the Minister he will name as Minister of Energy.


LICENSING OF FOREIGN TRAINED PHYSICIANS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Minister is already aware, there is a serious problem in our country in obtaining intern or residency training positions for foreign trained physicians who came to Canada as
Oral Questions
refugees, to qualify them for a licence to practise medicine in Canada. From a letter I received from the Canadian Medical Association, the problem appears to be caused by the fact that "the provincial Governments have been restricting and reducing the amount of money and the number-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member please ask his question?


Jesse Philip Flis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is creating problems, even for the graduates of Canadian medical schools. Will the Minister assure this House that she will negotiate with the provinces as soon as possible to alleviate this problem, especially when Canadians in remote areas of Canada are begging for qualified doctors?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, 1 can confirm that the problem which exists is under provincial jurisdiction because it is part of manpower utilization. The licensing, training, and other components are provincial. We could undertake to have this put on the agenda of the next federal-provincial meeting, either of the Deputy Ministers or of the Ministers of Health.
However sympathetic we are to the problem of trained qualified doctors who cannot practise in Canada where we need them, in northern parts of Canada in particular, it remains that the general context is one of a country with too many doctors. We have opened our doors to refugees of different origins, and Polish doctors in particular are now practising all sorts of trades that do not have anything to do with their training. It is a waste of competence. We could undertake to place this on the next agenda of federal-provincial Health Ministers or Deputy Ministers.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who handles Farm Credit Corporation policy. An increase was announced today in the rates of Farm Credit Corporation loans from the November rate of 13 per cent for long-term loans, to 15 per cent. This is putting a lot of pressure on the existence of the Farm Credit Corporation since interest rates on loans through banks and credit unions are considerably lower for three and five-year terms.
Given the problems farmers are facing when trying to get financing this year, I wonder if the Minister could tell us what he is going to do about farmers whose 4 per cent rebate has now run out? What is he going to do for the farmers who are facing financial difficulty? Is he going to continue that program? What happens to farmers whose eligibility has been dropped? Will they now be allowed to go broke?

April 10, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks me what I am going to do. He knows what we have done in the past to help farmers. We have assisted farmers more than any other nation in the world by providing low interest rates for those in difficulty.
Many of these farmers who are producing such things as beef and pork have not been able to make a payment on those low interest rate loans that were given for two years. We are reviewing that situation. If we can possibly save those people, we will.


POINTS OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of Question Period, I wish to address two points of order. I think these points of order are important to the ability of the Official Opposition to question the Government properly and effectively with respect to its policies.
My first point of order, Mr. Speaker, deals with your interim observations with respect to the questioning of the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) about a particular Crown corporation. I believe that two elements must be considered before we make any definitive decision about the ability of Members to address questions of an economic nature to the Minister of State for Economic Development. It may be that these questions related to a specific Crown corporation policy but you will have to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister responsible for that Crown corporation is in the other place. The Minister responsible for the CIDC is in fact the person who would have prime responsibility for that Crown corporation. When asking direct questions relating to the administration of the Crown corporation, we are precluded from asking the Minister who has direct responsibility.
I would like to point out that on that basis alone, we should be given some reasonable latitude to deal with Ministers with economic portfolios who, I think it would be fair to say, have the responsibility of supervising and directing the activities of Crown corporations. Indeed, referring to Petro-Canada by way of example, it is a matter that is well known and has been stated by the Government that Petro-Canada is an instrument of government policy. It is a window on the industry but it is primarily an instrument of government policy. The Government has indicated to us over and over again that this Crown corporation in particular was, as my Leader has said, one of the engines of economic activity in our country.
I do not believe it is reasonable to attempt to restrict us when directing legitimate questions about the policy of the Government to the Minister who has specific responsibility for economic development. I believe it is reasonable for members of the Official Opposition to ask those kinds of questions.
There is another point of order which I would like to raise with you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to waste the time of the House-


Mr. Speaker:: May I comment on the Hon. Member's first point of order. The rule is quite clear. Questions may be directed to a Minister in respect of ministerial responsibility. This has been well established by precedent.
In this particular instance, questions were permitted to be asked of the Minister of State for Economic Development which were of a general nature and related to policy. Questions relating to a specific Crown corporation which is clearly not the Minister's responsibility were not permitted to be directed to him. The question asked was a very specific one relating to administrative responsibility for a named Crown corporation. Where the Minister responsible is in the other place, a question can be directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or, in this case, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) who again has a direct involvement in the policy in that particular field.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, Sir.


Mr. Speaker:: It was the decision of the Chair that a question cannot be directed to a Minister who deary does not have administrative responsibility for a specific Crown corporation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) has no responsibility for Petro-Canada at all. He does have the responsibility for energy matters but the fact of the matter is that the responsibility for that Crown corporation was removed and put in the hands of the Minister responsible for CIDC.


MR. HNATYSHYN-QUESTIONS ASKED BY PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my second point of order relates to a practice of the House which I think has been well established by your predecessors, Madam Speaker Sauve and Mr. Speaker Jerome. The practice was very simple and it was that Parliamentary Secretaries were not recognized for the purposes of asking questions of the Ministry. That precedent is well established and is one which has been followed without exception over the course of my parliamentary career.
Today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Gourd) directed a question to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox). Indeed, it was a reasonable question and dealt with the Academy Awards as they related to Canada. The question was a soft one and I am not objecting to its substance. However, the precedent is quite clear that Parliamentary Secretaries, in view of the fact that they carry some responsibility for answering on behalf of the
April 10, 1984

Ministry, have no place in Question Period, which should be reserved for Opposition and-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has a valid point.


MR. DEANS-ALLEGED REFERENCE BY MR. REGAN TO OFFICIAL DOCUMENT DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan) has left the House but I feel it is important to raise the matter now in order that you may consider it, Mr. Speaker.
You are aware, Sir, that on page 115 of Beauchesne, Citation 327(1) reads as follows:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the Table.
Citation 327(5) reads as follows:
To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate.
You will know, Sir, that during the Question Period my Leader asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question with regard to some actions that were being undertaken in Central America. The Prime Minister yielded to the Minister for International Trade for the purposes of answering. In the process of answering the first question asked, the Minister for International Trade made a direct reference to, and I believe cited from, a document which he claimed was a communication between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States with regard to this very important matter.
I would ask you, Sir, carefully to review the record in Hansard to determine whether my understanding of what was said at the time is correct. If I am correct and the Minister did in fact make reference to and use that particular document in an effort to influence the proceedings at that particular point in time, I would ask that the Minister be required, as per the generally accepted practice not only in this House of Commons but in the House of Commons at Westminster, to table the document that he used to influence the conduct of the proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will take note of the observations of the Hon. Member and will consider them.


MR. HNATYSHYN-QUESTIONS ASKED BY PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order raised by the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition which dealt with Parliamentary Secretaries asking questions in the House. You commented very briefly, Mr. Speaker, that he had a valid point. I would like to argue for a moment that it is a valid point only in a very limited sense.
While it is true that Mr. Speaker Jerome did not allow Parliamentary Secretaries to ask questions, it has always been
Privilege-Hon. J. Munro
my belief that Mr. Speaker Jerome was wrong in making such a blanket ruling because a Parliamentary Secretary has a very limited responsibility to the House and a very limited influence on Cabinet Ministers. In fact, that responsibility and influence pertains only to the particular Minister to whom he is Parliamentary Secretary.
It is my contention, Sir, that it is not proper to deny the right of a Parliamentary Secretary to ask questions of other Ministers. It should be taken for granted that he or she would not ask questions of the Minister to which the Parliamentary Secretary is assigned. However, to prevent a Parliamentary Secretary from asking questions of other Ministers of the Crown to whom he has no attachment and for whom he bears no responsibility whatsoever is, in my opinion, denying that Parliamentary Secretary a right which is provided to every other Hon. Member of the House except Ministers of the Crown.
I can see no justification for denying to a Parliamentary Secretary the right to ask a question pertaining to his constituency or to Government policy matters for which he bears no responsibility whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the Hon. Member's representation and the Chair, of course, will be guided by precedent.


PRIVILEGE
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege with reference to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). I listened carefully to his remarks. They were not only insulting remarks with reference to myself, but what I found even more disgusting were the demeaning references to the Indian people. The Hon. Member talked about them in the context of "these" people. He went on to suggest that it is okay for, I guess, unions and corporations, Mr. Speaker, and non-natives to contribute to the political process, but if it is an Indian corporation, somehow its contribution should be rejected because it is representative of "these" people.
He went on then, Mr. Speaker, to make a value judgment as to how "these" people should spend their own money-


Erik Nielsen: Where is the privilege?


John Carr Munro: -that non-native contributions are okay, but not the native people's contributions. This whole case by the Hon. Member is symbolic of the demeaning and disgusting paternalism which has been so-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You have gone too far.
2906

April 10, 1984
Privilege-Hon. J. Munro


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Minister please state how his privilege is affected? He appears to the Chair to be engaging in debate.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am hoping to prove, by the disgusting arguments and implicit insults to the Indian people themselves-


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


John Horton McDermid: You know better.


John Carr Munro: -on grounds so baseless, how baseless are his slurs on my character.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: Well, let me just say that, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, and Hon. Members of the Official Opposition, espouse the cause of self-government for the Indian people yet when they make judicious choice as to how they will participate in the political process-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He would substitute his own judgment.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I can understand the emotion with which the Minister speaks. However, again the Chair must be very precise, and I would invite the Minister to state how his privilege is affected.


John Carr Munro: I am only suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that when one makes such disgusting insinuations and personal remarks it is an insult to this House and to the integrity of all Hon. Members and should be rebutted. All I can indicate, because of the baselessness of the remarks, and for which there was no justification, is that if there is anyone who symbolizes sort of a poverty in terms of any presence of any decency, it is the immoral and disgusting behaviour of the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: There are other seats in this House, too.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) please be seated when I am on my feet.
The Chair has listened to the remarks of the Minister and in the opinion of the Chair there is no case of privilege established. If the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown wants to engage in further debate, and I can understand his desire-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Miss MacDonald:: It is not debate, Sir, it is rebuttal.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is trying with considerable difficulty to determine whether or not the privileges of the Minister have been breached, and it has determined that the Minister has not made a case of privilege. On what grounds does the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown seek to be recognized?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question of privilege. The Minister just made the statement in the House that I had made certain remarks, which I did not make at all. In fact, his own Leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, made the remarks, not me. I wish he would withdraw exactly what he said because it was the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In the opinion of the Chair, this is debate-in the opinion of the Chair.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on Monday, April 9, 1984, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I would like to table copies in both official languages of the Government's response to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform.


PETITION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table a petition on behalf of the 325 members of St. John's Baptist Parish, who are constituents of mine in the federal riding of Peterborough, regarding the very serious question of world peace and nuclear disarmament. Their petition is an urgent plea for increased dialogue and discussion on this most important question in order to facilitate an end to the nuclear arms race.
April 10, 1984


BLUE WATER BRIDGE AUTHORITY ACT
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-233, an Act to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, when the Blue Water Bridge Committee was established it was assumed there would be an American and Canadian presence. As it turns out, the American Government has decided to absorb all of the costs of operating the Blue Water Bridge on its side. What we are simply asking for is to increase the membership of the Blue Water Bridge Committee from four to five. In that way it will be composed of an odd number and the Chairman can remain independent.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 483, 486, 708 and 718.


Mr. Howie: Did the Government authorize Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to spend up to $10 million to initiate preliminary studies to determine the economic viability of the Lepreau II project and, if so, on what date will a schedule for the calling of tenders for the study be established?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, the federal Government authorized AECL to spend up to $10 million to initiate preliminary studies to determine the economic viability of the Lepreau II project. Because of the nature of the studies (nuclear design activities and power sales marketing), they are being conducted by Maritime Nuclear, an organization established in Fredericton, New Brunswick for this purpose and staffed jointly by AECL and the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission. The studies will not be put out for tender.


Mr. Howie: 1.	In the current fiscal year, did the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion make any payments to non-profit organizations to promote economic co-operation and development and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Were any payments made to any such organization in the Province of New Brunswick and, if so, what are the names of the organizations and what amount was paid to each?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: 1. For the fiscal year 1983-84, a total amount of $6,989,381 was spent under Vote 10 of the Department's Main Estimates.
2. Yes.
Organization	Amount
CADMI Microelectronic/Microelectronique Inc.	$	100,000
The Canadian Institute for Research on Regional
Development	$ 1,000,000
Atlantic Provinces Economic Council	$	100,000


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


Francis Fox: 1. The
Minister of Communications currently employs six exempt staff as shown hereunder:
(a) & (b)
Executive Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant Special Assistant
Special Assistant (Policy Advisor)
2. No.


