1989-06-13

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-3, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, to repeal the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


MOTION TO EXTEND HOURS OF SITTING
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to my putting immediately, without debate, the motion which is on page 4 of the Notice Paper in my name, with respect to extended hours.
Before putting the motion, I would like to point out that the motion provides for the allotted day vote that would normally be taken at 5.45 on Thursday of this week to be taken on Monday, June 19, 1989 at 6 p.m. If
the vote were taken at 6 p.m. it would encroach upon private Members' hour. It would be our intention that once the vote is over on Monday, June 19, that there will be a full private Members' hour allotted commencing at the time that Private Members' Business is called directly after the vote. Therefore, there is no intention to encroach upon Private Members' Business and that full hour would apply.
Therefore, as listed in today's Order Paper, I move:
That, further to the Orders of the House adopted on May 3 and 23, 1989, the hours of sitting and business of the House, commencing on June 16 up to and including June 30, 1989, shall be as follows:
(1)	Friday, June 16th and 30th
10	a.m. to 3.00 p.m.-Private Members' Business from 2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m.
(2)	Monday, June 19th and 26th
11	a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.-Private Members' Business from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.-Standing Order 38 proceedings from 10.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
(3)	Thesday, June 20th
11.00	a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.-Private Members' Business from 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. - Standing Order 38 proceedings from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
(4)	TUesday, June 27th
2.00	p.m. to 10.00 p.m. -Private Members' Business from 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.-Standing Order 38 proceedings from 10.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
(5)	Wednesday, June 21st and 28th
2.00	p.m. to 10.00 p.m.
(6)	Thursday, June 22nd
11.00	a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.-no Private Members' Business-no Proceedings under Standing Order 38
(7)	Thursday, June 29th
11.00	a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. -Private Members' Business from 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.-Standing Order 38 proceedings from 10.00 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
That, Thursday, June 15, 1989, shall be an allotted day and any division demanded on the opposition motion, on that day, shall be deferred until 6.00 p.m. on Monday, June 19, 1989; and
That, following the adoption of this motion, no motion pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 27(1) shall be receivable.

Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Mr. Gauthier:: Indeed, there have been negotiations. I have read the notice of motion and it is in conformity with the agreed time schedule.
I would like to ask one small question: Can I get the undertaking of the Government that, when the House sits until 10 p.m., it will not use Standing Order 26(1) which allows for a Member to stand in his or her place and extend the hours past the normal adjournment hour? In other words, on those days when the House sits until 10 p.m. will the Government give the House its undertaking that it will not use Standing Order 26(1)?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Certainly, in return for an undertaking from the opposition Parties that there will be no dilatory motions on those days.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be some kind of conditional agreement here. Perhaps I will hear the Hon. Member for Kamloops.


Mr. Riis:: The reaction of the Government is appropriate that, assuming on a certain day there are no dilatory motions or any dilatory activity whatsoever in terms of frustrating the Government, there will be an undertaking that there will not be an extension of hours on the debate. That is a reasonable exchange.
Perhaps I will use this opportunity to state that of the legislation we are aware of and which the Government has brought to our attention in terms of its interest in pursuing, there are a number of Bills that concern us greatly.
I am afraid the Bill amending the Unemployment Insurance Act will not receive much co-operation at all from members of the New Democratic Party, and also the plant breeders' rights legislation. I think it is only fair to indicate to the Government House Leader that on those two pieces of legislation particularly, we in the New Democratic Party do not plan to co-operate in terms of facilitating passage of that legislation. We think that the legislation is bad. We think that the legislation is inappropriate. We do not plan to facilitate its passage in any way, shape or form.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Without giving the undertaking my friend asked for, there is a spirit to co-operate and get the
business done. The motion is before the House and we should move to vote immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the subject matter of the motion. Does the Hon. Government House Leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House and present a petition on behalf of thousands of Londoners and people from the area. The petitioners are asking the Government to rescind its callous action in closing CFB London.
I hope that the Government has not become so cynical and arrogant that it can disregard the thousands of voices that are calling upon it to change its direction with respect to closing CFB London.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table a petition, having been certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions. The petition is signed by some 250 residents of the city of Winnipeg. The petitioners express concern over the proposed development of a major mining operation at Shoal Lake, the source of Winnipeg's drinking water.
The petitioners ask that all possible measures be taken to prevent environmental damage to the city's valuable water resource. As a result, the petitioners ask for a complete federal environmental impact assessment of the proposed mine at Shoal Lake prior to the commencement of any mining operations.
June 13, 1989


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 66 and 96.


Mr. Milliken: Does the government keep statistics on seniors living in the constituency of Kingston and the Islands and, if so (a) what number of them are there (b) what is their average (i) age (ii) income (c) what percentage (i) are married (ii) are single (iii) own their own homes (iv) are renters?


Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Statistics Canada reports:
The 1986 Census of Population collected data on seniors living in the constituency of Kingston and the Islands. The following data are from the census results for the population aged 65 years and over.
a)	Total number	11,325b)	0	average age	74 yearsii)	average individual income in 1985	$16,467c)	9	percentage married	53.1%ii)	percentage single (never married)	8.2%percentage widowed	34.7%percentage separated or divorced	4.0%iii)	percentage living in home owned by member of household	65.0%iv)	percentage living in rented homes	35.0%
Note: The data in Items b (ii), c (iii) and c (iv) are not available for seniors living in homes for the elderly, hospitals or other types of institutions.



[Stage Direction]
Question No. 96-:Mr. Riis:
Since January 1, 1988, for each government department, what number of person-hours have been spent in the preparation of answers to questions on the Order Paper?
Albert Glen Cooper: The time required to prepare answers to questions on the Order Paper forms part of the regular duties of those concerned and as such is not recorded separately.
Order Paper Questions
fEnglish]


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, we will be correcting the answer to previously answered Starred Question No. 22.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Riis: 
Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentaiy Secretary have been answered.

Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I have a brief point of order arising from yesterday's Debates. At page 2939 of Hansard, the Hon. Member for Beaver River (Miss Grey) stated:
Madam Speaker, I would like to have my name removed from the yeas on the previous vote.
When I look at the recorded votes, her vote continues to be in the "yea" column. I ask that the Table examine that and advise us as to whether or not her name could have been removed from the roll at that point, because
obviously the Member had made a mistake in her voting and attempted to have it corrected later.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I was in the House at the time and I understood it differently. I thought the Hon. Member for Beaver River wanted her vote on the subsequent vote to be negatived, but the vote to stand on the previous vote. There is a word in here that perhaps should be modified. The Parliamentary Secretary is pointing out to the House that indeed she did not want to remove the "yea" vote on the previous vote. She wanted that to stand. However, she wanted the next vote to be negatived, as far as she was concerned, and abstain.


Albert Glen Cooper: I had the same concerns when I heard it last night, although when I read Hansard today it seems very specific that she was not indicating that she did not want to vote on the votes that followed, but she did want a change made to the manner in which she had voted on the first vote. Perhaps we could have some clarification on this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will reserve on that matter, and after discussion with the Table Officers there will be some clarification sought. If a correction is needed, it will be done.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface) moves:
That this House call upon the Government to take steps to enhance the federal commitment to the support of post-secondary education, scientific and technological development, job training and re-training and the battle against illiteracy, all of which provide the essential foundation for building a strong and competitive future for Canada.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to address, I believe, one of the most critical questions to be presented in this Chamber of late. I am delighted to be able to do so with able colleagues from all sides of the House.
[Stage Direction]
I believe that education is absolutely essential to the growth of our nation. It is particularly important for the development of insightful cultural policies, meaningful social policies and effective economic development policies. Most great nations of the world see education as the critical cornerstone of its cultural, social and economic development, and its main tool to remain competitive, a leader of nations.
There are a number of important Canadians who have made very significant statements about the importance of education. I should like to share a few of their comments with the House.
A. W. Johnson of the Department of the Secretary of State in 1985 said:
It is a mark of the maturity and the state of advancement of Canada that it has long been taken for granted that an educated society is a richer society-socially, economically and culturally. And it is a measure of the state of development of our nation that we have given expression to this belief, this ethos, by making almost universally available to all who want and can benefit from them diverse forms and programs of post-secondary education and training.
Donald Savage in The Toronto Star in 1986 said:
-if we are to progress economically as a nation, we will need more, not fewer, university graduates in science, engineering and business management. If we are to survive in a competitive and frequently hostile world, we will have to know the cultures, history, politics and languages of our friends, our competitors, and our enemies. If we are to make any mark in the history of the world, all this effort must be suffused with the ideals of our civilization, its history, its philosophy and its literature.
Just recently Mr. de Grandpre in his report made the following comments:
On an urgent basis, the first Ministers find the appropriate vehicle to review the education/training systems in Canada in order to increase the responsiveness to the requirements of rapidly changing international and domestic economies. Such a vehicle should involve participation by both business and labour, and might take the form of a federal-provincial royal commission on education/training.
I believe that education must lay the groundwork for a flexible and adaptable workforce and also provide Canadians with the tools we need to grow personally and professionally. It is important that our education systems facilitate the matching of labour force demands and supply, but we must not overlook the need to have an informed citizenry which can participate meaningfully in the Canadian political process.
Supply
It is education which will allow new immigrants to participate fully in Canadian life. It is education which will allow our aboriginal people the opportunity to overcome barriers to their full participation in Canada and give them the ability to attain self-government. It is education on which we will rely to produce tolerance of others in Canada and to respect equality rights of minorities, women and other disadvantaged groups. Attitudes formed in part by our education system will create the Canada of the next century, unified or divided, economically vigorous or regressive, tolerant or intolerant.
The Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre, as quoted by Jeffrey Simpson in The Globe and Mail on May 30 had this to say:
Colleges and universities are experiencing higher student-teacher ratios, deteriorating physical plant, and aging laboratory equipment.
Hyman Solomon in The Financial Post on June 12,1989 said the following:
Chronic shortages and mismatching in many skilled trades is getting worse, not better. And apprenticeship programs are fraught with high drop-out rates and have few women participants.
Many Hon. Members will recall John Polyani citing the lack of opportunity for Canadian scientists. More recently the head of the Science Council of Canada, Geraldine Kenney-Wallace, said:
Canada is very much behind; that this will eventually have a definite economic impact-while the rest of the world is getting its act together, Canadians are still arguing over whether they should commission a script.
That is what the chairman of the Science Council of Canada had to say. She went on:
I think the consequences, quite frankly, down the line are in the pocketbooks of Canadians. In other words, there is going to be a drastic drop in the standard of living. We are already living on credit now-It's a good idea that counts in the first place. A good idea is the hardest currency of all.
A colleague of mine in addressing the problem of literacy stated:
Because Canada has almost 5 million people who could profit by improving their literacy skills, much of their potential will never be realized unless all levels of government mount a massive campaign of assistance.
There have been valiant efforts in a number of places, but much more needs to be done for this important
[Stage Direction]
June 13, 1989
Supply
group of Canadians. I want to remind Hon. Members of some of the promises made by the Government.
[Stage Direction]
In 1984, the Conservatives were, and I quote:
Resolved to double the Budget for research and development in
Canada by raising it to 2.5 of GNP-
-and they felt that-
The federal Government should negotiate long term, five-year
funding agreements with councils that dispense research grants.
The Conservative Party stated: "We are resolved to maintain the federal Government's present financial commitment according to the formula established in the 1977 agreement- We believe that the financing of post-secondary education is a major priority for both levels of government".
[Stage Direction]
Putting it gently, there has been a massive retreat by the federal Government from the post-secondary sector and those areas of education in which it has been involved. It changed the formula for the transfer of funds in 1985 by reducing the transfer by 2 per cent. There was another reduction in the most recent Budget of 1 per cent. If one looks at those two cuts that have occurred over a nine-year period, because the others will have been in place for a period of time, there is a reduction of transfers for health and education of almost $24 billion and approximately $8 billion of that was to go to post-secondary education.
What are the results of that kind of reduction? Clearly there are few choices of course. Some people will say, and I believe there is some merit in that particular statement, that we have not heard an outcry from individual institutions. When one looks at Canada with its over 250 post-secondary institutions, it is very difficult to find out exactly what is being cut where.
What are some of the other results? There has been a massive increase in tuition fees across the country with the exception of Quebec. If you doubt me, talk to the student associations in the various provinces, within colleges and universities. There has been a mounting student debt. That has been acknowledged by government as well. There has been a continued deterioration of plant and equipment.
I must emphasize that this is one of the major problems we are facing in post-secondary education today. There is simply not enough money available to ensure that the plants are kept up-to-date or enough money to ensure that the equipment we require in order to remain competitive is in fact in place.
Let us look at training and retraining. There was an initial cut of $700 million. Now there is an infusion of $800 million. When we look at the $800 million, it is quite impressive. However, we have to look at it within the total context. Once the $700 million is taken away, $800 million added, and adjust for inflation, there is not a significant increase. It has been further compounded by a siphoning off of some of those funds to the private sector where there is the purchase of places going on during the last few years. This has in fact removed some important funding from our colleges and universities. In fact, that is contributing as well to the deterioration of plant and equipment and has made fewer dollars available for those activities that colleges and universities would normally pursue.
What are the results of cuts in training and retraining? Many people are asking some very serious questions about the private sector initiatives. Are these private sector courses equal in quality to what is found in the community colleges and universities? Are the controls in place? Is someone examining the curricula being produced, and is it being evaluated?
While some good work has obviously been done, at the same time I suggest that it would merit significant attention and an in-depth review to see whether or not this siphoning off has been in the interest of all Canadians. Some of the other results of the cut-backs in training and retraining are waiting lists of up to two years and longer.
Older workers are being victimized. Recently I talked to an older worker, 58 years old, who needed retraining. He was told that he would have to wait two years, but he had hoped to be able to retire at age 60. There is not much hope. I have a particular soft spot for older workers who have contributed so much to this nation. A number of causes, including the Canada-U.S. Agreement, globalization, and what will happen in Europe in 1990-1992, are having an impact on Canadian workers in all parts of the country.
June 13, 1989
[Stage Direction]
Quite apart from the massive impact of the recent Budget, people are being put out of work and need retraining. We must be exceptionally sensitive to that need, especially toward those who are older.
One particularly significant effect of all these reductions is what I call the real hidden tax. There is almost $24 billion less being transferred to the provinces for health and education. There is a reduction in training and retraining, as well as in other areas. Very often, the responsibility for these shortfalls are turned over to the provinces and, depending upon the wealth of the province, they can either absorb them totally, absorb part of them, or not absorb any of those cuts.
When the province cannot absorb such a cost, it is passed on to the client who in this particular case is the student. This is one of the reasons why tuition fees are rising dramatically in virtually all parts of Canada. The cost is passed on to the province, which is then passed on to the student. When the cost is passed on to the poorer provinces and territories which are not as well off, veiy often the poorer students must pay a greater share. That is most unfortunate.
Let us examine research and development and the Government's commitment toward this area. As I indicated previously, the Government made a commitment to increase the contribution to 2.5 per cent of GNP. However, it is barely 1.4 per cent, about half of what is being spent in the United States, Sweden, and Japan. There are fewer scientists than in most of those nations.
We are losing our competitive edge. That is not only my statement; it is the opinion of the head of the Economic Council of Canada who made that statement a short time ago. The level field that would be provided by additional education in our universities and community colleges with additional research and development is getting bumpy, perhaps even mountainous. How can we possibly compete on an even footing with the United States if we will be spending significantly less on those very programs that would make us equal or better?
What are some of the other opportunities that are lost because of this lack of funding for research and development? There are fewer opportunities for good jobs for our youth. I believe all Parties are interested in the creation of jobs, but let us add another dimension, that is, the creation of good long-term jobs which will challenge the people of our nation and challenge our
Supply
youth to go forward and produce more, to obtain jobs that will make them feel good about being Canadian by providing some insight and a contribution toward our cultural, social and economic development policies.
I suggest that this is one area where we can make some very substantial investment and reap some significant benefits for the people of Canada, particularly the young people in our colleges and universities.
Let us examine student assistance. The cost of living criteria have not been changed since 1984. The total amount of funds available have been frozen. Everyone acknowledges that the part-time assistance program is a disaster. There are two statistics about it, not one of which is better than the other. Less than 1 per cent of the people are using that program. There is a mounting debt load for students and rapidly increasing costs to students and parents. There is a climate of uncertainty because of the fear of accumulating debt and being unable to repay it.
There is a great opportunity for Canada to produce new highly qualified people who could become the professors of the next decade. We will need many new professors because it is a group in our society that is ageing. There is no large pool to replace them anywhere in the world. What better investment than to ensure that our young people are trained so they can assume those responsibilities in our universities?
Almost five million Canadians require assistance in literacy. While there has been a commitment of $110 million over five years, that represents about $4.50 per student per year. There will be little change, if any. The potential of almost five million Canadians, which is the size of a number of countries in this world, will probably not be realized.
Let us look at some of the other reductions. We do not know what the impact will be on education of our aboriginal people, on women's programs, on multicultur-alism or on official languages.
[Stage Direction]
Madam Speaker, I just quoted a number of reliable authorities that have pointed to a major retreat by the federal Government from the education sector. Transfer payments for education alone are expected to be cut by about $8 billion. Training and skills upgrading: there were cutbacks totalling $700 million, and they added
[Stage Direction]
June 13, 1989
Supply
$800 million. However, if we adjust this amount in terms of inflation, there has been a considerable reduction.
Furthermore, some of these funds have been switched around and transferred elsewhere in the private sector.
As for research and development, we provide only half the funding provided by the United States, Japan and Sweden. We have fewer researchers than many of these countries, although this would be a magnificent opportunity to enable young Canadians to explore new directions!
Financial assistance to students: the total amount is frozen. There have been no cost-of-living adjustments since 1984. As far as programs for part-time students are concerned, they are a total failure and all sectors admit as much.
Regarding literacy training, the Government has committed $110 million over five years. This is about $4.50 per student per year. And when we look at those $110 million, we must realize that we are talking about 5 million people. I realize the federal Government is doing this together with the provincial governments but, as I said earlier, we must invest a lot more in this area.
There have been other cutbacks affecting multicultur-alism, programs for Native people, women and official languages. What kind of impact will these cutbacks have on education programs?
I did not mention the fact that the program of instruction for new Canadians, with the books they were given to get acquainted with Canada, has been dropped.
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the federal Government to rethink its priorities in education, not only for the sake of our youth and other Canadians who want to study and get a better education, but for the wellbeing of this country. If we want to enhance our quality of life and that of other countries, if we want to improve our economy and our competitive position, education must be the cornerstone of a comprehensive policy affecting our cultural, social and economic sectors.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest).


