1989-04-24

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitioners state that, in many respects, small businesses in Canada still pay an average tax rate that is higher than Canada's larger businesses. Both the chartered banks and the Federal Business Development Bank give larger firms preferential treatment in financing. The petitioners raise a number of related concerns. The petitioners are asking Parliament to put the Federal Business Development Bank back into the business of making small entrepreneurs its first priority, reducing time-consuming Government red tape for small businesses, and targeting more federal contracts to the small business sector.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which is also in the appropriate form. The petitioners point out that the human health effects of consuming products treated with pesticides are poorly understood and potentially very harmful.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to require all foods treated with pesticides be so labelled, that such labelling include a comprehensive list of all the pesticides used, and that the Government implement a program to encourage and assist farmers to produce a pesticide-free fruit and vegetable sector.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am very pleased to present a petition to the House of Commons concerning the Rouge River Valley. Some Members have heard of the Rouge River Valley. It is made up of
5,000	precious acres in Scarborough on the boundary of Metro Toronto. It is in the national interest to preserve this wilderness area which contains endangered wildlife species.
The concern of the petitioners, Mr. Speaker, is that the Province of Ontario, which owns this land, is threatening to put a freeway or a garbage dump in the Rouge Valley. On Saturday there was a rally concerning this and I am very pleased to say that the native groups in Ontario have come on board and support the preservation of the Rouge Valley because of the archaeological aspects.
The petitioners join the Mayor of Scarborough, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard), the Save the Rouge Valley System group and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations in asking Parliament to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition. Many weeks ago I met with Mrs. Louise Clark and several other music teachers who are very concerned that a sales tax may be imposed on music lessons. Their position, of course, is that music is education, and not a service.
Therefore, I present this petition which asks the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to withdraw that proposal from the forthcoming Budget if, indeed, it is in the Budget.

April 24, 1989
Supply


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nault:
That this House recognize that the Government's arbritrary and misanthropic policy of unilaterally capping future funding for postsecondary education for Canada's native peoples severely undermines the right and efforts of these peoples to enhance their capacity to make meaningful and lasting improvements to their economic and social conditions and to establish their self-reliance, thereby condemning them to unacceptable living conditions and driving them to desparate measures; and
That this House urge the Government to terminate its plans to cap this funding and to take steps to establish effective bilateral consultations on this and other matters vital to the improvement of the lives of and the ending of discrimination toward these Native peoples.
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue of post-secondary education funding. First, let me give a bit of background. Changes to the E-12 post-secondary education policy for native students went into effect April 1, 1989. Native people, educators and counsellors across the country have protested against these changes. They feel there is no reason to change a system that has been working sufficiently for First Nations. Protests against these changes have been held across the country since March. There have been letter campaigns, awareness campaigns, a demonstration on Parliament Hill and most recently a national hunger strike. To me, this action is unnecessary. This situation could have been avoided. If the situation is abnormal and out of hand, why did the issue get to a point of people fasting and going on hunger strikes?
The students have asked for three things to make the point very clear that post-secondary education be recognized as a treaty right where there are treaties and an aboriginal right for all native peoples; that a bilateral consultation be established and that a moratorium of one
year be imposed on the implementation of the changes to the policy guidelines.
The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is proposing policy changes concerning Indian post-secondary education which were to have been implemented April 1, 1989. The post-secondary education budget has been capped without proper consultation with Indian leaders and educators. We recognize that there were 500 consultations. We also recognize that information has not been made available for public consumption.
A priority system for student assistance has been unilaterally developed and a formula funding system for schools has been arbitrarily imposed. This new policy will seriously affect the number of Indian people entering such institutions. This is a key concern. It will also negatively affect students presently enrolled. Students who have been accepted at recognized post-secondary institutions are being denied the opportunity to pursue post-secondary studies because of budgetary restrictions. Travel allowances will not adhere to the student's choice of university or college. This is regressive and restrictive. This is not in keeping with providing a challenge to native peoples to go to where their potential will take them for the very best education they should get. An adherence to a list of approved institutions and disciplines will be required for funding. Cut-backs are designed specifically to reduce the number of Indians entering post-secondary institutions.
There has been much discussion about whether there are cut-backs and how to determine the difference between a cut-back and a capping. With there having been no increase over the last two to three years, that to my mind constitutes a cut-back and is a restriction in the minds of the beneficiaries of the program.
The policy recommendations signify further limits to the possibility of involving more Indian control over education. In the area of consultation there is also a dispute between native people and the Ministry over the quality of consultation that took place prior to the implementation of these changes. Native groups who believe this policy should be a treaty right did not want to jeopardize their position by participating in a consultation with the Ministry, so DIAND received very little feed-back and input to the policy from those people affected. The first five drafts of the policy were done without any consultation with native people. As well, the Minister is not able to document the consultation received or even provide statistics on the alleged problems with the old guidelines which should have justified the need for these changes.
April 24, 1989

This is not a new problem. This is not a problem that the Parties and the leaders have jumped on. It is an old problem. It is something of which the leaders, the Parties and the Members Of Parliament were aware. In a letter to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), Keith Penner, the former critic for aboriginal affairs, said that without consultation with Indian leaders and educators the post-secondary education budget has been capped, that a priority system for student assistance has been unilaterally developed and a formula funding system for schools has been arbitrarily imposed. These measures have resulted in a limitation of access to a program that was previously accessible to all Indian students who qualified for assistance under its provisions. Now Indian students who are eligible for assistance under the program and who have been accepted at recognized post-secondary institutions are being denied the opportunity to pursue post-secondary studies because of budgetary restrictions.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret having to to interrupt the Hon. Member, but at least for the moment we have a matter that is going to require me to consult with officials and staff. I would ask the Hon. Member to stay in her seat and I will get back to her for debate as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Attention, please! I wish to report that we have a problem.

As Hon. Members know, we have a fire alarm. I do not think there is anything to be alarmed about. However, it is appropriate that Hon. Members vacate the Chamber. We will resume at the call of the Chair.
I regret having to interrupt the Hon. Member, but one can understand why.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.
The sitting is suspended. [DOT]


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 11.41 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I want to advise Hon. Members that the fire alarm to which we have just responded seems to be a false alarm. There is no indication anywhere in the building of a fire.
I want to thank everyone for co-operating so expeditiously, and thank all of the internal security staff for once again doing their duty in such an expeditious manner.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments. Since the debate has been interrupted for approximately 22 minutes, and since this is an allotted day and we do not want to lose the debating time, on behalf of the Government I suggest that we would be amenable to a proposition that would extend the debate beyond one o'clock in a manner similar to the provisions of Standing Order 33 for Statements by Ministers, in order to pick up the lost time.


Mr. Gauthier:: We agree to that, Mr. Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a great idea.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Ms. Blondin).


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I was about to refer to a quotation on the issue of post-secondary education. Its importance can be expressed by the native population across Canada far more eloquently than by myself, so I will rely on a lot of material I have accumulated from those particular groups during my research.
The first is a quotation from the priorities outlined by the Saskatchewan Indian Education Council of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, which was addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux). This group has an outline within the presentation entitled "Misplaced Priorities". They state:
Another thing wrong with the policy and attitude of government is that its priorities are misplaced. The Government says these are tough times, and everyone has to tighten their belt. We agree-because if Canada wanted to spend wisely and prudently, the First Nations would be a lot better off than they are now.
Look at the way priorities are set now:

April 24, 1989
Supply
When it comes to paying the costs of holding our youth in jail there seems to be no shortage of money.
When it comes to paying for a lifetime of welfare and poverty, the money is there.
The first priority should be money for our youth who want to move ahead to get an education.
Surely a government should understand investment, even if it doesn't seem to understand human suffering and wasted lives. It should know that a bit of money invested today in education will save a lot on social assistance funds in the future.
This brings to mind the remarks of another senior elder of the population. He said: "If it costs $30,000 for a majority of the native students who are educated and get post-secondary education, that is paid back through the tax system in spades". It is not as if they are ripping off the taxpayers.
The Saskatchewan Indian Education Council went on to say:
What does it cost for education for a young man or a young woman to be self-supporting? $30,000? What does it cost for that same young man or woman to be supported for the rest of his years on welfare, or to be counted as a casualty of one of the unemployed-$50,000-a half-a-million dollars?
These are questions people ask.
And that doesn't count for the cost of foster care and social disorganization -not to mention the cost of losing the contribution to society of a productive, capable human being. It is incredible that Canada would be willing to support a young person on welfare, but prohibit the same money being used to support that your person's education.
If there ever was a shortsighted policy that would be paid over and over for generations ahead, it is one the Department has invented for post-secondary education.
We would think, too, that a Canadian Government and the people of Canada would want to see that its money was well-spent. It hasn't been well spent under the past policy, and it won't be well-spent under the new policy.
The policies force us to waste money. The most effective solutions cannot be applied because they are 'against policy'. Students are forced to take inappropriate decisions in order to conform with an inflexible policy.
What seems to be the most important priority for the Department is maintaining control, maintaining poverty, maintaining Indians in their place. There is no better evidence to this harsh statement than the policy which the Department is trying to force on the First Nations.
Let's sit down together and decide where the priorities lie, and how we can most efficiently and effectively conserve valuable resources.
These statements can easily be misconstrued or misinterpreted. But if you take the time to listen, what people want is to play a meaningful role in a bilateral process that is being discussed. They want to have input into a policy that is workable for them. They are the ones who
have to deal with this particular policy. They are the ones who are going to the post-secondary institutions under this policy. They want their leaders and their students to participate in a meaningful dialogue in order to come up with a meaningful policy that they can live with and work with.
I want to remind the House of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at the First Ministers Conference in April, 1985. He said:
As a Canadian and as the Prime Minister, I fully recognize and agree with the emphasis that the aboriginal peoples place on having their special rights inserted into the highest law of the land, protected from arbitrary legislative action. Constitutional protection for the principle of self-government is an overriding objective because it is the constitutional manifestation of a relationship, an unbreakable social contact between aboriginal peoples and their governments.
In seeking constitutional change, I recognize that this alone cannot resolve our economic problems. Constitutional change is not enough to reduce disparities and correct injustices. Rather, improvements to the economic and social circumstances of aboriginal peoples must be pursued at the same time as changes to our Constitution are sought to define the rights of aboriginal peoples. Action is required on both fronts and the two set of endeavours, while separate, are mutually supportive.
Why do we have the statement in 1985, and why do we have a Minister whose actions are contrary to the statement of support for the aboriginal peoples in adherence to the contract between the aboriginal peoples and the Government?
I want to bring forward another article that came out of a book from a group of 38 elders who were asked to repeat their life history. Many of these elders received their education on the land. Many went to residential schools and many did not have the benefit of a full education, going only to Grade 8. For example, Willy Minoza who was born in 1924. "In 1936, my father died and my mother was not able to look after me. So I went to the mission." Willy feels that the mission failed to give him the educational background that would have enabled him to succeed in the white man's world. He says, "Our lives run parallel with the white man's, parallel and never touching. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to do and have what white people have, and for me there is no use in trying to change things. I may as well live out my days in my own way rather than to struggle to no purpose." He goes on to say, "When they tell us the land is ours, I don't believe what they say. If it was ours, then we would have control, and we don't. If we had self-determination, then we would have a chance."
April 24, 1989

As a young aboriginal person I have dealt with many of the students across Canada. I have taught elementary school, high school, junior high school, in the colleges and the university. I feel that we deal with the same kind of hopelessness. We have to compel the young native people to overcome the kind of attitude that is being perpetuated by a lack of trust between the Government and the native people. I think the one key to self-determination and self-sufficiency is through education.
To put a cap on the education program is a move that is regressive, that holds back native people. You may sit back and say that we have a Cadillac approach to education. I do not believe that. Many of the native students come from large families where wealth is shared with everyone. I know that for a fact. I come from a family of 18. I feel that the native population rallies around this issue and they support one another. We cannot afford to have a priority or a waiting list. We need every native individual that is qualified and able to get a post-secondary education enabled to do that. We do not need impediments. We do not need a Government that will not work with the people. We need a Government on side that recognizes its mandate to work with the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
We should not lay blame and control the dialogue and have the native people pitted against the non-native population on this issue.
An example of native people getting support from students and from other groups across Canada is a statement from Milasapina College in B.C. It says, "Milasapina College strongly supports the Nanaimo Indians band's protest of proposed First Nations post-secondary funding capping by Indian and Northern Affairs for the following reasons: One, post-secondary education is one of the most important tools in providing the profile of native people in society. Native bands have indicated for many years that post-secondary education is their number one priority. Three, caping the funds needed for post-secondary education is certainly going to limit who gets educated, and will possibly direct people into select programs. Four, all Canadian peoples have a right to an education, and because of their unique constitutional status, the aboriginal people have a very special right to that education. Five, at Milasapina College, the number of native students have increased from 11 students in 1974 to 150 in 1989 on all four campuses."
Supply
It is interesting to note that over the years, there has been waste. There have been periods of times in which the program funding has not been maximized or used efficiently, but it is now at this critical time that people of my generation and the younger people that I see coming up are starting to reap the benefits of that program. They are starting to re-invest into society in a positive way. This particular cap is an impediment to that positive movement.
I want to read a letter from John D. Whyte, the dean of the Faculty of Law of Queen's University. It is entitled:"Statement of support in the face of government cut-backs in native Canadian post-secondary student assistance program". He states:
Any adjustments to the government program of funding higher education for native students which limits access to university training constitutes a devastating blow to the program of producing social justice for native people.
According to the Human Rights Commissioner's Report, this is the essence of where the Government has to go with aboriginal peoples. Your efforts have to be directed at helping, not impeding. That is what the people are asking for. We are not asking for something that we are not entitled to.
I would also like to read another letter that comes from Joanne Martin, National Affairs for the Canadian Union of Educational Workers. She sends greetings of solidarity to the Assembly of First Nations. She states:
"We support your demand that the federal Government rescind the changes made to the Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program and your call for a moratorium on changes to the old policy. We call on the Government to commence negotiations with the Assembly of First Nations immediately. In solidarity and friendship, Joanne Martin."
I have files full of these letters from people across Canada who believe that this change is going to affect the way in which native people can participate equitably in society. I have met with the students on the fast. I have personally, for health reasons, asked those students to come off the fast. I have also done that because I believe this is not a problem that resulted from the fast. This issue was there before, something that the leadership recognized. When I first got here in December, my first delegation was from Saskatchewan. They immediately provided me with documents on this issue expressing their concern. I then had my staff meet with a group of university students. I have met with people all across Canada from B.C. to Newfoundland on this particular issue. They all expressed their particular concern.

April 24, 1989
Supply
In closing, I would like to say on the issue of treaty rights that many people will say it is not a treaty right. The Minister has agreed to provide a forum for discussion, once the situation normalizes itself. Well, I am not sure that this opportunity will come this week. We will soon be consumed with budgetary discussion. The importance of this item will be diminished by all of the activities evolving around Budget, but I can tell you that it will not diminish in the hearts of the people it affects. It will not diminish in importance with the leaders. It is something that the leaders believe in and will struggle to obtain equality in. I want to thank you very much.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure Hon. Members will notice that the Chair did not interrupt the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Ms. Blondin) although she went beyond her time because I was judging the mood of the House and I felt that it was the wish of Hon. Members to allow the Hon. Member to continue. I thank the Hon. Member.
Questions or comments?


Mrs. Dobbie:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member opposite and I agree with many of the things she said about the need for equitable, good and consistent post-secondary education for Indian students. However, I would like the Hon. Member to answer a question. Is it her Party's position that education is a treaty right?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, it is my Party's position and my position that we must look for a forum in which to review the status of treaty rights where treaties exist. We do believe that it is an aboriginal right and a human right for all Canadians to have a proper education. Because of the unique constitutional status of aboriginal peoples, they have a unique right.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member did not answer my question, but I would take her answer to mean that her Party does not believe that it is a treaty right.
My second question deals with some comments the Hon. Member made in her remarks. She suggested that there have been cut-backs to the program and I would like to know how she can substantiate that when there has indeed been increases of 10 per cent in the program in each of the last two years.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, there are a number of issues that come to mind when talking about the cutbacks that I deem to have occurred. There has been a budget of $130 million for the last two years with a 10 per cent increase which makes for approximately 3 per cent over the last three years. That is hardly equitable according to a cost of living adjustment.


Ms. Campbell:: Thirty-four per cent since 1984.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: In my discussions with the Minister, I found that there was an underestimation of the number of people who were to be reinstated. The department estimated that there would be 30,000 people, and apparently the figures have now skyrocketed to between
50,000	and 80,000. Those are the figures I have heard in the last 10 days.
I do not have the responsibility for the data base. The Government has the budget and the money to formulate a data base but could not even construct a data base to make a positive, equitable change.


Mr. Nault:: Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague for making a very well-put speech. Second, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. Considering government Members have asked us over and over what the figures are, almost to the point where we wonder whether they know the figures themselves, could the Hon. Member give us some examples of individuals we have been made aware of who will not be able to attend post-secondary institutions because of this?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I do not have a copy of the list of students who will not be able to attend post-secondary education, but I believe that there have been three regional reports showing that in one area, there is a waiting list of 500 native students who qualify but who will not be able to attend post-secondary education facilities because of the capping.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I too want to pass along congratulations for the Hon. Member's well-argued reaction to the Government's behavior surrounding the question of capping post-secondary education funds for native students. The last question asked of the Hon. Member dealt with the number of people who will be unable to pursue post-secondary educational goals.
April 24, 1989

One of the bands in my constituency, the Neskainlith Indian Band, has been a very progressive band in the last number of years. It is a small band and it has a list of 30 young people who have now qualified for entrance to post-secondary institutions. The band has been informed by the Department of Indian Affairs that it will be lucky to receive funding to send five students. This means that 25 young people from that small band in rural western Canada who have worked to qualify for post-secondary education will not be able to have that opportunity.
In the best interests of the pursuit of native self-government, self-reliance and self-determination, education at the post-secondary level is absolutely mandatory. My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party find it unacceptable that these opportunities would not be provided for native young people.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, all I can say is that I agree that the situation is unacceptable.


Mr. Sobeski:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member stated that funding for the program has not increased over the past two years. The program budget has increased by 10 per cent per year for the last two years. How can the Hon. Member make such a misleading statement?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I think that the misleading information is coming from the Government. I did mention the 10 per cent increase in my remarks, but I also mentioned that the budget remains at $130 million. A 10 per cent increase over the next three years could be far more easily negotiated between the various groups on a per annum basis and would be preferable to a 10 per cent that remains static over the three years. I do not see that as being a major increase or as keeping up with the times and with the challenging demands of getting a state-of-the- art education in 1989.


Mr. Soetens:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Ms. Blondin). A member of her own Party asked her to give some examples of some hardship cases or cases that were not being handled properly. Of course, she did not have any information available and could not answer that question. Perhaps I could ask her a question so that I could hear her input on this issue.
Supply
There was a release issued by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) citing some examples of students who are funded. Susan, a single mother with two children who attends the University of Calgary receives a grant of $1,305 a month, plus all her tuition fees, books and all the accessories she needs plus transportation back and forth to her permanent residence. Another student is married and has three children and is also attending university and receiving $505 a month for living expenses over and above all the tuition fees. Does the Hon. Member believe that these students are being poorly funded in their endeavours to get a university degree?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, the issue is not about students on an individual basis. If we looked at every case in any crisis situation, I am sure we could find positive elements.
The issue is that we do not want a waiting list to be created by the capping. That is the issue.