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


Rolland Dion: 1. No. 2. Not applicable.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of
(c)
Jean-Fran?ois Thibault Jean Bertrand Gilles Cloutier Johanne Duval Ewald R. Petershofer Sandra Macdonald

April 10, 1984
Established Programs Financing
the House that the remaining questions shall be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren (for Mr. Lalonde) that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be read the third time and do pass.
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I was commenting before lunch on the priorities of this Government as far as education is concerned. Basically, the point which we have been trying to get across to the Government in suggesting that it withdraw either the six and five clause from this Bill, or the Bill entirely, is that it recognize the effect its action is having on the educational system in the country.
It is easy to reduce the amount of money that is being given to colleges and universities. However, what is the effect of not having the funds available? How does it affect universities in the country? The youth are probably the most dependent upon post-secondary institutions-the technical schools, universities and other institutions-of education. They are going to be unable to get the kind of training they think is going to be necessary. It is going to affect the kind of medical research that is going on. It is going to affect the development programs of the country which are so important to Canada. It is going to affect research in agriculture. In the case of agriculture, Mr. Speaker, we need 100 new researchers for the next two years to replace those that are leaving the service and to bring the service up to standard.
All of these are the effects of the Bill that is before the House. It indicates a kind of short-sightedness, Mr. Speaker, which we are getting used to with the Government. However, we would expect that in this particular area the Government might have taken a second look.
What happens if we do not have funds to finance educational institutions? If we do have those funds available we are able to build a flexible work force which can fill the jobs which will become available during the next few years. Everyone knows and accepts the fact that almost all of the people in the major industries will have to be retrained in the next few years. If we have the funds we can guarantee that there will be a work
force in the future that can fill the jobs that are available. People will also have the opportunity to expand their horizons. We have programs of continuing education and retirement education. You can name almost to no end the kind of programs that can be put forward if the money is available. Instead of that, the Government is reducing the amount of money that will be spent on post-secondary education or transferred to the provinces to be passed on.
What happens when funds from the provinces are not available for education? In that case we will have many less skilled workers available. We will have less people available to teach at universities. We will be forced to go overseas or south of the border for instructors at universities. If the cycle that took place in the 1950s and 1960s repeats itself, by 1990 we will be looking overseas for skilled labourers to fill the jobs available in Canada.
Right now we spend almost $1 billion per month on unemployment insurance payments. Part of the reason for that is that we do not have jobs. When we do not have the money to invest in education, it affects the whole standard of education across the country. The Government is inflicting an on-again-off-again restraint program on the educational system. We are never really certain what funds are going to be available next year. That makes it impossible to start programs because it is not known whether they will be completed.
Many other countries use the opportunity which comes from unemployment to upgrade the standard of skill of their workers. Sweden, for instance, has a very good system. It gives at least 4 per cent or 5 per cent of its unemployed people the training they need. We must realize, Mr. Speaker, that money spent for education is wisely spent. If we continue to spend it we will be making an investment in the future and guaranteeing a good future for many more people. It is not a waste of taxpayers' money. It is an investment which can train a whole new generation of Canadians. Undue restraint is a waste, Mr. Speaker. It reduces the opportunity for people to fulfil their potential.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the remarks of the Hon. Member. I have great concern about this subject. One of the things that bothers me is that not only are we seeing moneys reduced from what they otherwise would have been, but we are seeing this practice extended into the future. I would like to have the Hon. Member's comments with regard to the projection for 1984-85. It is bad enough that funds are being taken out of this current fiscal year that would otherwise have been transferred to the provinces. However, that is also being projected forward so that next year there will be some S260 million less sent to the provinces for post-secondary education than otherwise would have been the case. This is happening at a time of crisis in the university situation.
April 10, 1984

I would like to ask the Hon. Member for his comments on whether that $260 million should at least be set to one side. The Government is going ahead with the current year, but surely it could consider the 5 per cent limitation it is putting on the next fiscal year and decide not to take that decision at the present time. The Government could let that part of the Bill go and change its mind about that. How could the Hon. Member react to that suggestion?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Member's question. As the Member has mentioned, we recognize that the present reduction of $118 million is for the past year. The universities and post-secondary institutions are already missing that money because they had planned on spending it. Anything the government could do to replace that money or guarantee to provide the $260 million for 1984-85 would be very helpful. Of greater danger is the fact that we are projecting this base for later years. Therefore, we will be reducing the total amount of money that will be spent relative to what we are spending now. From past experience we know that by 1990 we will be looking overseas for people that we should be training now. If we do not get the money back very quickly we can expect that to happen and there is not very much we can do about it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no further questions or comments the House will proceed to debate. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, for the first time since I have been elected to the House of Commons, I wish to make a speech in French today. It is a special occasion for me after the many lessons I took in that language.
Last weekend, the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party had a challenging debate on technology. At the end of that debate, we issued a press release. In that release, we mentioned that the Progressive Conservative study group on labour technological reconversion and recycling had concluded that Canada does not have the tools required to come to grips with tomorrow's technological challenges with respect to training and recycling. According to the members of the study group, the problems of the last decade stemmed in part from the fact that the Government's investments in human resources fell short of the mark. That is the major problem in our country. I repeat the last sentence: the Government's investments in human resources fell short of the mark. It is a serious problem, and the subject under consideration today is along the same line, since we are talking about the country's human resources in secondary schools. The Government intends to cut down its investments in that sector and I think that, in this day and age, it does not augur well for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is also stated in the release that, unless there is a significant increase in resources earmarked for training, we will end up with far too few workers with the skills required
Established Programs Financing to meet the future needs of the labour market. Therefore, the study group urged the Progressive Conservative Party to make major changes in current policies and programs so that workers will have better opportunities to improve themselves. Our young people need more challenging opportunities to better themselves, but in the present context, Mr. Speaker, the same thing applies to adults because they are the ones who ought to attend secondary level courses lest they be left behind in this rapidly changing world. All Canadians have a stake in this issue.
On that occasion, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) said that the recommendations contained in the report would make training and recycling more readily accessible to those who need them, while at the same time ! providing for a better mix of private and public funds to achieve our goals with respect to training. I am referring to the release, Mr. Speaker, but the report itself contains 24 very important recommendations for the country.
We came to the conclusion that Canada is facing five major problems. We said that the first one is the need to make industry and labour more aware of the opportunities offered by new technology. The second problem is the urgency of redefining national policies with a view to promoting increased productivity in the public and private sectors. The third one is the need to upgrade and speed up our methods of gathering, processing and circulating statistics related to the labour market. The fourth and most important problem in my opinion is the need to increase financial and human investments in the field of education, to extend the training programs available in the private sector, to update the existing public educational facilities, to upgrade the teaching profession, and to look for new ways to provide the necessary training. There are many concepts to deal with in the area of education. Each and everyone in the public sector needs funding, and this is very important in today's debate. The fifth problem is the need to promote co-operation between governments, industry and labour.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party has suggested that for the well-being of all Canadians our national policies must be changed in five major areas. The first thing would be to change the taxation system so as to promote investments in the field of education by encouraging individuals and businesses to invest in the development of human resources.
The second change would be to provide better opportunities for welfare recipients to take part in programs which would help them acquire new skills for the future.
Mr. Speaker, the third change would be to increase the role played by the private sector, by businesses and non-profit organizations alike, in providing training services.
The fourth change would be to develop policies to promote the acquisition of new skills and their use to manufacture new products, and to make this approach the cornerstone of an

April 10, 1984
Established Programs Financing industrial strategy directed toward the future. The fifth change would be to revamp some of the systems and institutions in our society in order to promote co-operation and reduce the conflicts between governments, labour and industry. These are the five major concepts related to policy changes in Canada. These are major concepts developed to solve major problems. In each case, they are very important concepts related to education in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we have made 24 specific major recommendations. The first one is to provide financial assistance to people undergoing training. Among the types of assistance which could be available would be financial support provided by the employers and the Government. There would be various ways to provide this support, but the Task Force has suggested the following:
(i)	All persons eligible under public assistance programs (including unemployment insurance, social welfare or Workmen's Compensation Board benefits) should be allowed to take training courses while receiving benefits, even under programs that are not sponsored by the Government. These programs should also be changed to establish clearly that the major purpose is to develop human potential first and foremost. They must therefore last as long as necessary to allow the trainees to acquire the skills which will make them less likely to find themselves in need of financial assistance in the future. It would be important to invest in the area of human resources.
(ii)	The people concerned must be encouraged to invest in their own development. There would be many ways of making this easier for them:
(a)	By authorizing the development of tax-free savings plans which could be used for educational purposes. If we provide tax savings for people who put money aside to buy a house, we should develop a similar investment plan for them to improve their skills. It would be the same as for housing plans.
(b)	Tuition fees should be deductible from income, whatever its source. Education is an investment for the individual, and the Income Tax Act should be amended accordingly.
(c)	Many individuals who are greatly in need of training have very little money and often hardly any assets.
For them to be able to invest in their own training, a sort of loan system would have to be set up. These loans would have to be guaranteed if they came from the private sector. The current student loan program could be considerably extended for this purpose. On the other hand, we could consider establishing an education mortgage plan, guaranteed or insured by the private sector.
It is suggested in paragraph (d) that the Unemployment Insurance Act should be thoroughly amended to emphasize employment instead of unemployment. Benefits should be paid to the people who are really trying to fit in the labour market,
to develop their skills, increase their mobility, obtain the necessary counselling and training, if they lack the knowledge and experience they need to compete on the labour market. Amounts paid for unemployment insurance purposes should be considered not as expenses, but rather as tax credits aimed at compensating for current inequalities. People who have contributed to the scheme for long periods of time without ever applying for unemployment insurance benefits should be entitled to longer eligibility periods for re-training purposes.
Paragraph (e) states that the Income Tax Act should be amended to encourage employers willing to do so, to offer financial assistance to their employees who wish to seek full time or part time training. All relevant expenses should be considered as tax deductible items. Moreover, they should receive tax credits to compensate their costs.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the public school system needs teachers to teach adults: it is very important for the future. Today, we are dealing with a bill calling for the reduction of the amounts paid for secondary education. It is quite the opposite of what we propose. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12 is very bad for this country.
In our report, Mr. Speaker, we deal with illiteracy, but its Section C is very relevant to this debate. We refer to extended educational opportunities. These are major policies for this country.
The first recommendation in this section is as follows: A new government should immediately commit itself to encouraging the purchase of the most sophisticated school material, by contributing a subsidy equal to any investment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Questions or comments. Debate. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, it is not my custom to speak very often on debates of high finance or intricate economic measures. It is not my field of expertise. I do not pretend to be an expert on it. However, I have had a dozen years of experience in post-secondary education, so I have an interest in what is going on in this debate.
The first point I would like to make is that the debate in which we are now involved is probably the most eloquent statement we could make against the kind of regime we are experiencing in federal-provincial involvement in higher education. It is the experience of all of us that we represent communities and agencies in our constituencies which depend upon government grants for their existence as a way of life. That in itself is an excruciating experience for these agencies. They are dependent upon the whim or the caprice of the funding agency whether it be municipal, provincial or federal.
April 10, 1984

For any worth-while organization to have to predict the caprice of a funding body is a tortuous experience for it regardless of how well intentioned is the funding agency or the organization depending upon the grant.
Second, it points to the wisdom of our founding fathers that the federal Government has its area of major occupation and attention, that the provincial governments have theirs and that under the BNA Act the provinces are responsible for education because they are the most intensely affected by it and can most precisely represent their needs. There is a great deal of wisdom in that. However, some decades ago we moved into a new regime whereby we initiated federal-provincial transfer payments. The provinces under that agreement, because those transfer payments appeared to be very attractive and met the immediate need of all governments for funding, agreed with the new regime or the new system. It seems to me that it is an unfair balance because under the federal area of responsibility, there is a disproportionate amount of power when it comes to granting systems. The federal Government has taxation abilities which provincial and municipal governments do not have. Therefore, it has a capital pool which it can use to manipulate and manage its programs. Also it has the capacity to print money. Fortunately, there has been a tapering off in that activity recently, but it has the capacity to inflate the currency and, therefore, do an injury all the way down the line.
We have a situation where the federal Government can design a package and introduce it, as it did two decades ago, a package which is very attractive to the provinces in the funding of the medical and educational services and which the provinces like, particularly the have-not provinces which have a real need for funding if they are to maintain a level of medical or educational services that is equivalent to that in other provinces. It becomes very attractive and they go for the bait, but once they are hooked, they are hooked. Once they have taken some grants and get into a five-year program of funding, as this kind of legislation provides, what do they do at the end of five years if they decide it does not meet their needs? By that time a dependency has been created. It creates a dependency which, after a while, becomes unattractive as much as it becomes necessary to the provinces or to the institutions within the provinces. The provinces within their areas of jurisdiction are capable of retaliation or at least try to counterbalance what is going on in the federal Government. They are jealous of its powers.
The federal Government has begun to take an interest in education in the provinces over the past several decades and takes a very paternalistic view of the provinces when it says, "Obviously you cannot handle it; we will give you a hand". The provinces realize that constitutionally education is their prerogative. It is their right to design educational packages to meet the needs of their people. Therefore, they want to guard that power and that jurisdiction as carefully as possible, but they feel the squeeze because while they have fairly extensive taxation powers, they are not the same as those of the federal Government.
Established Programs Financing
We are facing what many of us on this side of the House warned the Government about in 1977 when it decided to become involved in block funding. Originally the agreement with the provinces was that there would be an understanding on how the money would be spent. For some curious reason in 1977 the Government decided that it would move to a new system of grants-block funding. It was to give the money holus-bolus to the provinces and let them administer it. We on this side of the House said that we did not think it was a very good idea.