Mr. Charest:: Questions and comments, Madam Speaker! First of all, let me congratulate the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duhamel) for his speech. I think that he raised some very important points and I can assure you that as Minister of State for Youth, a Member of this House and a member of the Government, I too am very concerned about post-secondary education and everything to do with training, including employment programs.
I can tell Members of this House in complete sincerity, Madam Speaker, that the Government is particularly concerned about the very high drop-out rate of secondary school students in Canada now. The Hon. Member for St. Boniface did not refer to it, but Canada has a drop-out rate of around 30 per cent. That is a five-year average, but you must understand that it is not easy to have a very precise figure. I think there is agreement in Canada that the rate is about 30 per cent. That is a very high rate, higher than in most of the industrialized countries with which we compete. And that phenomenon disturbs us. It is a disturbing phenomenon, especially for a country that talks about free trade, a country that- And I am from Quebec, you know, Madam Speaker, and in Quebec there is a lot of talk about entrepreneurship, people talk about it and have clear ambitions, except that at some point we will have to think seriously about our country's ability to develop skilled labour to be able to meet these new challenges and manage the new technologies. It seems to me that this in any case is a very important challenge for our country, Madam Speaker, probably much more important than most people now suspect.
There is work to do. I can tell you that I intend to talk about it a lot because there is also an important social problem. You know, we tend to look at employment and training from an economic point of view, but the social significance of employment is not sufficiently recognized in our society. And in our society, working is how we participate in it. We forget, but that is the social contract
June 13, 1989

here in Canada. Implicitly, you participate fully and totally in Canadian society when you work. The definition of employment itself is changing as well, but it is still based on work.
This means that our systems will have to be harmonized more, in any case, to be able to play this role and reach this objective.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Opposition Members for their great patience. We feel that they are eager to hear me. They want to listen with interest to what I have to say this morning, but I was rather intrigued by my colleague's remarks for the following reason. He said a lot about the problems that they feel, that they seem to see and have identified, but I am always a little puzzled when Opposition Members speak to us in the House, because it is extremely rare for them to tell us what they would do instead. You see, that is the problem!
I enjoy being a member of the Government and proposing things, you know, but I would like to know, when a government has to make choices, what they on the other side-the Liberals and New Democrats- would do instead! You will note that in his speech, he did not talk at all about what the federal Liberals would do instead. My God, what a puzzle! He gets elected to the House of Commons, pretends to be able to govern the country, comes to the beginning of a mandate, criticizes the Government, makes a long speech and is completely unable to tell us what they would do instead! I want to know, Madam Speaker, because the federal Government-our Government-has increased the budget for post-secondary education and health care, under one agreement, from $15 billion in the 1984-85 fiscal year to more than $20 billion for the 1990-91 fiscal year.
Madam Speaker, I have a feeling that the Liberals want to take the floor away from me!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) on a point of order.


Mr. Allmand:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not quite clear on the following. Has the Minister taken the floor on a speech in this debate, or is it supposed to be a question or comment?
If it is a question or comment. I would ask for your intervention and direction because, according to the
Supply
rules, questions and comments are supposed to be brief and to the point and to allow a response from the person who has just spoken. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the comments just made by the Minister go much beyond the rule on this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is one point which I would like to make for some Hon. Members who seem to think that when a Member rises on the question and comment period he or she must ask a question. I think the Hon. Member is of course incorrect; the Hon. Member can make a comment.
I think the Hon. Minister does know that he has taken a lot of the 10-minute period, considering that quite a few other Members had risen in the hope of asking questions. The Hon. Member was finishing with a question. I will allow him to finish his question very quickly, to allow the Hon. Member for St. Boniface time to answer and maybe to get some other questions from the floor. The Hon. Minister.


John Harvard: I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, the time for this exchange which has been quite unnecessarily and brought on by the Hon. Minister, is that going to be taken from this round of 10 minutes?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Hon. Member will allow the Chair to use her judgment on that. The Hon. Minister.


Jean J. Charest: First of all, Madam Speaker, with all due respect, and I realize that there is a lot going on in the House at once, I can assure you that when I rose in the House, there were no other Members on their feet. So with all due respect, I did not have the impression I was jumping the queue, and I can only regret, and fortunately there are witnesses in the House today to see this-

I can only regret that the Liberal Opposition would try to cut off Members on this side from saying anything, because it does not want to hear what we have to say. That is what the point of order is about.
Since the Hon. Member for St. Boniface in his opening speech on an opposition day brought forward by them on such critical issues as post-secondary education, illiteracy, training, and re-training, and in the name of the Liberal Party of Canada, had absolutely nothing, zero per cent, to say about what they would do if they were the Government, could he please give us an indication,

June 13, 1989
Supply
just a little idea of what little thoughts they may have on these issues?


Mr. Duhamel:: Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank you for your comments on my speech, and I am very pleased to see that the Chair agrees with me.
If I understood his comments correctly, it was mainly about what we would do if we were in power. Well, in 1992, I will show you exactly what we will do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ron J. Duhamel: Meanwhile- Would you please have the courtesy to hear me out? If I were the Minister, I would not have cut off transfer payments. I would not have cut training and skills upgrading. I would have increased funding for research and development. I would have increased financial support for literacy training. Those are some of things that could have been done. I would have- I must say that the Minister is very good at putting the blame on the Opposition. He is always saying: "It's the Liberal's fault! It's the Liberals fault! What would you have done if you were in power?" I told you what I would do. If you wish, I can give a few more examples. If I were you, I would stop claiming that these cutbacks have had no negative impact on our competitive position, on our Canadian identity, on youth, on Canadians, on Native people, on women, on our young men and women. I would tell the truth!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I consider very unfortunate what has happened in the House in the last five to ten minutes.


An Hon. Member:: Order.


John Harvard: I think my hon. friend from St. Boniface gave a very thoughtful presentation. I congratulate him on what he has said in this House. I think it is very unfortunate that a Minister would inject such irresponsible and foolish remarks as he has done in the past few minutes.


An Hon. Member:: Order.


John Harvard: I do have a question, Madam Speaker. I am not going to ramble on with a silly presentation as did the Minister. I have a question for the Hon. Member for St. Boniface. It concerns his remarks when he said that there was a mounting debt on the part of students in this country and that there was an increase in tuition fees.
My question is simply this: As a result of mounting debt and increased tuition fees, does he see the possibility of some students either having to quit university because of the situation or some students not being able to go to university because they simply cannot afford it?


Ron J. Duhamel: Yes, I do foresee that possibility. In fact, there are a number of documented cases which show that students have not been able to go to college or university. A number of documented cases show that they have been unable to continue because of the lack of financial assistance.
There is no question that unless things are changed in a dramatic kind of way the situation will get worse, not better. This is the cause of a great deal of sadness about which everyone agrees. When are we going to do something about it?
Unless our post-secondary institutions and all services related to them are improved in a significant and substantial way, we will lose our competitiveness. We will no longer have Canadians believing that they can become educated and carve out an important niche for themselves, especially in terms of participating in the democratic process, in finding a job, and in contributing to their communities. That feeling is starting and in fact has been running for some time now. It is getting worse.
We need to provide the resources so that more Canadians can participate, particularly under-represented groups. Once they are there participating they need to have the resources and the supports in place so that they continue their programs of training.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate today and to discuss the motion of the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duhamel). He has indeed addressed some very important issues. In fact, any one of the issues that he has mentioned could take
June 13, 1989

up a full day's debate in this House. We would probably need more time even after that.
We on this side of the House are aware, as perhaps members of the Opposition are not, of the Government's achievements in terms of science and technology. I think it might be useful if we were to review in some detail, for their benefit, exactly what we have done. I will restrict my remarks pretty much to science and technology, with perhaps a few remarks dealing with the post-secondary education issue. My colleagues will cover the other issues such as training and retraining, the battle against illiteracy, and post-secondary education in general.