Mr. Kristianson:: Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Ms. Blondin) on her comments and on the obvious feeling she has imparted to them. My constituency of Kootenay-West Revelstoke is perhaps one of the few hinterland or resource ridings in Canada that has no Indian bands or reserves within its boundaries. However, I have worked for a number of years at different times in the past with a number of band councils, particularly in British Columbia and Manitoba, and I am aware of some of the history of the issue.
The problem that I see and I think many of us see is that the Government continues to deal with this in a narrow, legalistic way, saying it is not capped in a narrow definition of the term. Government Members continually ask, as they asked of the Hon. Member, whether or not her Party or our Party or any Hon. Member believes that these potential student rights are a treaty right.
For decades in the past, in coastal areas of British Columbia, our white, Christian churches imparted the belief to many native students that there was nothing in their background to be proud of, and that they should be ashamed of their families and their history. Now we have finally reached the point where they are proud of themselves and proud and aware of their history, in the same manner that the rest of us have had that luxury for years and years. They are now claiming what is a moral imperative and a right which must be recognized, not in

April 24, 1989
Supply
its narrow legalistic terms, but by realizing if they are now prepared and want to exercise their abilities to the fullest of their potential that nothing should stand in the way. I believe that that is the argument we are all making. We have heard enough of the narrow, legalistic defences brought forward by the Government.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, before I begin I want to make a brief comment on two things stated. The previous speaker suggested that the issue of treaty right is a narrow, legalistic approach. I wish to advise the Hon. Member that the question of whether or not post-secondary education is or is not a treaty right is the fundamental basis for the current dispute between the Government and Indian people over this policy.
As a matter of policy, the Government has shown a deep commitment to post-secondary education for native students, and the question of whether or not it is a treaty right underlines most of the argument we are hearing now. The Hon. Member, like myself, is from British Columbia which is not a treaty province, but I can assure the Hon. Member that if he had accompanied me to Saskatchewan yesterday he would not have made the remarks that he did.
The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Ms. Blondin) objects very strongly to the problem that we do not have a data base. Yet she denounces the very guidelines that, for the first time, will enable us to establish the data base of aboriginal students in Canada. This will enable the Government to plan both fiscally and educationally. I find that rather an extraordinary position for the Hon. Member to take.
I would also like to remind the Hon. Member that, in response to a question from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mrs. Dobbie), the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), a former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, stated in debate on Friday: "At no time did I say the Government has cut back on the program. They have not. They have increased the program". It would sometimes be a welcome development in the House for members of the Opposition to have the good grace to recognize that.
The Opposition paints a very gloomy picture of the conditions of native people in Canada and, yes, it has been well documented that Indian living conditions, for example, lag behind those of the general Canadian population in many ways. What I find disappointing about the Opposition's view of Indian conditions is its lack of balance and perspective. There appears to be a belief that aboriginal people are totally dependent on the federal Government. The Government is supposed to provide shelter, the Government is supposed to provide employment, the Government is to develop the human resources of native communities, and the Government is even to provide self-government.
Anyone who knows the native people of Canada knows that they are not sitting back waiting for Government to save them. More and more Indians and Inuit are taking their futures into their own hands. Indian political leaders and ordinary community members are the people who are building self-government. The right to self-government is part of every Canadian's birthright, and aboriginal Canadians are no exception.
Indian entrepreneurs are building businesses and creating employment across the country, from Sumas Clay Products near Vancouver to Econobois in Huron Village, Quebec; from Six Nations in Ontario to Eskaso-ni on Cape Breton Island, the elders are forming the young in the ways of their native cultures, as the schools are preparing them for a modern technological society.
Health is more than pills and hospitals; it is sound lifestyles. It is communities such as Alkali Lake in my own Province of British Columbia renouncing alcoholism through the courage of their own members.
So let us not insult aboriginal Canadians by portraying them as passive wards of the state. That era of total dependence is thankfully passing into history. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Government has an important supporting role to play in native development.
Social indicators show that Indians generally face worse living conditions than other Canadians. For example, life expectancy for Indians is about eight years shorter than the Canadian average. Death by suicide is about two and a half times more common among Indians than among the general Canadian population. Death from injury and poisoning is four times more common. The unemployment rate of on-reserve Indians is several times the Canadian average. These facts are undeniable. They represent unfinished business for Canadian society, and we acknowledge that.
April 24, 1989

Yet why must there always be this litany of negativism? Rather, we should take heart in the stunning progress which has occurred over the past generation, and especially in the past 10 years. We need historical perspective in order to understand and deal with the remaining problems.
Since 1960 Canadian society has opened up to Indian people politically, economically, and socially. Indians themselves have acted with initiative and determination. Moreover, federal government programs and budgets benefiting Indians have expanded rapidly. The result has been a generation of remarkable advance.
Until 1961 Indians did not have the right to vote in federal elections. Today Indians participate in Canadian political life at all levels. Indians have served and continue to serve as government Ministers and elected and appointed representatives. In the four constitutional conferences on aboriginal self-government native leaders negotiated directly with the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers.
In 1960 most Indian communities were still directed by Indian agents, officials appointed by the federal Government. Today the Indian agents have long disappeared, and Indians directly administer over two-thirds of the funding provided by the Indian and Inuit affairs program of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Some bands, such as the Cree and Naskapi in northern Quebec, and the Sechelt in British Columbia have established their own self-government structures outside the Indian Act, and several more communities are developing their own arrangements in consultation with the federal Government.
In the area of education we have seen that in the 1960s Indians had little role in their own education. Many students were sent to church-run residential schools where their language and culture were discouraged, and where they were cut off from their families and their communities. Few Indians graduated from high school, and virtually none went on to post-secondary education.
Today there are approximately 250 band-managed schools, up from 135 in 1980-81, serving over 26 per cent of Indian students. Indian language, culture, and tradition are increasingly being integrated into the curriculum, often employing Indian elders as instructors. The
Supply
proportion of Indians on the staff of federal schools has tripled during the last two decades.
There is significant evidence of improved educational performance. For example, in 1984 the Canadian Education Association reported: "a sharp improvement in academic achievement" of Indian students.
Improvement in post-secondary education over the years has also been dramatic. In the 1960s not more than a few hundred Indian students were enrolled in post-secondary studies. In 1975-76, 2,071 Indian students were assisted with a budget of more than $4 million. On a personal note, I might add that as a professor of Political Science in the University of British Columbia in that year, I had the pleasure of teaching one of those students who went on to successfully complete the program in native law at the University of British Columbia. Since then the number of students assisted has grown to the point where last year over 15,000 students were funded from a budget of $130 million.
The new program provides a range of monthly grants for living expenses ranging from $290 per month for a single student to $1,405 for a single parent with four dependants. In addition, the program covers the cost of tuition, travel, books and other special equipment required for the course. No other country offers its native students such a generous program.
The policy was changed to improve the effectiveness of the program and to encourage more Indian and Inuit graduates to pursue careers that would contribute to the achievement of Indian self-government and economic independence, reflecting two important goals of native people. The new program rules support those goals more effectively than the old. The new policy does not cut back on funding. There is no cap on the budget of the Post-secondary Student Assistance Program. As other colleagues have stated, the budget has increased by 10 per cent in each of the last two years to keep up with the growing demand for funding.
If the data indicate that more increases are required in the future, my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) has stated on numerous occasions that he is prepared to seek increased financial resources. The old policy limited the length of student support to a specific number of student months. Under the new policy there will be no 48-month

April 24, 1989
Supply
limit on assistance about which we keep hearing. That was only a proposal for discussion which was changed after last year's consultation with approximately 500 bands, tribal councils and student groups.
Taking into consideration the views of these groups, the new policy provides funding for the time it normally takes to obtain degrees right up to the doctorate level. Additionally, the policy will provide funding for an extra year, if necessary, in order that students can complete each of those degrees.
Previously there was a wide range of regionally determined rates of assistance. The new policy establishes a national standard rate structure providing more equal treatment across Canada. The new policy improves an already successful program and reflects many concerns expressed by native groups before and during the consultation held last year. It increases funding assistance, and promotes self-government and economic self-reliance through strategic study scholarships of up to $3,500 per year. It promotes excellence through academic scholarships of up to $1,000 per year.
I want to add my opinion to that of my colleagues that I believe this new policy is fair and a great improvement over the previous guideline. Education is definitely seeing some progress.
Concerning the area of housing, in the 1960s most Indians lived in seriously inadequate housing. In 1965, for example, fewer than half of on-reserve houses had electricity and only one in six had a safe water supply. Piped water and sewage systems were virtually non-existent. New houses being built did not meet basic national building standards, let alone satisfy the special needs resulting from the traditional life style and harsh climate of many communities. Crowding was a serious problem. Today, two-thirds of Indian homes have sewers or septic tanks, electricity is available in virtually all communities. With the assistance of federal funds of $118 million allocated for on-reserve housing together with loans guaranteed by the federal Government Indian bands build about 3,000 new homes and renovate another 3,500 each year. This total consistently exceeds the minimum targets that have been established.
More than 30 per cent of the current housing stock has been built in the last five years alone and a further 35 per cent has been renovated. Housing is being built to national building code standards using Indian labour and materials where possible and is being designed to meet cultural and climatic conditions. The health of Canadian Indians has improved considerably over recent years. These changes are the result of improved living conditions, better access to quality health care and greater community involvement in health education and delivery. Life expectancy is a significant indicator of over-all quality of life in a given population.
Between 1978 and 1985 life expectancy at birth for Indian males increased from 61.6 years to 64 years and for Indian women from 68.9 to 72.8 years. The rate of increase for both sexes is about double that for the general Canadian population. Although life expectancy for both sexes still lags about eight years behind the over-all population, the gap is narrowing.
Twenty years ago few Indian businesses existed except for family farm operations and some local stores. Most reserves imported goods and services. Employment was generally limited to traditional activities such as trapping, fishing and hunting. Indians had little control or involvement in planning or managing their own economic development programs. Isolation from urban centres, relatively low levels of education, especially among older workers, lack of business experience and capital and legal obstacles all imposed barriers to on-reserve economic development. However, progress is being made. Today, there are over 5,000 Indian businesses most of which are located on reserves and are individually owned. About half of these businesses have been established in the last five years. The Government has been instrumental in helping them get started with money and advice but the vast majority are now self-sustaining.
In 1986-87 alone the Indian and Northern Affairs Economic Development Program helped over 900 Indian businesses through a combination of equity contributions, direct loans and loan guarantees. Indians are now able to meet many of their local reserve needs for transportation, construction and the supply and distribution of basic commodities. Reserve-based enterprises are active in the mainstream of Canada's strong resource sector with significant involvement in the oil, gas, minerals, forestry, including sawmills, and agricultural sectors.
April 24, 1989

The economy of Indian communities has benefited significantly from the devolution of government-funded Indian programs such as band administration, social welfare, education and economic development to the community level. To date, this political development has led to more than 8,500 jobs being created by band governments.
Over the last decade there has been a major increase in the involvement of Indians in the planning, management and provision of economic development programs. To date, the federal Government has aided Indians in assuming control of such programs by providing assistance to Indian financial and sectoral economic development institutions, tribal level development corporations and band economic development officers.
In the early 1960s, Indian culture was only beginning to emerge from a long period of neglect. Indian language and religion had increasingly fallen into disuse. The younger generation was mostly ignorant of the traditional practices and pursuits that had for centuries sustained Indian communities.
Today, Indian culture is being reasserted as a key to community pride and self-reliance. Native language programs have been instituted in the schools along with programs on Indian culture and history. About 50 per cent of Indian students now receive instruction in their native languages. There are numerous aboriginal newspapers, several of which are multilingual, publishing in a native language as well as either English or French. An extensive network of aboriginal radio and TV services provide native language programming to aboriginal communities. The work of Indian artists is increasingly being accepted by the mainstream art community. Works by native artists hang in galleries across Canada, including the National Gallery in Ottawa.
Indian communities are gaining control of their future. Individual Indians have choices never before available to them. They can choose to live on reserve close to their traditional lands and pursuits or they can choose to live in the cities and participate in a broader society. Moreover, they can choose a lifestyle which draws upon what both worlds have to offer.
The important advances made by Canada's Indian people can be attributed to several factors, one of the most important is the determination and preservation of a new generation of Indian leaders and professionals. In Government today there are not unlimited funds nor is
Supply
progress as quick as many demand. The fact is, however, that federal expenditures for aboriginal affairs have increased significantly in recent years. In 1984-85, total federal expenditures for aboriginal peoples were $2.7 billion. By 1988-89, these expenditures reached $3.4 billion. As a percentage of total federal expenditures, excluding public debt costs, expenditures for aboriginal affairs increased from 3.13 per cent in 1984-85 to 3.42 per cent in 1988-89. This represents a very significant re-direction of Government resources, especially during a time of expenditure restraint.
Indian living conditions have improved significantly in the last quarter century. Although much has been accomplished, of course, more remains to be done. Indians are still among the most disadvantaged of all Canadians. Nevertheless, the momentum for change, established over the last 25 years, is clear and strong. The federal Government is firmly committed to working with Indian communities to achieve further improvement in the years ahead. Such improvements will come with the direct involvement of educated professionals, hence the importance of the post-secondary student assistance program. This policy equips the Indian youth of today with the knowledge and skills necessary to enhance self-government and economic self-sufficiency tomorrow.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Hon. Minister's report is so positive in what developments have taken place over the last 25 years, can she tell us how she can justify the Human Rights Commission report on native people?


A. Kim Campbell: It is very clear that we have in Canadian society a standard of living, which is really unequalled in the rest of the world. We aspire to have all Canadians live at that standard. There is no question. At no point in my remarks did I ever suggest that Indian people were not among the most disadvantaged of Canadians or that they did not have difficulties. What I am trying to suggest is that there has been a momentum for change, largely stimulated by the efforts and the initiatives of Indian and Inuit people themselves. I think it is very important that there be a corrective in this House that recognizes that change. There is a great deal yet to be done. The Government has committed itself very strongly to the Post-Secondary Funding Assistance Program as a very fundamental component of the strategy for the advancement of Indian people.

April 24, 1989
Supply
What I wanted to speak about today was also the extent to which the administration of affairs for Indian people has been devolved to their own communities, the extent to which progress has been made. It is very important to recognize that we are moving in the right direction. Yes, we have a long way to go and we are committed, as has been shown by our policies. Much of the progress that has been made can be traced to the last five years of significant financial allocations, and significant program improvements. Our Government's record is there, and it is clear. Yes, we have much more to do. I believe that we are moving in the right direction and are committed to that program.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Skelly).


Mr. Skelly (Comox-AIberni):: The Hon. Minister denied that there was a cap being placed on the budget for the post-secondary education program. The Member will also recognize that the participation rate for native students is 4 per cent, while the participation rate for the population as a whole is something in the neighbourhood of 27 per cent. It is obvious that there is a racial bias against the participation of native Indians.
The time to place a cap on the budget for post-secondary education is not when there is such a substantial degree of inequity between the participation rate of natives and the participation rate in the population as a whole.
The Minister has said in her speech, before she went on to other issues, that there was no capping of the budget. I wonder if she could explain the following statement made in the Minister's letter of March 20: "A budget that could not continue to grow at the pace of the last decade", in other words, using everything but the words,"the budget is being capped." The growth is being curtailed in that budget.
In many other places in the same letter, Madam Speaker, the Minister is making the same statement about the budget being curtailed, such as that we "will have to live within its annual allocation, which may mean that a small number of students will temporarily have to seek those sources of support available to all other Canadians".
The participation rate figures suggest that Indians are being denied access to those sources of support available to all other Canadians. Will the Minister admit that the budget is being capped, in the former Minister's own words, although he does not use the word "capped", and that he is doing it at a time when there is a significant inequity between the participation rate of native students and the participation rate in post-secondary education of Canadians as a whole?


A. Kim Campbell: I welcome the opportunity to address the Hon. Member's comments because the Leader of his Party raised the issue of the Minister's letter on Friday during this debate. Unfortunately, there was not enough time to pursue his remarks.
The Minister comments in his letter that the budget cannot continue to expand at the rate of the last decade. In the last decade, or if I can just expand, since the program began, which is really 14 years, the budget increased by a factor of 30, when the student enrolment increased by a factor of 7.5. That is an enormous increase. It is now timely, I believe, and that is the view of the Government. It is time to look at the program and to see whether it is getting the results and whether it is as effectively managed as it could be. The purpose of the new guidelines is to try to ensure that. We have, for example, no firm data that enables us to plan carefully in advance for the demands on the post-secondary program.
We believe, from what we have been able to ascertain, that the demographics of the student population is shifting slightly. The enormous initial demand from mature students is levelling off. Those are the students that tend to have dependants, and require a greater level of support. The balance of the age groups and students will change slightly, that we will see more young, single students coming into the stream. They do not get support at the same level because they do not have dependants, and they do not require child care and increased levels of support for housing.
We are trying to get hold of the program to understand who our clientele is and what the future demands are going to be. That is the purpose of the program. I do not think that to suggest that the program budget cannot increase 30 times in the next decade is in some way an implication that we do not want to support native students. We have many programs in this Government to which we allocate budgetary funding. We want to do it on the most accurate basis. The problem that we have had in the past is that sometimes we have had indications of
April 24, 1989

funding needs in one part of the country, and those funds have not been used, and in other parts of the country students have been kept waiting.
We have made the commitment that there will be no denials of funding. There may be deferrals for a term. We are hoping that there will not be deferrals. We are hoping that in fact we can have a system where our information is sufficiently complete so that all of the students will be able to study as soon as they are ready to do so.
I would think that there would be an attempt to try to understand a very important part of the budget, to get some control of it, to find out what the demand is, so that the Minister can always be well supported when he goes to Treasury Board. In an era of difficult fiscal restraint, we are looking at an enormous national debt, when all of the Departments of the Government have an obligation to the Canadian people to manage well. I find it extraordinary that the Eton. Member would be opposed to provisions which will enable the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development always to present a well substantiated request to Treasury Board, a well substantiated proposal for funding of this program. The commitment of the Government to this program is not simply theoretical or rhetorical. It is palpable. It has grown by 34 per cent since we came into Government. That is the proof of the pudding.
I think it is extremely important to understand that there are other issues surrounding this particular debate. Certainly, the question of treating the post-secondary assistance program as a budgetary matter, as opposed to something that is open-ended and funded with a blank cheque, is a reflection of the position that the treaty Indians take, that post-secondary education is a treaty right. There is a philosophical issue underlying this. It is a serious one. It is one that will not be resolved in the near future.
I think that to suggest that the Minister's letter suggesting a concern that a program cannot expand by a factor of 30 in the next decade, is in some way a reflection of a hostility to the program, or a desire to cut it back, is ridiculous. Clearly, what we want is a program that meets the needs and that our Department can fund with some knowledge and some assurance, and where
Supply
our requests for funding will be met with approval and respect by Treasury Board.


Mr. Casey:: Throughout this debate there seems to be a difference of opinion on access to the program. I would like clarification. I would like to know if students are in fact being denied access to the program now, and will they be denied access to education under this program in the future under the new policy?


A. Kim Campbell: There are two aspects to that question. One is the question of funding, the other is the question of administrative efficiency. We have had students who have had to defer. There was no denial of funding. Every student who qualifies will be funded. The question is whether they will be funded at the moment when they are themselves ready to go on to higher education. We want to have a program where we know where the demand is. Two-thirds of the budget is administered by bands. We have to know where the demand is, what is the demographic make-up of the student population, so that we can plan and make sure that at the beginning of a fiscal year we have the funds in hand in the right places to make sure that every student has access to that opportunity.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to speak in this debate and to discuss this extremely important issue. Over the weekend I took the opportunity to read through some of the statements that have been made by the Minister and by other participants in this debate. I noticed that the Minister's speech in the House was designed to reassure us and to try to cool out the issue.
In opening his remarks, he said he believed that we were closer together on this issue than the controversy would seem to suggest. Then he did what the Minister of State for Indian Affairs (Ms. Campbell) did, which was to read through a series of programs and post-secondary education guidelines. He then came to a point in his speech at which he said he did not believe that post-secondary education is a treaty right. When everyone who was listening to the debate felt that perhaps we were getting closer together, we ended up poles apart.

April 24, 1989
Supply
In his letter of March 20, 1989, the Minister clearly stated that he believes that references to education and to schools in the treaties could not refer to post-secondary education. Ele was making an absolutely unilateral interpretation of a treaty. As the Minister of State just suggested, that is where one of the problems lies in the debate concerning this issue. It is what relationship post-secondary education has to treaty rights and aboriginal rights. It is an issue which needs to be clearly negotiated and discussed between the natives involved and the Ministry.
As far as the Indians are concerned, the suggestion that post-secondary education is not a treaty right or an aboriginal right is dead wrong. Indians perceive post-secondary education funding to be a part of the obligation that has been established between Canada and the original owners of the country. They are as convinced of that as they are convinced of anything. For the Minister to state as he did in his letter, and as he repeated again in his speech on Friday, that he does not believe that the references in the treaties refer to post-secondary education is a beads and blankets approach to the interpretation of those treaties.
It is unfitting of a Minister in this day and age. It does not recognize the more modern treaties that have sought post-secondary education on the part of the participants in those treaties and agreements. The Minister seems to have gone back to the 1900s in order to get his interpretation of what the natives and the signatories to those treaties actually meant when they agreed to schools on reserves and to education provisions.
The Minister's statement ignores the spirit and the intent of the treaties which was to provide Indians of the day and, supposedly, future generations of Indians the same quality, the same type and the same access to education that was available to non-Indians throughout Canada. The Minister is attempting to freeze those treaties in time. Unfortunately, that creates a problem in the debate around native post-secondary education.
Around the time of the 1890s Ministers did not seem to have very much compunction about unilateral interpretation of provisions of treaties. Where treaties provided for education or schools on reserves, the Ministers of Indian Affairs during that time, as well as the Superintendents General of Indian Affairs, decided that they could re-jig that requirement in a treaty and provide for residential schools, in some cases hundreds
of miles away from the reserves where the treaties required them to locate residential schools.
We all know from the reports of Superintendents General of Indian Affairs exactly what was the purpose of residential schools. The parliamentarians, the politicians and the administrators in the Department of Indian Affairs of the day felt that until they could remove Indian children from their culture, their family life, their communities and their language and deprive them of those three things, they would not be able to convert those Indian children into non-Indian children. That was the fundamental reason behind the residential school system. It was to take kids away from their parents and to destroy their family life and all of the cultural reinforcers that they had in their own communities in their own language on the reserve. It was to destroy their culture and try to mass produce them as white Indians.
The program was an abysmal failure. Fortunately, it was an abysmal failure from the point of view of those who wanted to foist the programs on the natives. It did not work in spite of the attempt to destroy culture among native students because the reinforcers were there. The parents constantly came back into the lives of their children. The language persisted. The concept of community, self-government, nationhood and ownership of land persisted, in spite of legislation passed in this assembly over the years to try to deprive Indians of those rights.
In spite of the residential school system, the culture of native groups persisted. That is a veiy positive failure, if I can put those two words together. The failure of the residential school system has allowed Indians of the day an idea of what their culture, self-government and languages are.
The residential school system was a unilateral interpretation by the federal Government and authorities of the Department of Indian Affairs as to how they could meet their obligations under the treaties that they had signed with Indians and Indian nations. When natives look to the recent unilateral interpretation by the Minister of Indian Affairs when he said that those references and treaties do not apply to post-secondary education, it is no wonder they suspect the motives of the Minister as being precisely the same as the Minister of Indian Affairs who set up the residential school system in opposition to the treaty provisions many, many years ago. They have a legitimate right to be suspicious of the Minister in his unilateral interpretation that those references in treaties do not apply to post-secondary education.
April 24, 1989