Mr. Kristiansen:: But you voted for it.


Benno Friesen: We argued against it. Were you here?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I looked at the record yesterday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. An opportunity will be provided later for questions and comments.


Benno Friesen: Take your turn.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I will.


Benno Friesen: We argued and warned the Government at the time that block funding could lead to the kind of situation we face today. I see the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) laughing. She laughs very easily.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That is right, you are quite funny.


Benno Friesen: Perhaps she will find the humour later on. Now we face a situation where block funding needs some accountability. I am glad to say that the Government has accepted our amendment which called for strict accounting on the part of provincial governments of the funding given to them by the federal Government.
When I was involved in college administration years ago, 1 attended a deans' conference in Vancouver. One of the departmental representatives described what had happened under a previous administration within the Province of British Columbia in the early days of student loans. At that time the federal Government would grant money to the provinces and add to it approximately a 5 per cent administration fee. The province turned the job of administering the student loans over to the universities. It made them do the work, but it got the 5 per cent. In this case the Province of British Columbia made 5 per cent on the entire operation. It made universities bear the cost of administering the loans, but it kept the 5 per cent. Those are reasons why there has to be an accounting for all of this funding.
Third, there are the post-secondary institutions. The institution has limited opportunity for funds. All it can do is to raise its funds by tuition fees, endowments, trusts, private gifts or government grants, really not a very wide range of opportunities. It is at this point that the universities are most vulnerable because they have very narrow opportunities.

April 10, 1984

That is the amendment that our Party has made on behalf of the people across Canada. I compliment the Government for accepting that amendment so that we can have a full accounting by the provinces for the way in which moneys which are transferred to those provinces are spent.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. gentleman who just spoke. I must say that I admire the hon. gentleman for being so honest in his statements to the House.
How does the Hon. Member think the provincial governments will react to the position of his Party that they must now become accountable for the block funding to which he referred? How will they react to, as he put it, strict accountability for use of the money? Usually his Party accuses the Liberal Government of using strong-arm tactics and of not treating the provinces fairly.
The hon. gentleman has just enunciated the position of his own Party which is that somehow and somewhere there is a mistrust of provincial governments regarding the manner in which they spend money. Is this an indication of what his party would do to these provincial governments, most of them Tory Governments, which the hon. gentleman claims, and perhaps rightly so, are not spending properly the money which was designated to go to education or health care? Is he indicating that since they are not doing so, they should now be accountable to the people of Canada?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would first remind the Hon. Member that I did not refer to any Tory Governments. If he listened carefully, as I am sure he did, he would know that I did refer to the province from which I come, but I did not refer to any Tory Governments. I think he will acknowledge that.
Second, while Hon. Members on that side of the House may not have the same hope as I do, they do have the sense of the reality that by the time this legislation comes into full force, a different government will be in office and there will be a radical change in attitude vis-a-vis federal-provincial relations. Many of the problems we face today are not created by legislative disagreements or disagreements regarding areas of jurisdiction or accountability. They are attitudinal problems. When a new government is in office representing the nation, there will be a new attitude in federal-provincial relations.
I can tell my friend, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker), that at that time there will be no pejorative overtones when our federal Ministers go to the provinces to settle disagreements. Surely we must be mature enough federally to get over all the pejorative overtones to which sadly, we have become accustomed in our federal-provincial relations until now. We can recognize that mature federal and provincial jurisdictions can have areas of honest disagreement without resorting to paternalism, name calling or strong-arming.
I would like to tell my hon. friend that calling for accountability of the provinces to the federal Government is no different from the provinces calling for accountability of the municipalities. Provincial governments make grants to municipalities and other agencies within the provinces and they understand
Established Programs Financing
that when they grant money to other jurisdictions within the provinces, they have a right to know how that money is being spent. They are not calling those agencies dishonest but they are calling them to account. They are simply asking them how the money was spent. That is what bothers me about my friend's question. As soon as we ask for accountability, members of the Government want to turn it into something pejorative. It is not an accusatory request but simply a logical question of competent accounting.
Sometimes people make mistakes, a mistake is not necessarily a crime. If a provincial Government has misspent some money in the eyes of the federal Government, that is not criminal, but it does call for an accounting. I see nothing wrong with that.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment followed by a question. My friend, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), seemed to suffer from what I would think could correctly be called a lapse of memory. He implied that he and his colleagues in the Conservative Party disagreed with the Government when the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, which was then known as Bill C-37, came before the House on February 24, and March 23, 1977. However, if they did in fact disagree with the Government, I would like to know why it is that on both second reading of that Bill, as recorded on pages 3397 and 3398 of Hansard, and on third and final reading of the Bill, as recorded on page 4275 of Hansard, only members of the NDP are listed as having voted against the Bill. That would certainly suggest to me and, I think, to most Canadians that in spite of some reservations, and surely we all have doubts from time to time, the Conservative Party was clearly on the record as having full confidence, faith and trust that the provincial administrations would in fact honour the spirit of that legislation.
Having refreshed his memory, I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he would now acknowledge that he and his colleagues did in fact vote, along with the Government and against the wishes of the NDP, in favour of the carte blanche given to the provinces to do whatever they wished with the moneys forwarded to them under the provisions of that Act. He would see that, as recorded in Hansard, his name appears along with those of the rest of his Conservative colleagues.
I would also like to take this opportunity to ask why it was that, in answer to the letter from a constituent which he read a while ago, the Hon. Member seemed to believe that the fact that he, his Party, our Party and the Government all agreed that we should have an annual report telling us whether the provinces were obeying the spirit of the legislation or not, answered the question. How does he consider that simply the fact that we are going to watch what happens in the future, no matter how bad it is-and certainly the situation today is very bad particularly in the Province of British Columbia-will help address the question asked by his constituent?
His constituent asked him what he was going to do to ensure that the funds the federal Government provides to the provinces for the purposes of post-secondary education are in fact

April 10, 1984
Adjournment Motion
used for those purposes. If he does agree that that is the proper course of action, why then, along with 181 of his colleagues, both Conservative and Liberal, did he vote against the NDP amendment which would have answered that request.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member took up so much time that there is only one minute left for the response.


Benno Friesen: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is typical of that Hon. Member. First of all, I do not apologize for forgetting something in some instances. I am quite capable of doing that, although I do not attribute that to this particular occasion. Second, I agree on the record of the vote. The two Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party who were here at that time voted against it. I have no apology to make because we voted for the legislation even though we disagreed with a certain part of it. It seems to me that the New Democratic Party at certain times wants to see everything in black and white, that if you are against one thing you should vote against the whole measure. If you support something, you support it holus-bolus. I do not know how those Hon. Members can come to that conclusion.
Third, I would point out, in response to his question regarding my constituent's letter, that perhaps his centralist view of Canada is that if you grant funds to a province, you must walk along with every agent of the province to see how they are spending it. Perhaps the Hon. Member likes that kind of police network in terms of how the money is spent. That may be his mentality, but I prefer to operate on a basis of trust as long as we can. We can ask for accountability, and if it is not there, then we can do something about it. But we begin with trust, and I believe that is a much better way.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett)- Space weaponry-Anti-satellite weapons (a) Canadian position. (b) Request that Canada refuse to test anti-satellite weapons; the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)-Crown corporations-Conflict	of interest
inquiry; the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)- Public Service (a) Reported acceptance of directorship by former Privy Council official (b) Conflict of interest guidelines.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren (for Mr. Lalonde) that Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate also in the debate on Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977. In my Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, a lower emphasis is placed on universities than in any other province. Over the last ten years, spending in this area has fallen from 10 per cent to 3.5 per cent of the provincial budget. In this context the federal Government is pushing through a Bill which will retroactively limit to six and five federal contributions earmarked for post-secondary education. I can just imagine the glee with which the Government of British Columbia will point its finger at the federal Government with regard to the cutbacks in education in the province. However, the fact remains that there are serious problems in the Province of British Columbia and that that right wing conservative Government-and that is what it is-has struck out in these areas.
There has been a massive outcry against the closing of the David Thompson University Centre in Nelson, British Columbia, My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), has explained very accurately many of the implications of this move on our area of the country.
There is a further implication which I would like to spend some time discussing. That is the fate of the East Kootenay Community College. This college is a young institution and the only post-secondary educational institute in the East Koote-nays. It was built because it was recognized in more progressive times that educating our young people is a laudable pursuit and also an investment with a substantial payback.
We have seen the outright attack on the David Thompson University Centre in Nelson, British Columbia, and I think it is appropriate at this time that we should identify what this Party has tried to do with respect to the implementation of funds from the federal and provincial Governments. The New Democratic Party placed an amendment which read in part that any such cash contributions for hospital insurance, medical care programs and post-secondary education programs should be expended in the provinces for the purposes of those programs only. And, Mr. Speaker, although the Conservative Party had brought forward a substitute amendment which it feels is satisfactory, we feel that this is the only way in which we can ensure that that money is going to be spent for education so that there is equality in education in British


April 10, 1984

Columbia, Alberta, and right across Canada. We are not going to get this with the kind of frivolous amendment put forward by the Conservative and Liberal Parties.
Naturally, we must support this provision as second best, but the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) would have addressed the problem in a very serious way and ensured that the moneys would only be spent in these areas.
We saw in the early 1950s when the Bennett Government, that right-wing conservative Government, brought forward a program of 3 per cent sales tax. That was supposed to help pay our medical and hospital costs in the Province of British Columbia. Not only has it been increased from 3 per cent to 5 per cent and as high as 7 per cent, they are now bringing in another tax of 8 per cent over and above that in our taxation system. That is the kind of policy which the right-wing conservative governments right across Canada are bringing about.
We heard the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) talk about his concern for education. Alberta has literally billions of dollars in the Heritage Fund. If it is really concerned about education, why does it not step out to the front and show us some programs for the blind, the elderly and the handicapped such as the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) spoke about?
A headline in one of the newspapers in British Columbia reads, "Students demand school before coal". An amount of $2.5 billion of federal-provincial money was poured into the northeast development of the coal fields in order to provide coal which we already have in the Kootenays and which we could have shipped to other countries. But $2.5 billion was spent in northeast British Columbia, and therefore 1,250 miners in southeastern British Columbia were laid off during peak times. That is not good enough. If we are going to make investments, let us make investments for the future of our country. Let us make an investment in our youth so that they are able to go to universities. What did the Minister for the Province of British Columbia say about the theme of northeast coal versus higher education? He said that more money for schooling would have to be borrowed. One of the students said, yes, the Government should borrow for education, pointing out it is doing exactly that for its other projects.
We must prepare ourselves for the realities of the 21st century. What happens in our post-secondary institutions, our vocational and technical schools, colleges and universities has never been more important. At a time when we should be investing more private and public money in training and education, what are we doing? Countries such as Sweden, Japan, West Germany, and Austria are investing more and more of their private and public money in post-secondary education and training. But if you look around the world you will find one country which stands out, in a sense, for cutting back on post-secondary education, and that is Canada. If that is not a step toward committing not only economic but social suicide, I do not know what it is.
It is reported, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most pressing and long-term problems which we in my riding will have to
Established Programs Financing
face is whether the East Kootenay Community College can continue to operate the satellite campuses which are considerably more expensive. Similar programs would have to be located at Cranbrook. I put it to the Liberal Government and its Tory friends that if this Bill is passed, satellite campuses operated in Kimberley, Golden, Creston and Invermere might have to be shut down. People in these communities are going to hear about it and the Tory and Liberal candidates are going to have a hell of a time defending their Parties' records on this matter. In the field of art and culture it is important that these community colleges be able to reach out to people in these rural areas to give them the opportunity to expand on their skills and programs.
There is another local issue which relates to this Bill. In Cranbrook we have a very innovative Energy Action Centre. This particular centre is well established. Its reputation is excellent. For a number of years the centre has provided many educational campaigns with respect to energy saving. The funding for the centre from the Department of Energy has ended. It was hoped that the program being offered at the Energy Action centre would be incorporated into the curriculum at East Kootenay College. The idea was well received. What better way to ensure the continuation of valuable community resources than by hooking up the centre with the community college? In fact this is the whole idea behind the flexibility of the curriculum of community colleges. The idea has been scuttled by the East Kootenay Community College board of directors for fear of funding cuts emanating out of Victoria and implicit in this Bill.
The Hon. Member for Beaches spoke about the needs of the handicapped, the underprivileged and the blind. In the Province of British Columbia the right wing conservative Government has cut one of the basic programs which was starting to recognize the needs of the blind. The Ministry of Education withdrew a $50,000 contract from the Crane Library at UBC to provide talking books for blind students. Shame on that right wing Government that, without any heart or feeling, decides not to carry on with such programs!
It is imperative, Mr. Speaker, that we have some form of mechanism in place to ensure that when federal moneys are made available to the provinces for post-secondary education, medicare or anything else, there are guarantees that the moneys are used in those areas. Sixteen of the seventeen Conservative Members of Parliament from British Columbia stood up in the House and voted against guarantees that those moneys be used for post-secondary education only. I can only say that people of British Columbia had better take a very serious look at what these Conservative Members are doing. We have a serious enough problem in British Columbia with that provincial Government without adding insult to injury on the federal-provincial scene.
I would like to speak a little bit more about what is happening with the David Thompson University Centre in Nelson, British Columbia. My colleague from Kootenay West,