Madam Speaker, if any government ever recognized the importance of scientific and technological development, it certainly is this one! This Government and its Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are very much aware of the impact it will have on the Canada of tomorrow.

Long before he entered politics the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was an outspoken advocate for the need to hone our competitive edge in industries by increasing the amount of science and technology not only in the country but in industry in particular-


Ron J. Duhamel: That is why you shut down the steel plants.


William C. Winegard: I thank the Hon. Member for his courtesy. After becoming Prime Minister he chaired, and continues to chair, the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology which has provided the Government with some significant advice. That board involves people from business, academe, government, labour, and the scientific community in general. It is as I know-and I have met with them several times-a very powerful board.
Just last evening I met with the steering committee of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology to discuss new ways in which we could make Canada competitive and the kinds of things that the board should take under its wing for the next year, along the lines of what the Hon. Member for St. Boniface has been talking about. The National Advisory Board will continue to assess our national goals, our policies for science and
Supply
technology, and their application to industry competitiveness in the country, which is an extremely important point.
The Prime Minister, as Members of the House know, has also altered Cabinet to reflect the new emphasis on high technology and the developing technologies. In fact, the enabling legislation for the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology is now before this House. I believe, as we just heard, it cleared the legislative committee last night. Perhaps the House will dispose of it on third reading rather quickly.
The new Department will be the flagship economic policy Department that will link industry with science and technology, trying to move ahead significantly in terms of our industrial capacity and our ability to compete.
As well, the Government has participated in the Council of Science and Technology Ministers. We have been strongly supportive of the previous House of Commons Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology. We now intend to be supportive of the new House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.
We have been building a consensus while we have been developing a comprehensive science and technology policy for Canada through such things as the Forum for National Science and Technology which was held in Toronto, the National Forum on Post-Secondary Education held in Saskatoon, and the National Conference on Technology and Innovation. All those things go toward trying to form a consensus in the country and an awareness of where we have to go. We have consulted widely. We have established a solid framework to revitalize science and technology in the country.
The programs that we have implemented or, indeed, are implementing are a result of consultation and collaboration. They are among some of the most advanced programs anywhere in the world as we try to move toward the end that the Hon. Member for St. Boniface is encouraging upon us.
As usual, I think Members opposite do not think we have gone far enough. They insist that we have not spent enough on science and technology. They suggest that we spend more and more government money, that is, on science and technology. Next week they will be suggest-

June 13, 1989
Supply
ing in one of their motions that we spend money on other things.
Members opposite are indeed in an enviable position. They can dream of spending their imaginary dollars over and over again while we, unfortunately or fortunately for the country, have to make the hard choices with limited resources. I often think what we could do if we were not saddled with the debt that came out of 20 years of Liberal Government. Just think what we could do with that $39 billion interest. That is 70 times the amount of money we can put into the granting councils.
We recognize that we have to be judicious in spending taxpayers' money.


Mr. Volpe:: When are you going to start?


William C. Winegard: We also know that funding is crucial to the science and technology programs of the country.
I recall the words of a famous Nobel laureate who said that research is four things: brains with which to think, eyes with which to see, machines with which to measure, and money. The Government has responded to that need for research through a series of well targeted programs.
Some of those programs make a direct contribution to university research. At the opening of the National Conference on Technology and Innovation last year the Prime Minister announced that $1.3 billion would be made available for science and technology, new initiatives that is, over the next five years. That funding is broken down into a number of programs. One of the programs which I understand has received universal acclaim across the country and has received the support of my colleagues on the opposition benches is the Canada Scholarship Program under which $80 million will be used to encourage outstanding secondary school graduates to pursue undergraduate studies in natural sciences, engineering and related disciplines. When that program reaches fruition, there will be 10,000 young men and women who are Canada scholars. That is a pretty good beginning.
A year ago last May, the details of a $240 million five-year program to establish the National Centres of Excellence was announced. The program will promote university-industry partnerships to enhance world class research and to promote Canada's competitive position.
It is important for Hon. Members to know that that program is a university led program. The main participants in the consortia will be universities with support from Government laboratories and, of course, industry. It will be mostly university led.
At the same time as we announced that program, the Government increased the base budgets of the three granting councils by $200 million over that same period. I remind Hon. Members that the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will also administer the budgets for the Networks of Centres of Excellence. Not only will they have their own program of distributing funds to university researchers, but they will be the main operators in terms of the peer review of the national networks of excellence.
The financial impact of these programs is really quite substantial. The Government has provided over half a billion dollars to the funding available for university research and training of highly qualified personnel over the next five years. When that is added to the contributions we anticipate from the private sector through the matching policy which was announced in the Budget of February, 1986, we expect over the next five years a full $3.7 billion for university research and training of scientists and engineers.
I think it is clear to Hon. Members that the Government is working very hard indeed to ensure that science and technology is supported in post-secondary institutions. Looking at what governments alone do in terms of supporting basic research, particularly in the academic area, Canada does not stack up too badly. We do quite well.
Hon. Members would not expect me to hold the position I hold in this Government if I were not constantly badgering you, Madam Speaker, and all my other colleagues for more funding for science and technology, and that is important. Even more important is to somehow ensure that whatever funding is available to Government is used to help promote the industrial research and development that Canada so badly needs. That is the real emphasis.
Through the strategic technologies program, we are again trying to forge alliances, this time led by industry. These will be alliances of industries coming together
June 13, 1989

with universities and government to form that pre-competitive atmosphere that is so necessary to move ahead.
In the new competitive environment we see all around us today, many companies that have never done research before will have to do research. We will have to encourage that through the formation of these alliances that will bring small companies together with larger companies or groups of small companies together with Government labs and universities. These alliances will promote the concept of doing research in Canadian industry.
Let me talk for just a moment about federal transfers to the provinces. When most Hon. Members talk about that, they try to make a simple issue out of a very complex situation. We have increased funding to Canadian post-secondary institutions from something like $3.3 billion in 1981-1982 to $5.7 billion now. As part of our effort to reduce Canada's staggering debt, we have reduced the rate of growth of EPF transfers by one percentage point beginning in 1991. However, these transfers will continue to grow at the rate of inflation as a minimum, and as Hon. Members know, the transfers are provided so that the provinces can give grants to universities to cover capital and operating expenditures. There is a catch, though. We have no way of knowing or ensuring that the money we give to the provinces is used for the purpose for which it was intended. Do opposition Members really believe that post-secondary education is the sole responsibility of the federal Government?


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: We haven't said that.


William C. Winegard: They say yes. We are having a marvellous debate.

I would like to know what the Opposition has to suggest to ensure that transfer payments reach their destination: our universities.

Would they favour earmarking funds? There are implications to that. Would they prefer to give the EPF money to the granting councils and have them take over the whole responsibility for administering research in Canada at the post-secondary level? Would they prefer to leave the funds in the hands of the provinces entirely? How would they guarantee that other provincial funds
Supply
would not be transferred away from post-secondary education if our funds were earmarked for post-secondary education? Those are important questions, questions that simply cannot be sloughed off. Those are questions that require some serious debate around the table. That is what we need to do.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: When are you going to start?


William C. Winegard: Oh, we have started.

Madam Speaker, the Opposition seems to have some very specific ideas about what it does not like about our funding policy. Perhaps it could share some concrete suggestions with us.

I wish we had more time to sit down and have a serious debate-


Mr. Milliken:: Not if that is all you have to say.


William C. Winegard: Interesting. I wish we had more time to sit down and have a serious debate on the development of science and technology in Canada. We will hear later about the initiatives the Government has undertaken in such areas as job training and literacy as well as the broader question of post-secondary education.
I think it should be clear to all Hon. Members that when it comes to providing, in the words of the motion, the essential foundation for building a strong and competitive future for Canada, the Government's record has been pointing entirely in the right direction. I would like to conclude by saying two things. In my opinion, there are two issues that will prevent Canada from being competitive. I have said before that we pride ourselves on being a caring society. If we want to continue being a caring society we must, of course, be a competitive society. There are two things that will prevent that. First, the failure to take action on the ball and chain that each of us drags across the floor, the national debt and the growing interest rates. We must tackle that.
Second, we must, through the use of the kinds of programs that I have been talking about, bring industry in total, not just a few in the high tech area, into doing research and development so that we can proceed, meet

Supply
the global competition and continue to have the kind of Canada that we all want.


Mr. Manley:: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister on his thoughtful speech on these important topics. He has raised a few points upon which I would like to comment and finally a point on which I would like to direct a question.
He spoke about the national debt, and the need to increase our spending being limited by our ability to cope with the debt problem. It is important to note that in the context of the national debt the Prime Minister did make an announcement a year or so ago of increasing new spending on science and technology by $1.3 billion. We have tried our best to find out where that $1.3 billion is being spent. Notwithstanding remarks by a previous Minister that it was not going into the space program, we find that some of it is. We find that $525 million of it is going into the Department of Industry, Science and Technology with no assurance that it is going to be new money.
I think it is important for this Minister of State, in particular, to recognize the fact that when we are talking about science and technology we are not talking about spending programs per se, we are talking about investments, investments that if they are not made are going to cost us far more in the long run.
The Minister has talked with some pride about the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, and justifiably so, because this is a panel of some of the best people in Canada. Their advice to the Government is well worth while. This board advised the Government in its report published a year or so ago that the federal Government "double the budgets of the three granting councils over the following three years. Subsequent budgets should grow at an annual rate of one and half times the rate of GNP growth." Governments ignored this recommendation, Madam Speaker. I wonder why we bother bringing these significant minds together to give advice which is ignored.
In fact most of the additional funding has come to the granting councils through the matching grants program which is very unreliable because it depends upon money being contributed to the universities by the private
sector, out of the control of the granting councils altogether.
It talks about the Canada scholarship program. As late as March of this year students were still waiting for some of their payments from the Canada scholarship program. This is a great idea but it would be nice to get the cash before the school year is over.
The Minister has talked about the Department of Industry, Science and Technology as the flagship economic policy department. I quote: "We on this side have sought to have as part of the objectives of that Department included in its mandate in legislation concern for environmentally sustainable development exactly in line with the recommendations of the Brundtland Commission. This is the key to our advance as a nation and to our survival that we tie all economic development to the needs of the environment." I would like to know why, in the Minister's opinion, his Government is unwilling to tie as an objective of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology environmentally sustainable development.


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, the Member really had several questions but I will try to respond to them all. First, the Hon. Member suggested that he has not seen the $1.3 billion. I assure him that it is still there. In fact, he gave some of the figures himself, the $80 million for the Canada Scholarships Program, $200 million for the granting councils, $240 million for the Centres of Excellence Program, the space science program and some $500 million for industry, science and technology which we are going to use for R and D. Out of those funds comes the strategic technology program which, indeed, is one of the programs that I think has the ability to do a great deal for the country. So, the money is there.
I come to NABST, the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. When one has a national board or any kind of senior advisory council one tries to pay a great deal of attention to it, but that does not mean that one can meet every recommendation. That is a false impression of how Government responds to advice. It gets the advice and does its best to meet that but has to work it into its other priorities. NABST itself is quite content with the work it is doing, the advice it gives and the general Government response it receives.
June 13, 1989

In coming to the environment, I think the answer to the question is that one of the Ministers of the Department sits on the Environment Committee of Cabinet. So, all of the issues that go through the main program come before that environmental committee of Cabinet and it is deliberate that one of the Ministers sits on that committee.


Mr. Brightwell:: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the Minister's speech and perhaps ask him for a comment. I note that the debate today is being carried by people who were not here during the last Government. These new Members ask that the Government spend money to achieve the objectives of post-secondary education and scientific and technological development.
I want to cite an example that occurred during the last Government when it amended the Patent Act under Bill C-22. Under previous laws, drug companies in Canada were subject to copy in as little as four years after they applied to have their drug licensed in Canada to the point where they were withdrawing drugs from the market-I hope that is a fair statement-or delaying their introduction to the point that they were reducing the amount of research done in Canada. I want to say to the new Members and to the Minister that I believe there is a way of stimulating all of the things stated in the motion of the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duhamel) other than the government spending of money.
I wonder if the Minister would care to comment on policies other than the spending of money that have done all of the things that motion asks us to do.