As the signatories of the day understood the treaties, they were to be living documents. They were not designed to freeze native Indians in time. They were not beads and blankets documents. They were designed as the basis of a continuing, growing and evolving relationship between Indian nations and the Canadian nation. They were designed as living documents to reflect the circumstances of the day. If it was appropriate in 1850, 1860 and 1870 to provide elementary or secondary education or schools on the reserves, then it is appropriate in interpreting those treaties today to understand them in a different set of circumstances. It is legitimate for natives in treaty areas to consider those references in treaties related to education and schools to refer just as accurately to post-secondary education as they referred to elementary and secondary education in previous times.
For the Minister to attempt to freeze those treaties back in the 1900s is unfitting of him. It is unfitting of the Government. There absolutely needs to be a process of interpreting treaties, especially as to what they mean in the current time today. There has to be some new type of agreement signed between the treaty nations and the Government to determine a process by which treaties are reviewed, by which they are brought up to date and by which their spirit and intentions are agreed upon in modern circumstances. Those things absolutely need to be done. What the Minister has done in his letter of March 20 is interpret and state his belief that the provisions in the treaty do not provide post-secondary education. He has done it unilaterally. He has no right to do it as a right of his office. He can only do it through a formal structure established between himself as a representative of this Government and the Indian nations.
When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mrs. Dobbie) asks us if our Party believes that post-secondary education is a treaty right, it is not our Party which can state that. It is to be decided through a process of interpretation by the signatories of those treaties. It is an obligation. There has to be a forum established to do that in which the people who signed the treaties are represented equally, and where the decision gives equal representation to both sides involved in the signing of that treaty.
Supply
That issue has to be resolved. One of the major difficulties that the Minister has thrown in the path of resolving this problem, one of the major roadblocks created, is his firm and adamant statement that he does not believe that those treaty provisions relate to post-secondary education. He has created a problem that is going to be very difficult to negotiate.
I understand that some of the prairie treaty people and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians are developing documents which will set up a process for interpreting treaties so that we can use them as living documents and make them apply to today's circumstances. Any reasonable person sitting down to interpret these treaties would agree that, while they may have referred to elementary or secondary education in the 1850s, they would certainly refer to higher levels of education now. Before the Minister makes any change in the post-secondary education financing programs of this Government, he has an obligation to put in place a method, a process, a forum for discussing how these treaties are to be interpreted. It is a key issue in this debate. It is an issue that treaty natives and natives across this country fear. If the Minister is allowed to interpret these issues unilaterally, as was done with the residential school system, it is going to mean a terrific amount of damage done to native communities.
The Associate Minister is from British Columbia. She is aware today of some of the serious problems that have been caused in native communities because of the residential school system. I suggest that she look at programs that are going on, for example, on the Cowi-chan reserve today and on reserves in the Shuswap area. The residential school system, by taking a whole generation of children away from their parents and their communities, has deprived those children of an understanding of family relationships, of how relationships occur between parents and children. It has contributed to a great deal of child abuse, sexual abuse, suicide on reserves. There is a whole generation of children who have grown up and become parents without a complete understanding of how families operate and interact.
Fortunately we are seeing native social workers who have gone through post-secondary education, native doctors and psychologists, native counsellors who have gone through and understand the system themselves. They are able to counsel and help these people to restore the family relationships that have been broken up by our residential school system. These communities are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel

April 24, 1989
Supply
where they can function as normal, healthy communities and families again. A terrific amount of damage has been done by unilateral interpretation of the provisions of the treaty. It is time to sit down with the natives of the treaty nations to develop a formula, a process, a forum for interpreting those treaties that give equal weight to the native view.
I questioned the Minister before on the human rights aspect of this case. Quite apart from the aboriginal rights or treaty rights, there is the human rights aspect of this case. Canada is not internationally acclaimed for the way it treats its minorities. It is not a shining example to other countries because of the way it treats its minorities. As Mr. Yalden referred to in the annual human rights report, the main embarrassment of this country is the way that we treat native Indians.
As I pointed out to the Associate Minister, when you see figures which indicate that 4 per cent of native students participate in post-secondary education, whereas the participation rate for the population as a whole is 27 per cent, it is a clear indication of racial bias in this program. There is a clear obligation on this House to correct that racial bias. How do we do it? We do it as many other countries have done and as this country has done on many occasions: through an affirmative action program. If there is a deficiency, if there is an inequity of participation rate of certain racial groups, that inequity must be eliminated. We have an obligation to do that.
I hear the objections that we do not have the money right now, that these are pretty tough times. I read that line in the Minister's speech last Friday. Well, these are tough times. I recall during the 1984 election campaign the Prime Minister of this country saying that we will go after equality for women when the economy turns around. I want to ask you, Madam Speaker, would Abraham Lincoln have been known as the great liberator if he had said: "We will free the slaves when the economy gets better"? This is unfit business for Canada. When the participation rate of native students is at 4 per cent and the participation rate of the population as a whole is 27 per cent, we have an obligation to redress as quickly as possible that glaring inequity. It is going to be pointed out by people across this country and around the world in describing the way that we treat our native citizens.
The difference here is a racial difference. There is a racial bias in access to post-secondary education in this country. That is something that we are obliged to correct immediately. If we are to retain our stature as a democracy in the western world, we must correct it immediately. You do not correct a problem like this by cutting funding, by limiting funding or even by using words and phrases in Minister's letters which suggest that funding is going to be limited. We know, your Alberta caucus knows, those in the Galleiy know that when you talk about limiting funding, you are talking about reducing the flow of the participation rate of native students. That is precisely what you are talking about. You are talking about slowing down the program. That runs absolutely counter to what we should be doing as a countiy to make this a place that we can be proud of, where we practice racial equality rather than just preach it.
I strongly support the motion that was presented by the Liberal Party. I hope the members of the Alberta caucus of the Conservative Party will vote for it because they have expressed concerns about it. I hope they will be able to convince the balance of the Conservative caucus to support this motion unanimously.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I am interested in the rhetoric and history, flawed as it might be, that we were subjected to by the Hon. Member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Skelly). I must say that I believe the Hon. Member is talking through his hat. I take exception to some of his remarks because I believe they actually promote racism.
Let me point out that this program is one of the most reasonable and responsible in the world. For the Member's information, the funding in Canada for our 15,000 students is about four times what it is in the United States. In the United States, the budget is about $32.9 million for their 15,000 students enrolled in post-secondary education. Here in Canada, that budget is $130 million. Why is the Hon. Member trying to deny that this program is responsible, reasonable and fair?


Robert Evans Skelly: Because it isn't, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member compares our program with that in the United States. Maybe it is the goal on the Government side to harmonize our program with the United States. I hope that is not the case.
April 24, 1989

The question is not who does what and who does it better, the question is how much better do we have to do in order to achieve equity? When we are seeking equity in a democratic society, where we have the right of access to post-secondary education on an equal basis, not on a racial basis, we have to spend the money that is necessary to get that equity. That should be the objective.
The objective should not be to cut back access to the program or to delay equity, as the Minister suggested when he said: "Maybe we could talk about this over a 10 year period". People want equity now. People deserve equity now. They have been waiting for 120 years to get equity. Now there is a program in which they have an opportunity to achieve equity. But they know, I think you know, and we know they are not going to get that equity if you cut back on this program. You know it.


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, I was very amused by the Hon. Member's comment about harmonizing our policy. I hope he does not do too much damage to his tendons with all that knee-jerking. I suspect there will be a great deal more.
I want to associate myself with his remarks about the effect of the residential schools. I do not think there is any doubt that they have played havoc. While there are native people who say the schools worked for them, they certainly have been a serious impediment to the development of some of the social and familial strengths that native communities require. That is something we can certainly agree upon.
However, I want to comment on his remarks about the role of post-secondary education and the general educational situation. I suggest that our policy is certainly a very strong program of affirmative action. There are no other Canadians who have this assistance from the federal Government for post-secondary education. I reiterate that it is a policy to which the federal Government is deeply committed. The fact that our philosophic underpinning is not that of the treaty nations, that we do not see it as a treaty obligation, does not mean that we do not see it as a vitally important policy and important part of our desire to see native people assume their rightful role in Canadian society.
We must also recognize that when we look at the relative participation rates of native and non-native students in Canada, the difficulty is a reflection of problems before the post-secondary education level.
Supply
When we are dealing with the post-secondary program we are talking about students who have completed high school successfully and have met the entrance requirements for post-secondary institutions. There is another problem in Canada in getting native students to that level. That is not something which is the subject of this particular program. I think it is important to distinguish with regard to that problem, which I agree is serious.
There are initiatives in which the federal Government has been involved. I am grateful to see initiatives on the part of many provincial Governments to try to deal with it directly because it is their level of responsibility. The federal Government contracts with provincial Governments to obtain educational facilities for native students where the bands do not choose to have a band school.
It is a very difficult issue and one should not confuse the two. I certainly share with the Hon. Member a great deal of concern for the extent to which, even now, native students are not getting to that level of preparation. That is a continuing challenge for Canadian society, but not a basis on which to suggest there is a racial bias that is somehow reflected in this program. This program deals with those students who have made it this far. They are a source of great satisfaction to all Canadians.
Yes, their numbers are too small and that is an additional challenge for us, quite aside from this post-secondary program.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the Minister is admitting that the Government is not putting enough money into education programs at the elementary and secondary level as well, but I would agree with her if she is suggesting that. I hope that in her next meeting with the Minister she can persuade him to make sure more money and more resources are allocated to elementary and secondary education for native Indians as well so that even more people can be qualified to come through this program.
Not all of the complaints of native communities rest with the post-secondary program. A lot of the complaints rest with the elementary and secondary programs where their funding is now being attacked and underfunded by that ministry as well.
There are some serious problems at both ends of the schedule. By referring strictly to post-secondary education funding in this debate, we were only conforming with the motion that was put on the floor. If the Minister wishes to amend the motion so that we can discuss all aspects of Indian education funding, that would open it

April 24, 1989
Supply
up to perhaps four or five more opposition days. We would certainly be prepared to take part in that debate.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I want to make a comment regarding some figures that the Hon. Member opposite quoted a few moments ago. He suggested that 27 per cent of all Canadians were enrolled in post-secondary education as opposed to 4 per cent of the native population. My figures are somewhat different. According to Statistics Canada data for 1987-88, 5 per cent of all Canadians are enrolled in post-secondary institutions and 3 per cent of Indians are enrolled in post-secondary institutions. That is a difference of 2 per cent, not 23 per cent as suggested by my hon. colleague opposite.
Second, the Hon. Member spent close to 10 minutes of his speech saying how he felt about treaty rights and so on, but he did not answer the essential question. The essential question is: Does the Hon. Member's Party recognize post-secondary education as a treaty right for Indians?


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I did not consider it an essential question. During my speech I talked about whether our Party agrees with that. There is certainly no question that natives, especially in the treaty areas, believe that post-secondary education is a treaty right, and that is their interpretation of the treaty. The Government, on its side, has said through the words of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux), that it is not a treaty right, in his belief.
I said that rather than this Party stating whether it is or isn't, because we have no more right than you to interpret a treaty unilaterally, there should be a forum set up between native nations which have signed treaties with Canada and Canada to work out interpretations of the provisions of the treaties so that those interpretations reflect the circumstances of modern times. That is the position of this Member, and I am certain it would be the position of this Party as well.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity to join in the debate on my Party's motion concerning Indian education because I represent some 12 Indian bands across the
Algoma Manitoulin district right from the Batchawana Band in Sault Ste Marie to the Wikwemikong Band on the eastern end of the Manitoulin Island. I do not think there is any issue on which we have received stronger representation in the last year and a half than the question of Indian post-secondary education.
I do think we have made remarkable progress in many aspects of Indian affairs over the last 15 or 20 years. However, there has been progress made in the field of education. Now a cap is being put on this funding when the problem has always been to provide support for education at the local level for those students who are successful in passing grade 12 or grade 13. It is hard to believe that the Government is capping that funding and capping it in this way.
Last week, chiefs, councillors, students and band members from most of the reserves in the Algoma-Man-itoulin area attended the protest here on Parliament Hill. They were protesting this cap which is discouraging for those students who have been successful in completing grade 12 or grade 13. As well, it is discouraging for the students who are in secondary school. For example, I received a letter just last week from Kelly Esquimaux, a student at the Manitoulin Secondary School and a resident of the Sucker Creek Reserve on Manitoulin Island. She writes:
I am writing to you in regard to the recent aboriginal education assistance cut-backs. I am a high school student at Manitoulin Secondary School and I will be attending college in the fall which means these cut-backs will be affecting me. As MP of my district, I was hoping you would be able to help me and my people fight these cut-backs. Prime Minister Mulroney is being very unfair. An agreement was made and now he is breaking it. Please help us. Thank you. Yours truly, Kelly Esquimaux.
I have received a number of letters like that, letters which portray the uncertainty and concern felt by students in post-secondary education institutions and those in high school at this time as well.
I received a letter from the United Chiefs and Councillors of the Manitoulin district, a district with some six Indian reserves. It is a long letter which outlines the whole problem with the capping of post-secondary education funding. This letter was written to the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In summary, it reads:
April 24, 1989

We believe the Government is interested in cutting the deficit at the expense of the First Nations education. The Government should look at other means to decrease the deficit problem rather than at the expense of First Nations. Further, we conclude that your department is not committed to the education of First Nations as you previously stated. Mr. Minister, to proceed with your department's present course of action will undoubtedly eliminate forever any hope of establishing a trust relationship which is crucial and fundamental in creating a sound working environment.
That letter is signed by the six Chiefs of the First Nations of Manitoulin District.
This is a very important matter. It is one that cuts right across the entire district that I represent. A letter was sent to me by the social counsellor for the Garden River Indian Band located just outside of Sault Ste Marie. The letter points out that in 1976, when the control was under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, there were only 35 students from the Garden River Band attending high school and that year, there was only one graduate. Today, with the control under the responsibility of the Band Council and its education committee, there are 85 students attending high school in Sault Ste Marie. Usually 10 to 12 students graduate each year and on average, 12 to 14 students start in kindergarten. This speaks of the success Indian bands have been having. However, if 12 to 14 students are entering elementary school and 10 to 12 students are graduating, will that be the end of the road? Will those 12 or 14 students be able to go on to post-secondary institutions?
The letter points out as well that all of the students who graduated in the previous year are employed. These students attended and graduated from Sault College or colleges like Lake Superior State College. These people have been trained as child care workers, law and security people, civil engineers, nurses, business administrators, RNAs, heavy diesel mechanics, finance and sales managers, computer engineers and lab technicians. These people are all employed, and that is the crux of the argument. If the students do not go on to get a complete education which will help them secure jobs, will they be able to enter the workforce? Of course, these are the arguments that were made last week when the Assembly of First Nations held its protest here.
There were other concerns expressed by the Garden River Band social counsellor. She said that her concerns are three-fold. Maintenance rates have been reduced
Supply
for single students and single students with dependants. Tuition assistance for students attending foreign and private institutions has been reduced. The maximum length of assistance has been reduced from 96 student months to 48 student months. She goes on to point out that many of the students from the Garden River Reserve attend Algoma College or Sault College in Sault Ste Marie, but five students are in second year at Lake Superior State College which is just across the river in Sault, Michigan, and two are in their first year. For these students, tuition support will be cut off by up to $900 per year. She points out that already, some students have to supplement their books and supplies by up to $200 in United States funds per year.
I am sure that measure was taken because the Department was thinking that students can get training at the University of Toronto rather than some university in the United States and why should we pay for that additional tuition. However, the practical results are that students in Sault Ste Marie, rather than being able to commute back and forth to Lake Superior State College in Sault, Michigan, will not be able to do so because of the cut-backs in funding of tuition and supplies for those attending foreign colleges.
These are some of the concerns which are being expressed to me and I hope that the Government will be prepared to lift the cap that has been proposed on post-secondary education. It should be left the way it has been in the past. A notional amount has been put in the Estimates and if the number of students applying for assistance were to go beyond that, the Department would go back to the Treasury Board to get additional funds. We are talking here about the future of literally thousands of students who have grown up with the least opportunities. Those who have struggled through the system and graduated from high school to prepare themselves to go on to university should not be denied that opportunity. I do not know the exact numbers. I am told that something in the range of 2,000 would qualify. If they qualify, it is not a cost to the Government now, but rather an investment in the future to ensure that these students will have a productive job and a productive lifestyle and will not be a burden on the state in the years to come because they have been able to receive that extra training at college or university.

April 24, 1989
I hope that the Government recognizes the wisdom in the recommendation in the statement which is before the House today, and puts a moratorium on the capping of the budget for post-secondary education. In the long run not only will the Government be doing the best thing, but it will be doing the proper thing for these students who will not be denied an opportunity to go on and take post-secondary education, not only this fall but in the years ahead.
With your permission, Madam Speaker, I will call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When we resume after Question Period there will be eight minutes in which the Hon. Member can complete his presentation.
It being 1.22 p.m. I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.22 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that today, April 24, is the seventy-fourth anniversary of the first genocide of the twentieth century, when 1,500,000 Armenians were massacred by the Turkish-Ottoman Governments between 1915 and 1922. This crime against humanity must not be forgotten and must remain etched in our collective memory. Otherwise, this horrible crime may be repeated in other countries of the world. In 1939, Adolf Hitler asked: After all, who today remembers the Armenian genocide? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that we do!



HUMAN LIFE


Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, we take the opportunity to remind Hon. Members of this House
that this week, April 23-29, is Organ Donor Awareness Week. The Department of National Health and Welfare is co-operating with various voluntary and professional organizations to inform the public and health professionals of the benefits of organ and tissue donations and transplants. They encourage families to discuss organ donation and to make a decision before a tragedy occurs and health professionals to reflect on how they participate in the organ donation process.
We ask you to think about organ donation and to sign a donor card or the designated part of your driver's licence if you have not already done so. Talk about it with your family, your friends, your constituents and your colleagues and ask them to follow your example. By so doing, you will be giving or encouraging others to give the most precious gift of all, the gift of life.



MULTICULTURALISM


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: In the course of my work I am always struck that people of many and diverse origins view Canada as a land of opportunity and Canadians as a people who are committed to freedom and democracy. Most important, we are seen as a county whose strength and vitality have their roots in Canada's multicultural reality. Canada is a home to people, cultures and traditions from around the world.
Many Canadians, including those of Armenian origin, came to this country to escape injustice. They have made a valued contribution to the political, social and economic fabric of Canada.
Today as our Armenian Canadians commemorate tragic events, including the 1915 genocide experienced elsewhere, we salute their efforts as Canadians, to ensure that future generations are spared the denial of human rights they suffered in other countries, in other times. Together we are working to shape a nation that is strong, self-confident and caring, a nation that looks forward to an even brighter and more promising future for all of us who live together in our unique and multicultural traditions.
April 24, 1989



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to condemn the attitude of the Conservative Government which this year cut 46 per cent in financing for the summer employment program for students. Funding has declined from $2,487,610 last year to $1,343,710 this year, and that is just for the area between St. Albert and Pembroke, in Ontario, which also includes the riding of Carleton-Gloucester.


Mr. Boudria:: And Glengarry-Prescott-Russell! [English]
Because of the exceptional reduction in the grants given to Challenge 89, close to 1,000 students will have trouble saving enough money for their studies in the fall.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Eugène Bellemare: Must the students pay for the defeat of the Conservatives in the Ottawa area?



HOUSING


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: The budgetary constraints in which the Government finds itself call for innovative ways to alleviate the housing crisis in Canada. One of the ways this could be done is to allow the use of retirement funds for home purchases. Under current regulations, many low, and middle-income first time buyers are denied access to RRSP funds for home purchases, while individuals with large RRSP holdings are able to make this kind of investment. By relaxing the barriers which prevent the investment of less than $25,000 in RRSP money in a principal residence, including eliminating insurance requirements on retirement- based mortgages, we can give home buying opportunities to many more young families. Expanding regulations that allow the investment of employer contributing or administered pension plans would also serve to open up a very tight housing market. Allowing Canadians to invest in their own futures is a sound idea, one that would not require any additional tax expenditures. This makes the plan preferable to RHOSPs or other tax deferred plans. This
is a bold idea, but it is a new idea we will have to explore in order to solve the present housing crunch.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: This past weekend the Government sponsored a conference for REAL Women. The Secretary of State (Mr. Weiner) has said that this group meets the women's program criteria for funding.
The criteria do not include bashing the female Supreme Court Justices. They do not include spreading lies and hatred about lesbians and gays. They do not include absolutely ridiculous seminars on how children in day care will all become psychopaths. It does not include raving about pre-marital sex.
The criteria do state that the project should deal with how barriers to women's equality should be addressed. This conference denied that any barriers exist.
Women's program officials have told equality seeking women's groups that their funding could be cut by up to 65 per cent in the coming budget.
This Government is funding anti-child care, anti-employment equity groups, and cutting back on equalityseeking women's groups. This clearly represents the Government's true agenda for women. It is a back-to-the-kitchen agenda.



ARMENIA


Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Ahuntsic, I would like to remind Canadians of the seventy-fourth anniversary of a tragedy that the conscience of the world cannot ignore. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the tragic events involving the valiant and courageous Armenian people, who are still struggling for recognition of their lawful rights. Today, Canadians of Armenian descent mourn their dead. In silence, I pray with them that such events may never be repeated.



SIRDCES TZEZI HED E

[Stage Direction]
(Wish all my heart, I am with you!)
[Stage Direction]
April 24, 1989


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: In the April 8 issue of The Economist, you will find the following on the Exxon Valdez oil spill:
Do not be taken in by oil company promises that opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration will never harm the 170,000 cariboo that go there to calve. Oil deserves to be found and pumped out if, and only if, it can be sold at a price that covers the cost of appropriate environmental safeguards, by a company with a powerful incentive to keep those safeguards working.
Modem business diffuses personal responsibility too rapidly. If you fine an oil-spilling company 10 times the value of the spilt oil, its insurance rates merely go up. Directors and employees of companies which profit from things that are very unlikely to turn very unpleasant should be personally exposed to fear of these unpleasantnesses. They should lose their jobs when the 'impossible' happens just as the president of Japan Airlines quit when an aging jet crashed. That sense of personal responsibility would do much to keep the safety drills slick, the captain sober, the otters swimming.
Even The Economist is turning green!



ARMENIA


Bill Attewell: It is now 74 years since the horrific genocide in 1915, when at least 1.5 million Armenians were massacred. Armenians in Canada, and in other countries around the world, are still waiting for Governments to officially recognize that the genocide did, indeed, occur. In February, 1988 over 30 Armenians were killed while peacefully demonstrating in the City of Sumgait. Last month I visited Soviet Armenia to talk to Armenians who survived the devastating earthquake which occurred on December 7, 1988. Between 50,000 and 100,000 Armenians lost their lives as a result of this earthquake. Despite these historic tragedies, Armenians around the world continue to dream of a free and independent Armenia. Nothing will deter Armenians from this dream of rebirth. Nothing will crush their spirits or their souls.




Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Thanscona):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the commemoration of the seventy-fourth anniversary of the Armenian genocide as the Hon. Member just noted.
In the period of 1915 to 1923 over one million Armenians were killed and millions of others were driven from their homeland by the Turkish-Ottoman Governments. This certainly represents one of the saddest chapters in the history of the 20th century.
The international community has often been slow to recognize such realities and Canadian Governments over the years have been no different. The time has come for the Canadian Government to recognize and condemn the Armenian genocide, to urge the Government of Turkey to do likewise and to provide redress to the Armenian community.
I know that I join with many other Canadians in noting the importance of recognizing the Armenian genocide and other events, both past and present, in which minority peoples are oppressed and persecuted. To remember such things, as Canada should in a regular way on April 24, is to keep hope alive that some day the earth will be rid of such injustices.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Prince Edward Island way of life has been threatened by the federal Government. As we speak, hearings regarding railway abandonment on Prince Edward Island are taking place in Charlottetown. This time it is the operations at the Kensington and Borden subdivisions that are being threatened.
CNR has deliberately downgraded the railway system on Prince Edward Island, with abandonment as the final goal. Now that we have almost reached this stage, what is being done to replace the present system? Nothing. The federal Government has left the province responsible for upgrading the highways. The provincial Government cannot afford to complete this task, especially with all of the cut-backs that we hear will be announced in Thursday's Budget speech.
April 24, 1989

What about the employees and their families who will be affected? Many have lived and raised their families on P.E.I. for many years. They have given the better part of their lives to CN, but the compensation package they will receive from CN is grossly inadequate.
Given this, I call on the Government to ensure that the province is adequately compensated and that the affected employees and their families will be taken care of by CN.



ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS WEEK

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Organ Donor Awareness Week. The Department of National Health and Welfare is joining professional and voluntary health organizations in activities to heighten public and health professional awareness of the benefits of organ and tissue donation and transplantation.
Families are encouraged to discuss and make a decision about organ donation before a tragedy occurs. Health professionals are urged to examine how they may participate in the organ donation process.
You are invited to consider organ donation and to sign a donor card or the consent portion of your driver's licence if you have not already done so. Discuss your decision with family, friends, constituents and professional colleagues and ask them to follow your example. By doing so you will be giving or encouraging others to give the most precious gift of all, the gift of life.



PENSIONS


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Pacific Pensioners National Council held their annual convention this past Friday here in Ottawa. This organization represents CP pensioners from across the country. The focus of this year's meeting was the plight that many of the CP pensioners are in. This plight of the CP pensioners, which is very similar to the problems of the CN pensioners, is due in large part to their having no adequate indexation of their pensions. Because of this there are CP and CN pensioners across the country living in poverty.
How can this Government allow this to happen when these Canadians have contributed so much to the building of this nation? Surely this Government, which pays so much attention to enlarging or ensuring the large profits of major corporations, can also ensure that pensioners receive adequate indexation of their pensions. I call upon the Government to act quickly on behalf of CP and CN pensioners to right this wrong.



ARMENIA


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure for me together with my Liberal colleagues and, indeed, Members from all sides of the House, to gather at 12.30 p.m. at the foot of this great parliamentary institution to join with 2,000 Canadians of Armenian descent. They are here not only to remind us of the purge of the evil, the genocide, that happened to their brothers and sisters some 74 years ago, but also to be vigilant, to send forth a message from Parliament Hill to reach all corners of the world where human rights and human dignity are stepped on, that at least Canada, morally and ethically, will stand up to say that that is wrong and that it recognizes it. Two thousand people were outside. There were 2,000 people last year and the year before, but we need to go further than simply having those people come to our institution to remind us to recognize it.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is an emerging consensus on all sides of the House for this Parliament to stand up and boldly recognize an evil for what it was. I believe there is a consensus to have the Secretary of State for External Affairs Minister (Mr. Clark) and this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) move on the promise that they made in 1984 to move through the United Nations and mobilize international leadership and international opinion, because it is not weakness to recognize what has happened, it is strength.
I urge this Government to pick up the pieces and to coalesce the emerging feeling that all Members share on this issue. Let us stand up. Let us pass a resolution through the House of Commons and let that set the tone and example for other Governments and other countries around the globe.

April 24, 1989
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns unacceptable statements, in fact, a threat made by the Minister for International Trade regarding the result of last Thursday's election in New-foudland and Labrador.
The Deputy Prime Minister knows that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador exercised their democratic right to elect a Government of their choice, and then-choice was the Liberal Party led by Clyde Wells last Thursday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I know the Prime Minister has already extended his congratulations to Mr. Wells. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware or does he approve of the following statement made by the Member for St. John's West, Newfoundland's sole representative in the federal Cabinet, and I quote: "We'll play ball with them if they play ball with us. However, if they want to re-open old issues like Meech Lake and so on, then we will have to reassess the situation."
That is the Member for St. John's West speaking in Florida, one day after the Newfoundland election.


A. Kim Campbell: In Florida?
Some Hon Members: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Now I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether or not he will give Newfoundlanders and Labradorians an absolute commitment today that threats or blackmail have no place in the relationships between the federal Government and any newly elected Government of any province in Canada? May we have that assurance today?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, indeed the people of Newfoundland did exercise their democratic right and we will certainly respect that right and abide by it.
The point the Hon. Member makes is rather interesting. It seems that he wants to continue the provincial election campaign here on the floor of the House of Commons.


An Hon. Member:: What about in Florida?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I want to assure the Hon. Member and all the people of Newfoundland that it will be business as usual. We will exercise our responsibilities in carrying out national policy and national programs that will be good for all of Canada and good for the people of Newfoundland. I think, as the Hon. Member knows, that federalism is a two-way street, and we hope and expect that the Government of Newfoundland will co-operate in working with the federal Government to make it better for the people of Newfoundland and all regions of Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I hope that the Member for St. John's West is tuned in from Florida and that he will accept the gentle chastisement just offered him by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HIBERNIA AGREEMENT-QUERY REGARDING GOVERNMENT'S CONTINUED SUPPORT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to take the Deputy Prime Minister at his word. Indeed, the election should be over and it is back to business, to use the Deputy Prime Minister's words,"as usual".
During last fall's federal electoral effort the Prime Minister said: "Our promises are all within Michael Wilson's fiscal framework. Every nickel has been accounted for." In January, after that said electoral effort, the Prime Minister said: "We are expecting difficulty on the fiscal side."
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister today whether or not the Government of Canada stands behind the $17 billion in promises made both before and during the federal election campaign.
Specifically, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House today, and through the House the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the Government of Canada stands behind the Hibernia agreement announced last July in St. Johns, Newfoundland, by the Prime Minister of Canada and by the former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador? Will he give us the assurance today that it is business as usual?
April 24, 1989


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member that we do not accept the $17 billion figure that he put forward in the preamble to his question. That was a figure used by the Liberal Party, and not one accepted by the Government.
On the more substantive part of the question, I want to say to the Hon. Member, to all Hon. Members, and to all the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador that the Hibernia project was a project and that is a project which the Government believes is important, both for the national interest as well as for Newfoundland and Labrador. It was not constructed on a partisan basis. It has not changed because there was an election in Newfoundland.
The federal Government intends to proceed, as we have stated before, on our obligations on Hibernia. We would expect the Newfoundland Government to do the same.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL REASSURANCE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I get awfully worried when I hear a Minister say the Hibernia project "was a project that is a project," and was a project that we are standing behind. It frightens the daylights out of me.
Let me put my question clearly. Last July, in St. Johns, Newfoundland, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premier of Newfoundland, and the Minister representing Newfoundland in the federal Cabinet, announced that the Hibernia deal was done, the Hibernia project was going to go ahead, the federal Government was putting the federal Treasury behind the project, and that a legally binding agreement would be signed by March 31. It is now April 24 and there is no legally binding agreement.
I ask the Minister of Energy again, will he stand in the House today and say, days in advance of the federal Budget, that the Hibernia project is a go, that the federal Government is not backing away, and that the Government is prepared to sit down to discuss with the new Liberal Government in Newfoundland the details of that project, including the royalty regime for Newfoundland which is one of the worst in Canada's history?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that I scare the daylights out of him. That is not a great
Oral Questions
achievement. There is not a lot of daylight to scare out of him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is the difference between you and me. You are all daylight, Jake. You have daylight between your ears-I do not.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: This is a matter of judgment.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Judgment has not been something with which he has been associated.
As I said in my first answer with respect to whether or not the Government of Canada is obligated to the Hibernia project, the answer is yes. I hope and expect that the present Government of Newfoundland when it takes office will be obligated also to the Hibernia project.
There is a concept of parliamentary democracy, namely, that one takes the responsibility which previous Governments have signed in good faith. I expect the Government of Newfoundland also to follow that tradition, that precedent.
What I am also saying to the Hon. Member is this. Prior to the Newfoundland election I put before the House the issue of the legal requirements which will be completed some time in the autumn of this year, and the fact that we had to test the financial markets. I have put that forward very clearly. In terms of the design, I have put that in front of the House.
What I do expect from Newfoundland, and from the Hon. Member, is support for Hibernia, rather than the question that has come from that side of the House on Hibernia and not this side.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the day after the Liberals formed the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador the new Premier, in response to a question put by the press, said that he would like to see some changes to the Meech Lake Accord. From the everglades of Florida a cabinet Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, emerged like a crocodile from the mud and threw a threat at the new Liberal Government in Newfoundland.

April 24, 1989
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


George Baker: What did the Minister mean when he said, speaking on behalf of the Government: "We will play ball with them if they play ball with us. But if they want to reopen the Meech Lake issue, we will have to reassess the situation"?
What kind of ball was the Minister for International Trade referring to, speaking from Florida? Was it beach-ball, or is this hardball, which is not fair ball to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we may want to entertain a statement on Motions from the Hon. Member so that he can clarify his position and the position of the federal Liberal Party with respect to Meech Lake.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: We are talking about blackmail. Do you know what blackmail means?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member earlier said: "Are you going to keep your word?" I ask them are they going to keep their word with respect to Meech Lake?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF MINISTER
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, today in Newfoundland we are awaiting the signature of this Government on four regional economic development agreements which should have been signed last month. We are awaiting the transfer of $800 million compensation for the closure of our railway. We are awaiting the economic agreement on Hibernia. The list goes on.
At this crucial moment when these economic agreements are being reviewed, and when other provinces have exactly the same position as the Premier of Newfoundland has on the Meech Lake Accord, why is the Prime Minister allowing a Minister of the Government to bully Newfoundland? Is this punishment for Newfoundland tossing out the PC Government?
PC stands for passe compose in Newfoundland. This Government is going to be decompose if it keeps threatening us like this.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I always thought that PC stood for perfect Canadian, and we have a great many of them over here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should welcome the Hon. Member back. We missed his colour and his excitement. We hope that he will be with us for a little while because it looks like we are going to have some interesting times.
As I said earlier, federalism is a two-way street. We intend to uphold our responsibilities and obligations. We hope that the new Premier of Newfoundland will do likewise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On the weekend in Ottawa the Minister was threatening once again to impose a Conservative view of fairness on the whole of the country when he said that in the coming Budget, when it comes to tax increases and cut-backs in programs, Canadians could expect the Government to be fair.
Considering that he said the same thing in 1984, not long before he brought in his subsequent Budget, a Budget that increased taxes on the poor by 60 per cent, increased taxes on the average family by 17 per cent, and reduced taxes on the rich by 6 per cent, will the Minister of Finance guarantee Canadians that Thursday's Budget will not be a repetition of that concept of fairness?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is referring to comments that I made on a television program over the weekend wherein I was making the observation that the federal Government debt is at very high levels and that the problem must be addressed. I would expect that he also would agree that it must be addressed. It is not a partisan issue. It is not an ideological issue. It is pure arithmetic that leads to the obvious conclusion that something must be done about it.
April 24, 1989

On that same program I made the point that we are going to be very sensitive to the ability of people to support that effort of getting the deficit down. We would expect that the broad range of economic policies, including getting control of the government debt, will lead to the same sort of economic performance that we had over the last four years, which the Hon. Member continues to ignore, yet there it is staring him right in the face.
Some 1.5 million jobs were created since September, 1984. That is the program that we want to continue over the next four years.


INTEREST RATE INCREASES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Government has sanctioned, because it has done nothing to the contrary, the continual increases in the interest rates that the Bank of Canada has imposed on the people of Canada. The last time we saw this kind of steady escalation, as the Minister will recall when he was on this side of the House, was the early eighties which led to the most serious recession in Canada in the post-war period.
Since the Government has stood back, watched and actually supported this action by the Bank of Canada, does the Minister not at least fear that his Budget, which he has said is going to provide us with tax increases and program cuts, combined with a high interest rate policy, could be just enough to tip this country into a serious recession once again?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are not as a country in a position where we can ignore the debt problem that has grown up over the past 20 years. It is something that must be dealt with.
The Hon. Member refers to the interest rate problem. He is pointing to a symptom of the problem, not the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem is inflation and an economy that is growing faster than the capacity of the economy to handle.
What we would expect as a result of this Budget is that we would put a better balance between the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada and the fiscal policy of the Government of Canada so that we can see some opportunity for interest rates to come down. That is the objective that we are following in this Budget.
Oral Questions


ALLEGED CONTRADICTION OF MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I agree there should be a balance. However, the Bank of Canada has continued to raise interest rates, while on the weekend, the Minister of Finance himself suggested raising taxes and cutting expenditures. That's no balance. It's a contradiction. Once again, with developments like this in an economy that is beset by problems, shouldn't the Minister of Finance be concerned about the fact that this approach might start a recession?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the problems of the economy are clearly a concern of the Minister of Finance. The problem of inflation is going to be a fundamental objective that we will be addressing in this Budget, which is something that I have talked about on a number of occasions in this House.
The Hon. Member points back to 1982. If he thinks back to what he is saying about 1982, the previous Government ignored the problem of inflation, swept the problem of inflation under the carpet and let the-


An Hon. Member:: Remember the 6 and 5 program.


Geoff Wilson: No, 6 and 5 came after the recession, I remind the Hon. Member. It was the problems that the previous Government swept under the carpet before the recession which led to the high rates of inflation. The high rates of inflation led directly to the high interest rates, and those high interest rates were what absolutely destroyed the economy in 1982. We on this side of the House have the sense to learn from past mistakes so we can avoid the problems of 1982.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTER OF STATE
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to bring to the Members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Dr. Terry Huberts, Minister of State for Vancouver Island Coast and North Coast and Minister responsible for Parks in the Province of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 24, 1989
Oral Questions


MINORITIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is clearly developing a tendency to indulge in arm twisting. It has a team of bouncers to take care of the provinces. The Minister for International Trade blackmailed Newfoundland a few weeks ago, and in Manitoba, the Secretary of State was putting pressure on the Francophone minority by promising federal grants in exchange for support for Meech Lake. Will the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister demand that the Secretary of State extend an official apology, since he should not be blackmailing the minorities of this country?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I had a very successful meeting with the Societe franco-manitobaine. We discussed many subjects, and there was certainly no pressure on any aspect. The only reason I was there was to promote our linguistic duality and to support official-language minority communities.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, that isn't what the notes tell us, but let's leave-


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON MINORITY LANGUAGE RIGHTS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to direct a supplementary to that same Minister. He said lately that "Within the English community in Quebec, there is a feeling of frustration, a feeling of isolation". In his report the Commissioner of Official Languages also states the same thing.
Many people in this country cannot have their children educated in their own language, cannot go to courts in their own language, and cannot communicate in their own language. It is time for action. I ask the Minister will he comply or will he at least meet the requirements of the day and have a federal-provincial conference called immediately to look at and study attentively the problems of minority language rights in this country?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I had an excellent meeting last Friday with the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Fortier; who has brought forward many good recommendations. I have asked a number of my officials to give me a very immediate review of those recommendations to see how some of them can be best implemented.
We understand that this is a very sensitive issue. It takes principled leadership and a serene and respectful manner. Both communities, the Anglophone community in Quebec, and the majority Francophone community in Quebec very much are saying the same things. What we are trying to do is to find opportunities for more dialogue, opportunities to give both communities sustenance and to make sure that they both understand that this is what our distinct society is all about.


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Housing. Today Canadians are dismayed about whether the Minister's priorities have changed since he became Minister. In a Toronto newspaper today, the Minister made the outrageous statement that Canadians can no longer assume that 30 per cent of their income will get them reasonable accommodation.
It was not long ago that the Minister could be counted on as someone who was willing to stand up for the Canadian dream of owning a home. Now it turns out that the Minister will be remembered as the person who sold it out.
My question is this. Why is the Minister now telling Canadians that they have to abandon the great national dream of owning their own home unless they are prepared to pay more than 30 per cent of their income towards the cost of putting a roof over their heads? Doesn't this Government have any heart left?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member has been reading the newspapers. I hope that he will try to read them a little more carefully than he appears to have done this time. Certainly no one is telling the Canadian people that the dream of owning a home has come to an end, certainly not me and certainly not the Government. Our goal is to try to make sure that every Canadian does have a roof over his or her head and a roof that is affordable to them.
April 24, 1989

The indication that the Hon. Member refers to in the press today was aimed at just dealing with the facts of life as they are in the country at the moment. Many, many people, as the Hon. Member knows, pay more than 30 per cent of their income towards the cost of housing. I want that to come down. So does the Government. That is what we are aiming to try our best to do.


HOUSING CO-OPERATIVES
Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: The reality of the situation is this. Does the Minister not know that people in Vancouver, in Toronto, in London and other cities across this great country have to go to food banks because more than half of their total income has to go towards rents?
The Minister says that everybody is getting squeezed by the Budget. If the poorest people in this country are squeezed any harder they will not stand a chance of ever getting back on their feet. Will the Government fight the deficit solely on the backs of the poor?
Does the Minister plan to cut housing co-operatives and social projects, and leave the families who live in them to fend for themselves?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member and all Members of the House will have to await the Budget on Thursday before we know, before I know, before everyone knows exactly what are the terms of the Budget.
I can assure the Hon. Member that this Government and this Minister will do everything they possibly can to assist Canadians to have housing that is affordable to them.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I am sure you are aware, like everyone in the country, that the Budget on Thursday will bring about tax increases and program cuts for ordinary Canadians.
Oral Questions
Since interest rates in this country are now more than 3 per cent higher than those in the United States, instead of raising taxes for ordinary people and cutting back on programs for ordinary people, when will the Minister tell the Governor of the Bank of Canada, John Crow, that the time has come to roll back interest rates so they are at least on a level that is near the rate in the United States?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is getting quite selective. If he looks at the market rates of interest he will see that they are in the 2 per cent to 2-1/4 per cent range, not the 3 per cent range he has indicated.
The substance of his question is that the Governor of the Bank of Canada should just roll back interest rates. I ask him to consider how the Governor of the Bank of Canada would do that. The way I suggest he would do that is to print money. We all know that printing money leads to inflation, more inflation leads to higher interest rates, and that is exactly what we are trying to avoid.
We are trying to avoid the problems we got into in 1981 and 1982 when inflation ran at 13 per cent and led to 22 per cent and 23 per cent interest rates at the time.
Surely the Hon. Member would like us to learn from mistakes of the past.


INTEREST RATE FORECASTS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about mistakes of the past. I remember very well the Budget last year when the Minister forecast interest rates in this country of 7.8 per cent for 1989. The interest rate is some 5 per cent higher, adding billions of dollars to the interest payments on the national debt.
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance tell us what guarantee we have that his forecast will be any more accurate this year than it was last year, or can we expect another multi-billion dollar mistake to be paid for by ordinary Canadians?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, over the past four years since we have been in office I think the record of the Government in making projections on the level of the deficit and the level of economic growth and of interest rates has been as good as any Government in many, many years.
If the Hon. Member wants to go back and look at what the consensus of private sector forecasters has been over the same four-year period, recognizing that forecasts are

April 24, 1989
Oral Questions
made for the future and are sometimes hard to predict, the record of this Government is better than the consensus of private sector forecasters during the four years we have been in office.


TAXATION
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Without the co-operation of his provincial counterparts, a fair and equitable national sales tax may never see the light of the day. Some Premiers have been highly critical of a national sales tax program.
I understand that the Minister met with his provincial colleagues recently. Could he tell us if he has made any progress? Will he have the co-operation to ensure that all Canadians will be part of a fair national sales tax?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, a national sales tax is quite a complex undertaking. As he said, we have had consultations with the Finance Ministers of the provinces for about two years now. We have thoroughly assessed the issues that are exposed in the analysis of a national sales tax.
I think there is a veiy clear understanding of the urgent need for the federal Government to reform the federal sales tax a hidden tax which is very destructive in the economy today.
I have tried to assess the urgency, the commitment of the provinces to changing their sales tax and I have to say that at this point in time I think a national sales tax is out of reach. However, I do believe that it is essential that the federal Government move ahead with its sales tax reforms so I have advised my colleagues in the provincial Governments this morning of our desire to proceed with federal sales tax reform and acknowledged the very great commitment that they made to the national sales tax objective. Unfortunately, however, that is out of reach at this point in time.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORT TAX
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade I will direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the softwood lumber export tax.
Last Friday afternoon the G.W. Martin Company in Sault Ste. Marie and Searchmont laid off some 300 workers, and another couple of hundred are being laid off in the bush operations. This brings to over 1,300 the number of workers who have been laid off since the Government imposed the export tax on January 1, 1987. This company complained that it had spent over $1 million on export tax and was shutting down because of losses in the operation of these two mills.
Can the Minister tell these laid-off workers exactly what action the Government plans to take to provide some relief to them for the loss of jobs and the losses to the communities throughout northern Ontario?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, everyone is aware of the critical situation in which the solid wood producers find themselves in the present circumstances, particularly here in Ontario.
There are a number of factors, only one of which concerns the softwood lumber tax. There is no doubt that the Province of Ontario, which has benefited from this tax immensely, has flexibility that, if properly managed, could offer some relief to those who are the worst affected. An industry that is investing in the current year roughly $6 billion in expansion, that is the industry in total, is hardly one that is in dire straits.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that these employees who have been laid off are in dire straits, as are many other workers in northern Ontario.