April 10, 1984
Established Programs Financing
whose riding adjoins mine, has explained the ramifications of the shut-down of that university. The ramifications can have very serious effects on the funding that is made available to the East Kootenay Community College and the inability to accommodate the people of that area.
I would like to mention some of the good work that went on there. In Rossland they started a program especially for young women to enable them to learn to operate heavy machinery in the mining areas. It qualified them for employment in the coal fields near Sparwood. These kinds of programs were needed and were starting to take place. However, the province of British Columbia has turned its back on them. Young students coming out of high schools and wanting to attend UBC or Simon Fraser University are going to find that tuition fees and costs are so high that they will not have the same opportunities as people living in the urban areas. This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is outright discrimination by a Government that does not recognize its responsibilities. Unless the federal Government and this federal House ensures that there are some guarantees that the money will be spent on various programs, we are not going to have a universal education system across Canada. We are going to have a block of provinces deciding their own priorities for education. That is not good enough. People in all provinces should have the same opportunities. No province should have the right to use that money for something else because of economic hardship.
That is what this debate is all about, Mr. Speaker. We cannot accept that. We are opposed to what is happening here and what has already happened to British Columbia. This program is retroactive to March of 1983. Can you imagine what is going to happen to the educational system in B.C. when this Bill is passed? I welcome the opportunity to get on the election platform in British Columbia and debate this subject with the Conservatives as well as with the Liberals. They should be ashamed of themselves. In a country as rich in resources as ours is we should not be debating whether our youth are going to have an opportunity to have equal education across Canada. Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough. When I hear the rhetoric coming from the Conservative Party it almost makes me sick. It almost makes me sick to sit here and hear about their grandiose plans when I know full well what they are doing in each province. What they are doing in British Columbia should not happen anywhere in the field of education. If there was an ounce of gumption in these Members of Parliament they would be holding a task force on education in British Columbia and coming back here and demanding some rights, instead of going out to look at the procedures of the income tax department. Did their task force come back and say that CP Rail should pay all of its deficits? No way will they touch that.
We have a very serious problem in the field of education, Mr. Speaker. This Bill is not going to answer that problem. I for one am very opposed to, and not very proud of, what is happening with regard to this piece of legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen).


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to thank my colleague from Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) for joining with me and some of my other colleagues in bringing to the attention of the House once again the victimization of the region which I represent and of its institution by our conservative provincial Government in Victoria.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Is it Conservative?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It most certainly is conservative, my friend. There is a fair smattering of Liberals in that Government, but it is most certainly conservative. In fact, my opponent in the last federal election had a good big Social Credit lawn sign up last year, but, unfortunately for him, his address showed right behind it.
The Constitution of Canada deals with the question of jurisdiction over education. I believe the phrase is "education in and for the province". This means that the jurisdiction for public education generally falls clearly within the provinces.
However, with respect to university and post-secondary education, the line is much less clear. According to my information, no province has ever taken the federal Government to court on an issue remotely concerning the definition of responsibility for university and post-secondary education.
Why then does the Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke think that 16 out of 17 Conservative Members from British Columbia voted together with the Liberals on April 4 to stop the NDP amendment, which would have started us on the road toward an answer by demanding accountability for the money which the taxpayers of this country spend?


Sidney James Parker: I thank the Hon. Member for Kootenay West for his question. This is exactly the problem. The fact is that the Conservatives introduced a substitute amendment in order to save face. Their amendment provides for some type of review at a later time with no responsibility remaining with the provinces. They are out to protect themselves provincially.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Would they do that?


Sidney James Parker: Definitely they are out to protect themselves and their own governments in their provincial seats.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why did you support the amendment, then?


Sidney James Parker: To answer the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), who asked why we supported the amendment, the fact is that we had an amendment. But we are better off having something rather than nothing. Why did they not support ours? I heard the Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) say that he has a letter in which there is a request for guarantees that this money would be used for this purpose. However, we see that he came up with this watered down solution instead of answering his constituents by telling them that his Party supports our amendment. I suppose I should read the amendment again because evidently they do not know it. The NDP amendment
April 10, 1984

read in part, "that any such cash contribution for hospital insurance, medical care programs and post-secondary education programs shall be expended by the provinces for the purposes of those programs only". If the Conservatives had supported that amendment, 1 suggest we would have been able to devise a mechanism to review post-secondary education.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, is my colleague saying that while all Parties in the House agree that we should watch and be aware of what is happening so that it is on the record and, in view of how the Liberals and Conservatives voted together on the Act in 1977 and how they voted against the NDP amendment on April 4 of this year, it is clear that only the NDP wants to make something happen to correct the situation? Is that what the Hon. Member is saying? That is how I understood it.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am saying. The Conservative and Liberal Parties have conspired to protect each other. The federal Liberals are co-operating with the provincial Conservative Parties across Canada in hiding behind their cut-backs so as not to give a true picture of what is happening with federal fiscal arrangements. That is exactly what is happening and we will not stand for it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Any further questions or comments? If not, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West on debate.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that during the past ten minutes we have had inflicted upon us a type of 11 per cent Amos and Andy performance on matters that are really irrelevant to this particular Bill. The previous speakers were dealing with a local issue, which undoubtedly is very important to the people involved, but one might think that the Hon. Members from the Kootenays were playing prairie politics as far as this particular Bill is concerned.
This Bill is an extension of a philosophy which was imposed upon Parliament by a Liberal administration since 1977 and which has zapped the medical care programs in many provinces and placed the post-secondary educational budgets of a number of the provinces in grave difficulty. If the Hon. Members from the Kootenays think that their regions are particularly hard hit, I suggest that they should get their noses above the ground to see some of the other areas of the country that are equally affected by the suppression or limitation of educational institutions whose benefits to the community are marginal when compared to the cost of keeping them.
During boom times people are quite prepared to tolerate these additional expenses, but it is different when a budget must be slashed and costs must be cut. Those Hon. Members are the underwriters of the philosophy that if one borrows, begs or steals enough money to throw at a problem, it will go away, the Liberals have had the same philosophy in the last few years.
This Act has passed the second reading stage. No amendments may be put, other than a time consuming amendment to
Established Programs Financing return the Bill to committee for the examination of a certain clause. We cannot even give it a six-month hoist. I believe I share the views not only of Canadian educational commentators but of those from abroad who have examined the current state of Canada's educational system. Quite frankly, I believe we suffer from over diversification. The Constitution provides that education shall be a provincial matter and goes so far as to provide a council of educational ministers. This council will not even let a Minister of the Government of Canada attend its conferences as an observor at the same table, even though the federal Government spends almost $7 billion a year on education in various forms.
When one considers education through the Armed Services, the payments that are made according to this Act and through other means, such as through the Secretary of State, these education oriented moneys mount up. However, the Government of Canada has no more to say about it in the national determination than does any one of the provinces. Consequently, we see the provincial authorities taking different approaches and adopting some rather odd standards. These policies stem either from tradition or from the current fashion, but there is no national goal for education. My colleagues in the New Democratic Party as well as other colleagues talk about the changing requirements of our educational standards, that these must fit in to prepare people not for today's requirements in industry, but five years, 15 years or 25 years down the line. It is notorious that the Canadian workforce, be it clerical, supportive, administrative or in various trades, is ill-equipped to meet the exacting standards of a competitive world. We stand there in many instances merely wringing our collective hands about what might be done, about what ought to have been done, instead of thinking about what we are going to do about it now. This particular Bill is a clear example.
I do not know what I can call the attitude here in Canada with regard to education. We have universities that maintain different levels of qualifications. We have different professional bodies that maintain the idea that the wheel was invented in their particular jurisdiction and that they must pass on it. We have trades-testing bodies in the various Departments of Labour in each of the provinces which must sit and examine each worker coming from another province to validate that person's work ticket. In French I would say:

-it sounds like the Tower of Babel!

-because you get these conflicts. But we get the same conflicts in school. Has anyone ever tried to transfer a postsecondary student from one of the western provinces into Quebec or Ontario? We will leave alone the PQ nonsense about language and so forth. That will go away-

-and as soon as possible, because this is another one of the complexities of the Canadian system. In any case, Mr. Speak-

April 10, 1984
Established Programs Financing er, we must create this atmosphere of co-operation between the Provinces, that have jurisdiction over educational matters under the Constitution, and the federal Government, that has a basic interest in providing a national purpose or philosophy for the educational system in Canada. The federal Government will have to come to terms with the Provinces. Then, it might be possible to eliminate some of the problems which this Bill will actually emphasize.
I do not like this Bill at all because it imposes increasing restrictions on the funds to which the Provinces are entitled. It is as if the federal Government owned all incomes in Canada as of right. We know that this is not true. The federal Government acts as a collecting agent and then distributes the money among the Provinces in accordance with a formula accepted by the governments concerned.

You know about these unilateral changing of agreements. It happened in 1977 and again now. The provinces have not been consulted and we are telling the provinces what they can do with their own money under the agreements and outside the agreements. But that is the arrogance of this over-centralized Government. It has been as clear as spring water as we go along that this is merely-if I may mix my metaphores- another slice of salami off that sausage, and before long we will see the Government of Canada laying claim to all revenues. In philosophy it does in the tax department, or shall we say the tax policy department of the Department of Finance- and I invite my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to examine it.
The basic theory under the Government's tax equity policy is a buck is a buck is a buck, and as soon as a dollar is earned, whether by an individual or a corporation, the Government of Canada is entitled to a certain percentage, and it wants it now. Whether the Government is entitled to it all is another question. It must share taxes with the provinces for which the Government collects a part. Some of the provinces collect all their own corporate taxes, and Quebec collects its own income tax, but not entirely. What had been a good practice in the past is now degenerating, again because of the over-centralized philosophy of the Government of Canada. Those provinces that feel strong enough to break away when they cannot get an agreement, some form of co-operation, naturally will pull out. And the reaction of federal Cabinet Ministers? Well, they fashion a new noose, put it on tighter, thanks to a supine majority that refuses to examine the implications of the law and what they are doing to their own provinces. I do not doubt for one moment that one of the reasons we have not experienced it as they have in the Province of Quebec is the attitude of the Quebec Members in this House who work against the interests of that province in supporting the Government without a word or a murmur of protest against policies which are contrary to what should be the best regional interests in the country.
We have the same thing here. The Canada Health Act is the other half. It imposes stringent limitations on the provinces
where the provinces have the right under the Constitution to the administration of Canada's health services. But what does the federal Government do? It says: "You cannot do that." If the Government of Canada feels that it has insufficient power and the provinces have the right, along with their health care delivery people, to give the people of a particular region the best possible health care services, and the Government of Canada comes along and says-


David Orlikow: You voted for the Act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That may be so. The House decided, but I personally may not agree with all of the philosophy. I reserve that right, and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please, I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member.

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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

['Order, please, I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.', "Private Members' hour has now expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Shall all orders and items in preceding item No. 64 under Public Bills, Notices of Motions and Notices of Motions (Papers) stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Agreed.



Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be empowered to examine and enquire into the incidence and effect of marriage breakdown, its social and economic implications, its effect on government programs and policies, and, in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to recommend measures to prevent marriage breakdown and strengthen the institution of the family, and for such other measures in the same matter as the committee may consider desirable.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once upon a time young Canadians entertaining thoughts of marriage dreamed of the proverbial
April 10, 1984

little white house surrounded by a picket fence and beautiful children, but as Bob Dylan said, "The times they are a-chang-ing". The times have changed and so has marriage. This March, Statistics Canada told us that 40 per cent of Canadian marriages now end in divorce, and for young Canadians under the age 25 years, the shattering news is that nearly one of every two marriages ends in breakdown.
There are many lessons we can learn from the erosion of marriage and the human tragedies that are represented by the cold statistics. Eminent social philosophers like Erich Fromm point to the enhanced influence of material and commercial values in our culture, and suggest that they have begun to permeate our most intimate social relationships. Christopher Lasch sees the media fostering desire for novelty and instant satisfaction as a form of societal neurosis which undermines commitment at every level. Today, individuals no longer find it necessary to enter into a marriage to be sexually active, to have a social life or even to have children. As a corollary, many people no longer find it necessary to remain in an unsatisfactory marriage to achieve these same goals.
The strongest support for the institution of marriage, the family, and its preservation has traditionally been the church. To a considerable and regrettable extent, the influence of the church has diminished and, by the same token, a sacramental and covenantal view of marriage has diminished along with it and been succeeded by a more secular notion, with more marriages performed outside the church and more couple entering marriage with equally high ideals but without the guidance of the church or marital counselling.
The women's movement of the 1960s and the 1970s which stressed individual rights and human potential has often been scapegoated for some of the profound status changes in roles within the family. Critics point to the fact that in 1948 only 26 per cent of married women with school-aged children worked outside the home, while in March of 1976, 54 per cent worked outside the home, most of them full time. However, this ignores the economic facts of life, which in many cases mean that if junior is to have a good time, proper clothing, be well nourished and educated, both partners are required, not always by choice, to enter the world of work. Pursuit of separate careers has been a divisive force in some marriages, but in other cases where partners work at helping each other develop as persons, adjustments have been made and successful marriages have resulted.
Out of the upheaval and turmoil of changing times in the last two decades, it is becoming apparent that the role of the housewife and mother deserves special recognition and a new respect. Changes have taken place in marital property laws and pressure is finally mounting for long overdue improvements in tax and pension legislation as well as a measure of economic independence.
Clearly marriages between partners who regard each other as equals and work toward helping each other develop as persons is a positive attitude prevalent in successful marriages, particularly where the roles of the partners are determined by
Marriage Breakdown
themselves before the knot is tied instead of by an unwritten code based upon what others before them have done.
While the technological revolution that has reawakened the reindustrialization of America has produced greater mobility and greater economic vistas for men, it has also presented an economic independence for women that has paralleled the attainment of greater sexual freedom. Effective birth control, acceptance of child-free marriages and marriage-free child raising have greatly altered expectations concerning possible life options. The very wealth of possibilities has introduced enormous challenges to traditional assumptions concerning marriage and family values. Spouses who find themselves taking opposite sides on value-related issues face great potential turmoil.
Many teenagers make the greatest decision of their lives, the decision to marry, with very little or no education in healthful living, interpersonal relationships or marriage itself. Lacking income stability and a mature sense of direction and goals, many teenage couples find themselves saddled with responsibilities and obligations for which they are not ready. Those who enter into marriage in the flush of romance without sufficient time to establish ties of genuine friendship and to ensure mutual values, expectations, habits, needs and goals, are particularly vulnerable to marital stresses. Often what was thought of as love vanishes quickly and resentment over having lost freedom or been denied a normal courtship, coupled with economic and social pressures, may contribute to marital tension and ultimately precipitate divorce action. In such cases the proximity of support of family and friends is often crucial in determining whether the marriage is able to survive and grow. Geographic mobility, often for advancement, has also removed partners in faltering marriages from the stabilizing influence of friends, parents and relatives to new communities and new stresses.
! While it may be true that in temperamental terms opposites attract and that marital compativility is ideally complementary rather than merely supplementary, statistics tell us that extreme dissimilarities and background generally make for high-risk marriages. Attitudes, interests, habits and expectations are largely determined by background influences of family, culture, religion, education and social class. Even when those influences seem to have been rejected, they frequently re-emerge in later years. A person who enters marriage with someone of profoundly different orientation, secretly hoping that his or her spouse will change, is very often disappointed. On the other hand, couples who share strong goals and a mutual commitment in spiritual and moral values have statistically a much longer likelihood of marital success. Loving the same things would seem to be a positive goal.
A frequently cited cause of marriage breakdown is the feeling of dominance or control which one partner allegedly exercises over the other, such as the refusal to see each other as true partners. Women have complained that their husbands feel threatened by any expression of desire for personal growth such as working, taking educational courses, handling money or deciding when or where to spend the family vacation. On

April 10, 1984
Marriage Breakdown
the other hand, men speak of feeling used or maniputaled by their wives' very dependency, being rules by weakness or in other instances of being undermined challenged or demeaned by suspicions. In many instances, these are illustrations of a lack of communication both before as well as after marriage, a failure to recognize character or personality faults in a mistaken belief that they could be changed. This same failure to communicate often prevents couples from profiting from potentially helpful intervention such as marriage counselling or therapy. Divorce petitions are often interspersed with allegations of suspicion, lack of interest, low self esteem, feelings of inadequacy and sexual dissatisfaction. These problems, like career immersion by one or both partners, are normally consistent with dissatisfaction at other levels and generally poor communications in all areas of marriage. As one petitioner put it, he had five years of marriage and three years of hell before the marriage was dissolved by divorce decree.
Clearly we must accept the inevitability of marriage breakdown as a social evil and work to decrease its incidence. Through education we must help people discover a vision of what marriage might be and develop an overall multifaceted program to foster and help the marriage relationship. This, however, is not as easy as it seems. In our western culture, we think of education in intellectual terms, that is the transmission of ideas or objective knowledge often removed from the experience from which it first came. In other words, we do not think of education in terms of values, feelings, visions and dreams, and yet it is in this broader sense of education that we might help young people make the greatest decision of their lives for which today many of them are eminently unprepared.
What do we have to do? First, we have to find a way to help people discover how to develop normal healthy relationships, and then find ways to help them have realistic expectations of a healthy marriage relationship. That means that we will have to develop some sort of personal values educational program so that people can fit their expectations in marriage to what they really want out of life.
Solid family life is important to society. If it is not there, society pays the price financially. There are no accurate measurements in dollar terms in the cost to employers, to the individuals involved or to taxpayers through social support programs, but with nearly one marriage in two going down the tubes, the figure would be mind-boggling. Clearly, our society would benefit greatly even if we did some seed things now to reduce the incidence of unhappy marriages. Recognition of the social value of a family in placing great value on the art of successful parenting is a major step in elevating the status of a family. While attempting to do something on its own, government and the media should discover what is being done to preserve good marriages and support fragile ones, support what is being done well and promote what is being done well.
A lot of what is being done is being done by our churches, but as society becomes more secularized, a large body of people are not able to avail themselves of these opportunities,
and they, too, have a right to a happy marriage. Therefore, the Government and the media should publicize and attempt to encourage programs to support happy marriages within community organizations like university adult education programs, night school programs and programs put on by voluntary organizations. It is important that we do what we can to ensure that support for marriages is universally available. It is socially and financially to the advantage of Canada and Canadians to do everything possible to promote the dignity of marriage and happy families.
When marriage breaks down, the dignity of marriage is not served by trivializing divorce. On the other hand, the present adversarial style of divorce proceedings demeans marriage as well. It is no answer to merely redefine marriage so that it means nothing, like a non-binding commitment or, on the other hand, to enforce legal continuation of that which is already dead at the core. We need new constructive efforts to support marriage and the family in all its forms.
I have attempted to indicate a direction in which we can move to strengthen marriage and the Canadian family, which is the bedrock of our nation. There are other directions. There are programs and there are policies that can and must be developed. It is important that thinking Canadians from every walk of life put their heads together and collectively do the very best we can to strengthen and support the Canadian family.
That is why I proposed this vehicle in the motion now before the House. Whether my views or better ones are adopted is really not important. What is important is that we address the greatest social problem facing Canada today and provide the best solutions that we as Canadians working together can develop.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a motion that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be empowered to examine and inquire into the incidence and effect of marriage breakdown, its social and economic implications, its effect on government programs and policies, and, to recommend measures to prevent marriage breakdown and strengthen the institution of the family.
I welcome the motion before us today. It addresses an extremely important problem. It is very timely that we should be discussing it at the same time as the Divorce Act is before the House. We are all acutely aware of the problem of the increasing divorce rate in Canada.
It is very clear that one of the effects on government programs and policies of family and marriage breakdown is the enormous cost that is put upon the state. As a result of families breaking down, there are two households, which cost more than one. We know the large number of maintenance orders which are not paid. There is a need for families to go on welfare. There are increased costs because of income tax deductions when maintenance and alimony are paid. There are increased costs to the state in social services, counselling and
April 10, 1984

all of the intervention services to support people in need whose marriage is breaking down.
I want to look at the social and economic conditions that have probably contributed a great deal to the increase in marriage breakdown. We are in a period of recession. We like to think we are coming out of it, but we certainly have very high unemployment. This causes enormous strains for the family. There are reports from social workers of increased child abuse, wife beating and alcoholism as a result of people being out of work.
Work is extremely important to people, apart from the fact that it puts a pay cheque into the family income. It has a lot of psychological and social significance. People receive fulfilment through work. They find work interesting. People have social connections through work. It is an integral part of life. When people in the prime of life are denied that opportunity, it causes crises in families. It is unfortunate that people in the prime of life are denied work. It is unfortunate that people under stress take it out on those who are close to them and weaker than they are. For that reason, we have to look at very long-term solutions. It is not just counselling that will help people through a crisis, although we certainly need counselling.
Until we have full employment or something close to it, there will be people in crisis, and that will put a strain on marriage and the family. If we really want to put people first, we must have policies designed for full employment. That means a number of changes, which obviously I do not have time to go into now. My Party stresses them in terms of a longterm industrial strategy which puts people first and provides jobs. Jobs are important for dignity and self-fulfilment.
I welcome the role of the church in indicating the importance of jobs for people and full enjoyment of life. I am pleased to see that in the Catholic Bishops' statement and the Pope's recent encyclical on labour.
If we are not able to provide jobs for everybody, the state has a very important role to play in providing a safety net to see that those who are not able to work at a particular time and lose their jobs are not absolutely destitute, that they have unemployment insurance and, of course, once the unemployment insurance runs out, that they can turn to welfare. My Party advocates strengthening the other programs that we have such as support programs for the family, namely universal family allowance and the child tax credit, so that families have the economic means to care for children. Children are expensive, and family allowance has obviously not kept up with the cost. The child tax credit is an important reform and we would like to see it raised and paid on a regular basis so that families would have the economic supports that they need. Of course, these economic supports are part of the entire functioning of a family, and when these supports are lacking, there is stress in the family which can result in family breakdown.
A proposal which I would like to stress as being an important support to the family would be the shorter work week for parents of young children. I think it would be desirable for
Marriage Breakdown
both parents to have the option of working shorter hours so that they could care for their young children themselves. My Party, of course, supports daycare programs. We think these programs are very important and often provide a very rich experience for children. These programs can be defended not only as a way of looking after children but as a way of providing education and cultural enrichment to children at a very young age. I would also like to stress that for many parents the preferable option is to look after their children themselves. If there were a shorter work week as a matter of right for parents of young children, that option could be exercised.
Of course, the state has an obligation to provide counselling services and crisis services in times of family breakdown to see if there can be a reconciliation. There is the possibility of teaching parenting skills that can improve the functioning of families.
As we are discussing marriage breakdown, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that it is important to understand that much of the burden of running a family and looking after the children is still borne by Canada's wives and mothers. Women put in a longer work week when both the paid work in the workforce and the unpaid work in the home are calculated. This, of course, puts an enormous strain on working mothers. Many mothers do need to work, and staying at home is not an option which is open to them. Women are putting in very, very long hours carrying the double burden of paid and unpaid work.
There are no adequate child care support services or daycare centres, and I must say as well that so far, Canadian husbands are still not performing their share of the unpaid work at home. I think that this matter must be raised as being one of the stresses that occurs in the family situation. In too many families, the father is a very distant disciplinarian in time of crisis and the provider of treats. He is not present nearly as often as the mother.
It has often been said that men need to be liberated from their sex roles as much as women do and that men have been too unexpressive, distant and that they have been part of the workforce and not part of the family unit. I expect that many men, if they were more closely involved with their children and did put in those hours of child care, would not only be relieving their wives of much of this heavy burden but would find as well that it is a very pleasurable experience. They would know their children better, their children would know them better and it would be a good experience both for the children and the father.
Rigid sex-role stereotyping harms men as much as it harms women and children. It is not simply a question of money and who pays for things, but a question of how people live, learn and use all of their talents. We would certainly like to see more child care talents developed in Canadian men.
There are a number of practical things that can be done by the state in times of crisis or family breakdown. We have seen indications that the state is beginning to provide various kinds