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, I believe the point is very well taken. Bill C-22 was a good example. In fact, I am trying to be generous in the spirit of this debate because I think it should not be a raucous issue.
I believe it was the Hon. Member for Ottawa South who raised the issue the other day about the difficulty with certain tax measures which prevented consortia from operating in the manner in which we would like them to operate. That is helpful when we know these things so that we can try to resolve those issues and push ahead. It does not require the Government to put up more money. It requires the Government to do something reasonable to promote R and D. Those are the
Supply
kinds of issues that I believe we could all look at and make some headway.
I also want to take up the point again about using government money to lever other issues in these alliances. I remind the House that two or three weeks ago I signed an agreement for something I call "smart speakers"-not you, Madam Speaker, we recognize that is always the case-for five small companies that are working and coming together with funding from the National Research Council, and their own money, to develop a research program to produce these smart speakers that would recognize what was in the way and change the sound patterns. That type of alliance where we lever something outside is our only hope. We do not have billions of dollars to throw at any problem any more.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Madam Speaker, I too wish to join in the debate this morning on the opposition motion presented by the Liberal Party which calls for a greater and enhanced federal commitment to the support of post-secondary education, scientific and technological development, job training and retraining and the battle against illiteracy.
Previous speakers from both the government and the opposition Parties have indicated the importance of scientific research and development if Canada is to remain competitive, if we are to be able to fulfil our destiny, and explore the many opportunities that modem life has to offer to our citizens.
We all recognize the importance of moving away from a resource-based economy and society to a knowledge-based society. If we are to remain competitive in terms of international trade, if we are to be able to provide meaningful jobs to our men and women and to the young students who are now in high schools and universities, if we are to be able to provide a sense of opportunity, future and hope to the citizens of Canada, we must remain competitive and we must invest more in terms of research and development. We must correct the wrongs that have been committed by past Liberal Governments and by the present Conservative Government. I suspect if we put our partisanship aside, every Member of the House will admit that we have not done enough as a

June 13, 1989
Supply
country to ensure that we have a vibrant and healthy research and development component in our country today.
Let us stop for a moment and look at the statistics and what is happening in our universities. In our major universities the library facilities are inadequate. Scientists, professors, and administrators in major universities have explained and described to us the conditions of laboratories and equipment. Much of the equipment in laboratories is totally outdated. In some facilities walls are crumbling and paint is dropping down. At times we have heard reports of dead rats and mice being found in the laboratories of our universities. That is totally inadequate. The equipment is totally inadequate.
In terms of human resources in our universities and research facilities there is a total lack of support staff. The number of students per professor has increased over the years. Over the last number of years we have seen the research capacity in our universities slowly but steadily degrade. We have also seen rising costs to our university students. As the cost of educating our young people increases, the universities have responded by increasing tuition fees and at the same time making it more difficult for students to enter by increasing the qualifications.
The danger is that universities will only become accessible to a very few. There is a dangerous trend setting in that takes away from the egalitarian notion that has guided post-secondary education in Canada for many years. This of course works against women. Historically, our universities have been slanted towards men. The university population has generally been more male than female. Over the last number of years this trend started to be corrected. I suggest that the more difficult it becomes to gain entrance into a university, again we will see discrimination against females. Restricting accessibility to universities will hurt the number of women and the opportunities that they will have to enter university.
Over the last number of years student support programs have gone downwards. Bursaries and scholarships are available to only a few. Many students are dependent upon loans which can burden them with a huge debt load, as much as $35,000 upon graduation. Part-time students, especially women, face severe barriers such as a $2,500 loan limit and a requirement that payment begin
six months after graduation. Both the facilities at universities and the support programs for students and graduate students are being diminished.
Surely that is a responsibility the present Conservative Government must share in. This is despite what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) originally stated when he was in Opposition.
I am certain the following quote has been put on the record many times, but it is worth repeating. In a book the Prime Minister wrote entitled Where I Stand he stated: "The starting line for me is the technological dimension. Either we go into the game and become important players in the major leagues or we become a nation that will, in its entire lifetime, play in the Junior B circuit". This was written by the Prime Minister on Canada's poor performance in science and technology.
Yet, what is the record? In terms of the EPF programs we see in this particular Budget a further cut-back. Less money will be going to the provinces for Established Programs Financing.


Mr. McDermid:: Less money?


Mr. Oberle:: More money will be going to the provinces.


Simon Leendert de Jong: We hear now from the Conservatives. The line being proposed is that they are not cutting back the amount of money that will be going to the provinces and therefore to the universities.


Frank Oberle: There will be $25 million more in the next five years.


Simon Leendert de Jong: What is occurring is that the increase in terms of inflation and in terms of needs will not be the same as was the previous program. The universities will see less money than they would have under the previous program. This occurred when the Tories first introduced their cuts in the 1985-86 Budget. When the Liberals did it in 1982, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), then in opposition, stated on February 1, 1982:
The Minister is proposing to cut spending in two very important areas. He is prepared to risk major cut-backs in medical care and post-secondary education. Rather than rush into this on a unilateral basis and force spending cuts and service cuts on the provinces, would the minister and the government consider entering into two or three national conferences on health and post-secondary education so that we can set out the national objectives of the various levels of government in these two important areas before we cut
June 13, 1989

spending, and before we cause closures of hospitals and cut-backs in post-secondary education?
That was stated by the Minister of Finance when he was in opposition on February 1, 1982. When the Liberals did it, the Tories said that it was a cut-back. Now that the Tories are doing exactly the same thing, it is not a cut-back, and to the Liberals it has become a cut-back.
The fact of the matter is that under both Liberal and Conservative Governments there have been cut-backs to post-secondary education and to our health programs. When the Liberals did it, the Tories accused the Liberals of cutting back on post-secondary education and on health care. The Government of the day, the Liberals, said: "No, these are programs the provincial Governments can spend as they wish and therefore we are not forcing a cut-back on post-secondary education and on health care." Now that we see the reversal with the Tories in government, they are claiming that it is not a cut-back to post-secondary education.
We are now hearing the Liberals make the charge that the Tories used to make when they were in opposition. One must ask: Where is the commitment? The commitment only exists when these Parties are in opposition. When they are in government, they lose their commitment.
We must also examine the Liberal commitment to science and technology. In opposition they proposed that the expenditures on R and D should be 2.5 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product. When they were in power they consistently fell below that. In the 1984 election they were to introduce a quick fix. They introduced a tax proposal, namely, the scientific research tax credit. That particular proposal blew around $2 billion of taxpayers' money with very little research and development to show for it. The only R and D that came out of that proposal was R and D by smart tax accountants who figured out ways and means of saving companies tax moneys or perpetuating tremendous tax scams.
I hear Liberal Members suggesting that I am exaggerating. Let me tell them that the SRTC tax scam was one of the most major tax scams in the history of this country. It was a badly thought through proposal and wasted much money. If that $2 billion been used for genuine research and development, we would have seen universi-
Supply
ties in a much different situation from the one they are in today. However, the Conservatives should not take too much credit in terms of closing down that tax scheme. It was introduced in the spring of 1984. We warned that it was a tax scam, that it was not going to produce any research and development.
The Tories were elected in the fall of 1984, but did they close the tax scam down? No, they did not. It took them until May of the following year finally to close it down. Half of what was lost in terms of revenue was lost in the period of time between the election of the Conservative Government and when they finally closed it down. They should have closed it down right after the election. They knew it was a tax scam. They knew what was being lost under that particular scheme.
What the scientific research tax credit scam shows, and the difficulty we faced in terms of scientific research and development under Liberal and Conservative Governments, is really a lack of a systematic plan to tie in our economic development with an economic strategy and a social strategy. We must tie in our economic strategy with what we spend on research and development through our universities, through our various scientific institutions. What is so desperately needed is a strategy that will begin to target key sectors of the economy, to channel our financial resources, technological resources, and various public and private resources to ensure that as a country we become number one in those particular areas.
That is what the Europeans are doing with the European Economic Community. That is what the Japanese have done. That is what these countries have done, and they have become very successful in developing their research and development. Unfortunately in this country, we still continue to follow a helter-skelter strategy. We lose money and very often we waste money on research and development. It has resulted in Canada being eighth among the OECD countries in terms of what we spend on research and development as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product.
Let us look at the history of research and development in Canada compared to Sweden. Sweden is a small country. In fact it is smaller than Canada in terms of population. Yet, what it spent as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product on research and development between 1971 and 1986 ranged between 1.5 per cent and

Supply
2.5 per cent, compared to Canada's record of around 1.4 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product.
In terms of developing high-tech industry, the Swedes have become veiy successful. They have done it as part of an industrial strategy. In Sweden it is the trade union movement that is in the forefront of technological change. When the price of oil went up in 1973, the Swedish unions recognized that unless Swedish industry became competitive and increased its efficiency, they were going to be priced out of the world market.


John Horton McDermid: Explain that to Shirley.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Let me make my point here. The Tories are always anxious to bring up Shirley Carr. Let me finish making my point.
The trade union movement in Sweden has scientists on its staff who know the most up to date technologies in the world. In Sweden the Government, the unions, and the private industry work together to ensure that Swedish industry is one of the most competitive in the world. That is why I can go down to Ikea and buy a table costing $75 that is made in Sweden with Swedish softwood, shipped over here, and sold in that store. They are able to accomplish that efficiency because they have a mixed economy. There is a social contract among labour, business, and government.
It means that when Swedish industry makes money because of new technological innovations, it reinvests it in Sweden and in Swedish industry. Union contracts ensure that there will be reinvestment in the plant and equipment and that there will be research and development done in Sweden. They also ensure that there is a social net to retrain Swedish workers who may lose their jobs because of technological innovation. It ensures that they will not lose their mortgages and will not see a decline in their living standards. They will be fully consulted in the implementation of that new technology. That is the smart way to introduce science and new technology, in a co-operative way among workers, business, and government.
In Canada-and here I come back to my Conservative friends-working people are afraid of research and development and new technologies because they know there is no retraining program. They are afraid because, if they lose their jobs, they will lose their mortgages,
their standard of living, and they will slide on unemployment down to the welfare level. That is the concern and the legitimate fear of working men and women in this country. Unless the Government stops attacking our social system, there will be resistance by working people against scientific research and technological innovations. Very rightly and legitimately working people are afraid of losing their jobs, their mortgages, and their standard of living.
If we are to have an efficient Canadian industry with high paying jobs, which the Swedes are able to do, we must develop a contract, a social understanding, among labour, government, and industry. This would mean that all sectors of our society could begin to act responsibly. The Tories are the first in line to denounce labour for acting irresponsibly. I suggest to them that they act irresponsibly when the Government starts cutting back on EPF, cutting back on retraining programs, not fulfilling its promises about day care, and starting to cut the social net which reassures working men and women that they will not lose their standard of living as a result of technological innovations.
Social responsibility requires that when industrial profits rise there is a commitment to keep those profits in Canada by reinvesting in research and development and new technologies.
One reason that Canada has such a low percentage of research and development as part of its Gross Domestic Product is that private industry does not do research and development in this country. Another reason for such a dismal record of R and D investment in Canada is that most of our industries are foreign controlled. Companies in a branch plant economy do not do research and development here but in their home countries. I am not saying anything new. The Lafontaine committee set up by the Liberals many years ago pointed that out as well.
Yet the Liberals, during their term in office, failed to make certain that Canadian industry was controlled by Canadians. The Liberals allowed the multinationals to come in and buy us up. It was the defeat of Walter Gordon and the fight within the Liberal Party that led to the lost opportunity of making certain that Canadian industries would be owned by Canadians. We are now
June 13, 1989

seeing some of the results of Liberal policies of the 1950s and 1960s-


Frank Oberle: Supported by the NDP.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I will forget that comment because it is not made on the basis of intelligence or reason.
The fact that we are essentially a branch plant economy means that there has been low research and development investment here by industries. Consequently, we do not have the jobs for our young technologists and scientists. This has to be blamed initially on the Liberals, and certainly the Tories are finishing off the job as they sell us into the arms of the multinationals. There must be increased research and development. In order to achieve that, many changes will have to be made.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I want to correct the Hon. Member. I understand that all of us are ignorant in different areas, and the Hon. Member has perhaps reached into an area about which he is somewhat ignorant. What he said about Ikea and the Swedish innovative way of manufacturing low cost furniture was true a couple or three years ago when the Liberal policies were still flourishing. It is not true today.
There are several plants that have perfected the Ikea idea and are manufacturing furniture with Canadian pine lumber and Canadian workers, not just for the Canadian domestic market but for export of that particular furniture. His statement that we are importing a Swedish idea and Swedish pine wood to Canada is no longer true. We corrected that.
I was intrigued by his suggestion that it is the Government's fault and industry's fault that there is little or few opportunities for young Canadians to take apprenticeship training to upgrade their skills. He laments the fact that there is not the kind of partnership in terms of the industrial relations process that exists in countries like Sweden and Germany.
I suggest to him that the unions deserve a little bit of the blame for that because they prefer the adversarial system that is the fundamental nature and main element of our industrial process. It is the unions that resist young people being allowed to come into a company to learn a trade and perhaps get a lesser wage while they are doing it. It is the unions that resist the introduction of new technology in plants because they are afraid of
Supply
their jobs. While I readily admit that others are to blame, generally speaking it is the unions that resist it.
If the Member wants to use the Swedish model, perhaps he will recognize that the unions in Sweden encourage their employers to establish plants in other parts of the world so that their ideas will reach out and the workers can secure their jobs at home. There is a totally different attitude to labour in countries like Sweden, Germany, and Japan.
If he wants to do this country a favour he should talk to his friends in the union movement, take them to Sweden to look at those models, and try to implement them here. It is quite true that unions in Sweden have scientists on their staff. As well, the best economists in countries like Germany also work for the union movement. Our unions are not interested in that. They prefer the adversarial process in which they are right and everyone else is wrong. The Hon. Member actually believes that.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Member, a former Minister of State for Science and Technology. He has made two points. One is that because of his Government's policies Swedish pine furniture is no longer coming into Canada and the other is that Canadian companies have followed the Swedish technology and have become so competitive that there is no need to import Swedish pine furniture. I must tell the Hon. Member that just a few weeks ago I was at the Ikea store where it was plum full of pine furniture from Sweden that seems to be selling quite well. I am not suggesting that there are not Canadian companies which are able to compete.