REQUEST THAT TAX AGREEMENT BE RENEGOTIATED
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, why does the Government of Canada steadfastly refuse to renegotiate and eliminate this export tax? There is a solid provision in the Memorandum of Understanding, under Section 8, to renegotiate the tax if circumstances have changed. Clearly, circumstances have changed in northern Ontario. Companies are going broke, workers are being laid off, plants are being shut down, and whole communities are being shut down because of this tax.
April 24, 1989

Surely that is reason enough to go to the Americans to renegotiate this? If they refuse, then there is provision under Section 9 of the agreement to do away with the tax unilaterally. I think it is about time the Government did one or the other.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend demonstrates knowledge of the provisions in the Memorandum of Understanding. As soon as the provinces have taken measures to offset the tax, as every province has done in Canada except Ontario, we will have a basis for negotiating out of the agreement.
If he wants to help his constituents in northern Ontario, perhaps he ought to make a trip to Queen's Park, as I have advised him to do, to encourage the Government there to do what every province has done, and put us on a basis to permit us to get out of this agreement.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Minister of State for Multi-culturalism. Since September of 1984, Chinese Canadians in my riding of Hamilton West as well as those in ridings throughout Canada have been pleading for a bipartisan parliamentary resolution for an apology from the Government, acknowledging the injustice and the appropriate remedial action to be taken by the Government over the head tax and the Exclusion Act forced on Chinese immigrants early in the century.
I ask the Minister whether he intends to introduce such a motion in Parliament, a motion which I am sure would have the full support of all Parties, acknowledging the disgraceful way Canada treated one of its earliest immigrant peoples, peoples who are largely responsible for building Canada from coast to coast.
Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and
Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. Of course, it is the same question that was raised by the Hon. Member from Vancouver at the end of last week.
I indicated clearly that I have met with members of the community, in particular representatives of the CCNC on a number of occasions. I appreciated very much the manner in which they helped us in our understanding of the issue. I met my commitment, which was to present the proposals they brought forward to the Government. Those are now under review and discussion.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, there have been repeated requests, and of course a litany of denials. Just last week, the Minister, as he reminded us again, said that he met his commitment to the community completely in his meeting with them. The Government has given the the Chinese Canadian community nothing but meetings. The chronology since 1984 names Jack Murta, Otto Jelinek, David Crombie, and now the present Minister.
Besides the money the Chinese community is seeking in compensation, will the Minister not agree that his first order of business in this matter should be a parliamentary resolution acknowledging these past injustices?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, for some 47 years the country waited to see what would happen to a dark stain that had been placed on our record as a people. We as a Government addressed ourselves to the matter. We brought forward redress and an apology to Canadians of Japanese origin. At that time we brought out a very important initiative on race relations. A foundation will be established, with legislation to be brought forward soon.
Our commitment to multiculturalism and the creation of a fairer, more open and more understanding society is firm. There has been the establishment of a new Department by the Prime Minister, there has been legislation on race relations and heritage languages, and a new Citizenship Act or amendments to it will be brought forward soon. We have nothing to be ashamed of for what we are doing as a Government.

April 24, 1989
Oral Questions


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Some medias are predicting that major cuts will be made in the Public Service: furthermore, it seems that these cuts will be included in the Budget Estimates.
I would therefore like to know from the President of the Treasury Board when his Estimates will be tabled, so that we can find out more.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing the program that was announced several years ago to reduce the number of person years in the Public Service by 15,000 overall, keeping in mind the importance of safety, health, security, and service to the public. I am happy to say that that has all been done with minimal lay-offs.
In terms of targets for the current fiscal year, I will be tabling the Main Estimates this Friday, April 28, and details will be contained therein.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Page 518 of the Sinclair Report states that the Belgo and CIP plants in the St. Maurice Valley failed their toxicity tests conducted by the Department from 1978 to 1985. That same page also says that factories are dumping non-filterable toxic substances into the St. Maurice River and that in sufficient quantity, these substances are highly toxic to health.
The people of Quebec are rightly concerned. My question therefore is: Has the dumping of non-filterable toxic substances been stopped? And when will the Minister start prosecuting?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, concerning the recent dumping mentioned in the press, we filed a first complaint for failure to notify Environment Canada and RCMP investigators are completing their investigation to determine whether or not there are grounds for prosecution, depending on whether the PCB standards issued by Environment Canada were respected or not.


NEWCASTLE, N.B.-POLLUTION OF WATER SUPPLY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of the Environment. Residents of Newcastle, New Brunswick, are justifiably afraid to drink the local water supplies because of toxic pollution. Has the Minister ordered an investigation into the source of the pollution, and who will pay for the urgent clean-up of this water supply?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the first information we have about this contamination is that it has been found in the Mitchell Avenue well. We suspect that it might be related to the exportations of an industrial wood plant in previous years. We are waiting for more information.
For the time being, people are being warned not to drink or use this water for cooking purposes. The City of Newcastle, with the help of the New Brunswick Government, is distributing bottled water to them. We are monitoring the information and are advising people on how to conduct the services there. We will have a more detailed report in a few days.


SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough- Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. Given that interest rates are at their highest level in years, that many small businesses must borrow to purchase stock for the new season and that small businesses cannot afford to do so at these impossibly high rates, what measures will the Minister be taking so that small businesses do not have to suffer because of the Government's misguided plan to curb inflation on the backs of small businesses?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that the first thing we will do is make sure that interest rates stay a full 7 per cent or 8 per cent below where they were in 1982.
April 24, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: Perhaps the Hon. Member wants to know precisely what the Government has been doing. The Small Business Loans Act has been very, very successful in the last three years. We will be improving it still further. As well, the Federal Business Development Bank is putting together a whole new menu of approaches for the small business sector, and financing opportunities there will be announced shortly.


LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the high interest rates that are killing the small business community of Canada, small businesses are being devastated by the reduction of the loan guarantee program to 85 per cent, something which is nothing less than a swift kick in the pants to small business. Is the Minister prepared today to reinstate the loan guarantee to 100 per cent before the small business community collapses, taking the whole economy of Canada down with it? If not, why not?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, one reason why not is that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business disagrees with the Hon. Member. It likes the present scheme and wants to see it extended.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. The directors of National Friendship Centres have been advised by the Secretary of State that those 99 centres across Canada will have their first budget this year slashed by 15 per cent in an effort to reduce the federal deficit. There was no consultation, no one's advice was sought. Once again the Government did not allow native people the opportunity to provide input. How can the Secretary of State justify slashing these funds for aboriginal peoples' programs?
Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and
Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, I have visited a Friendship Centre. I recognize their benefit. I can quietly tell Members of the House that they provide a very efficient and effective service to the community, and a very needed service.
I do not know from where the Hon. Member gets her information. However, I would hope the Hon. Member would wait for the Minister of Finance to speak on Thursday before she presumes anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time I must move on to the Hon. Member for Surrey North, with a single question, please.


HOUSING
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Housing.
Canadians were shocked and dismayed by the Minister's statement today that 30 per cent of personal income is no longer a realistic figure for meeting personal housing costs.
The Minister continues to back away from the positions of principle he took as a back-bencher.
Can the Minister tell the House what his new target figure is? Can he explain why he has abandoned the CMHC figure which until very recently was 25 per cent, not 30 per cent?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, for a long time it has been traditional to consider 30 per cent as the amount that Canadians would normally and reasonably spend on housing. That certainly is and continues to be the target of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It continues to be the target of the Government, and it continues to be my target.
Unfortunately and realistically, and I know the Hon. Member is well aware of this when he looks at his own city and other communities, that figure of 30 per cent does not hold true these days. Notwithstanding that fact, it certainly is the target. The aim is to provide affordable housing for Canadians, and to try our very best to ensure that Canadians do not have to spend more than 30 per cent of their incomes on affordable housing.

April 24, 1989
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nault:
That this House recognize that the Government's arbitrary and misanthropic policy of unilaterally capping future funding for postsecondary education for Canada's native peoples severely undermines the right and efforts of these peoples to enhance their capacity to make meaningful and lasting improvements to their economic and social conditions and to establish their self-reliance, thereby condemning them to unacceptable living conditions and driving them to desperate measures; and
That this House urge the Government to terminate its plans to cap this funding and to take steps to establish effective bilateral consultations on this and other matters vital to the improvement of the lives of and the ending of discrimination toward these Native peoples.
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the issue before us, which is a most important one.
I would like to remind Members of the House that my riding of Regina-Wascana is the home of Canada's first fully accredited Indian university, named the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College. It is affiliated with the campus of the University of Regina.
The school population has virtually exploded in recent years, to our benefit. Currently there are expansion plans, and I have not heard that this position has been withdrawn. Given the tenor of the current debate before us, my wish is that this goal will soon come true, and I assure them that I will work toward that goal with them as best I can.
In March the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) introduced a new policy for native students attending post-secondary institutions. Without question this program is the fairest and most generous of its kind in the world. It is a responsible program, and that is why I am pleased to address the subject.
Federal funding for post-secondary education has increased dramatically over the past decade, which has been alluded to by Members on both sides of the House. Let us not forget that there has been a dramatic increase
in the funding. In 1977-78 when the previous E-12 program was first adopted, the federal Government provided approximately $2,600 per capita in assistance to approximately 3,500 Indian students. In 1988-89 the budget for the program was close to $130 million, and provided close to $9,000 per year to each of some 15,000 students.
The Government's Post-secondary Student Assistance Program is among the most generous in the world, and it is a significant improvement over the provisions of the previous E-12 program. I defy anyone to show us a program that is more generous.
The objective of the new policy is to help Indian and Inuit students gain access to a post-secondary education in order that they can pursue individual careers and contribute to the achievement of Indian self-government and self-reliance while building a better Canada.
I would like to take some time to explain the benefits available to eligible students. Tuition assistance is provided to eligible full-time and part-time students. This category of benefits includes students' fees for registration, tuition, and the cost of books and supplies required for a particular course of studies. In other words, if a science student is required to have a lab coat, that coat would be an eligible expense. If an economics major is required to have a calculator, the program would cover the cost of the calculator.
In addition to tuition assistance, full-time students who are required to live away from their permanent place of residence may receive a wide range of benefits. For example, they may qualify for a travel grant to return to their home once every semester for themselves and any dependants who reside with them. I see little restriction in this policy. These students are also eligible to receive allowances to help cover their living expenses of food, rent, heat, hydro, day care, and other related expenses. In areas where rental costs are higher than normal, Indian students with two or more dependants may receive a special rent supplement.
Beginning in the next academic year single students may receive a maximum monthly living allowance of $675. A married student with an employed spouse and three dependants will receive a maximum of $1,205 per month. A single parent with three dependants will receive a maximum of $1,355 per month, plus a rental supplement where applicable.
April 24, 1989

It is true that under the new program some students may experience a decline in the level of assistance that they receive. I would like to stress that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has already made it clear that Indian administering organizations will be given significant latitude in dealing with the special needs of these students. Students will be eligible for post-secondary assistance for the official length of the program that they are pursuing. For example, if they are studying for a medical degree they will be assisted for the full length of the course of study. The program also provides for an additional year of government assistance where it is justified.
It is true that the federal Government will no longer fund students permanently, regardless of their progress. The new policy also enables administering organizations to offer special incentives to eligible students. For example, academic achievement scholarships of up to $1,000 may be awarded to community college, CEGEP and undergraduate students who maintain an average of B or higher.
Undergraduate students may also be eligible for strategic studies scholarships which may be worth up to $3,500, to encourage students to pursue courses of study that will directly contribute to achieving self-government and economic self-reliance.
Incentives are available for full-time students enrolled in an advanced or professional degree program such as a Master's or a doctoral program. These students are eligible for a one-time contribution of up to $1,500.
Despite the significant range of levels of assistance available to Indian post-secondary students, some would argue that that is not enough. These people want the federal Government to guarantee individual natives a free post-secondary education. They want the federal Government to fund each individual for as long as it takes. Unfortunately, that is not a realistic situation.
I can think of no other group in Canadian society that has access to such a focused generous program, nor can I identify a group that is as needful for this type of assistance. Education will open the door to a more fulfilling future for Canada's Indians. We have a social obligation to contribute to that progress.
Supply


Larry Schneider: We have an excellent track record in supporting post-secondary education for Indian students and the new policy will only enhance that record. There is not a Canadian who upon a fair evaluation of the Minister's proposals can say this is not a responsible approach to Indian and Inuit education.


Mrs. Gaffney:: Madam Speaker, the Member from Regina stated that no other group of people in Canada has such a generous access to funding for post-secondary education, and yet a single native student receives a maximum allowance of $675 per month in comparison to $900 per month for students from developing nations under the Government Commonwealth Programs. I would like the Hon. Member to speak to this, please.


Larry Schneider: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, particularly as we know one another from a previous jurisdiction. I am pleased to see her in the House of Commons, and I say that sincerely.
The Member makes specific use of a singular statistic and, by placing the question before me, attempts to get me to agree with her selective use of statistics. In the course of my remarks to the House, I did allude to several programs of benefit that are available to our native Indian and Inuit community. It simply does not stop at one single item. I know there are other questions. I cannot elaborate on everything, but I am happy to repeat what I said earlier.
Very, very briefly, there is a matter of tuition and a matter of articles required within the university or college jurisdiction. There was funding available to allow the individual as well as those dependants living at home to leave their place of educational learning to return home. The list goes on and on. To re-emphasize, $2,600 per capita was spent some years ago. Today approximately $9,000 per individual Indian student is made available. I think that speaks well for the Government and for the commitment of this Government which truly represents the people of Canada.


René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of rhetoric on this particular issue for the last few weeks, both inside and outside the House. It brings to mind a certain clarification that I would like to have and it might help those who are participating in this debate to understand as well. TTie policy relates to a concern expressed by some students who are saying, in fact, that the policy forces students to attend specific universities

April 24, 1989
Supply
and to take specific courses defined by the Government, a program in which the students themselves argue they have no input.
Can the Hon. Member please clarify whether the new announced policy really imposes these restrictions on individual students?


Larry Schneider: Madam Speaker, I take this question with a certain degree of pleasure in that it does have a tendency to remove these clouds of suspicion, at least to those who are listening to the Government policy. The clouds of suspicion, of course, have been placed there appropriately by the Opposition-appropriately at least in their minds-and from our position, of course, are certainly not justified.
To get to the meat of the question, there are four points I want to make very clear to this House, to members of the Opposition and to Canadians generally. Students, of course, are free to attend the university of their choice and to take whatever course of study they wish, a freedom I would suggest that has yet to stand the test of equality anywhere else. They can do this without any restriction on the living allowances to which they are entitled provided they are within the over-all limits stated in the policy. Canadians, of course, charge us with the responsibility of making sure that the policies we provide have some sense to them.
The policy states that tuition support and travel allowances will be limited to the costs at the nearest university offering the course of study comparable to the one chosen by the student. I think that is fair. Incentive grants are provided to students who choose to enrol in some specific courses, but again we emphasize that students are not obliged to take these courses.


Mrs. Catterall:: Madam Speaker, on Friday in the House I brought to the attention of Hon. Members the case of a young native boy, the adopted son of two non-native parents. His parents are desperately seeking financial help to provide the residential treatment their son needs for severe emotional and behavioural problems. Some Members opposite insisted on casting the issue as an educational one, and that is why I am returning to it.
This is not an educational issue, an issue which is the responsibility of the province or of the local school boards. It is rather a question of health care and equal access for native children to care and to opportunities. The boy suffers from foetal alcohol syndrome, a medical condition which affects native children disproportionately and results in severe problems. The condition leads to erratic and violent behaviour. This boy has been professionally diagnosed several times as needing residential treatment.
Funding could be available through the province if the child were not a status Indian. His parents then could enter into an agreement to allow the Children's Aid Society to take over the care of their child and he would get the residential treatment and the help needed for his medical problem. But that cannot happen because the minute his parents do that the Children's Aid Society is obliged to consult with the band from which the boy came. The parents jeopardize their custody of the child to provide the care he needs for his medical problems.


An Hon. Member:: This is a long question. Madam Speaker.


Marlene Catterall: With respect, Madam Speaker, my understanding is that this period is for comments and questions. This is a comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member is quite right in saying that this period is reserved for questions and comments. The Chair was listening rather carefully to what the Hon. Member was saying. I must admit that I was, up to a point, wondering about the relevancy of the comment being made by the Hon. Member, a comment which was very interesting and I am sure is raised for a very good reason, but I have to wonder about the relevancy of this comment to the motion before the House now. The Hon. Member may want to link this to the motion before the House so that the Hon. Member from Regina-Wascana can answer.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to draw the relevance of the question to you as I did on Friday when I first raised it. This debate has been very wide ranging. One particular speech this morning from the opposite benches referred to Indian businesses, Indian culture, elementary school programs and newspaper and television programs. The question of post-secondary education is a wide ranging subject tied to a whole cultural tradition.
April 24, 1989

In debate this morning the matter was referred to without interruption from the Chair. There is a serious issue of how many young native children never have the opportunity to access the program under discussion, whatever its faults and shortcomings may be.
This boy is 12 years old. He desperately needs help. He has only a few short years in which to get that help to allow him to complete a normal education and be able to take advantage of this and other programs. Should this boy be denied the opportunity to grow up whole and healthy? I plead with Hon. Members opposite who are still in the House, and particularly with the Minister, to look into this particular case and into cases of treatment for children in this age bracket also in this situation who, without help, will never get anywhere. I ask him to confer with the Minister of Health as to why mental health is not in the Health Act of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: This is a long question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will allow a rebuttal from the Hon. Member. One minute, please.


Larry Schneider: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was hoping I would have five or ten minutes to give an answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will allow rebuttal from the Hon. Member. One minute.


Larry Schneider: I was hoping I would have five or ten minutes, because I would like to open my remarks by congratulating the Member beside us, who is also well known to me in "Another World" I am convinced that her contribution to Government is going to be as significant as it was before. The matter that she raises is one that seems to be before our concerned Governments throughout Canada.
As an example, my wife is in charge of a special program in Regina called the Balfour Special Tutorial Program, whose prime focus is on the education of pregnant girls. In that program, there are, as well as non-natives, native girls who have problems. I suggest some of them have children who have problems similar to what the Member cited.
What is the resolve? The resolve, with respect to the definition of a status Indian not being able to receive the same kind of attention as someone else unless status is
Supply
given up, certainly sounds like a situation that bureaucracy itself has placed before us. Given the presence of our Minister, who saw his way here to the House to listen to this debate today, I am sure that he has borne this comment in his mind and it will be in his mind when this matter comes to his personal attention. I would encourage that this matter be documented and in fact sent on to him.
It does raise a suggestion and a question, that each and every one of us in Canada must regard the decision that was made to place our native population on reserves, and isolate them from society. They now want to come back to urban society to claim their rightful place in this community. It charges us all with a responsibility to make sure that this transition does happen and happens effectively.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, I would begin by stating something that I mentioned to the Minister on Friday. I appreciate the sentiment with which his statements were made. I sensed a distinct desire on his part to find a resolution to this situation, and a sympathy and sincerity in dealing with that. I much appreciated that. There is, though, still much left to be resolved.
I want to make mention of a couple of comments from across the country. In my City of Saskatoon, the Star Phoenix, not known for its agreement with my Party, said today:
It is high time Indian Affairs Minister Pierre Cadieux relented on his stubborn refusal to negotiate a better deal for Indian postsecondary students and stopped making deceptive statements about universal access. The logic is overwhelming.
The editorial went on:
Beyond honouring a treaty obligation, the investment in Indian post-secondary education promises to pay dividends in reduced welfare and prison costs in the future, to say nothing of the positive contributions native doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc.,will make to Canadian society.
With so much at stake, it is understandable the native community is fighting to resist funding ceilings which amount to quotas, living allowances cuts which will effectively rule out university attendance for many of them and performance demands which almost guarantee failure. The sooner Cadieux admits the short-sightedness of his department's money-saving tactic, the better for all Canadians.

April 24, 1989
Supply
As we have seen, unlike the rather unimaginative editorial in the Globe and Mail last week, Peter Deba-rats made some similar comments. I do not want to continue with the litany of problems with the Indian population and the circumstances in which they find themselves. We have heard that on a number of occasions in this debate. I think it is important that they be stated, but I would like to go on to point out some concerns with the guidelines.
The Government side has consistently said that these guidelines are better than the old E-12 guidelines. I would like to challenge that. It is not only Indians who question that these guidelines are better. I think the terminology and the facts speak for themselves.
The original E-12 guidelines were also problematic, and going back to them will not solve an enormous amount. At least they are better than these new guidelines which were adopted without effective consultation, and they should not be produced before that appropriate consultation. The original E-12 guidelines were also not subject to satisfactory consultation. They also were deemed to be undesirable by native students and native leaders.
In 1987, the former Minister of Indian Affairs made the matter worse and set the tone for these guidelines by essentially capping those funds, setting priorities for selecting students, placing a 12-month Canadian residency requirement, and removing half salary allowances for graduate students. These changes were made without effective consultation with native leaders. The present guidelines proposed by the Minister also were introduced without effective consultation. None of the 560-odd organizations and individuals consulted on these guidelines were in agreement with the changes.
I will just state what I see as the problems with the changes, and then ask two or three questions. The old E-12 guidelines provide that training and living allowance "shall be" provided. The changes in the new guidelines introduced the terminology "may". Special shelter allowance was available under the E-12 guidelines under certain circumstances. There is no allowance for that under the new guidelines. Tuition allowance, the previous guidelines point out that full fees "shall be paid". Under the new guidelines we have the terminology full fees "may" be paid. Under the old guidelines books and supplies "will" be paid "in full". In the new guidelines, moneys "may" be provided "toward" the cost. Students "shall receive "in full" travel allowance, under the old guidelines. They "may" qualify for a travel grant under the new guidelines.
There are a number of other indications of movements away from the old E-12 guidelines to a less desirable standard under the new ones. We have an increase in the global amount available to students. There had been no increase prior to these introduced changes on April 1 since the introduction of the first E-12 guidelines. A small increase of 6 or 7 per cent does not make up for the cost of living increase over time from the beginning of the previous guidelines to the introduction of these new guidelines, of something approaching 30 per cent.
In real terms, the new guidelines do not add anything very significant to the pockets of Indian students. Indeed, because of some allowance they were entitled to before, which they will now not be entitled to but may receive, they may in fact end up with less. Computations made by Indian groups indicate that almost all of the categories of students receiving assistance under the guidelines will in fact receive in total less under these guidelines than under the old guidelines. There is a movement away from seeing the moneys available as of right to the students to discretionary moneys available under certain circumstances. The terminology "may" is introduced in most of these new guidelines.
Rather than continue the rhetoric, I would like to pose three questions to the Minister. I do not expect him to answer them today, but I think it does suggest that the problems which these new guidelines give rise to. He said there is no cap on the guidelines. He said that there is no monetary limit available for financing post-secondary education students. The program just must work within a budget. Let me pose this question: Supposing, instead of the 15,000 students now who are now applying for money, 15,050 apply for the money, and there is only enough money for 15,000. Is the Government committed to ensuring that the funding will be available to provide for those other 50 students? If they are not committed to ensuring that funding will be available for those other 50 students, quite clearly there is a cap on the program.
With regard to Bill C-31, adding members to band lists, with regard to the demographics of the Indian population, 25 per cent being under 18, 50 per cent being under 25, as well as the backlog from those who did not make it through the previous education system, I wonder what steps the Minister and the Government are making to ensure that the required funding will be available once all of the students reach university and other post-secondary institutions. I think the question remains. Will the Government commit itself to ensuring that no Indian student wanting post-secondary education and qualified to undertake it will be denied the funding to do so? I
April 24, 1989

think we still do not have an appropriate answer to that question.
There is much more to be done with regard to ensuring that these guidelines are appropriate and acceptable to the Indian population, to Indian students and leaders. That has not been done to date. There has not been effective consultation. We must ensure that that takes place. We must ensure that issues which separate the Government and Indian leaders are debated and resolved in the appropriate fashion.
To that end, I would like to move an amendment to the Motion which is on the floor. I move:
Thai the motion be amended by deleting all the words following "desperate measures" and substituting the following therefor:
"That this House call upon the Government to put a moratorium on the implementation of its amended post-secondary education policy for native students while the Government enters into bilateral negotiations with elected representatives of Canada's native peoples".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Mr. Angus:: Madam Speaker, I have a short question to ask of my colleague. Much has been said in the media during the last two or three weeks about the change from the E-12 guidelines to restrict the number of years that a native can participate in the program. Formerly, it was 48 months. I gather it is now 40.
As my Party's post-secondary critic, will the Hon. Member indicate to us what the ramifications of that change will be, particularly in terms of a native coming from a very remote reserve, perhaps from northern Ontario or northern Saskatchewan? In this case the person is arriving at a university or college for the first time. What kind of social pressures will be encountered? Is it realistic to expect a native Canadian to go through university in 40 months when, quite frankly, a number of non-native Canadians have not been able to do that?
Supply


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is an important one coming from a Member who is from a province with a large number of native students and who was formerly employed at a university. It is of a great deal of importance.
Essentially, many Indian students would be coming to university to study in a second language as well as in a second culture. It is no surprise that many of them find some difficulty with that and need some extra time in order to cover their studies. Therefore, any pressure or limitations placed on them is undesirable.
As the guidelines indicate, many of them will come with dependants, with children or spouses who are dependent on them. That also places extra pressures on them since there is inadequate funding available for child care and the other responsibilities of a family member performing an education function.
Clearly, it is a problem for students coming from Indian communities to universities or other post-secondary education institutions to have pressure put on them to finish their studies in a shorter period of time, rather than being given enough time to settle in and learn appropriate language skills as is necessary and so on.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If there are no further questions or comments we will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields).