April 10, 1984
Marriage Breakdown
of counselling services, particularly in the realm of conflict resolution. Part of the problem of sexual stereotyping is that men are not supposed to be expressive but are supposed to be strong, silent types. When conflicts arise, they do not know how to express themselves in any other way than through violence. Thus there is the unhappy and shocking statistic that one in 10 Canadian wives is beaten by her husband in any given year. The experts tell us that one way of addressing this problem is to help people learn how to express their difficulties and conflicts in non-violent ways. We could promote programs which teach conflict resolution through negotiation and compromise without resorting to violence.
One proposal for dealing with the increasing rate of marriage breakdown is to make marriage itself more difficult to enter into. This is one of the proposals made by the Catholic bishops in their opposition to the divorce Bill which is before us. It is not our business to deal with the requirements for marriage as those fall under provincial jurisdiction. We can note, however, that it is very easy to be married very quickly, and we can only wish that it were otherwise.
I think one thing that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs could do would be to look into the situation of marriage counselling before marriage. Some churches are making it obligatory for couples to take marriage counselling before they are married in the church. There are plenty of examples of such counselling, and studies could be done to see if required marriage counselling before marriage has any beneficial effect. We could see if this makes for lasting marriages and prevents marriage breakdown. If so, the provincial governments, which are more directly involved in this, would have some idea of what to do. Perhaps they would then require marital counselling before marriage. That would certainly be something to consider if compulsory marriage counselling had very good results. If it did not, we could try other things.
I have heard very good things about marriage counselling programs. Obviously, anecdotal evidence is not sufficient. Simply an opinion here and there does not count. These programs should be properly and comprehensively studied. That is something which could be commissioned by a committee and something which our own National Health and Welfare Department could do.
I do not know that a comprehensive study in the sense of gathering more statistical information on marital breakdown needs to be done. I think we know that the statistics are very troubling. I do not think we need to have the statistics recited at any great length. However, I think we should be looking at the innovative programs which are being tried to improve the situation. We could encourage evaluation studies to see which of these programs are successful and which are not. We could promote further innovation and we could ensure that there is adequate evaluation so that we know where we stand. I have already mentioned that happening in the case of marriage counselling before marriage. It would be something to consider for conflict resolution projects which support the resolution of conflict without violence and with negotiation. There are a
great many parenting skills programs around the country. Let us evaluate them and see if they help keep families together. That is certainly a very proper function for a federal Department to perform.
Further, I think that we as a Parliament need to be addressing measures to combine family and work responsibilities so that people can participate in both. We live in a certain time and we are not going to go back to a time in which women will not want to work. I think those times are past us. We are going to need adequate measures to combine family and work responsibilities in a reasonable way so that there will not be excessive stresses on the family. We know what the problem is. We need policies to address the problem in a way that suits the times in which we live.
It is primarily the children who suffer as a result of family breakdown. Some experts have spoken about the right of children to stability and to have the marriage of their parents last so that their childhood home will last. It is very difficult to talk in those terms because even if we acknowledge at an abstract level that that right exists, how can we ensure that it exists in reality? Clearly, we can never guarantee such a right. It is a moral concept and perhaps a very good guiding concept, but it is not one we can immediately realize. It seems to me that, rather than talking in those abstract terms, what we should be doing is addressing the economic context, the stresses which are put on the family as a result of unemployment. We should begin to improve the practical and support measures for the family, which we have begun to provide in our society, the safety net we already have partially in place. These are the kinds of contributions we can make as parliamentarians to the support of the most important institution, the family.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of addressing the House today on the motion of the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) to have the problem of marriage breakdown referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. The Hon. Member proposes to study the institution of the family in Canadian society and the role of government in assisting families. He is expressing the view that the institution of the family is in trouble in Canadian society and that we have to find ways of preventing these problems.
Let me first say that I fully share the Hon. Member's interest in the effects of marriage breakdown on family life and on the children in our society. I would like to take this opportunity, however, to express my views on the continuing strength and importance of family life and the ways in which government programs assist the family. We are all aware that Canadian families are changing. I do not believe, however,
I that this is a completely negative phenomenon. The changes we see in Canadian families should not be interpreted as signalling the demise of the institution of the family in Canada. It is more the case that change is simply giving birth
April 10, 1984

to new types of families and family units. The changes in Canadian families are due to many things, of which marital breakdown or divorce is only one element. There are also other factors, such as the postponement of the decision to have children by couples until their late twenties or thirties and the increasing participation of women in the labour force. All these factors are changing the patterns and demands of family life.
The importance of families to Canadians, however, continues to be very strong, as I can illustrate through some basic demographic data from the most recent census. The 1981 census tells us that over 80 per cent of the Canadian population continues to live in a family unit. In actual numbers there were over 6.3 million family units, out of over 8 million private households. Such figures lead me to think that the concept of the family is as strong today in Canadian society as it has ever been. Of course, the composition of these family units is not the same as it has been in the past. In the past we have always thought of the family as being composed of a husband, a wife and dependent children. Today, only one-half of the family units, roughly 3.5 million families, are these traditional families.
The definition of a family is now also normally thought of as including childless couples and single parents with children. The increase in the number of childless couples reflects the personal choices many couples now have in family planning. Couples may be career oriented and may wish to avoid or postpone childbirth for this reason. Many are also elderly couples whose children have grown and left home. With respect to single parent families, the changes have also been equally dramatic. The larger number of single parent families is due to marital separation or divorce. However, others are also formed through widowhood or as a result of births to unmarried mothers. We know that over 80 per cent of these single parent families are led by women.
I would also like to devote some attention to the topic of the "reconstituted" family. The reconstituted family results when previously divorced persons remarry and form new family units. It reflects the fact that as many as 75 per cent of divorced people remarry. This statistic in itself suggests that marriage remains popular even with those who have had a negative experience in a previous marriage. The reconstituted family effectively re-combines broken families into new units. They may bring together the children of one parent with new brothers and sisters from the new marriage. They obviously make a statement about the validity of marriage and family life, which we should not ignore. They also are likely to face a whole new set of problems with respect to child-rearing and responsibilities and adjustment of family members.
All these family types are different from the traditional nuclear family. But they are important in that they indicate that the institution of family remains very strong in Canadian society. The family unit, whether one has a single parent or remarried parents, remains very much the center and source of social, economic, and all other support for its members. Furthermore, I think we should fully expect that this diversity in
Marriage Breakdown
family patterns will continue. Lifestyles and attitudes are continually undergoing change in our society, and I believe families will adapt to these new challenges.
It is true that some of today's families are more likely to have special circumstances or problems. The single parent family, for example, is very likely to be headed by a woman who may lack job skills sufficient to support her family for extended periods of time. Similarly, even when there are two parents in the family, it is now more likely that the mother may work, so that outside child care arrangements have to be made. Today's families are more flexible than we would have expected of a family unit twenty years ago. And, due to these circumstances, they have special needs and demands for government services.
I would like to turn now to how the government has in fact provided many of these needed services and programs. I think the government has been very responsive and has shown its awareness and concern for families and changing situations in many ways. To illustrate, I can draw on a number of government programs which show support and commitment to the family. The basis of federal support to families has existed since the mid 1940's. I am referring here to the family allowance program which provides monthly benefits to families with dependent children up to age 18.
Family allowances are a universal program which provides a regular monthly payment of $29.95 per child to all families maintaining and caring for children, regardless of the income or employment status of the parents. In 1984, it provides an annual benefit of $359 per child. The allowances are a taxable benefit, and are taxed according to our progressive personal income tax system. After taxes, they provide highest benefits to low-income families and lowest benefits to high income families. Some 3.5 million families receive these benefits on behalf of their children at a cost of $2.4 billion dollars each year.
Since 1979, the federal Government has also provided the child tax credit which delivers additional assistance to low and middle income families to help them meet the costs of raising children. The child tax credit is income-tested on the basis of family income. In addition, it is a refundable credit, and so either reduces the taxpayer's tax liability or, in cases where the family's income is too low to have any tax liability, it provides a direct cash payment. For the 1983 tax year, a benefit of up to $343 dollars per child is available to families with incomes that are less than $26,330.
In essence, these two programs are the cornerstones of the federal government's direct support for families. Taken together, the family allowance and child tax credit programs currently provide maximum annual cash benefits of over $700 per child to eligible low income families which dependent children. This is a substantial benefit and clearly shows the Government's commitment to the principle of the family in Canada. The family allowance and child tax credit are normally delivered directly to mothers, and in this way are particularly beneficial to single parent, low-income families. Other programs such as the child tax exemption in the tax system,

April 10, 1984
Marriage Breakdown
and a deduction for child care expenses, are also designed to provide financial assistance to families.
Ever since the personal income tax system was introduced in 1917 some adjustment to the tax base has been allowed for the presence of dependent children. The exemption is currently $710 for a child under 18. Since this exemption provides higher benefits to those with highest incomes and no benefits to those with no taxable income, its value was de-indexed beginning in the 1984 tax year. Thus it will remain at $710 per child in the future.
The freezing of this exemption was one of a number of changes to the child benefits system which have been made over the last few years in order to improve the targeting of the child benefits system to families with low and moderate incomes.
Many women now participate in the paid labour force while maintaining their responsibilities for family and children at home. Women represent over 40 per cent of the workforce and their participation rates continue to rise. The existence of two earners is seen to be quite normal and important in today's families. Further, the result of this situation in which more women work outside the home is being felt in growing demands for related services such as child care and maternity benefits.
To assist working parents, the Income Tax Act allows a deduction for child care expenses for children under age 15. This deduction was first introduced in 1972, at a value of $500. Since then, however, progressive changes in the value and eligibility criteria for this deduction have taken place. These changes respond directly to the changing family structures and thus to the changing needs of families. Until 1983, the deduction had to be claimed by the working mother, except in special circumstances such as those in which the couple was legally separated, divorced, or the mother was infirm. In the 1983 Budget, the eligibility requirements were changed so that the lower income spouse is now required to claim the deduction, except under special circumstances. In this way, the deduction no longer discriminates between men and women. At the same time, the maximum value of the deduction was increased to $2,000 per child or two-thirds of earned income.
These changes respond to the increasing cost and use of child care. They ease the burden of child care expenses for families in which both parents work. In addition, the deduction is often particularly important for single parents who must work and support children.
I believe these changes demonstrate very well how government programs have recognized and accommodated the changing needs of families in Canada, both socially and economically. These programs are only part, however, of the network of programs which the Government effectively provides in response to the needs of Canadian families.
I would like to note a couple of other programs such as maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Program and CEIC's Training Allowance Program both of which assist women and family in the labour force.
The Unemployment Insurance Act provides 15 weeks of paid maternity leave to eligible women who take time off work around the time of child birth. After a two-week waiting period, this program provides a paid benefit of 60 per cent of weekly insurable earnings, up to the maximum insurable earnings. In 1984, the maximum insurable earnings are set at $425, so UI maternity benefits will provide up to $255 per week for up to 15 weeks. Last year, there were about 121,000 allowable claims for UI maternity benefits at a cost of about $345 million.
As the Members of this Elouse will recall, there were also certain changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act, which were passed last year and which came into effect at the beginning of 1984. These changes were designed to make it easier for mothers to take advantage of UI maternity benefits.
For example, the legislative changes eliminated the "magic 10" rule. This rule required that a woman must have worked at least 10 weeks around the time of conception. It was judged to be unfair to some women who may have had a long work history but could not satisfy the 10 week rule. Also, a change was made allowing maternity benefits to be paid at any time in the initial benefit period. Previously, maternity benefits had to be claimed only during the first 15 weeks of a claim period. This change eliminated an inconsistency in the treatment of sickness and maternity benefits and made the provision of benefits more flexible. The new legislation also removed Section 46, which prevented women, who did not qualify for maternity benfits, from drawing regular UI benefits around the time of birth. Taken together, these changes significantly enhance the income protection provided to mothers by UI maternity benefits around the time of childbirth. In addition, changes were made to extend benefits to adopting parents. Under the new legislation, benefits are payable to either a father or a mother who takes time off work to meet responsibilities after the adoption of a child.
Finally, I would like to comment on how the National Training Act affects women and provides for their participation in the labour market. Under the National Training Program women are encouraged to train for non-traditional occupations, as well as other institutional and industrial training courses. Under the program, women who cannot get unemployment insurance benefits while on training, receive a training allowance for personal and dependant care expenses. The dependant care allowance is of considerable benefit to those women who are the sole supporters of their families, such as single parents who need financial help for child care while they are undertaking training. The rates paid under the Training Allowance Program were also increased last September. Again, this program demonstrates the flexibility and commitment of government programs in meeting the needs of women and families in the labour market.
In conclusion I would like to say that I believe the Government has demonstrated its awareness of the changing problems of families in Canada and provides a full network of programs