John Horton McDermid: It is made in Canada. Ikea is contracting to make it in Canada. You are missing the point.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Perhaps I could finish my remarks. The other point made by the Hon. Member is more serious. He reverts to pointing to the unions as the real reason that we do not have the technological innovations. He suggests that their resistance is the cause of the bottleneck to technological innovations in this country. He then compared us to the Swedes.
The Member still has not understood the point I was making. I said that the reason Canadian workers are afraid of technological change, as opposed to Swedish workers, is that there is no social guarantee in this country. During the last election I sat with a man in his fifties who was a pipe fitter. He was in tears because his traditional job had been wiped out. He had been unemployed for six or seven months and recognized that his

June 13, 1989
Supply
future was just a downward slide to the rolls of the unemployed, with no future. It is no wonder that working people fight tooth and nail against that.
If the Government begins to offer working people a guarantee that they will be retrained and there will not be a decrease in their standard of living, they would be in the forefront of technological change. They will help introduce new technological changes. They will want newer, better reforms of production to make certain there are good wages in their industry and to ensure that their industry is competitive on a world-wide basis. They will want to make certain that when the new technologies are introduced their work will become more pleasant and less dehumanizing.
Working people will become involved with technological innovation when they are given that assurance. It is the irresponsibility of the Government and its attack on our social programs that create fear among working people.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, when we initiated this discussion I had hoped that we might collectively attempt to identify certain problems and perhaps address those issues to see what we might do for those who are not participating fully in education-the poor, a number of women, native people, a number of new Canadians, and people from smaller, more isolated regions. While some important points have been made, I bristled a bit when a member of the Government suggested more than once that we were somewhat irresponsible spenders and that we did not care about the deficit. He accused us of having accumulated a lot of debt.
If that kind of discussion continues, we are going to get away from the main thrust. I would hope that somehow the Government would see fit to admit that it has in fact doubled that debt in the last five years. Perhaps the blame should be shared.
The major focus of the Hon. Member appears to have been, in spite of the fact that he set partisanship aside, on the errors of the Liberals of the past and the Conservatives of present. I would suggest that our focus
on what is happening now to try to bring about responsible solutions might be much more productive.
I would like to ask the Member this very brief question. He has referred to the errors of previous Liberal administrations and current Conservative administrations. There has been a number of New Democratic Governments in power. I wonder if he would care to comment about their records in the administration of funding for education. Just in case he is not familiar with the details, I would be more than willing to provide some.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I do not have the statistics at my fingertips on what New Democratic Party Governments, when we were in government in B.C., in Manitoba, or in Saskatchewan, spent on education. Of course we want to put it into the context of increases over a number of years.
I know, just in terms of my own personal experience, in Saskatchewan, that during the Douglas Government and the Blakeney Government university funding was increased over the years, but certainly not as much as I would have liked. I remember, when I was president of the students' council in 1963-64, leading the students out on strike against the Lloyd Government which was cutting back on university funding and resulting in an increase in student fees.
I feel that no Government has really spent the type of money and provided the investment in our post-secondary education which I think it deserves. It is an investment in the future. I think the Government is making a mistake. It might save pennies, but it is going to cost dollars in the long run. We can cut back on education and programs which do away with illiteracy, but we are going to pay for it. We are going to pay for it in higher social costs over the years. An educated population results in better paying jobs, which result in higher revenues for the Governments and for the public purse. I suggest that investments in education and in science and technology pay back many, many fold in the long run.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, some time ago, a new provision that would apply on Opposition days, when the House considers an Opposition motion, was adopted unanimously by the House. Each political party may divide the twenty-minute period for speeches plus ten minutes for questions and comments in two equal periods of ten minutes, each followed by a five-minute period for questions and comments.
I would like to suggest the following, today, now we have had our first round. Each Party representative has had a chance to speak his twenty minutes plus ten. We of the Liberal Party would like to suggest to the House that Hon. Members adopt a procedure by which from now on, each Party, when its turn is called, may divide the conventional twenty minutes into two ten-minute periods, each followed by five minutes of questions and comments.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, we on the government side have co-operated in terms of this procedure in the past. We believe that it is a good one and want to co-operate again today.
I would indicate, though, that we do have two speakers left who I understand will probably want to use the full 20 minutes. Certainly we have no problems with the spirit of that. As the Parties are ready to split their speeches I think it is a good idea, and also to have the time period for questions split as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There seems to be unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, the fate of the universities in this country hangs in the balance following the budget cuts to established program funding. Most particularly the fate of universities in Atlantic Canada are in a precarious state. My riding of Halifax has seven universities, each with a unique role to play. Universities are fragile and complex institutions. They are the repositories of accumulated knowledge of our civilization. They are the foster parents of the future.
Universities are, it is true, only one of the elements in the tertiary educational system. Community colleges, apprenticeship, and vocational certification programs are the others. Universities are the pathfinders of the
Supply
societal change in every sense of that concept. Today, technology is the chic word but political, social, economic and cultural change will be forgotten only to our peril. In Canada we have evolved a university system which integrates traditions of European and North American education.
One has only to travel to developing nations to understand what a tremendous resource we have. Sadly we have managed to allow the potential of our universities to become the victim of shortsighted political concerns. Differential fees for foreign students and our failure to market our universities internationally have seriously diminished the capacity of universities to build global links which could be of immense future importance.
Canadian embassies are reticent to enter into what is considered provincial competition for foreign students and thus will often not market Canadian universities. Historically in this country we have education as a national social priority; thus the established program funding system which is an hybrid offshoot of the original notion of equalization positive in the Act of Confederation.
What complicates this system is the relationship of the division of powers as stated in the BNA Act and the principles of equalization as they evolved in the 20th century. Spheres of influence tended to muddy the waters of 20th century social policy. The debates over transfer payments and the evolution of the EPF system are marvellous case studies of the adaptation of 19th century concepts, often fuzzy and ill-developed as was appropriate to that time, to 20th century policy imperatives. Much can be said about this point.
With respect to the fundamental role of universities, the evolution of EPF and the decision to integrate tertiary education into the equalization game have had some dire consequences for the quality of education. It is wise not to romanticize equalization, for it really is premised upon the concept of the lowest common denominator.
Philosophically EPF guarantees minimum standards rather than creating maximum goals. In financial terms this has specific results. The federal Government transfers funds, and the provincial Government, quite properly, decides upon their allocation. It can be argued that there is no answer to this, other than a responsible and

June 13, 1989
co-operative collaboration between the two levels of government.
The financial commitment to the support of post-secondary education cannot in our constitutional picture be viewed as a back door to altering the established relationship of federal and provincial powers. The time has come for change, a change which is so desperately needed in the universities of this country. It must be through co-operative and sensitive federal-provincial negotiations.
The federal Government has chosen a more subtle route to amending the existing system. Having recognized that a national policy on education-and the very term is fraught with unwanted images-is a political minefield, the Government has de-indexed and done other cute financial things to EPF funding for education. The result is a very tragic one.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry but I must interrupt the Hon. Member now.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the acid rain proposal by President Bush will cost American utilities an estimated $700 million per year, or half the cost of a Trident submarine, to achieve only a 42 per cent reduction of pollution by the year 2000. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) likes this proposal and claims that by 1995 our lakes and forests will come back to life. Unfortunately, he is naive.
Canada should have at least two major concerns with President Bush's proposal. The plan appears to allow juggling because of the trading provisions for polluters.
There is the possibility that the big polluters who dump on Canada will trade for the right to continue polluting instead of making cuts.
Second, there is no cap on emissions. As the American economy grows, the allowable pollution would grow even though new sources would meet the emission standards. President Bush's proposal does not ensure that the health of our rivers, forests, buildings and structures will be protected. We urge the Government to ensure that Congress shortens the deadlines, raises the targets and caps the emissions.



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, get this. The NDP wants to try and run a squeaky clean leadership campaign. Now, that is highly unlikely. This MP from Churchill says, "We're not going to try and use the tax system". Well, Mr. Speaker, why should they change now? Remember how this present Leader wrote to business Canadians using his government frank to solicit funds? The Churchill MP also says, "We cannot be seen as using House of Commons facilities". My NDP office neighbour from the last Parliament ran the entire maritime campaign from a Parliament Hill suite.
Canadians will also remember that this squeaky clean Party had the policy of using federal funds to finance municipal New Democrat politicians. Clearly, the NDP should look beyond this House for someone eligible to strut their squeaky clean stuff.



FINANCE


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, Reverend Seymour Boyce and Mr. Allan Tobey, layman in charge, and the congregation of the British Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada, Owen Sound, Ontario, have indeed the concern, the love and the welfare of our country uppermost in their minds.
Encouraged by the action of a Canadian lady who a few weeks ago presented a cheque to her MP to help pay off the debt, they presented me with a cheque of $100 to be presented to you, Mr. Speaker, to forward on to the

Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to be used to help defray our national debt.
Hopefully, the example of this unselfish deed will gather momentum all across our country and, who knows, perhaps we will be paying off our national debt sooner than expected.
As well, all donations to Governments are 100 per cent deductible.



HEALTH CARE


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, this week is Spina Bifida Week across Canada. It is a time for all Canadians to examine the realities associated with spina bifida and the related condition, hydrocephalus. Spina bifida is the most common disabling birth defect in Canada. It affects more children than muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis and polio combined.
To raise the profile of spina bifida and in honour of Spina Bifida Week, I have spent the day with Sue Mackay who was bom with this disease. Sue joins us this afternoon in the gallery. Her courage in performing the every day chores and duties that most of us take for granted is an inspiration for me and for all Canadians.
As little as 30 years ago, the majority of children bom with this congenital defect died of complications. Now with aggressive up-to-date medical and surgical care, at least 90 per cent of people with spina bifida live and lead full and productive lives.
I call on my colleagues in this House and all Canadians to consider the importance of research and treatment of spina bifida and hydrocephalus and to recognize the personal victories of the Sue Mackays of this world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this Government claims the letting of government contracts is done in a fair and equitable manner. Yet the Government is the victim of its own statistics.
A recent report from the Canadian Government Printing Services Branch shows that 89.2 per cent of government printing contracts go to Ontario and Quebec, home of only 63.5 per cent of workers; 10.7 per cent goes to the four western provinces, home to 28.8 per cent of Canadian workers; and .01 per cent goes to Atlantic Canada, home of 7.7 per cent of workers. My home province of British Columbia received only 1.2 per cent of contracts with a work force of 15.2 per cent.
The printing industry is on the sacrificial altar of free trade and will not survive if the Government continues such blatant discrimination in the letting of contracts. It is time the Government committed to regional fairness in government procurement contracts and treats western and eastern Canada as part of the economic family of Canada.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be able to attend, along with my colleague from Nepean, a conference held by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in the beautiful city of Vancouver this past weekend.
One of the issues highlighted at the conference was a deteriorating condition of watermains, sewers, bridges and roads in municipalities across Canada.

I want to congratulate the Federation and its members for their commitment to solving these serious problems.

It is time for the federal Government to resume its traditional role as a partner with the provinces and the municipalities. I encourage Members from all sides of the House to work with us on this national crisis so that we may ensure a sound economy, healthy environment and public health and safety for all Canadians.



S. O. 31 RAILWAYS COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
June 13, 1989

Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Toronto-Peterborough-Havelock Line Passenger Association for its realistic efforts to preserve the VIA Rail service.
VIA officials have identified this train and the Quebec-Windsor corridor as the two lines that come closest to paying for themselves. The Passenger Association, in a recent presentation to the President of VIA, demonstrated a willingness to work with VIA to rationalize this service.
The Association stated, and I quote that it "strongly supports the Government's desire to minimize VTA's dependence on the public purse," but stressed that VIA must be free of its regulatory stranglehold and allowed to operate as a true business venture. The Association listed a number of eminently practical suggestions for making the train more economical. This is an outstanding public-spirited initiative by these passengers to keep the Toronto-Havelock line open. I hope the proposals receive the detailed consideration they warrant.