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to participate today in this debate. I am truly saddened by the political use of the situation, something which I feel to be very serious. This is a situation which is fraught with misunderstandings. In my view, the emotions on both sides of the issue have gotten out of control and are at a point where people are not listening to what others are saying.
First, I would like to say something about the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Ca-dieux). I have worked with this gentleman over the past four or five years in another portfolio and, indeed, in the present portfolio which he holds. I find him to be an honourable gentleman, one who speaks straight and calls it as he sees it. He tries his hardest to listen to the other person's point of view.

April 24, 1989
Supply
I have had countless meetings with him since this issue came to the fore in the last two to three weeks. I want to say that I have found his comments to be helpful. In my discussions with him I found that he was there to listen.
I also went over and visited with the students who are participating in this hunger strike or fast. I found that a great deal of emotion exists. I tried my hardest to make them understand that there are two sides to the issue. I thought that there really was a possibility that the students could sit down with the Minister upon stopping their hunger strike.
Basically, the students are demanding four things. First, they have said that they would like a moratorium set in place for a year on the issue of the new guidelines and before the new policy comes into effect on September 1. Second, they have said that they want to negotiate the capping or the cut-back in funding. Third, they want to have a bilateral process between the students and the Minister or the Minister's staff to try to work something out that would be suitable to all. Fourth, they would like to see a national student organization established.
I would like to go over these issues point by point. I think it is unfortunate that Members in the House either purposely or inadvertently are distorting the issues and really clouding what is happening. Let us look at the removing of the cap. Somehow during the debate that has somehow evolved into a cut-back.
The Ministry of Indian Affairs had to set up a budget last year so that the Department could take to Treasury Board a realistic budget stating how much money the Department is going to spend over the next year. All Members should recognize that any time a Minister is responsible for a department, he surely has to put in place a budget. Surely he has to say,"This is how much we have to set aside, President of the Treasury Board. This is how much we have to set aside for this specific activity."
For 1987-88, with the best available information the Department had at that time, it submitted a budget. Unfortunately, there was a shortfall affecting 899 students of which 137 were Bill C-31. This was a combination of regionally administered and band administered post-secondary education support. The Department then sat down, recognizing that they had a shortfall in their budget, and said, "We made some errors. Let us try to get better information from the bands who administer
the funding and let us put in a better budget for the following year."
So for the fiscal year 1988-89, the budget was submitted. Much better information was available. It was able to bring that down to 243 students, of which 0 were Bill C-31, that had to be deferred to the following semester. These deferrals occurred because the Department did not have all of the information. It still does not have all the information. So it is an estimate of the amount of funds that is going to be spent on post-secondary education for the following year. This year the Department submitted a budget figure of $130 million for post-secondary education under this program. Not one cent was cut back from that figure submitted by the Department. The Department was not asked to trim anything off the submitted figure. The $130 million was the figure that the Department, preparing their budget, estimated would cover every native or Indian student in Canada who wanted to participate in post-secondary education. That is the estimate, $130 million. I submit that we will know if that estimate is correct-in fact, it may be oversubmitted-but we will not know that until students enrol in September and again in January for the various semesters and until the fiscal year is over.
I therefore submit, Madam Speaker, to you and to my my friends in the House that it is incumbent on the Department to submit a budget item. It is incumbent on the Department to submit to Treasury Board an estimate of the funds it is going to spend. One can see from the pattern that they are trying very hard. We have a problem in that though. That problems exists in gathering the data from the bands.
Sixty-seven per cent of all the funds budgeted for post-secondary education are administered by Indian organizations. One hundred per cent of the 243 student deferrals in the 1988-89 fiscal year which ended March 31 occurred in Manitoba. The Manitoba Indian organizations administer almost 100 per cent of the post-secondary education budget in that region. There is a difficulty, and I am not blaming anyone. I want that clearly understood in this House. There is obviously a problem that exists in Manitoba in two-way communication that will bring any misbudgeting into line.
What has the Minister said in this House repeatedly? He has stated emphatically that the budget is in place, the objective is to cover every single Indian student who qualifies to partake in post-secondary education. That is the objective of the Minister. That is the objective of the Department. And that is the objective of every Member in this House of Commons.
April 24, 1989

They say there could be a shortfall. There well could be. But there could well be a surplus. We will not know until this fiscal year is over. So to talk about a cut-back or a cap is just not true. Any budget item submitted is the best possible guess using the best possible information at your disposal to say to Treasury Board, this is how much money you have to allocate. There would be a cut-back if it came back from Treasury Board and they said, no, you cannot have $130 million, you are going to have to cut it back to $110 million. But that did not happen. Not one cent was taken from the original submission to Treasury Board of $130 million. It was approved. So we will have to wait and see.
Let us go then to the bilateral process. The Minister has said to the students and the Indian organizations that he is prepared to sit down between now and September 1 in a bilateral process to discuss the policy and make any changes that would improve the delivery of the policy, the delivery of the system or indeed change the policy before September 1. He has asked in return that the students stop the hunger strike. That is a reasonable request, in my view.
What the Minister has really said goes back to the moratorium. The Minister in effect has agreed to a moratorium on implementing the policy between now and September 1, a moratorium on the policy he has in place now that has been submitted and been published. This is all in place. He will sit down with the students or student organizations between now and September 1. In effect, that is a moratorium. He has said that he is not going to throw out the policy and go back to what was in existence two years ago, because this policy recognizes the cost of living increases that some of the Members have been talking about and has actually increased all of the assistance, whether it is training allowance or whatever, to all of the students in every category.
I have seen one situation in which a student will have a reduction. I discussed this with the Minister. He said that the program could be flexible enough to accommodate any variances that might exist. The students now have an opportunity to sit down with the Minister to examine the Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program and to point out those areas which they believe are wrong or unworkable and have them changed. This can be done between today and September 1.
Supply
When I visited the students they asked why the Minister would publish this now and not sit down with them. They asked why this is done without their consultation, and there was an argument about whether or not there was consultation. Much of the policy itself was sent to the bands.
I have not been privy to the information about what the responses were, but the students who will be going to university in September had to know what the guidelines would be. All of them got an increase in their student assistance. I asked the Minister about the student whose assistance will actually drop and was told that he would be very flexible when sitting down with the students and would try to correct this problem.
My appeal to the students is that the time has come to sit down with the Minister. Now is the time to work on this policy because there is, in effect, a moratorium in place now. There is a moratorium until September 1.
The students say they would like a national student organization. I met with those students and found them to be articulate and bright. Some of them have real leadership qualities. If they want a national student organization, I suggest they go out and organize one. Of course they will have more strength with a national student organization.
When I was going to university I saw student organization develop in Canada, but it was developed by the students. The Government will not organize a national student organization; the onus is on the students to do it. "You have the intelligence. You are bright. You have the initiative. You have the leadership. Go ahead and do it".
I want some reason to come into this whole question. I would like my friends from the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party to look at this as an issue about which no Member can claim sole moral integrity. We can all work together.
I believe our record has been exceptionally good in dealing with land claim settlements and many other issues we faced when we took office in 1984.1 have sat on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I worked well with members of the Official Opposition and of the New Democratic Party. We were able to resolve some very serious issues, and often there was full agreement.

April 24, 1989
Supply
I travelled across the country on a special committee. Keith Penner, a former Member, did extremely well in the committee. There was a consensus to help native people.
Obviously, education is key to the development of native people. I have seen this development in many of the ridings, but education for many bands in many areas is still low. There is a lot of work to do. As has been stated over and over again, our Government is committed to supporting Indian students and post-secondary education.
There is no cap. We have not put a cap on post-secondary education for native students. Like every other Department, there is a budget which was arrived at with the best information possible. The budget figure was submitted on the basis that it would account for every student who qualified to go on to post-secondary education. It even allows for students who come from some of the communities with what they think are university entrance qualifications but are not. We have even accounted for community colleges so they can prepare themselves much better for a full university load.
I plead with all Members of the House to work together to try and resolve this issue. Our message to the students should be that it is time to stop the fast. It is time to come to the House of Commons, sit down with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux), and resolve the situation as it should be resolved.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, in his remarks on the issue of post-secondary education funding and capping, the Hon. Member focused on the students who are on the hunger strike. This is an issue that the leaders were concerned about prior to the hunger strike. Does the Hon. Member not believe that the Minister has an obligation to negotiate with the leaders in good faith? What is stopping the Minister from negotiating with the leaders about the requests that were made by the leaders prior to March 22?


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Ms. Blondin), but I would ask her to listen to what I said. There is no capping. In my view a cap means to spend a certain amount and no more.
The budget has increased every year. Capping the program would mean that $130 million would be spent next fiscal year, the following fiscal year, and the year following that. That is not the case. The Department, with the best available information it had, set a figure because Treasury Board asks the Department how much it will spend, by category and by program. Within the program of post-secondary education, with the best information available, the Department said that it estimates it will spend $130 million this fiscal year, 1989-90. Based on the information it has, it should cover every student who wants and qualifies for post-secondary education. There is no cap.
The Minister has met with the Indian leaders in the community. The predecessor to the Minister, who is now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKnight), met with Indian leaders across the country in implementing this very program and discussed it with them. The present Minister inherited the job some two months ago and is following the program.
I hope that answers my hon. friend's question. There is no cap. It is a budget item, based on the best information available.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member suggests that Indians should trust the Government on this issue because they were consulted. That point needs clarification.
Why should the Indians trust this Government? The Government said it consulted with 500 groups about this program. We have been unable to find one of those groups which supported the program or even felt it was consulted in the process.
One of the groups that was supposedly consulted was the New Democratic Party Saskatchewan caucus. We were never asked a question about it. We have never been told the result of any of those consultations. As far as we know, everyone consulted was against the program.
Indians thought the old program was bad and they said so. However, when they saw the new program, they felt that though the old program was bad, it was better than the new one. There was no cap on the old program. It allowed any number of students to be funded. The new program limits the number of students who can be funded. There is a cap in dollars.
April 24, 1989

One can put only so many through the educational system for so many dollars. If a cap is put on the dollars, it is put on the number of students that can enter the system. If the number of students who apply next year doubles, will the Government fund twice as many students with twice as much money?


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend said that the NDP caucus was not consulted, yet it submitted a letter expressing its concerns during the consultation process. It was consulted. The Hon. Member may just check it out, but a letter was written.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I wrote the letter.


Jack Wendele Shields: The Hon. Member says that he wrote the letter but he says that they were not consulted. I do not know what he is talking about. Obviously he does not read the letters he writes.
I would like to talk about the trust factor for a moment, if I may. I agree with the Hon. Member that Indian people have no reason to trust any Government for a number of things that have happened in the past. However, I think they have a lot more reason to trust this Government when they look at its record over the past four years.
I would like to point out some of the things the Government has done.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Answer the question.


Jack Wendele Shields: The bands will receive additional funds to defray costs arising from the reinstatement of Indian people or registration changes under the new Indian Act. There has been a new Indian Act passed. Bill C-123 clarifies the responsibilities of the Minister with respect to Indian minors trust accounts and increases the preferential treatment-


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Answer the question.


Jack Wendele Shields: The Hon. Member says that I should answer the question. I am trying to answer the question, but the Hon. Member keeps interrupting and will not listen. That has been typical of this entire debate. No one is prepared to listen to another point of view.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Will you fund twice as many students?


Jack Wendele Shields: We are finding that the NDP, that socialist Party, will do anything to attempt to use in a political way a situation that I think is reprehensible.
I saw those same people go across Canada during the last election campaign scaring the living bejeesus out of
Supply
all the senior citizens by telling them that they would lose their homes and their old age security because of free trade. I find that to be absolutely despicable, and I find them doing exactly the same thing today. They are doing exactly the same thing on an issue that should not be treated that way. Reasonable people should be trying to work out a solution to a very serious problem.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it would be to the benefit of the House if we would stick to the amendment to the motion which the Hon. Member was supposed to be speaking on. In his ram-blings of the last 20 minutes, I fail to see where he has even touched on the amendment to the motion.


Mr. Andre:: You are pretty junior around here to be talking about the rules.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He is starting off pretty good.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.


Robert Daniel Nault: Harvie, I catch on quickly.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, after listening to the last speaker it would seem that he is prepared to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) to reconsider the capping. The Hon. Member said that there is no capping, so I would urge him to tell the Minister not to cap the post-secondary funding.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate, and I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Nault), for sponsoring this significant motion on native post-secondary education. At the same time, as he has also acknowledged, it is unfortunate that this debate had to occur at all.
We would not be engaging the Government in this manner if we thought its policy was the right one. Fundamentally, what is at issue here is who decides what is best for aboriginal people, the Government or the aboriginal people themselves.
What is happening now in the case of post-secondary education is a classic conflict with respect to decision making between a Government that makes and imposes unilateral decisions and the aboriginal people who must live with those decisions.

April 24, 1989
Supply
The Government has characterized its new post-secondary program as being better and more generous than the program preceding it. It has said that it has consulted with Indian people. If that were the case, why have Indians across Canada risen up in protest? Why have several Indian students felt compelled to take the drastic step of a fast or a hunger strike to call attention to this situation?
The Government has tried to tell aboriginal people that it knows best what is good for them, and it has tried to convey that same message to the Canadian public. The aboriginal people of Canada are not buying that message, we on this side of the House are not buying it, and more and more Canadian people are not buying it.
The importance of obtaining higher education is a relatively new priority for aboriginal people. For the vast majority of us, until quite recently getting an education meant alienation from our people and our communities.
For years, young Indian and Inuit children were taken from their parents and sent away to residential schools where they received instruction in a foreign language about a foreign culture and where they were punished for speaking their own native language. When these children returned to their communities, they experienced great difficulties communicating with their parents and fitting back into the life-styles and ways of the community. They did not feel at ease in the non-aboriginal community. Is it any wonder that under these circumstances, most aboriginal people did not wish to pursue higher education? The costs in terms of loss of language, family, culture and identity were simply too high.
Fortunately the Government began to make greater efforts to reduce those human costs. It began building more schools in the communities where the people lived. It began to pay more attention to the fact that most Indian and Inuit were not even completing high school. More funding was provided to improve the large discrepancies in educational attainment between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.
As educational services became more relevant to Indian and Inuit students, people began to realize that obtaining a higher education could be of benefit to themselves and to their communities. Education came to be looked at as the way out of the poverty and despair that continued to characterize their communities.
As more aboriginal students made it through the elementary and secondary levels and obtained the prerequisites for post-secondary studies, more decided to pursue higher learning. In 1960-61 only 60 Indian students were enrolled in university. In 1986-87 over 13,000 were enrolled in post-secondary institutions. In 1985-86, 933 Indian students graduated from universities and colleges. As more and more students entered the postsecondary system the budget increased. The Indian population has also increased. In 1961 there were approximately 192,000 Indians. In 1987 there were close to
416,000.
It is important for Hon. Members to realize that the aboriginal population is growing at a faster rate than the non-aboriginal population, and the Indian student population even more so in recent years due to the passage of Bill C-31. That Bill passed by the House in 1985 restored Indian status to thousands of Indian people who had lost it previously due to discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act. The Bill also made it possible for many others to obtain Indian status for the first time. Consequently, between 1985 and 1986 the Indian population increased by 7.7 per cent. Between 1986 and 1987 the population growth rate was 7.2 per cent.
Of great significance is the fact that the Indian population is very young. Sixty-four per cent are under the age of 25. Even the Department of Indian Affairs recognizes that the Indian leaders are coping with a baby boom which is creating major demands for education, employment, housing and other services.
The disparity between aboriginal and non-aboriginal economic conditions continues. Incomes remain substantially lower. The average income for Indians on reserves is 54 per cent of the average for the general population.
The recent report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission had a blunt message for the Government about the conditions of the aboriginal peoples. The report stated: "The situation faced by Canada's native peoples is in many ways a national tragedy. The grand promise of equality of opportunity that forms the central purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act stands in stark contrast to the conditions in which many native people live''.
Despite the continuing social and economic discrepancies between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, acknowledged most recently by the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner, the Government has decided to restrict the access of native people to the program which offers the best hope for the future.
April 24, 1989

The Government states that it has increased the post-secondary budget, and that Indian students can still get a post-secondary education under the new government guidelines. What the Government does not say is that the budget increase is below the increase in the number of students who are applying for funding. Therefore, a large number of Indian students will only be able to get their post-secondary education when it is convenient for the Government, and not when it is convenient for the students.
By placing a ceiling on the amount of funding available in a given fiscal year, by capping the program funding, the Government is restricting access. Students who apply for post-secondary assistance after the funds have been totally utilized will be turned down. That is a fact, and it has already happened. That is what the Indian students are protesting. Over the past two years hundreds of Indian students have been denied access to post-secondary institutions when they wanted to go, due to the lack of funding in the Department's program.
The Department of Indian Affairs refers to them as "deferred" students. These students meet the program criteria and have been accepted into the post-secondary institutions, but their applications for assistance have been refused because the Department has run out of money. They are told that they have to wait until money becomes available, either because some other student drops out, or because a new fiscal year brings a new budget. How can any student plan for the future under these circumstances?
With respect to the Government's claim to have consulted with Indian people about this policy, I would like to put this issue into proper perspective.
The Government's tinkering with this program began in late 1986 when it imposed a deadline for the receipt of students' applications. Many students were not even made aware of the deadline until it had passed.
Then in May, 1987, the previous Minister of Indian Affairs announced interim changes to the Post-secondary Education Assistance Program. He imposed a cap on the program budget at the time and instituted a system of priorities for student assistance. Student applications were placed into five categories and priorized by the Department of Indian Affairs. Those in category one
Supply
would receive assistance before those in category two, and so on. Students in category five would only receive funding if there was any money left over after all other categories had been funded.
Hon. Members should know that these changes were imposed on Indian people with no consultation whatsoever.
The Government knew that some students would not receive funding as a result of these interim changes to the program. In his letter of May 12 to the Indian Chiefs and Councils, the previous Minister of Indian Affairs, while announcing an increase in the budget, also stated: "Unlike the practice in previous years there will be no further increases later in this fiscal year. As a result, we may find ourselves faced with more eligible applicants than we can support".
The Minister also specified: "No appeal can be launched against a decision by the Department, a band council or tribal council who refuse assistance to a student on the basis that funds are no longer available regionally for student allowances".
Hon. Members should also know that the Minister was making these unilateral changes to the Post-secondary Education Assistance Program without waiting for the results of a major study on education being conducted by the Assembly of First Nations. Funding for the study was promised by the previous Liberal Government, and this commitment was upheld by the new Government's Minister of Indian Affairs, the former Member for Rosedale.
In his announcement of May, 1987, the Minister also stated that further modifications to the program were necessary. Naturally, Indian people expected that their study, when completed, would figure prominently in future directions for the program. Unfortunately, according to the Assembly of First Nations, this is not the case. The new program guidelines do not have the support or approval of the Indian people.
The Government must change the way it deals with aboriginal people and their concerns. What it calls consultation is very much one way, the Government's way. If Indian people had truly participated in decisionmaking on this issue, we would not be debating this issue today.