April 10, 1984

which are responsive to the social and economic needs of families. I know that the institution of the family is still strong in Canada, and I am sure that through its normal daily activities and programs the Government will continue to show its commitment and concern for the basic family structure in Canada.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by complimenting the Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) for bringing this topic to the floor of the Chamber. Members may recall that the Member for York-Sunbury previously brought to the attention of this Chamber, through the Private Member's route, the issue of spousal battering. That motion received endorsation from this Chamber and subsequently went to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare and Social Affairs. It resulted in a report, which is having impact on Canadian society and which is making the world a better place. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that exemplifies the highest traditions of this Chamber. It exemplifies what this Chamber should be all about.
I am curious about what we are going to find out 10 or 12 minutes from now. I am wondering whether the Liberal Government is willing to let this reference go to the Health and Welfare and Social Affairs Committee, or whether some member of the Liberal Party of Canada is going to stand up and speak through the hour of adjournment at six o'clock, thus effectively denying other Members of this Chamber the opportunity to examine the institution of the family and its place in Canadian society. Are they going to stop us from exercising what is in the minds of Canadians when they vote for us to come to this Chamber? They would like to know that the Parliament of Canada examines situations which should be examined. I think it is time for a committee of Parliament to begin to look at the family and to draw some conclusions about whether it is in good or bad shape, whether it has changed dramatically, and what we need to do to strengthen the atmosphere in which children can grow, develop and prosper.
It was after World War II that an agency of the Government, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, provided a great amount of money to Canadians to get mortgages to build homes. At that particular time that Crown corporation decided that much of that mortgage money should go to homes which met certain criteria. One of the criterion they decided was important to Canadian homes of the future was the provision of a dining room. The architectural consequence of that, Mr. Speaker, was small kitchens. It took what had been a large facility in the home and divided it into two spaces; one called the dining room and the other called the kitchen.
Standing in this Chamber close to 40 years later I recognize that we have a great deal more marriage breakdown in Canada than we had some 40 years ago. I ask myself, as a social scientist, whether that policy decision by Central Mortgage and Housing is at least in part responsible for the breakdown of the family. I can certainly remember my own childhood. The kitchen was a large room and all the kids were around the kitchen table doing homework in the evening. Mom and Dad were there, perhaps reading a book, perhaps listening
Marriage Breakdown
to the radio. We did not have television in those days. The family was together. When it was cold outside, the family members were interacting together, getting to know each other and being supportive of each other.
An agency of the Government essentially decreed that this type of facility will not exist in Canadian homes in the future. This is done through lending policies and mortgage policies.
In speaking to this motion, I recall some questions that I have asked the Government in the past. I pointed out to Members of the House that if any one of them chose to get a divorce today and sign an agreement giving half of their income in support payments to their spouse, while continuing to live common law with that some spouse, they could save in excess of $2,000 in federal income tax. Is that a public policy direction that the Government has deliberately chosen? In economic terms it is a public policy which allows anyone who goes through the court procedure to have a formal marriage breakdown so as to have the tax system give them $200 a month in disposable income.
The former Minister of Finance, who is a bachelor, stood in the Chamber and told us in his Budget that every adult Canadian would be entitled to a piece of property that would be free of capital gains tax upon disposal except if he or she is married. That entitlement would be one-half on such a piece of property for married adult Canadians. This policy was formulated in the life of this Parliament. Is that a conscious public policy choice that was made by Cabinet Ministers and Members opposite? Are we getting signals from the Government that the traditional family shall be penalized in tax law and that the new forms of family structure will benefit from tax law?
I believe I am old enough to remember when a great many of my friends were in living arrangements that included grandparents, their children and grandchildren within the home. That does not happen very often any longer. Rather, public policy makes it economically better for all concerned to have the various parts of that extended family living in different places. The money that is available to Government is used to encourage a situation where senior citizens do not live with their children and grandchildren any longer. Is that a deliberate public policy choice by the Government? Is it a good choice?
The clearest demonstration of a fact that has bothered me during the life of this Parliament is that for over four years any significant Act affecting families that has been discussed in this Parliament has been under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and has been discussed by the Standing Committee on Finance along with other tax matters such as customs, excise tax and income tax. We have turned the Finance Committee of this Chamber into the primary screening body for social policy, particularly as that policy affects families. I suggest we have done a disservice to Canadian society and to families by doing that.

April 10, 1984
Marriage Breakdown
Earlier today, the only government Member to speak on this motion for referral of the issue of families to the standing comittee was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ferguson). It was a Finance Minister's speech. It did not deal with the heart of the issue, which is, in the first instance, a definition of what constitutes a family. What is a family in Canadian society and how does public policy impact on that family? Are we, as legislators, responsible for the change in family patterns that we are experiencing as a result of our taxation and other policies? Are we doing an adequate job in meeting the needs of the people living in those different family patterns?
I defy any Member in this Chamber to stand up and indicate that he has enough knowledge and has had enough time to examine those issues in order to reach conclusions. We can reach conclusions based on our own biases and ideologies, but I suggest that the issue is more complex. We could all benefit by knowing more about this issue. If the eight members of the Government sitting on the opposite side were simply to stay seated for the next three minutes, the subject matter of the Canadian family could go to the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. That committee could work hard to study the issue of the Canadian family and decide whether something needs to be done. It may conclude that little or nothing should be done, or it may decide that much needs to be done. One Member, by standing in the House in the next two minutes, can decide for the whole country that the issue is not worth studying. I hope that no Member will do that, because a study of this issue is long overdue. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is sitting in the front row. A signal from her to her colleagues to remain seated will allow the House to discuss the issue of the family and the impact of public policy on it. I hope Hon. Members will stay in their place and allow that to happen.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) has raised an important subject which interests many of the Members of the House and the Government and I am pleased to be able to speak on this motion. The social and economic implications of marriage breakdown can be severe for many families, and I appreciate this opportunity to present my views on how families and government programs cope with these problems.
I am particularly concerned with the income problems that divorce causes for many families. For many women, divorce brings about a significant decline in the standard of living they can expect and increases the risk of poverty. This Government has always been concerned with Canadians in poverty and hardship and is committed to helping those Canadians who need help the most. I want to focus my remarks today on how the Government helps those who are most in need.
For many families, the departure, death or disability of its primary wage earner represent the greatest threat to its economic security. In the case of divorce, the departure of the major breadwinner can leave the spouse and dependent children, and particularly a spouse who has not worked outside the
home, at considerable risk with respect to future income and economic hardship. I would like to speak briefly about these problems for divorced families and then return to the point of how these families currently get help and attention from government programs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please, I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.

Private Members' hour has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 3,1 asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to press for a ban on anti-satellite and other space weapons. 1 also asked that Canada not participate in any way in the testing or development of anti-satellite or other "Star Wars" weapons or technologies. The Prime Minister did not answer my question. He said he would tell me some time about the Government's distinction between high and low altitude anti-satellite weapons. He did not address my question about anti-satellite weapons in general and space weapons in general. Not only was the Prime Minister's answer insufficient, it was also misleading.
At the present time neither the United States nor the Soviet Union possesses the capacity to pose a significant threat to the other's satellites. But developments are taking place for the first steps in this new-generation leap in the arms race and nuclear war fighting abilities. The Soviet Union has conducted 20 tests for anti-satellite weapons. Eleven of those tests have failed. Furthermore, the A-Sat is launched on an SS9 sized ICBM which has limited mobility and easy verification. In short, at the present state of development there is not yet a Soviet threat to deterrence or arms control.
The United States is now, this year, preparing to test its new generation anti-satellite known as the Prototype Miniature Air Launched System, PMALS. This small rocket will be launched from a high flying F-15 fighter aicraft. The Arms
April 10, 1984

Control Association in Washington, D.C. says this new weapon:
-will constitute a significant improvement over the existing Soviet A-Sat.
Writing for the Association, John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists also says:
Because of its small size, the PMALS will pose potentially insurmountable verification problems.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, the ability to verify the nature, number and location of weapons is the basis for any hope of nuclear arms control and limitation.
Ineffective Soviet tests have taken place. The United States, only this week encouraged by President Reagan's report to Congress, is proceeding with the tests of its own anti-satellite weapons, this new generation of weapons. Deployment and the threat of use have not yet taken place, but the time to act, the window of opportunity, is now.
That is why the Prime Minister is so misleading in calling for an artificial differentiation between high and low altitude anti-satellite weapons. All anti-satellite weapons should be banned, and they should be banned now before there are any such weapons deployed at any altitude.
Grave problems would arise if Canada were to work toward and help achieve a ban on only one level, or altitude, of anti-satellite weapons. The two superpowers would be permitted, indeed encouraged, to proceed with the development and deployment of a new generation of weapons for nuclear war fighting in space at some supposed "low" altitude already conceded by the Prime Minister. The technological developments that we do not want for any purpose would take place. Testing would take place. Deployment would take place, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to assess and verify the flexibility and potential purpose of such weapons. Who could guarantee that weapons allowed for "low" altitude would not be used for "high" altitude? Who could control how the technology could be used once developed?
In his division of the universe into high and low altitudes, how would the Prime Minister address the problem of the majority of Soviet satellites that are presently in eliptical orbits around the earth which bring them into very close proximity to earth as well as the farther reaches of space?
It is understandable that the Prime Minister was advised in preparing his peace initiative proposals to draw this false distinction, hoping to appease Washington and gain the ear of the White House for his peace initiative. He chose not to take on the Reagan fast-action plans for these weapons, and chose instead to propose a ban on something further down the road, so-called "high altitude" anti-satellite weapons. This might have been a useful negotiating tactic to interest the Americans in his own proposals for arms control and better East-West relations. However, as the Prime Minister knows, the Reagan Administration did not accept his peace initiative proposals. And the Prime Minister knows that what might have been an acceptable negotiating position for his peace initiative should not be the Canadian Government policy on the general question of anti-satellite weapons and the militarization of space,
Adjournment Debate
at any altitude. There should be a ban on these weapons and a treaty to create such a ban.
The Soviet Union has placed before the United Nations what Canadian experts in arms control describe as "a perfectly acceptable treaty" to ban such weapons. The Soviet Union has offered to destroy its anti-satellite developments to date. Canada should pressure the United States to respond in a positive and constructive way to this opening proposal.
The Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States has reported that verification of such a treaty is possible. Only the Reagan administration is dismissing the possibility of verification and a treaty. The Reagan administration is precluding negotiations before they can begin, instead of negotiating to come to a verification agreement.
The Prime Minister should commit Canada to promoting a complete ban on anti-satellite and space-based weapons. The Prime Minister should certainly make it clear that Canada will not agree to take part in any way in the development and testing of such anti-satellite and space weapons. Finally, he should cease making this artificial differentiation between low and high altitudes.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, during the Second United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in 1982, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) drew attention to the urgency of coming to grips with the development of new weaponry for use in outer space. He noted how quickly in today's world science fiction had become reality and how inadequate the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space had become. There were loopholes in the Treaty which risked being highly destabilizing. He had in mind particularly anti-satellite weapons or anti-missile laser systems. As he pointed out then, "we cannot wait much longer if we are to be successful in foreclosing the prospect of space wars". He therefore proposed that an early start be made on a treaty to prohibit the development, testing and deployment of all weapons for use in outer space.
In the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva, now called the Conference on Disarmament, we have been working for the establishment of a working group to discuss outer space issues, including an anti-satellite treaty. We were close to reaching an agreement on setting up such a body at the 1983 session of the Conference on Disarmament, but the Soviet Union required time to refer the matter to Moscow. So far during the current session of the CD no agreement has been reached on this working group.
It is not surprising, in light of what I have already said, that in developing his initiative the Prime Minister focused on the question of outer space, and particularly anti-satellite weapons. We were aware that for some years the Soviet Union had been testing an anti-satellite system directed at low-flying satellites. By the beginning of this year the U.S.A. had also tested a comparable system. Neither superpower, however, has