FINANCE


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's proposed 9 per cent goods and service tax is proving to be an implementation nightmare for the small business person in this country. There are two major problems for small business.
First, there is the problem of compliance. We will now have a two-tier taxation system. The small business will now have provincial and federal taxes to calculate on each item not exempted. Administratively, this will be a quagmire.
The second major problem with the goods and service tax is an economic one. GST is not revenue neutral and
increased prices of goods and services will be passed on to the consumer. It is predicted that the average Canadian family will lose $1,000 per year in purchasing power. This reduction in buying power will result in a drop in consumer demand and thus have a very serious effect on the small business sector.
For a government that has said it recognizes the importance of the small business community in the Canadian economy and have promised to cut down on red tape, they have again shown their disdain for small business. Hiring up to 25,000 new people to collect the tax and complete the forms will only add to the problem. Small business is very concerned that this goods and service tax is just the beginning of further assaults on the economic viability of the small business community in this country.



PENSIONS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out once again a deficiency in the Canada Pension Act. As a result of the current test of recency provisions, a number of disabled persons have had their otherwise legitimate applications for Canada Pension disability pension rejected.
There are several hundred disabled Canadians who, when they left their employment, in fact qualified for CPP disability pension but were unaware of its availability to them. When they subsequently learned of the disability pension and applied for it, they were denied because their years of contributions no longer met the test of recency.
These disabled Canadians paid into the Canada Pension Plan. The lateness of their application, lateness owing in some cases to the nature of their disability, ought not to disqualify them from a disability pension. I, therefore, urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Beatty) to seek the appropriate amendments to the legislation in order to accommodate these deserving Canadians.
June 13, 1989



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the tenacity and determination of the Canadian Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in dealing with Washington on acid rain have paid off.
Yesterday, the American Administration tabled a bill under which the United States will cut sulphur dioxide emissions, an essential component of acid rain, of which a large part comes to Canada, in half by the year 2000.
When they met in Montebello last week, the governors of the Eastern United States said that pressure from the Canadian Prime Minister had forced the United States to take acid rain seriously and to act quickly.
Our Government has always said that acid rain is a top priority for it, and the initiative proposed yesterday by the United States, after eleven years, is a promising step in the fight against a problem that has destroyed 14,000 Canadian lakes.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, much work remains to be done on this issue, but yesterday's announcement gives Canadians and my colleagues hope that they will finally see their efforts rewarded.



THE LATE CHARLES RUTHERFORD, V.C.

Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday last in my riding of Northumberland, I had the moving privilege of witnessing three First World War veterans do the honour of burning the Port Hope Legion's 17-year mortgage. Unknown to us at the time, on that same day the most honoured of Northumberland's First World War veterans, Charles Smith Rutherford, was called to his final rest.
Charles Rutherford brought great honour to the riding of Northumberland. He was the last surviving winner of the coveted Victoria Cross which recognized his heroic service in the First World War. As a member of the Fifth Battalion of the Canadian Mounted Rifles he saw active
service in the trenches of France where he single-handedly captured 45 of the enemy and assisted in the capture of 35 more. This and other acts of gallantry deservedly earned him Britain's top military award as well as two other British medals-the Military Cross and the Military Medal.
Charles Rutherford is quoted as saying his greatest reward for surviving the war was to return to his home at Colbome, Ontario. Though he was humble about his own accomplishments, as Canadians we can all be proud of him and for him and be forever grateful for his service and sacrifices on our behalf.
On behalf of Canadians everywhere, especially those in Northumberland, I wish to extend my sincere sympathy to his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, in the testimony of expert witnesses before the Environment Committee over the past several weeks the deterioration of the atmosphere has been an overwhelming theme. It is obvious that ordinary citizens throughout the world do not yet fully grasp the stark implications of that subject for the very survival of mankind, unless we are willing and able to manage such critical environmental issues as the ozone layer, global warming and air pollution in all its forms.
Not only will such management be essential in Canada, it will be even more critical on an international and world basis.
The compelling challenge is not just scientific or technological, even more it is political in terms of achieving world-wide consensus and co-operative action.
This week we received a hallmark decision toward such an international accord on atmosphere management with the announcement by President Bush of new clean air policies in the United States which commit themselves to acid rain reductions that significantly affect Canada. This news is not just significant for the merits of acid rain controls which it brings, but even

Oral Questions
more it sets a precedent for two countries working together politically to manage the atmosphere.
There is now a real basis for confidence that a formal acid rain treaty will follow as a political model which will eventually evolve to encompass other atmosphere issues, and will eventually extend to include all nations of the world.
In terms of managing the atmosphere, nothing less will ever be sufficient.



RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, a political philosopher of years gone by observed that the price of freedom is vigilance. That point was brought home last weekend by the cowardly acts of mindless vandals perpetrated on the grounds and building of the Shaarei Shomayim Synagogue and Yeshiva Yessodei Hatorah School in the City of North York.
Ours is a country which has institutionalized the concepts of religious and cultural tolerance. In affording others respect for their uniqueness, and according them the right to lead their lives in dignity, we as Canadians have reaped great material dividends. However, it would appear we have yet to conquer the small-mindedness and the malice of a minority within our midst. Their actions harm the innocent and diminish our worth as a people.
Happily, the real Canada and true Canadians behave differently. My riding association, whose membership includes among others Canadians of diverse origins including Guyanese, Portuguese, Greek, Macedonian, Italian, Scottish and Indian passed a unanimous resolution condemning the vandalism and calling on the authorities to act swiftly and aggressively to eradicate this cancer from our midst.
We must reassure all minorities and the Jewish communities of Eglinton-Lawrence and elsewhere that, when they hurt, we all feel the pain.
I know that this House-the ultimate expression and defender of freedom, equality and brotherhood-will concur.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Brian O'Kurley (Elk Island):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the action of U.S. President George Bush for introducing new measures to protect the quality of the air. The proposed changes to the Clean Air Act will significantly reduce acid rain emissions from the United States.
The plan calls for the reduction of sulphur-dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions that cause acid rain. The reduction requires emissions to be cut in half by the year 2000.
The Government of Canada, in its commitment to the protection of the environment, is committed to cut in half sulphur-dioxide emissions by 1994, and has placed a permanent cap on sulphur-dioxide emissions of 2.3 million tonnes.
I welcome this important announcement since it establishes a united approach in building for our common future.
I look forward to the day when both countries will experience the improved environment that will result from our combined efforts.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Canadians are certainly pleased that we finally have a U.S. President who recognizes that acid rain is a problem that requires congressional solutions. However, congressional solutions are not always international solutions.
We in the Liberal Party are extremely disturbed that the Bush proposal contains no specific monitoring the sulphur-dioxide emissions and, in particular, that there is no over-all cap in the creation of sulphur-dioxide emissions. In other words, if an American power plant is built tomorrow that exceeds the standards, according to the President's proposal, that would be okay.
June 13, 1989

Does the Prime Minister agree with us that the lack of an over-all cap and the specific lack of monitoring provisions are serious omissions? If he does agree, what specific action will he take to lobby for changes in Washington to the Bush proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend and all Members of the House will rejoice with all Canadians in the very substantial step forward taken yesterday regarding acid rain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: As expert observers have pointed out, this is the first major initiative by the American administration in 12 years. I think it is good news for Canada and good news for all Members of the House who have been deeply involved in trying to pursue clean air on this side of the border as well.
My hon. friend points out possible omissions from the legislation. I think we should wait to see what the legislation will look like when it is brought before the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States. We will comment on it then. However, I can assure my hon. friend that we will be as resolute, as patient and as persevering as we have been from the very beginning to bring about the happy result of yesterday.


REQUEST AS TO WHETHER THE PRIME MINISTER WILL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Bush proposal has serious shortcomings that will continue to kill maple trees, for example, in Quebec. One of the shortcomings is the lack of a ceiling on sulphur dioxide emissions. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has specific proposals to make today in order to improve the legislation that will be presented in Washington and to improve the Bush proposal, because, as it stands now, Canada has no guarantee that the Bush plan will let Quebec's maple trees thrive, and I think that is important.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, since my friend referred to Quebec, she would no doubt like me to point out the very enthusiastic comments from Quebec Premier Bourassa, who said yesterday evening that Mr. Bush's initiative was just
Oral Questions
wonderful for Quebec and Canada. So I think that is good news for Quebec and the rest of Canada.
As for possible shortcomings in any legislation, we will follow the situation closely and I can tell the Hon. Member that I have invited Senator George Mitchell, the Senate majority leader, for an official visit to Ottawa next week. The scope of the legislation proposed by the American Administration will definitely be on the agenda then.


SULPHUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS REGULATIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the Bush proposal, the emissions trading proposition or the permit to pollute, has been described by a U.S. Senator as a situation in which a permit to pollute may be given to certain polluting companies in the northeastern United States, something which will do nothing to improve the difficult situation of acid rain which is currently raining on Canada. That is a concern not raised by the Liberal opposition but by a Republican U.S. Senator from Minnesota who has been actively lobbying for changes in the sulphur dioxide emissions regulations in the United States.
Does the Prime Minister have proposals which will ensure that the transboundary problem of acid rain, acid rain from the United States which is raining on Canada, will be specifically monitored in the legislation? Will there be specific provisions to ensure that the permit to pollute which will be permitted under the Bush proposal will not be given to companies in the northeastern United States to the detriment of the acid rain problem in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the point raised by my hon. friend underlines again the importance of the negotiation by Canada of a bilateral accord with the United States in the area of the control of acid rain. This notion, of course, has been denigrated by certain commentators who suggest that legislation before the American Congress of itself is sufficient. We take the view that there must be that kind of important legislation which the President referred to yesterday and it must be followed by an acid rain bilateral accord which we will negotiate with the United States of America.

June 13, 1989
Oral Questions
With regard to any deficiencies in the legislation as it works its way through the Congress, I have already arranged for Senator George Mitchell, the majority leader of the United States Senate who is from Maine, to come to Canada on an official visit. One of the important considerations between us will be a detailed discussion of the acid rain legislation and the manner in which we hope it will benefit both Canada and the United States.
While there are clearly imperfections in any proposal, I think my hon. friend, with her interest in the environment, will recognize and salute the fact that yesterday was a red letter day, and I underline that phrase, for Canada and for all of us who believe in the environment.


ONTARIO HYDRO-IMPORTING OF U.S. COAL
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to pose a question to the Prime Minister on this subject. While properly complimenting the President of the United States on his initiative, the Prime Minister has neglected to mention the real delay that we are facing in Canada in replacing the close to $1 billion worth of dirty U.S. coal that is presently used in Ontario Hydro generating plants with sulphur-free coal from western Canada.
Aside from one or two small research projects, no progress has been made in meeting the 1992 deadline that was set. Is the Government prepared to get a guarantee that that importation of U.S. coal with heavy sulphur content will be replaced by western coal by 1992? Is the Government prepared to make major changes to the freight rates as an incentive to bring about that very important development?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, because of the initiatives undertaken by the Deputy Prime Minister, there has been an increasingly large percentage of western coal used in the process, if there are continuing serious problems with Ontario Hydro, I know my friend will speak both to me and to the Member right behind him from Willowdale, and we will get this corrected together.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the progress made to date has been one research project worth $800,000.1 am talking about a $1 billion commitment that would bring about the movement of close to 10 million tonnes of coal from western Canada so that Ontario Hydro can meet emission standards in just over two years. That requires a commitment from the Government of Canada to deal with the transportation problem primarily dealing with freight rates which are presently allowed for lumber and grain. It is cheaper to bring coal from Wyoming than it is to bring it from Alberta. Will the federal Government take an initiative to change that situation so we can solve the acid rain problem and help western Canada develop at the same time?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in this very important issue, I should remind the House that the Hon. Member was a Member of a Government which did absolutely nothing during its term of office to promote the use of western coal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Furthermore, he was the Transport Minister at that time and he did absolutely nothing.
There has been, through the task force that was put together, a tremendous amount of progress made. I would ask the Hon. Member to check with the Premier's brother who will indicate, I am sure, that the level of western coal that is being consumed by Ontario Hydro in the Province of Ontario has increased substantially. Yes, there are a number of pilot projects which are being funded which I hope will improve and encourage further the use of that coal.


FINANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. This Government's financial genius has announced a new sales tax that will put an additional tax burden of $1,000 on the average family, increase the inflation rate by 3 per cent, increase the number of unemployed by 70,000 and,
June 13, 1989

according to a report released today, will also increase the number of tax collectors by between 5,000 and 25,000. Is this true?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member likes to ignore things that have been said in the past, but let me just remind him that the NDP tax probe of 1986, when he was the Leader, said, "As well, our analysis had led us to conclude that the current federal sales tax is so unfair, unaccountable and administratively complex that it should be abolished".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: The fellow who is sitting right behind him said, "Our sales tax system is a total mess". His finance critic in the last Parliament said, "The present sales tax is a bad system and should be abolished. I accept that one alternative is some form of value-added tax such as is being proposed by the Minister of Finance".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I cannot be precise about the answer to the Hon. Member's question. The Minister of National Revenue is reviewing this matter. Some of those estimates are wildly out of line, but we are reviewing this matter and some time in the next few months, we will be able to give the Hon. Member a precise answer.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it took the Minister five minutes to deal with irrelevant matters and then he came around to answering the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister might have added that he also said that any reformed tax should be revenue neutral, and unlike the Minister of Finance, we would stand by our promise. He promised that but he brought in one that was not revenue neutral. We also called for corporate tax reform including a minimum tax which the Minister of Finance also ignored. Don't give us your baloney and answer the question, how many new tax collectors-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Finance.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party made some observations. I do not know that he put a question, but let me comment on a couple of his observations.
He talked about revenue neutrality. I have made it very clear, and I will make it clearer when the technical paper comes out, that the new tax will replace the existing tax. It will bring in and finance some income tax offsets that will be particularly helpful to people in lower and middle income brackets. After that there will be no additional moneys for the Government of Canada. That will be set out very plainly later on this month.
The second point the Member talked about was corporate tax reform. We did reform the corporate income tax system. It was brought into play last year, and we have seen a significant increase in the amount of corporate tax revenues. In addition, in this Budget we brought in a large corporations tax which I have yet to hear the Hon. Member saying is a good thing. It raises a billion dollars from his friends in the corporate community.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, boy, you are going to bring a tear to my eye.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: There are, Mr. Speaker, some 86,000 companies that made profits last year which don't pay a penny in tax. That is the reality.



John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question.
We have a genius package of taxes including this new sales tax which the Government is going to bring in. The sales tax is going to increase unemployment by 70,000, inflation by 3 per cent, add $1,000 a year to the tax bill of the average family, and now, according to this report, add some 5,000 to 25,000 tax collector jobs here in Ottawa. Is this the Government's view of justice or economic insanity? Will the Government come to its senses and withdraw this tax now?

June 13, 1989
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member talked about this corporate minimum tax and 86,000 companies that are paying no tax, let me remind him that the large corporation tax applies to all the largest corporations in Canada. There are 3,600 of these. Where are the other 86,000? They are small businesses. They are businesses that are spread all over this country in small communities, communities very heavily involved in the resource sector that are very cyclical.


John Edward Broadbent: Baloney.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says "baloney." If the Hon. Member knew what he was talking about on this, he would not raise this whatever because it is going to destroy employment in all of the small communities right across the country. If we have a corporate minimum tax that is exactly what it will do.
Let me also comment on another point the Hon. Member made. He says that this is going to raise the tax bill by $1,000. Where did he get that information? Is this out of the New Democratic research organization? We have said that families earning less than $30,000 a year will be better off after this tax reform.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. It is about the budget leak.


An Hon. Member:: Not again.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: For weeks the Minister has been refusing to answer questions about the security of the budget process, and he has been using the police investigation as an excuse.
This morning the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP confirmed that, in fact, the security arrangements were not under investigation by the RCMP. The RCMP reported that there were conflicting reports on that subject. The Deputy Minister of Supply and Services says that the security arrangements are now under review.
In light of this, why has the Minister been refusing to answer questions about security except to say falsely, as it turns out, that the leak did not result from negligence, carelessness, or lack of proper security arrangements?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the Hon. Member's question is. We have said on a number of occasions that we review the security procedures on an ongoing basis. Where it is possible to improve these security procedures, we are doing so.
I should say to the Hon. Member that we have under way an extensive review to make sure that things are going to be improved where it is possible to do so, and that will take place in time for the next Budget.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that does not sound like the Minister who said in the House, as reported at page 1005 of Hansard, "that the violation did not result from negligence, carelessness or lack of proper security arrangements", although that may well have been so.


TIMING OF LAYING OF CHARGES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Justice.
This morning the RCMP also confirmed that in fact it had sought and received advice from federal Justice officials, federal Justice officials, in deciding whether the public interest would be affected by laying charges against a journalist.
In the light of this honest statement by the RCMP, why has the Minister been giving us only the half-truth that the charges were laid after consulting with law officers of the provincial Government in Toronto?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear that the RCMP consulted with the law officers of the Province of Ontario. The law officers of the Province of Ontario asked for discussions with Justice officials.
I note my hon. friend said "in deciding". In my hon. friend's question he used the term "in deciding". It is very clear that it was the RCMP that made the decision to lay the charges after consultations.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: After consultations. That is right.
June 13, 1989


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour regarding the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
Canadian occupational health and safety statistics are alarmingly high. One statistic shows that more than 800,000 work days are lost annually to disabling injuries. Given this astounding figure and given the fact that the Government will cut $1.5 million from the centre's funding this year, why is the Government saying that the centre will close unless it becomes self-financing?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the critic from the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for Hillsborough, for asking this question. I think it is very important that we state categorically that the centre is not going to close.
It has been very successful since its inception ten years ago in collecting and disseminating worth-while information about safety in the workplace. We are definitely going to see that that the centre will maintain its very worth-while operations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RIGHT OF CANADIANS TO INFORMATION
George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same Minister. It again concerns the centre. The centre was established in 1978 to "promote the fundamental right of Canadians to be provided with health and safe workplace information", as he said. The Minister himself has said that the centre has "been doing good, useful work and that it should continue."
Is the Minister now saying that the fundamental right of Canadians to this information will be sacrificed for the sake only of deficit reduction?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to point out that since it was established and during the six years the Opposition party was in power, the Centre received $20 million in financial support, an average of $3.3 million per year.
Oral Questions
Since this Government came to power, the Centre has received $40 million over a period of five years, which breaks down to $8 million per year. I think that shows this Government's concern for the health and safety of our workers, and we have simply asked the Centre to continue its cost recovery policy which it started to implement three years ago.
In the course of discussions I had with representatives of the Board of Directors and the Director General of the Centre, it was established that there were many ways in which the Centre could become self-financing within the next few years.


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade, and it is related to the Maquiladora program of manufacturing goods in Mexico, trans-shipping them back into the United States, and importing them into Canada under the Free Trade Agreement.
I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister the following notice given to the employees of the Bovie Manufacturing Company of Lindsay, Ontario. I will read a couple of paragraphs which state:
The Mexicans are waiting.
Your strike vote last night means as soon as you go out, the Mexicans will get your jobs immediately.
You may lose 8-10 weeks more wages as you cannot apply for UIC while on strike-
However, if you work until the end of our coverall and lab coat contract, which will be approximately the end of April, and we lay you off, the waiting time is only two weeks.
Remember, if you strike, there will be no job for you to come back to.


John Horton McDermid: Who wrote that?


David Barrett: The management of this company sent it to its employees as a threat as to where their jobs would go-
Has the Minister taken steps to prevent Canadians companies using the Maquiladora program, an agreement between the United States and Mexico that allows the use of Mexican labour to produce goods without

Oral Questions
tariff coming into the United States and then trans-ship them into Canada as American goods. What is the Minister going to do about it?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, it was about a year ago when the first false report of the threat from the Maquiladora program was uttered by a Liberal supporter, so the Hon. Member is a year behind the Liberals, and he is 100 years behind the truth.
The situation is the following. Under the Free Trade Agreement there are clear rules of origin so that any goods assembled or produced in Mexico in that manner would not meet the rules of origin and could not be admitted duty-free or whatever to Canada. That is quite clear.
The hon. gentleman should do a little research before he rises in the House and makes such silly statements.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to embarrass one of the rare breeds, a Tory from Newfoundland.
The date on this memo is February 23, 1989. The contract referred to is a contract that the goods will still be shipped back into Canada. To fill the existing contract, the goods will still come back into Canada.
It is the Minister who is out of touch. He has only five people in his whole Department to monitor this. The goods are coming back because only five people cannot investigate all those goods. Why does the Minister ask the companies to do the self-complying? Why is the Minister not complying?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there have been Tories coming into this House from Newfoundland since 1949, while Members of the NDP have been constant shrinking violets. Now they are not even shrinking. They are not even around any more. There are not any of them in the House.
With respect to the supplementary question asked by the hon. gentleman, you had to be a genius to figure out what the question was, by the way, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could do his best.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree that I flunked out on being a genius.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the great majority of Canadians were delighted to hear the news when President Bush announced the proposed acid rain control legislation.
I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his officials will have a great deal to do with the process. I wonder what are the implications for him in his position and his officials?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation, and I am sure that of other Members in the House, to the Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for his active interest and leadership.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This has been a long fight for Canada waged particularly vigorously over the last four years.
As the Prime Minister indicated, we will be watching very closely the details of the legislation when it comes in. We will be consulting with Senator Mitchell when he is here next week. We will continue to apply the same determination to ensuring that Canada's environment is protected from this point forward that helped contribute to the announcement by President Bush yesterday.

[Translation\


FINANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
As of January 1, 1991 and thanks to his new sales tax, two-thirds of Canadian small businesses will be on the federal sales tax roll.
June 13, 1989

Under the present auditing system, there is one auditor for source deduction, one auditor for sales tax, one auditor for federal income tax, and if we add all the provincial acts and workmen's compensation boards, small businesses spend one-third of their energy responding to audits by various governments.
Could the Minister of Finance give us the assurance, once his new sales tax is introduced, that there will only be one audit at the federal level? I know he doesn't control the provinces, but could he at least give us the assurance that there will be one federal auditor, so that small businesses and businessmen can concentrate on running their operations and producing jobs?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has identified an area that we have been quite concerned about as far as the proposed sales tax reform has developed.
If the Hon. Member would refer to the top of page 26 of The Goods and Services Tax booklet, he will see identified a number of areas that we are proposing to introduce with the goods and services tax proposal that will reduce the compliance burden for the small business community. These have been discussed at some length with the community itself. We believe that this will go a long way to answering the concerns that have been expressed by them.


FEDERAL SALES TAX REFORM-AUDIT SYSTEM
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, if we had to rely on the first phase of tax reform to reduce the paper burden. Small business is concerned about the second phase of tax reform. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has demonstrated veiy clearly that it is against this tax because it will complicate the lives of those in small business.
Will the Minister of Finance commit himself and his Government today that, with the introduction of the new federal sales tax, we will have one system of auditing so that we can assure Canadians who want to start then-own small business that they will get relief from routine and almost daily inquisition by the Department of National Revenue?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is not suggesting that we continue with the existing sales tax.
Oral Questions


Alfonso Gagliano: I am talking about auditing. Do not change the subject.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think the Hon. Member is agreeing with me-


Alfonso Gagliano: I am not agreeing with you. You know better than that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that we should not stay with the existing sales tax because it is a very complex tax for those companies that are participants in that system.
There are 22,000 separate agreements with the 75,000 taxpayers in the existing federal sales tax system. That indicates how arbitrary, complex, and difficult it is for those businesses to comply.
We believe that the proposals we set out in the document we released six weeks ago, which will be broadened with the technical paper that comes out in a few weeks' time, will show very clearly how much we are concerned about this and to what lengths we have gone to reduce the compliance burden for the small business community.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF GILBERT CLEMENTS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Gilbert Clements, Minister of Finance and Environment, Prince Edward Island.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. The Minister knows that he has broken five of his Government's nine guidelines in promising to grant a Canadian bank licence to American Express. No Canadian bank would get similar treatment in the United States. No foreign applicant has ever been granted this type of special treatment before. Why the special treatment for American Express?

June 13, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that in the case of American Express, we are talking about an internationally- known financial institution. Since mid-1986, this institution has been involved in discussions with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, to consider what it must do to meet our standards. So if American Express, as the Hon. Member said, is not regulated in the United States, its bank will be, in Canada, at the appropriate time. We also indicated, in order to enable Parliament to discuss these regulatory proceedings, that we would postpone the granting of letters patent to American Express until after the new legislation of financial institutions has been introduced and debated in the House.


REQUEST FOR CONVERSATIONS WITH AMERICAN EXPRESS OFFICIALS
James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister knows that his officials quite properly held up this request for more than 24 months. The Minister himself was so ashamed of this deal that his Order in Council was held up until the final hour, November 21, 1988, election day.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. James Robinson, Chairman of American Express, coincidentally led the pro-free trade lobby in the United States during Canada's last election.
In light of all these unusual circumstances, will the Minister commit to us and to all Canadians that he will make public all conversations that he or the Prime Minister has had with James Robinson or other American Express officials, conversations leading to this unprecedented deal for special friends?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have had no conversations with Mr. James Robinson or any other American Express officials.
The work that was done was done in the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. As my colleague has said, this particular series of discussions goes back to early 1986, I believe it is, well before the Free Trade Agreement. It was a complex set of discussions. It was for that reason that the negotiations took a long period of time.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries.
Representatives of more than 35,000 fishing industry workers from both coasts are here today to defend their industry and to support the long-standing requirement that Canadian caught fish be processed in Canada. On November 17, 1987, the Minister of Fisheries said:
I give you my assurance those jobs are saved.
Eighteen months later every major fishing industry spokesman states that jobs will be lost. Gutting of the east coast fishery is not far behind.
Will the Minister of Fisheries today repeat his guarantee that no Canadian fish workers will lose their jobs as a result of this Government having put in Canada fish processing regulations on the free trade chopping block?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member, who is the official fishery spokesman for the New Democratic Party, would raise this kind of alarmist charge in the House of Commons.