April 24, 1989
Supply
There has been much discussion about figures and data over the past few days. In his speech last Friday the Minister referred to the need for better data in order to forecast demand and costs better. The Minister would be well advised not to rely too much on his departmental officials to obtain that data. It will probably be inaccurate, as it has usually been.
As an example, I refer to his Department's forecasting of the number of Indians who would be eligible for Indian status as a result of the passage of Bill C-31. Those forecasts were grossly inadequate. His predecessor admitted that in this Chamber in response to a question posed by the former opposition critic for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the former Member for Cochrane-Superior. This colossal miscalculation was noted in the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development which was submitted to the House last August.
The report noted that although the Department had originally estimated 65,000 applicants, it had been obliged, on the basis of applications pouring in, to revise that number upwards to 118,000.
When that Bill was in the House and in committee, Indian people told the Government and the Minister of the day that the Department's figures were far too low. The Government did not listen. The Cabinet allocated funding for reinstated people on the basis of a totally inaccurate estimate. This is but one example of the unreliability of the departmental figures. It is no wonder aboriginal people are skeptical about the Department's ability to plan and budget properly.
I urge the Government to accept the call to terminate its plans to cap this funding and allow all interested native students to continue post-secondary education. Is the Government afraid that we might get too educated or that it might get too many educated natives who will understand their rights and demand fair treatment from the Government?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague opposite. I commend him for seeking and winning a seat in the House. It is a pleasure to have him here. I listened with a great deal of interest to what he said, and with a great deal of empathy too. I might say also that the Minister feels that empathy and
that interest in the concerns of the native people in this country. He is very concerned that the educational system, the post-secondary educational system for natives, be one that is relevant and meets the needs of native students in Canada. He has, therefore, met with the leaders of the community throughout the past two months. He has met with the students who have come off the hunger strike. He has illustrated and demonstrated repeatedly, and he has said so in this House, that he is prepared to adjust and to improve the program wherever necessary. He has said that his door will always be open to good suggestions for improvements.
I really cannot understand why anyone in this House would believe that a moratorium would serve any useful purpose whatever. I think it would be pointless. I think we must work together, as the Hon. Member has suggested, consulting and dialoguing to find the correct solutions for the best interests of all the individual natives in the country.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I was listening with great interest and satisfaction to the presentation made by the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Anawak). I commend him on his excellent presentation. Does the Hon. Member, feel with his background in business, that in view of the broad economic and community infrastructure created for native peoples across Canada, we can afford to have students on a waiting list for post-secondary education created by the capping of post-secondary education funding?


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. I really do not think that anything can be beneficial to the native people if they are held back because of cuts in post-secondary education funding.
We are getting to the point where we are demanding that we have equal access to the business community, to all the other things that are available today, to ensure that we are not a burden on the rest of the Canadian taxpayers.
Perhaps I could ask the Hon. Member who spoke earlier whether she thought we had the right to post-secondary education. Let me point out that from my perspective I think we earned that right by the Indian people coming here 40,000 years ago, with the Inuit following 4,000 years ago, and being here to welcome the Hon. Member's ancestors 500 years ago when they came.
April 24, 1989


Yvon Côté: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member's speech, and I think his comments were made seriously and in good faith. If I am not mistaken, the Hon. Member said at one point that certain authorizations or decisions emanating from the Department were not appropriate to the needs of the community. Let us suppose that is true, that the decisions were inappropriate. I would nevertheless like to point out that the Bill on the Table is aimed at giving our Indian communities more authority, and I wonder how appropriate the Hon. Member's own comment was, since from now on, the Indian community will be able to participate directly instead of going through the Department. It will now be able to take part in the decisionmaking process.
My question to the Hon. Member is: Does he realize that from now on, two-thirds of the programs may be administered by the Indian community?


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Speaker, who administers the fund is not the point. At issue here is whether or not those funds are adequate. They are not adequate. The Department has simply transferred to Indian bands the responsibility for managing inadequate dollars. The bands are also administering the Department's programs and guidelines, not their own programs and guidelines. Further, the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Ms. K. Campbell) earlier today referred to the need for the Department to obtain better data to be certain where the demand is because two-thirds of the bands administer the program. Since the initial limit on funds and interim changes were made to the program two years ago, Indian bands, organizations and individuals have expressed their disagreement with the policy and have told the Department that the changes are restricting access to the students.
If, despite these representations, the Government still does not know where the demand is, why did it proceed to make further unilateral changes to the program? Why did it not wait until it had determined, through proper consultation with the Indian people, the real nature of the demand and the need?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Anawak) for his comments. Let me state a concern. If the Govem-
Supply
ment sets what appears to be arbitrary and unrealistic time limits on aboriginal students for completing degree programs and says that those native students left over after the cap is reached can apply for mainstream programs, what happens to people from a different culture and a different area if they are thrown into the pot with other students, many of whom come from families with long, academic, mainstream backgrounds?
I know from my own experience, both as a union representative and as a union minority relations officer in the western forest products industry, that even those within the majority cultures who come from families who do not have an academic background have larger dropout rates and a more difficult time adjusting to the academic mainstream than do students from families whose ancestors have had post-secondary education. I know also, from that same experience, that problems of those who come from other minority cultures are compounded when added to the same problems facing working-class family students who do not have an academic historical background.
Can the Member give some idea of the impact that he has seen among people, especially in the far reaching areas of this country, perhaps even some individual or case histories? I just wonder if the Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Anawak) can perhaps give some individual or collective case histories, and some idea of the impact he has seen among people, especially in the far-reaching areas of this country's North, and the difficulties that those students have in adjusting to the kind of problems that even those of us have who come from the majority culture and urban areas when adjusting into the academic mainstream.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his comment and question. In the North, and I say the North because that is the area I am most familiar with, we have been used to the education system for only the last 30-odd years. We have been introduced to that education system only in the last 30-odd years. What normally takes hundreds of years, we have been forced to go through within a space of three decades.
Hon. Members should be aware of the ramifications of going from totally living off the land-a hunting economy-to 35 years later living in a time of fax machines, television, instant communication, and the impact it has on that culture. Because of that, only now are we getting to the point where my generation is saying the importance of education cannot be under-emphasized. My

April 24, 1989
Supply
parents did not realize the importance of education, of English education, which we now do. They realized the importance of education of our culture, and I must say I was fortunate in having been part of that generation that was taught the Inuit culture as well as taking part in this change. But it is true that there is a tremendous impact. I can count on one hand the number of Inuit lawyers or Inuit doctors, partly because of the problem we have in adapting to the education system and to the cultural change that we have had to go through.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate, because I have several Indian families in my riding, and especially because of the fact that for twelve years, when I was an insurance broker and businessman, I did business with the Indians on the Kahnawake reserve, and I have always had a keen interest their circumstances, both present and future.
Madam Speaker, a number of serious allegations have been made in recent weeks about the Government's commitment to providing funding for the post-secondary education of Indians and Inuit. Today, Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight and give the House the assurance that we will continue to promote the interests of Canada's Indians and Inuit through education.
Here in Ottawa, Madam Speaker, a small group of Indian students have put their physical well-being at risk by starting a hunger strike to protest against the Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program announced last month.
These students are trying to obtain a moratorium on this policy. Such a moratorium is unnecessary, regressive and might be harmful to the interests of the majority of the students.
Madam Speaker, I am troubled by this gesture, and I find it hard to understand what they are trying to do. The new policy is clearly an improvement, if we compare it with the previous program known as the E-12 guidelines.
When the Post-Secondary Assistance Program was announced, the Government indicated that it would always be willing to consider recommendations from the Indian community.
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development also offered to work directly with the Assembly of First Nations, other Indian leaders and student representatives on a joint policy research and development program.
Under this proposal, all aspects of the program would be examined. Meanwhile, the new Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program would be available to students for the academic year 1989-90.
Madam Speaker, Hon. Members are aware that the Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program is one of the most successful programs ever undertaken by this Department.
Under the E-12 guidelines, the number of post-secondary students rose from 3,500 when the program was introduced in 1977-78 to about 15,000 in 1988-89. During the same period, the program's budget rose from $9 million to nearly $130 million.
Madam Speaker, we realize that even the most successful programs need updating and revising from time to time to meet changing of needs and emerging trends.
Madam Speaker, in this case, there was a need to increase the number of graduates, in other words, to ensure that larger numbers of Indian students finish their college or university education. And that, Madam Speaker, bearing in mind that the program's budget has to reflect today's economic reality.
A year ago, this Government announced that a consultation process would be initiated to make changes in the E-12 guidelines.
As part of this process, a draft policy was sent to all regions of the country, and meetings were held with Indian groups.
Madam Speaker, we were clearly committed to formulating a policy that met Indian and Inuit needs and aspirations.
Between July and December last year, representatives of Indian Affairs and Northern Development consulted with about 500 bands, tribal councils and students' groups.
April 24, 1989

These groups expressed their concerns and their recommendations were given serious thought. Following these consultations, the draft proposal which had been distributed in July 1988 was thoroughly revised.
Hon. Members who are familiar with the national study of the Assembly of First Nations on Indian education may have noticed that most of the study's recommendations concerning post-secondary education have been incorporated in the new policy. For instance, the Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program provides incentives and scholarships for students who want to take a course of study that would contribute directly to achieving Indian self-government and economic self-reliance.
Under the new policy, Madam Speaker, administering organizations have an even greater opportunity to participate directly in the post-secondary education process. The policy also establishes uniform rates of assistance which apply across the country, instead of the regional variations contained in the E-12 guidelines. Madam Speaker, the new policy also provides direct support to a number of Indian post-secondary institutions.
The new policy is a definite improvement over the E-12 guidelines in practically all respects. Tuition fees are now covered, regardless of time spent in post-secondary education. Allowances for living expenses are generally higher. These allowances range from $200 up to $1,355 per month for a married student with a spouse and three other dependants. Fifty dollars per month is provided for each additional dependant.
Madam Speaker, the new policy also provides for higher allowances for students living in areas where rental costs are highest.
Madam Speaker, these increased allowances are the direct result of the consultation process that I already mentioned. Moreover, the limits on student aid have been restructured. A student can now receive assistance for a college program, an undergraduate program and a program leading to a graduate diploma or a professional degree.
Students can also receive assistance for studies leading to a second bachelor's degree when a first bachelor's degree is a prerequisite. The new policy also presents an innovative system of incentive awards. The E-12 guidelines did not provide this kind of incentive. Indian and Inuit postgraduate students will receive a scholarship of
Supply
up to $1,500. In addition, they will receive a special incentive award of up to $3,500 a year that will be given to students in programs that foster Indian self-government and economic self-reliance.
The new policy, Madam Speaker, also provides for scholarships to recognize academic success that will be awarded to students who maintain a B average or higher in their college or undergraduate program.
Madam Speaker, it is ironic that we are criticized for having set specific fields of study for the special incentive awards. The Assembly of First Nations recommended that we take such an approach. The changes to the program will ensure greater fairness and uniformity in administering this program. They will make it possible to put greater emphasis on academic success and obtaining a diploma. They will also enable Indian organizations to exercise greater control and provide better support for the objectives of Indian self-government and economic development.
Madam Speaker, this program is essential for Indians to take charge of their future. It is a good program. It is a generous program. In reality, it is the best in the world. A moratorium at this time would only benefit a limited number of students; a much larger number would suffer. We must therefore go ahead with this program and we intend to do so. I urge the Minister to do so.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I would like to preface my question with a few comments. First, I would like to quote the words of the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Ms. Campbell) when she was talking about the independence of the aboriginal community. She said; "The essence of democracy is that communities make decisions on the management of their affairs right in the community-. I have the highest confidence in the ability of the Boothroyd Band to manage its own affairs-".
How can the Hon. Member justify the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) allowing an unprecedented move to erode the unique constitutional status of aboriginal peoples by making a move to change this program policy without an adequate database and proper consultation with the aboriginal peoples of Canada? How can he justify that?

April 24, 1989
Supply


Fernand Jourdenais: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking me such a question. I just said in my speech that under the new policy, the Indian bands and organizations would be responsible for administering the program and they can do so now. If I understood the question correctly, she says that we did not consult. I also said in my speech that we consulted the bands as well as another organization whose name I forget-I apologize. But with the new policy, Indians will be able to ensure their own security, they will be able to choose themselves and decide on their appeal process, their own guidelines, manage their budget according to their own rules and procedure. What more does she want, Madam Speaker?


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, as always, I listened very dutifully to the Hon. Member's comments.


Yvon Côté: Towards the end!


George Albert Proud: I heard someone say "towards the end", and it was my old friend-I prefer to call him by name Mr. Lopez.
Madam Speaker, we can listen-


An Hon. Member:: Not him, the new Member!


George Albert Proud: Oh, the new Member for Richmond (Mr. Cote) says it was towards the end.
The Hon. Member should realize that we can listen to a speech in our offices, and I always listen to my hon. colleagues. If we are interested in commenting, we rush to the House.
I think that the Hon. Member's remarks were eminently sensible, although it sounded veiy paternalistic.
I would like to ask him: Does he realize, or would he care to comment-I could speak until my time expires but I would rather ask him: These people who were forgotten, these people who have been frustrated and ignored,-I know what he is going to say, but I want to have my say as well-don't we have a collective responsibility across this country to pay more attention to these people who were the first citizens of this country? I know and the Hon. Member knows, being a Francophone, a Quebecer and a French Canadian-I prefer the term French Canadian myself-that our ancestors took this land. Doesn't that give us an additional obligation? An obligation to understand, first of all, that these people
want to be themselves? The Hon. Member knows I support the clause in Meech Lake which says that Quebec is a distinct society. If anyone is truly distinct and has the right to be recognized as such, I think our first citizens are in that category.
If we accept this as a given, we must be consistent and say that this is certainly one area where we cannot afford to cut back.


Fernand Jourdenais: Madam Speaker, when I saw the Hon. Member come in the House, I knew why. I know the Hon. Member very well.
He said a few things that struck me. I know he is going to accuse me of petty politics, but he said that the people who arrived in this country 5,000 years ago as his colleague pointed out, and he is mixed up, because he said 40,000, 5,000-but in any case, they were already in this country before we French Canadians arrived-


George Albert Proud: Well before!


Fernand Jourdenais: Well before. He said they had been frustrated and ignored.
Was the Hon. Member not part of a government that frustrated and ignored those people for twenty years? Could he explain this extraordinary about-face in the Liberal Party which is now saying that we must help them, we must do this, we must do that? Something they conveniently forgot when they were in power.
Between 1977 and the present day, we have increased the budget by $130 million, and the Minister has even said that if it were necessary, he would go to Treasury Board, and he said that from now on, under the new program, there would be no more frustration as my hon. colleague said so eloquently.
I know that the Hon. Member has been here for 25 years. He is our most senior Member. I know that he sets himself up as a champion of minority groups. We talked about this last week when we met. However, I wonder-I have followed his career, as I said earlier, but I did not follow every single debate in the House. I did not have the privilege, since the proceedings were not televised at the time. I met him several times at conferences. But I never heard him defend the Indians the way he just did here in the House today.


George Albert Proud: On a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.
April 24, 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, I take those comments very personally, because for 25 years I have been repeating the same thing across this country, that we must respect our first citizens. I did not start today. I am sure the Hon. Member didn't follow me around every day to find out what I was saying. I suggest he take a look at my speeches in the House. Not that I want to bore him with all that, but I do take this personally, and I know that he would not really want to challenge something I would be able to prove. He can say that my Government may have been negligent, That is fair ball. We may not have done everything we should have done, but he should remember that his Party has been in power for five years.
If he wants to criticize me personally, I protest, because I could name a number of occasions on which I spoke, across this country. I travelled across Canada in 1972, and I repeated the same thing to the Committee on the Constitution. So I don't think I need any advice in this respect.
I suggest that the Hon. Member join me in explaining to Canadians where our responsibility lies, and I think that we should each do what we can. Let the Hon. Member say, and I agree: The Liberals could have done more. But we were judged accordingly. Canadians turfed us out and they put their trust in you, so it is your turn to try, and try harder.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think that the Hon. Member for La Prairie might wish to answer this question raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis and we can continue the debate right after. The Hon. Member for La Prairie has the floor.


Fernand Jourdenais: Madam Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis. Since I have known him for five years in the House, I have seen him in action, for every time that minorities were an issue or he had a question or wanted to express his opinion or defend them, he always rose and he always has the Standing Orders at hand.
I told him that it was the Liberal Party. If it seemed to be only you, let us say that I probably made a mistake, because since we have been working together, although we do not belong to the same party, we both have the same idea.
Supply
From now on, with the new program for Indians, I can guarantee you that we will stop disregarding them the way the former Liberal Government did, as you just said.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I want to first of all congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Nault), for putting forward this exceptionally important motion which has occupied the attention of the House during the past two days. At the same time I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Nunat-siaq (Mr. Anawak), our colleague in the Senate, Len Marchand, for his efforts in the last few days to help resolve what has become a very sad situation. May I also pay particular tribute to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Ms. Blondin), who is our Liberal critic on aboriginal affairs. She has lately put in very long nights attempting in a reasonable way to make our Government see the unreasonableness of its policies. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic is doing the job with our native people that the Minister should be doing.
I want to congratulate these Hon. Members, but I do so with a good deal of sorrow because it is unbelievably regrettable that in a country as rich and generous as Canada, we have a Government which refuses to provide basic rights to our native peoples.
What is happening in this country today is quite straightforward. The Conservative Government since the election has dropped any facade of moderation. It has stripped away the election rhetoric. It has become a right-wing bully-boy. The velvet glove of campaign promises has been replaced with the brass knuckles of tough-guy politics.
The Government is engaged in a three-part strategy. First, dishonour those election commitments where they cost too much; thereby, of course, bringing discredit upon the whole profession of politics in this country. Secondly, to act vindictively toward any people, any group of people or any province that may disagree with the Government. The recent outburst from the Florida Panhandle of the Minister of Trade in respect to the election of Clyde Wells as the new Premier of Newfoundland is typical. Thirdly, make the most disadvantaged, the most defenceless, the most impoverished,

April 24, 1989
Supply
those without clout, make those people in our country pay first for four and a half years of Conservative economic mismanagement.
I suppose you might say that that is a harsh indictment. But it is one that the Government has brought upon itself. Listen to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) used to say. He told the First Ministers' Conference in April, 1985, and I use his words, "As a Canadian and as a Prime Minister, I fully recognize and agree with the emphasis the aboriginal peoples place on having their special rights. Improvements to the economic and social circumstances of aboriginal peoples must be pursued at the same time as changes to our Constitution. Action is required on both fronts."
The Prime Minister also said, and I quote him once again, "Policies regarding aboriginal people will be made after open public consultation, especially at the grass roots level". That was what the Prime Minister used to say up to and during the election campaign. How can he possibly reconcile those words with the policy of capping funding for native post-secondary education? I have heard the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) say in this House that he has consulted over 500 native groups across the country. What he does not say and what we have learned is that not one of those 500 groups agree with this particular policy.
So there we have it, part one of the current Tory strategy: break your word at every opportunity. You can get away with it. Then we move to part two of his strategy: the tough guy vindictive attitude.

A group of native students is on a hunger strike to protest a policy that is contrary to the Prime Minister's own commitments. These students are on a hunger strike to draw attention to the urgent need for funds for post-secondary education. What is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) doing? Will he sit down with these students to discuss their legitimate concerns? Does he remember that he too was once a student and that he was a student protester? No! He treats them as though they were guilty of a criminal offence. He is inflexible. He tells them to go back to school. He makes them understand that he, the Minister in the federal Cabinet, is the one who matters and that the students do not have the right to speak on behalf of the native people of the country. He makes them a promise. He tells them that if they end
their hunger strike, he is ready to negotiate with them in good faith. Some students take him at his word. They suspend their strike. They meet the Minister and he answers them, in effect: What you are doing is useless. I do not intend to change my policy.
These young men and women, already on the 32nd day of their hunger strike, are endangering their health. The Minister is deaf to all pleas and absolutely refuses to be moved.
The Government and the Minister are so afraid of being weak that they forget that it shows greater strength of character to be open to forgiveness and pity.

So we come to the third part of the Tory strategy: make the weak and the poor, the dispossessed and the disadvantaged pay for the Government's mismanagement. Make the most disadvantaged people in the country pay for deficit reduction. As the Commissioner for Human Rights said in his last annual report-these are Mr. Yalden's words-"An Indian youngster in Canada has a better chance of being sent to prison than completing university". What an indictment. In the face of that indictment, what does this Government do? They cap appropriation for native post-secondary education and they deny hundreds of native Canadians the opportunity to go to university.
Let us have a few facts on the floor of the House, Madam Speaker. Today, more than half of Canada's native population is under 20 years of age. Any government that wanted to call itself enlightened would see that native post-secondary education is a tremendous opportunity to end the cycle of poverty among our aboriginal people. It is bitter irony that the results and achievements and participation of Indian students under the program are the very reasons the Government gives for denying other Indian students access to the program.
This program has been a success story. The Minister likes to boast about it. He tells the House how much more money has been spent on it. Why? It is because the native young people of this country finally recognize that the one way out is education. They have flocked to this program because they know they can have a better life than their ancestors have had since the white man came to this continent. That is what they are concerned about. It has been the success of the program that has prompted the Government to cap it.
April 24, 1989

The income level of native Canadians is only 50 per cent of the national average. The unemployment rate among native Canadians averages 55 per cent. We know that it is well over 90 per cent on some reserves.
What does the Government do? It reduces levels of assistance to individual students, making it difficult or impossible for many to complete their education.
I want to bring some more alarming statistics to Your Honour's attention. Only 20 per cent of native Canadians have finished high school, compared to 75 per cent of all Canadians. Nearly 40 per cent of native Canadians have less than Grade 8 education. Violent deaths among aboriginal peoples are three times the national average. Infant mortality is 60 per cent higher than the national average. Hospital admissions are two and one-half times the national average. The life expectancy of native peoples is 10 years less than the national average.
What does the Government do? It does a cost control exercise on the one program that was providing native people with the initiative, the gumption, the hope, the commitment to broaden their aspect of life and become more fully Canadian and able to participate with what the country has to offer. It is one program that was really working, because 90 per cent of all Indian young people who have achieved post-secondary education are employed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I cannot understand it. I have had the opportunity to serve in this House for a long time. I was at a funeral this morning for the late Jim Walker who entered this House with me in 1962.
The Government's policy is not only immoral. I do not often use that word because we have arguments in this House that go right to the heart of matter, but this one is immoral. It is not only unfair. It is not only stupid. It is also lousy economics.
The Minister, who is entering upon this portfolio, should be looking for ways to enhance his credibility with his constituents, the native people who he represents on the floor of the House of Commons.
Supply
This is a program of native post-secondary education which is working and produces a healthy, trained group of young Canadians from the native community. It is a program from which 90 per cent of them are now gainfully, usefully employed.
Given a choice between that and the foolish alternative of limiting native post-secondary education, what would that do? It leads to more unemployment. It leads to more violence. It leads to more drug abuse. It leads to far higher cost in social assistance. The Government has chosen the wrong course of action, a disastrous course of action.

Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the program is not working. In 20 years, the proportion of native students attending university has increased from 1 to 12 per cent. Of course, this is still less than the national average, but the progress is encouraging. We can be optimistic, the potential is there and solutions are in sight.
The Government cannot say either that it did not know that passage of Bill C-31 would result in increased demand for post-secondary education for native people.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tries to take credit on the one hand for Bill C-31, which has encouraged approximately 110,000 native people to seek reinstatement under the Indian Act.
On the other he is saying, now that we have this increase in population, that we cannot afford the primary program which allows the next generation to succeed. That lack of logic does not persuade me and should not persuade the Minister. That is why the Human Rights Commissioner called the treatment of our native peoples a national tragedy.
Despite this two-day debate, the Government seems hell-bent on perpetuating that national tragedy. Are the requests by the Assembly of First Nations so unreasonable? Is it so unreasonable to request a moratorium on the new policy until next April 1? Is it so unreasonable to remove a cap on post-secondary education all together? The Conservatives' own Member, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Littlechild), did not think so when he marched against the Government's policy on March 22.1 give him credit for guts.

April 24, 1989
Supply
I say to the Minister that if the Government will not listen to the students, if it will not listen to the leaders of the native people, the Assembly of First Nations, if it will not listen to us here in the Opposition, surely the Minister might listen to his own Member of Parliament who knew what he was doing and is close to his people.
I am simply saying to the Minister that of all the promises to break-and there will be a good many of them broken here Thursday afternoon when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stands up-do not break the ones given to our aboriginal peoples. Of all the groups in the country with whom the Government wants to get tough, do not get tough with young people who are pressing for justice. Of all the programs that are up for review, do not cap the one program which is really working, which is truly working in bringing an end to over 200 years of injustice and discrimination, poverty and despair among our native people.
There is still an opportunity for the Government to bring some honour to itself in this sad affair. There is still an opportunity for the Minister to regain credibility with the constituents he should be representing in the House. I urge the Minister and the Government to seize that opportunity.
Far more important than the Government's credibility, than the Minister's sense of esteem with the native people, far more important, there is still an opportunity for the Government to provide more hope for our native people. I urge the Government to provide that hope.
This is as human an issue as we have had for a long time in the House of Commons. This is why our Members are so incensed by it, and why members of the New Democratic Party are concerned. This is why we asked for a two-day debate to use the precious time given to us as Opposition in the House of Commons, because nothing is more important to us than the fiduciary relationship we have-

-our position of trust, especially towards the next generation, which is already disadvantaged.

I want the Minister to take this all very seriously because nothing has gripped our sense of purpose more than this debate and this particular subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the right hon. gentleman's discussion of the issue. My question for him is one to which I have not been able to get an answer from his colleagues.
I am sure the right hon. gentleman is aware of the fact that one of the three demands of the students is recognition of post-secondary education as a treaty right. Will the Right Hon. Member answer the House once and for all on whether or not his Party supports the idea that has been dodged so artfully by his colleagues over the last few days? Does he support post-secondary education as a treaty right?


John Napier Turner: Madam Speaker, I will answer the Hon. Member directly. However, I want to preamble what I have to say by suggesting that whether or not this is a treaty right it is a human right for every young person in this country to have a right to education.
Her Government has never recognized the inherent constitutional rights of our native peoples, the rights that preceded the arrival of the British Crown on the northern half of this continent.
There are those bands who sincerely believe that in the way their treaties were drafted, education is among those treaty rights. Coming back to Ottawa the other day, I was on the airplane with the Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn and we argued this particular issue.
Many of the bands feel that within their particular treaties, education is among those rights guaranteed by the British Crown. We would have to examine the whole panoply of treaties. We have consistently felt, however, that fundamental to the rights of any young person is the right to education, particularly for Indian people living on the reserves. It is the only way to break out of the cycle of poverty and despair. The Hon. Member raises her eyebrows but I am saying that the only way out is education.
The program started 20 years ago and it is working. The reason the Minister has to cap it is that it is working. There is not a fraud here. There is not a crime here. There is not a group deceit here. There is a desperate attempt on the part of a whole generation of young Indian and native peoples to join us within the full rights of Canadians. That is what this is about.
April 24, 1989

Frankly, I would be prepared, if I were given the brief, to argue the treaty rights as including education. To be absolutely frank to the Hon. Member at this stage, we must go back and examine the language of every one of those treaties.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to speak on this issue. I have listened very carefully over the last few days and have heard many, many comments. I have heard a lot of misinformation and much of the misinformation came this afternoon, shockingly enough, from my right hon. colleague across the way.
I would like to set the record straight on a couple of things. Consultation did take place with over 500 groups. The Right Hon. Member is mistaken when he suggests that not one of those groups supported the new policy. That simply is not so.
I would also like to remind the Right Hon. Member that the Minister has met with the students who stopped their strike, and he listened very carefully to what was being said. He did this in preparation for further dialogue with the students. If we do not build that kind of relationship in which there can be honest and open dialogue, we will not resolve the outstanding questions, and there surely will be outstanding questions. The Minister has established a relationship with the native community that will be very productive for us in the future.
We have all listened over the last few days to my colleagues who have been discussing the Indian Post-Secondary Student Assistance Program with a great deal of vigour. As they have pointed out, in many cases it is one of the most successful programs the Department of Indian Affairs or this Government has ever undertaken. It was originally designed to encourage registered Indians and Inuit to get a post-secondary education to help them achieve economic self-sufficiency.
Under the new program the objective is to encourage graduation, to get them out of school and into the jobs in order to pursue those 90 per cent of opportunities we just heard about. However, they must do so with the qualifications and skills that are necessary to get those jobs in the first place. Of course, the ultimate goal is
Supply
Indian self-government and economic self-reliance, a worthy goal that I am sure my right hon. friend will support.
In fact, the program is an excellent one. It is carefully tailored to meet the needs of Indian students. To help dispel the confusion over the program, confusion that has been again created today, I would like to go over some of the highlights of it because they bear repeating.
First, the budget for the post-secondary education program has increased significantly in recent years. There has been a steady increase in funding which has grown from $4.2 million in 1975-76 to $130 million this year. In addition, specific additional funding has been provided to meet the needs of students who have regained Indian status under Bill C-31. In fact, during the past two years alone, the budget has increased by 10 per cent in each of those years to meet the needs of additional students.
Each year carefully compiled estimates are made of the number of students expected to apply for entry into the program in the coming year, and the appropriate funds are budgeted according to those estimates. That is a reasonable approach. Under the new policy students will be eligible to receive funding while they attend such things as upgrading classes. They will be eligible to receive funding to go to community colleges or to obtain undergraduate degrees. Should they wish to obtain advanced or professional degrees, there will be funding for that as well.
Student allowances will be provided for the official length of the program-three years for a three-year program, four years for a four-year program and so on. In addition, a year at each level may be provided when required for a student to complete a degree or diploma program.
Under the old E-12 guidelines tuition assistance had specific student month limits which governed tuition allowances and registration fees for individual designated periods, and the maximum limit of possible assistance was 96 student months. Under the new program there are no time limits to tuition assistance. There are time limits governing living allowances, but these limits continue to provide support for a student from the first year right through to the doctorate level.

April 24, 1989
Supply
Students are also eligible to receive support for university preparation if it is required. We want students to plan their programs with an eye to completing their studies to a successful conclusion that will allow them to play a vital and active role in Canadian life. The program is designed to achieve this.
The new guidelines also provide a national standard rate structure for living allowances which replaces what went before, a confusing and wide range of regionally determined rates. The new program will guarantee equal treatment for students across Canada. Just in case there is a problem, the new standard rate generally represents an increase over average rates provided under the old policy.
For example, a single student living away from home now gets an average of $675 per month compared to $667 last year. In addition certain students, with dependants, studying in very high rental areas will be eligible for an increased monthly allowance to cover additional housing needs.
My colleagues have previously pointed out that grants for single students are equivalent to a full-time job paying $4.96 per hour. The grants paid to a single parent student with three dependants are equivalent to a full-time job paying $12.14 per hour, but I think these points bear repeating. That is not all. There are also annual scholarships of up to $3,500 for those who successfully undertake studies in areas which will aid Indian self-government and economic development. Students who follow programs in commerce, business and public administration, economics, science, mathematics, computer sciences, forestry and engineering will have an additional incentive to pursue these studies with great vigour.
Our program is gearing up for excellence, and we are determined that native people will be equipped to manage their own affairs, equipped with the appropriate education. In pursuit of this goal, students who work hard and do well are also eligible for annual scholarships of $1,000 based on academic achievement. These awards are available to up to 5 per cent of the student enrolment in each category. This is a significant improvement over the old policy which did not provide for this kind of support and encouragement.
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of this policy is the fact that it can be administered by Indian leaders themselves, the people who are in a position to
see that the program meets the real needs of the students it is designed for. This kind of self-supervision can only enhance, in my opinion, the effectiveness of the program and contribute to the dignity of those who are enrolled in it. I think that is extremely important.
As for the amount of funding, we have heard a great deal about that in the last couple of days. We have heard much negative comment from our hon. colleagues opposite. I can only report that this student assistance program is one of the most generous of its kind in the world.
I pointed out earlier today that there are 15,000 students in the United States who shared a total funding of $32.9 million last year. That compares to Canada's
15,000	students, the same number of students, who will share $130 million in funding this year. Canadian Indian students receive almost four times the support of their American counterparts. Clearly that demonstrates the new policy is a reasonable one and a responsible one which represents a great improvement over the previous guidelines.
The Government is not only listening to the concerns of the Indian and Inuit people. It is also responding to those concerns. The Minister has repeatedly stated that he is totally open to all suggestions for improvement to the program. I do not know how he can make it any clearer. He has demonstrated his willingness to make adjustments where shown to be desirable and sensible.
The Government has played a leadership role in improving opportunities for access of Indian and Inuit students to post-secondary education. It is no accident that enrolment has risen from fewer than 3,500 in the late 1970s to more than 15,000 today. We heard the Hon. Member congratulate us on the success of the program that brought the numbers to 15,000.
Our policies have been instrumental in opening forever the educational doors that were closed to our native communities in the past, including the period of time when Members opposite were in a position of power and in a position to make decisions that would have had a long lasting beneficial effect on the native peoples of the country and perhaps would have had them advance far beyond where they are now. However, we are starting with something, and I think we are making tremendous progress.
April 24, 1989

In the last few days we have heard a great deal of lip-service in the House, but we are doing more than simply paying lip-service to the importance of post-secondary education in the economic, social and political development of Indian and Inuit communities.
We have developed policies and have provided funding to ensure that there will be more Indian doctors, nurses, engineers, commerce graduates, lawyers, teachers, and other professionals. The new policy builds on previous successes and significantly enhances the opportunity for Indian students successfully to complete courses of study which will allow them to engage in useful and rewarding occupations that will put them in the mainstream of Canadian life. That is the point of this program.
Indian students must have access to post-secondary education today if they are to take advantage of tomorrow's employment opportunities. We all agree with that. We all feel strongly that if they are to be able to develop and operate their own businesses and institutions of self-government and contribute to a better quality of life in their communities, as well as play an active role in Canadian society, the educational system must be relevant and must produce graduates.
The Indian and Inuit people have a great deal to offer and much to contribute to Canada. Their affinity with the land and their understanding of the natural order of things have much to teach us, and we must be prepared to listen. When listening we must open our hearts and our ears in order to get a better understanding and thereby benefit from this experience. The Government and the Minister realize this. I believe the Minister is wise in his knowledge that productive dialogue can only take place in an atmosphere free from coercion.
In conclusion, it is important to commend the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Ca-dieux) for his dedication and leadership in introducing this policy for post-secondary student assistance. The program is one of the finest and most successful that Canada has ever developed. If Hon. Members opposite were to search their hearts and be honest, I believe they would admit that it is a generous, fair and reasonable program. The Minister is also to be congratulated for his commitment to Indian and Inuit people in general, and for his leadership and his commitment to post-secondary education.
Supply
The negative reaction that we have seen and heard in the media is most unfortunate, and it is most unfortunate that it is based on inaccurate information and inaccurate perceptions. There is still a perception that the draft policy which was used as a basis for the consultations which were carried out was used as a basis for the final policy. I would like to make it veiy clear and set the record straight that the final policy has been revised and improved as a result of that consultation process.
The Minister has repeatedly stated his willingness to make more changes and further improvements should they be needed. He is willing and eager to sit down in a calm and rational fashion to discuss additional changes and improvements. The consultations are not over. They are ongoing and continuing. The policy has changed and it will continue to change with the times.
In 1977-78 it cost $9 million to send 3,500 Indian students to university or college. That has been improved and 15,000 are covered under a budget of $130 million. The program will be continually improved as the need arises. It must be continually reviewed to address appropriately the changing needs and the aspirations of Indian youth. It is a reasonable and a responsible program that offers a better way of life, a life of independence and dignity for the coming generation of native people. I believe that the Minister and the program deserve the full support of the House.


Mrs. Finestone:: First, I listened with a great deal of interest to the very fine speech given by our own colleague, the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ana-wak). I only wish that the Hon. Member who just completed her remarks had listened a little more closely.
Second, I wish that the Hon. Member had sat in on the hearings or read the transcripts of the hearings held by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs. I was a member of that committee when it changed the Indian Act to recognize and acknowledge women in the Indian society.
I certainly recall the two meetings of the First Ministers' Conferences in which I was in attendance. I was also part of the committee that looked at employment equity and, sad to say, recognized the inadequacies of that Bill, as well as the Indian Act.
We now recognize something that the Member does not seem to have thought about, the fact that we have had a very large increase in a young population. We have a vibrant source of new employers and new employees in Canada, and the Hon. Member does not care to ac-

April 24, 1989
Supply
knowledge the aboriginal people's potential contribution to the growth and development of this land, which is their land. This is our land; this is their land. They are part and parcel of that land.
If the theory the Hon. Member was propounding were applied to the Unemployment Insurance Act, we would only pay off the first half or quarter who applied. If the theory were applied to those who are now arriving at age 65, perhaps old age security would not be paid after the month of March or April because the funds would have run out.
Is that the way the Hon. Member is suggesting, first come first served? Is there to be a cap because there are too many bright, young, competent people who have evolved through a system which has only been in operation a bare 20 years?
It is effective, but it is being capped because it costs too much money. If the cap were removed and all the brave young students were served-and I do not particularly agree with the procedure used-it would cost the equivalent of one five-thousandth of the national debt. If the moratorium were taken off, it would cost one-fiftieth of 1 per cent of the national debt.
Would the Hon. Member tell me why those young people, the future of the country, are being attacked for that type of extra money which is equal to one-half the money the Government spent on advertising in the past year? What is the Hon. Member's point, and what is her beef?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member is the one who doesn't listen or she would not have made some of the comments that she did.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dorothy I. Dobbie: All students who wish to apply for post-secondary education in Canada will be accommodated. There is no question that there will be dollars to pay for those students to go to school. If the estimates are not accurate-and we have said from the very beginning that there is a possibility that the estimates may be lacking because we do not have the kind of tight data we need-some applicants may have to wait a year to get into the program. But I wish the Hon. Member would stop trying to twist the facts and pay attention to us when we say that all students will eventually be
accommodated, that no students are being turned away or deprived of a post-secondary education.
We are not talking about theory here. The Hon. Member mentioned a theory. I think we all agree, and I listened very carefully to her remarks, that education is a fundamental need, a fundamental right of all human beings. There is no question about that. Indian youth and adult Indian students are as entitled to post-secondary education of a high quality as anyone else in this country. If we can do anything at all to make it easier for them to access that, we will. As I have said, and as the Minister has said repeatedly, there is plenty of opportunity to make adjustments where it is required. If a student feels that he has in some way slipped through the cracks, the Minister's door is open. He will listen and he will try to accommodate. Surely there is not much more that this Government could do to accommodate the needs of Indian and Inuit students in this country.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I might ask one question that has been asked a number of times but to which we still have not had an answer. If I heard correctly, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said that under this program some students will have to wait a year to go to a post-secondary institution. If that is what she said, might she say it again so we can all hear it clearly?
There is another question that has been asked three or four times. Supposing under the present scheme the number of students who apply are in excess of the number of dollars available for post-secondary education. In other words, there is not enough money in the present $130 million to enable whatever number of students who apply to go to a post-secondary education institution. Will the Government automatically increase the budget to make available sufficient funds for students to gain access to post-secondary education? Or will the Government prevent some students from gaining entry to post-secondary education institutions through lack of funding? Can we not have a simple answer to a simple question? Will there be some students left without adequate funding to go to post-secondary education institutions if the $130 million does not cover those who apply? If there are a few extra students, will they get funding? It is a very simple question and it has been asked about eight times, yet we still do not have an answer.
April 24, 1989


Dorothy I. Dobbie: The answer has been given before. Madam Speaker. The Minister has given the answer repeatedly, and the answer is simple. First, some students may have to wait up to a year. Will there be money to take care of their needs when the appropriate time comes after that period when the next budget is set? The Minister has stated that he will find the funds to cover the needs of the students. He will go to Treasury Board and ask that the budget be set at a higher rate for the subsequent year.
I think Hon. Members opposite have to agree that it is only good, sound, sensible management that sets a budget for any program. We do not write blank cheques for anything we do in this country. If we do, we end up in the kind of trouble that we are in right now, so far in debt that we are becoming a laughing stock to the rest of the world. This Government is trying to run a fair, reasonable and generous policy under guidelines that will allow for planning and for appropriate budget-setting for the future. There is nothing unreasonable and nothing difficult about that.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to be the final speaker on this very important two days of debate in this House. I do so as the Member of Parliament for some of those people who were on a hunger strike, for some of those who are currently on a hunger strike, and for approximately 800 students at Lakehead University and Confederation College in Thunder Bay, 800 individuals who have chosen to pursue a new future for themselves and for their communities. They see this policy, this change brought in by the Conservative Government to the E-12 guidelines, as limiting the abilities of their brothers and sisters, both literally and in blood, from getting the same kind of access they are now enjoying.
There is nothing that provides greater pleasure than going to the graduation ceremonies at Lakehead University each spring and seeing, year after year, more and more native students graduating. They are graduating from special native study programs, aiming to return to their reserves to work in concert with their peers, their elders and their children. As well, they are aiming to get into the so-called mainstream by applying for jobs
Supply
outside the reserves to provide services to native and non-native alike. As Bob Rosehart, the President of Lakehead University is quoted as saying in Saturday's Star. "These people provide the very positive role models that the communities themselves have been seeking, to say, yes, we can do it. It is not only possible for us to go to Thunder Bay and get an education at the post-secondary level and to come back with a diploma or a degree, but we can bring back with us the knowledge that will assist our communities, be they reserve-based communities or non-reserve communities, in improving our ability to be self-sustainable as a society". That is why it is important that we maximize this investment by the Canadian taxpayers in the educational system.
Just before I spoke there was an exchange between one of my colleagues and the Parliamentary Secretary, who clearly said there would be up to a one year delay for those people who wish to take post-secondary education under this program, but because of a funding cap they would be unable to do so. Who will be the ones delayed? Will they be the high school graduates who come from far northern or remote communities? Will they be told they will have to wait for another year? We know, and there are those who have more expertise in this than I, that the moment you break the educational pattern, the chances of going back to school are virtually nil, particularly for females.
Will it be the adult students who, after years of welfare perhaps, or employment that is not conducive to their community or because we, as a society, have destroyed their natural resources, be they fish, animal, forests or what have you, all of a sudden finally get it all together and say, yes, I have the motivation to go back to school and learn something I was unable to do as a child? More than likely, some did not even complete high school, if they ever went to high school. Are we now to say they will have to wait one more year because we do not have enough dollars and cents. We do not have that extra $9,000 to take them from their remote community to a Thunder Bay or to a Saskatoon or some other city with a university or community college? After those individuals have developed their own motivation, because they know the resources are there, are we going to say no? And does that really mean that we are saying no forever because they will ask, why bother?

April 24, 1989
Supply
Every time we throw another road block in the paths of native Canadians we are doing them a disservice. We should be bending over backwards to give native Canadians full access to our post-secondary education. Not just for a B.A. With all due respect for those who have their B.A., what can you do with a B.A.? You do not even need a B.A. to run for Parliament. You can actually be a high school dropout and get here as well. But the important thing is that they have to have the ability to go on to get into the professions. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, pharmacists and nurses, the whole gamut are important for these communities to have the skills practised by people who are their own, so that they understand the nuances, understand the needs. That is why this is so important.
A lot has been said about the Minister's desire or willingness to keep talking between now and September, and that if the Minister can be convinced that there is a need to change it, he will change it. But the reality is that those individuals who are planning to go to first-year university or first-year community college next year must plan that now.
Our kids are waiting for decisions from the universities as to whether they are accepted. Native kids are too. They need to know that the dollars and cents are in place so that they can make that commitment, so that when school starts on September 4 or 5, they will be there. They need to know about accommodation. They cannot find accommodation the week before university starts. They need to line that up months ahead. If they are coming from one of those small isolated reserves in northern Canada, in northern parts of the provinces, or in an area that is distant from the educational centre, and they are moving not just themselves but are moving children and spouses, they need the time to properly plan and make arrangements in order to have appropriate accommodations for their needs.
That is why we have said put it on hold for now, put a moratorium in place, at least on the negative aspects of the changes, so that the First Nations for the students can work with the Minister and the Department to develop appropriate guidelines that will allow an implementation in September of 1990 so that we do not disenfranchise or delay anybody and that those natives who wish to go to secondary education can do so.
If there is some abuse, as the Minister has suggested in his letters to the Chiefs, then let us deal with that. George Erasmus indicated quite clearly in the Star on Saturday that they are prepared as a community to work out the rules so that nobody gets a free ride per se. The ministry quite clearly does not have any proof of anybody taking advantage of the program, for example going for eight years and not getting any final diploma or degree, but if those things do exist, let the First Nations work out the rules with the ministry. The important thing is that we do put a moratorium in place, that we give the native people a chance to work it out with the Minister so that we can give those young people who are still fasting a chance of success, so that they can stop their fast knowing full well that their cause has been just and that we as a Parliament of Canada have listened and will act in a very positive way.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of Supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
The first question is on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing (Mr. Axwort-hy).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there would be unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to this one. Maybe some day this Opposition will win something in the House.


Mr. Bosley:: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to dissent with that suggestion, I just simply wish to add my vote with the negative.

April 24, 1989
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the last vote to this particular motion.
++NAYS
Members


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreed to apply the division just taken to the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.
It being 6.18 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 21(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 25, 1989