April 10, 1984
Adjournment Debate
yet developed an anti-satellite system for high altitudes. It was our belief that an agreement not to do so was therefore still possible.
As part of his initiative, the Prime Minister proposed a ban on the testing and deployment of those anti-satellite systems designed to operate at high altitudes where the race has not yet begun. It was our view that such systems, by attacking global communications satellites which are located in high altitudes and which are of critical importance for crisis management, could be particularly destabilizing. It would leave an adversary blind and mute at the very moment when stability demands awareness and response. We are continuing our consultations with our NATO allies on this proposal.
Outer space is a subject to which we have been devoted and are continuing to devote a great deal of attention. Our whole approach to this question is governed by our concern about the possible militarization of outer space and its destabilizing effect on superpower relationships.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in the Adjournment Debate this evening as a result of a question I directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) on March 28 following a planted question by a member on the Government side. I asked him what intentions he may have with respect to the disposition of the Northern Transportation Company. To my surprise the Minister replied that the Government was to privatize this Crown corporation.
Also I asked at that time whether there was any reason for me to suspect that this undue haste in the privatization of the Northern Transportation Company came about as a result of an inquiry started by the United States air force over the use of a piece of United States military equipment by the Northern Transportation Company, this Crown corporation. The answer the Minister gave me was that that was not true, that the reason the Government chose at this time to privatize Northern Transportation Corporation was based upon a change of economic circumstances.
I draw to the attention of the House the December 31, 1982 Consolidated Statement and Financial Position of NTCL. The current assets were $26,269,000, current liabilities of $9,860,000, leaving retained earnings assets in the company of some $16 million. Therefore, the Minister's explanation that it was based on a change of economic circumstances is suspect.
On January 10, 1984, the chairman of Northern Transportation Company Limited, Mr. Montpetit, met with representatives of the United States Air Force and the United States Government to discuss the use of the ARD-31. In questioning Mr. Montpetit, there was no mention to the United States Air Force at that time that there would be any privatization of the Northern Transportation Company. That was on January 10.
On February 21 Mr. Montpetit and Mr. Cameron were before the Standing Committee on Transport. They were
questioned as to the use of the ARD-31 and the relationship of that Crown corporation to the United States Air Force and, indeed, the Government of the United States on the use of United States military equipment. At that time Mr. Montpetit explained that over the past number of years they had made money using the ARD-31, but he did not explain it very fully. He said that in three years they lost money. We asked how the company managed to be on the profit side in Five years. He replied that in the first two years they broke even, in the next two years they made money and in the last year they lost money. According to Mr. Montpetit, they lost money in the last three years.
That led us to delve a little deeper into the operation of the ARD-31 and the Northern Transportation Company. By charging rates of up to $40,000 a day, which is not unusual for the use of a floating drydock, and not being flexible in the changing of those rates, the year that Mr. Montpetit said they lost money happened to be a year when they had no business, when they were unrealistic in their charges. The companies they had serviced prior refused to bid on business for their ships. At the same time, one of those companies, Arctic Transportation Company, felt that this Crown corporation was so inflexible that it brought in its own floating drydock to service its ships.
Consider the dates of the February 21 meeting of the standing committee and the January 10 meeting with Mr. Montpetit and the United States Air Force. I find it strange that Mr. Montpetit said that the relationship between this corporation and the United States Air Force was most cordial. He was very defensive when I asked whether there were some negotiations taking place between Northern Transportation Company and the United States Air Force for the purchase of the ARD-31. He said they were negotiating to purchase it and he believed they were to purchase the vessel in the very near future. They were operating at that time as an ongoing company.
It is strange with all this good relationship and the forthrightness with which this Crown corporation treated the United States Government, that a letter was sent by Congresswoman Pat Schroeder to the Hon. Verne Orr, Secretary of the Air Force, Attention: Legislative Liaison (Major Wayne Christine), Pentagon, Washington, listing some 12 questions which the United States Air Force wanted answered regarding the operation of the ARD-31.
That brings us to February 21, 1984, at which time there was no indication from the Chairman of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer during an entire sitting of the Standing Committee on Transport that the business was going to be privatized. However, from February 21 to March 28, a rush occurred, after an inquiry by the United States Air Force. There was even a suggestion by the United States Air Force that it would like to have the Adjutant-General take a look at the operation of this vessel and the Canadian Crown corporation with which it has contracts.
April 10, 1984

At that time, the company began to proceed with undue haste. It was indicated that the company would be privatized and disposed of as quickly as possible. As a matter of fact, I would not be at all surprised if directions have been sent that it should be disposed of within a month and a half, within perhaps six weeks. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), says that it is to be six weeks. The Minister has sent directions to the President of NTCL that he is to be ready to sell that company within six weeks.
There is now undue haste, Mr. Speaker. There should be a full public inquiry into the operation of the ARD-31 before that money which legally belongs to the people of Canada is transferred into private hands.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to answer the Hon. Member's question about the taking over of the Northern Transportation Company Ltd. by a private concern.
In the question he asked on May 28 last, the Hon. Member suggested that there was some relation between the Government's decision to privatize Northern Transportation Company Ltd. and some concerns about the use of military equipment in the United States and conflicts of interests in which officials of the company might be involved. I would like to repeat the statement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) that there was no relation between our decision and the Hon. Member's allegations. The decision to hand over the Northern Transportation Company Ltd. to private interests was taken after due consideration of several factors. As the Minister has mentioned, the company no longer needs to belong to the Crown to reach Government objectives. The decision has been taken because the Government is satisfied that the company will continue to provide Northerners with efficient, trustworthy and affordable services.
Some time ago, the board of directors had suggested to the Government that privatization should be considered on the basis of economic change and commercial opportunities through diversification. In addition, the Government wants to give northern natives a chance to develop their own resourcefulness.
The Northern Transportation Company Ltd. is important to the natives because it supplies the communities. The Canadian Government hopes the northern population will acquire a sense of belonging through active involvement in that company.
I should like to add a few comments in connection with the Hon. Member's concerns about the activities of the company. With respect to the use of American military equipment, I would like to reassure him that the company keeps close contacts with the military authorities in the United States who do not object to Northern Transportation using their military equipment. Relations between the company and the United States Air Force have been and remain excellent.
Adjournment Debate
On the other hand, I am surprised that the Hon. Member raises the question of a possible conflict of interests involving company officials. As he knows, the matter was discussed at length at a sitting of the Standing Committee on Transport on February 21, 1984. The Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) directed several questions to the chairman of the Board and he seemed quite happy with the answers which he received; I would like once again to quote one of his colleagues, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) who was interviewed by The Hub of Hay River newspaper, as reported in the newspaper on March 7:

"Some of my colleagues are engaging in a bit of a witch hunt, and I personally do not approve."

I would therefore suggest the Hon. Member should seek advice from his colleagues before making such statements.


PUBLIC SERVICE-REPORTED ACCEPTANCE OF DIRECTORSHIP BY FORMER PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICIAL. (B) CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, on April 2, 1984 I questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with respect to the announcement that one Michael J. L. Kirby had accepted an appointment to the Board of Directors of National Sea Products Ltd. It was my contention, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Kirby's acceptance of such an appointment would be a violation of the conflict of interest guidelines for persons appointed to the Public Service.
Let me say for the record, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Kirby is now a member of the other place with a designation of "South Shore". My concern and complaint relates to his capacity as a former public official, indeed an officer of the Privy Council. It was in that capacity that I raised my question and indicated my concern.
The proof of and the justification for my intervention is in the fact that a few days later, on April 5, 1984, Mr. Kirby announced that he had withdrawn from the process by which he would have been appointed to the Board of Directors of National Sea Products. Indeed, I take it that both the Prime Minister and Mr. Kirby would be prepared to admit that there was a potential violation, if not an actual violation, of the guidelines respecting conflict of interest.
My concern, as I rise in the House today, is not so much with the attitude of Mr. Kirby or the Prime Minister, but with the comments of the newspaper which originally reported the proposed appointment of Mr. Kirby to the Board of Directors of National Sea Products, that is the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. On April 7, 1984, the editorial writer for that newspaper indicated that National Sea Products in its desire to find the best possible people to serve on its Board of Directors had selected Mr. Kirby, but his withdrawal and, in the words of the

April 10, 1984
Adjournment Debate
article, the activity of his "quick-draw detractors" was not in the public interest. I would like to tell the editorial writers of The Chronicle-Herald, and the people of Canada, that I totally disagree with that position.
There is one thing the public demand from those in public office, whether the office be appointive or elective; that is honesty. By "honesty" I do not mean fair dealing in all transactions, but the avoidance of any suspicion that persons are not being fair in dealing with the duties and responsibilities placed upon them. The very purpose of conflict of interest rules is to avoid both the actual improper activity that might be perpetrated by holders of public office and, more importantly, even the suspicion of bad conduct on their part.
There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that the violation, or potential violation, was clear under the existing guidelines. One of the provisions of the guidelines states that an office holder must not, within the relevant time period, accept appointment to the board of directors of a commercial corporation which has as a matter of course a special relationship with the department or agency with which he was last employed.
There is no question that Mr. Kirby had a special relationship with National Sea Products Limited. In fact, the very newspaper which raised this matter contains a detailed report on the signing of an agreement between the Government of Canada, the Province of Nova Scotia, National Sea Products Limited and other parties interested in the restructuring of the Atlantic fishery. Mr. Kirby had been appointed specifically by the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development Mr. Johnston to head the negotiating committee for the federal Government, not in his previous public office as secretary to the cabinet for federal-provincial relations. According to the Montreal Gazette he held a position as Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council. In addition, he himself said he held the position of Deputy Minister of Fisheries. Here was a person who held various kinds of public offices, clearly an officer in the public domain charged with the responsibility for dealing not only with the restructuring of the Atlantic fishery but the direct dealings with National Sea Products Limited and other companies connected with the Atlantic fisheries. For that person to then offer his services directly to the same company, National Sea Products Limited, in its commercial activities, is a violation of the worst kind.
That is exactly the kind of activity the guidelines are designed to prevent. They are intended to prevent public servants from going into commercial activity in the private sector and utilizing, or appearing to utilize, or risking the possibility that they will utilize, the information that has come to them in their public capacity as officers of the Government of Canada.
If that were not enough, Mr. Speaker, the same person, as I said, holds a position in the Senate. The provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act are even clearer than the guidelines that would apply to them as public servants. Section 22(1) of that Act says:
No person, who is a member of the Senate, shall directly or indirectly, knowingly or wilfully be a party to or be concerned in any contract under which the public money of Canada is to be paid.
The whole point of the exercise of restructuring the Atlantic fisheries was to provide public funds for the companies engaged in the Atlantic fisheries. National Sea Products Limited would be the beneficiary of millions of dollars of public funds. Mr. Kirby was ready to deal with them in his private capacity. I have said that honesty is the most important element expected of public officers, public servants and elected politicians. We must do everything we can to protect the public from any possible dishonesty or any indication of dishonesty.
Recently Bruce MacDonald was taken away from Revenue Canada as the Deputy Minister. How would you like it if he went to work for H and R Block and told the citizens of Canada that he was now prepared to prepare their tax returns knowing all he had learned in Revenue Canada? Mr. Speaker, the editorial comment is nonsense, not acceptable-


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


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, in response to an allegation of conflict of interest raised by the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) on April 2, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) agreed to take notice of the question and to seek the facts. I am glad to have this occasion to lay the facts of this case before Hon. Members of the House. I particularly appreciate having the opportunity to correct the misguided notions and misguided statements just made by the Hon. Member for Halifax West.
It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that Michael Kirby is not on the Board of Directors of National Sea Products Limited and that he never was on that Board. As a consequence, there is absolutely no basis to the allegation that Mr. Kirby is in a conflict of interest situation. The allegation is hypothetical and conjectural and is not founded in fact. The Hon. Member is taking a partisan approach by attacking the reputation of a respected Canadian who is committed to the economic revitili-zation of the Atlantic fisheries. Mr. Kirby is a man of established abilities and experience who has worked very hard to help bring about the successful restructuring of the Atlantic fisheries.
It is a touch of irony, Mr. Speaker, that the very newspaper which raised the matter of Mr. Kirby's nomination should, in a subsequent editorial, praise Mr. Kirby. I would like to quote from The Halifax Chronicle Herald of April 7, 1984, from which my friend from Halifax West also quoted. It said:
It is a sad thing for the fisheries that he cannot answer-
Mr. Speaker, this is terribly important:
-positively a request by the company that he became a member of the Board, although it is a mark of his integrity that he considered the issue and withdrew.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that he was offered a position on the Board by the company. The Hon. Member for Halifax West implied that Mr. Kirby offered his services to National
April 10, 1984

Sea Products. That is totally false. National Sea Products offered Mr. Kirby a place on the Board. Mr. Kirby considered and withdrew. He did the honourable thing. I wish I could say the same thing for the Hon. Member who raised the issue in the House.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.30 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, April 11, 1984