David Stupich: It is your statement.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange that he has not made such assertions in the many months that he served as critic.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: In fact, the new landing regulations which were the product of extensive consultation with the west coast fishing industry are designed to enhance and preserve the integrity of our management system for the Pacific salmon and herring industry. These measures are GATT consistent and will be proven to be so. They will preserve the jobs and the long-term integrity of this important resource into the future.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I will not say that the Minister was not here when I raised this issue previously, but I will say that another Minister responded on his behalf.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENFORCEMENT OF LANDING REQUIREMENTS
David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's own estimates acknowledge that the Department does not have sufficient numbers of inshore and coastal vessels to carry out enforcement on either coast.
Today we learned that the tracker aircraft fleet that patrols the Atlantic fishery is being phased out. How can the Minister of Fisheries expect that his limited landing requirements will work when patrols are inadequate? Without effective surveillance, how can he ensure that there will be no direct sales to Americans on the fishing grounds?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who should know better spreads alarm and exaggeration with respect to the commitment of this Government to provide adequate support scientifically, enforcement-wise, and management-wise for the fisheries of both coasts.
It is for that reason that we have increased the budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceansin these difficult economic times from $600 million a few years back to well over $750 million, increased enforcement on the Pacific coast from 100 officers in the early 1980s to well over 150 officers, and added helicopters and fixed wing aircraft patrol flights which were never previously operated to manage and enforce our coastal fisheries properly.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Minister said in an article in The Ottawa Citizen on June 8 that the federal Government may hike funds for road construction.
Oral Questions
Will the Minister give this House and all of Canada the assurance that he was serious in his statement to the press and that the provinces and the municipalities can now expect federal assistance in road construction?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am always serious when I make statements to the press or before the House of Commons.
What I said-and I repeat it today-is that we are working at the federal level with the provinces, with the CCMTA which is the group representing the Ministers of Transport of Canada, on a national highway system.
There are three or four different phases. The first was in 1987-88. We are working on another one. Of course we considered, as much at the provincial level as at the federal or national level that something could be done in terms of a highway system. It did not involve at that time, however, putting in more money this year or next year. It was a question of defining the national highway system and working with the provinces to do so.


OTTAWA-HIGHWAY 401 LINK-FEDERAL FUNDING
Jim Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Based on that answer, based on the article in The Ottawa Citizen, and coupled with the Ontario Government's announcement in The Brockville Recorder and Times yesterday that a four-lane highway from the nation's capital to Highway 401 would become a reality much earlier than expected, with the early engineering studies starting this year, will the Minister give his assurance that the federal Government will contribute to the funding of this $340 million project which will facilitate traffic flow in and out of the nation's capital?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am very sympathetic with the Government of Ontario, but I would like to remind my friend that the Government of New Brunswick has put forward a program for $1.6 billion. We have said that it has to be seen within the national perspective.
I cannot give any commitment to the Government of Ontario today other than to say that we all are working together on a national highway policy. We consider that it will be a part of the national transportation policy in the future. However, we could not commit any money and my friend will understand that. Looking at the transportation system in this country, the Government in

Supply
Ottawa is not ready to commit more money to this when we have to deal with our own obligations.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In my riding there are 25,000 senior citizens. Many of them are suffering because of the Budget. According to the Minister's own Budget documents, if interest rates were lowered by 1 per cent, the deficit would be reduced by $1.6 billion. Senior citizens in Canada earning less than $20,000 are paying $567 million in income tax. If the Minister were to request that the Bank of Canada lower the interest rate by one-third of 1 per cent, it would then give seniors a tax free revenue of $20,000. Does the Minister not think this is a better use of resources?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, certainly I think we should look to the Hon. Member for advice on this because I believe he was an adviser to the previous Government when interest rates hit 25 per cent. He is an expert on high interest rates.
The point that he is raising is a serious one. We want to get interest rates down in this country. We made that very clear in the recent Budget. We also said that the Budget itself was designed to give the Governor of the Bank of Canada the scope to reduce interest rates. It is precisely for that reason that we feel we must get the deficit down, so we can get a better balance between interest rate policy and budgetary policy. That is the overriding objective. If we can get the budget deficit down we believe we will see lower interest rates.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt on a single question.


CODE OF ETHICS FOR MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the question of ethics.
It is reported in today's press that a former aide of the former Toiy M.P. Edouard Desrosiers has sworn an affidavit that other Members of Parliament have stolen federal research funds. That casts a pall on all Members of the House.
I want to ask the Prime Minister how soon we can expect from his Government an ethics package that was promised to Parliament and the people of Canada? As long as this kind of charge is left on the record it is a cloud over all Members of the House.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to some very serious allegations which may, in fact, affect all Members of this House. I strongly advise the Hon. Member and all our colleagues that, if they have any knowledge of any actions that may be inappropriate, they have as we all do a duty to transmit all this information to the RCMP so that it can investigate specific cases. I think that is the duty of all the Members of this House.


POINT OF ORDER
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, in my office earlier today I caught the exchange between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Cooper) and the Whip of the Official Opposition. The Opposition Whip and, I must add, the Table, were perfectly correct. My votes in Hansard yesterday are recorded as I intended, yea on the first vote, and I was going to abstain on the amendment and the second vote. I certainly apologize to the Government if my wording confused it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Duhamel:
[Stage Direction]
That this House call upon the Government to take steps to enhance the federal commitment to the support of post-secondary education, scientific and technological development, job training and re-training and the battle against illiteracy, all of which provide the essential foundation for building a strong and competitive future for Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Halifax (Ms. Clancy) had the floor.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, while the financial gain regarding funding for universities has been unfolding, there has been no concomitant re-assessment of our social policy regarding tertiary education. In integrating university education into our policy web, increasingly the Government has begun to equate accessibility to university with universal programs.
The truth is that universities are selective. But they are selective on the basis of aptitude and ability, not on the false premises of wealth, position, sex or cultural background. Every Canadian does not want to go to university. Not every Canadian can or should graduate from a university. Universities are charged particularly with the creative process of education and must be the trustees of change. People still fail to accomplish what universities expect of them, and that is as it should be. That is why we have developed alternative forms of post-secondary education.
In creating the rhetoric of accessibility and social rights with reference to university education, however, we have lost this perspective and come seriously close to undermining the capacity of the institutions to deliver the calibre of education which is fundamental to our future. A part of this argument deals with institutional autonomy which in some minds is in conflict with accountability. Some people are dedicated to proving that the two are not mutually exclusive and that autonomy does not imply licence. Rather, institutional autonomy reflects the need for a university to be free to foster creativity in every sector of endeavour.
It also means that universities must be free to maintain a critical mass of knowledge transfer. In other words, even if society thinks that the only need is for engineers, the university knows that a knowledge of history, of languages and of literature is fundamental to progress in any civilization. This is expensive. One of the best
Supply
epithets I know comes from Derek Bok who said: "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance".
The other truth is that this kind of change cannot be manipulated or managed in the policy sense. You just have to ensure that the context for creativity exists. The creation of that context is not cheap, but it is not something which Canadians have ever balked at paying.
When I started university in 1966, we imported much of our professorate from the United States and we got the Grade B teachers who were not good enough for the Ivy League but fine for the colonies. This theme, unfortunately, has resurfaced and we now hear about the fact that we will not have enough home grown PHDs to staff our universities in the next generation. These cannot be created overnight unless we devalue the principles of credential, although there are a lot of creative possibilities for evolving our educational system so that it is more responsive to social needs and more fully integrated from one level to another.
There is a crucial need for a new national debate on education. The forum on post-secondary education held last year was intended to do this, but it fell far short of the goal. It did gather a lot of obvious representatives but it did not generate the kind of coverage needed by any of the participants and has not resulted in the kind of discussions that would lead to a re-assessment of where tertiary education fits in our social priority, let alone what it is.
Such a debate must be encouraged. It must be rigorous and critical. The rhetoric of the 1960s must be replaced by a fuller understanding of what the options and requirements are, including funding and a government commitment to supply that funding. We have to know the timeframes and the adaptations that universities are making to contemporary demands. As difficult as it is, we must come to some collective understanding of what we want the educated Canadian of the future to be. We need a strong co-operative plan of action and we need it now. We cannot afford budget cuts that threaten our educational and thus our cultural future.


Mr. Reid:: Madam Speaker, as usual, I have listened with great interest to the comments of my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Halifax (Ms. Clancy). Whereas in the past she has been correct, there is no sense to this nonsense, in this case she has made very good sense on a number points, particularly as she has rightly said that

June 13, 1989
Supply
there is much that must be done in this country in what I know as post-secondary education. Tertiary is another word over five letters and I am lost. Is it the same thing?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Yes. Third level.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Thank you. The question we all face is having an education system that suits and meets the needs of a country that must grow technologically and must meet the demands of the future, with a workforce and population that has the capability of not only to deal with those challenges but increase our capability.
There has been some discussion of the Saskatoon conference which in itself was a landmark event in this country. While the Hon. Member points out that she would like to see perhaps more come from Saskatoon, or more come from another conference that would have followed on from Saskatoon, it is only fair to point out that there were a number of provinces in this country that objected to Saskatoon even happening.
It is a fundamental of our system that the provinces control education and not a situation which I particularly would want to change. The needs of the individual provinces vary greatly. The history, the culture and the educational demands are such that the provinces should maintain that control.
Recognizing that this is a very fundamental point to a number of provincial governments-perhaps not the Hon. Member's own but governments of some provinces-and recognizing that Saskatoon was a great step, I wonder if she advocates the use of the financial power, for instance, such as we use under the National Health Act, to bring provinces along or to bring provinces in line? If not, how does she reconcile the concern of Liberal governments across this country that the federal Government not meddle in any form of education, primary, secondary, tertiary or post-secondary? I would hate to find the Hon. Member buried in one of her own sepulchres.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. Reid) made several very good points to which I would like to respond.
First, if he had been listening, he would have heard me say that the time has come for change which can only take place through sensitive negotiation between both levels of government as to the path which post-secondary or tertiary, whichever term you prefer, education will take.
My hon. friend also made note of the question of technology in the field of education. I would like to comment on that as well. I noted myself in my earlier comments that technology is the chic area for people looking at the post-secondary-I will use that term as opposed to tertiary today in deference to my hon. friend's sensitivities-but I remind him of the title of an old poem called, "Bread and Roses", and the fact that along with the bread of technology we need the roses of language, literature and other cultural and political pursuits. I would suggest that he not forget those.
I would also suggest to my hon. friend, as he comes from the same hard-pressed region as I do, that we have many universities in our Atlantic region. All of our universities are suffering. Yes, possibly too many. Certainly in my own riding, which has six universities and one on the outskirts, all of those universities play a unique role. There is indeed a place for each one of them. Every single one of them is suffering. They are suffering with physical plants that are falling apart. They are suffering with the highest tuition rates in the country. They are suffering with the lowest salaries for their faculty. They are suffering on research grants. They are suffering on equipment, et cetera. None of this is news to my hon. friend.
What I am saying to my hon. friend is that the time has come, if we are to have post-secondary education, education generally as a national priority, then we have to sit down and make a plan and see where we are going. It cannot be done by the provinces alone.
The Hon. Member's province cannot afford to fund post-secondary education, neither can my province, Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick. For the rest of the country, I am not sure. They have to look at their problems. I have looked at the ones in our region. Those are the realities which we face and we understand them.
To merely say that education is a provincial responsibility and not a federal responsibility and therefore put blinders on and no longer even look at the situation is to
June 13, 1989

abdicate our responsibility. I know that this is not what my hon. friend had in mind. It certainly is not what the Members on this side had in mind.
After eight years of teaching in a university, I have seen what the problems are, as many of my hon. friends on the other side have seen them as well. What we need is a sensible plan, one that which is sensitive to the problems-constitutional, physical, salary, et cetera- that assault our universities on a daily basis. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue for the future of our country. It is one which needs action instantly.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for York North.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Madam Speaker, the world is in constant change: Glasnost, Solidarity's election win in Poland, AIDS, reproductive technology, the recent student riots in China for democracy. At home we have free trade, our aging population and a post-secondary education system in serious trouble. Important developments in our nation, indeed our world, will experience many changes in the 1990s as we get ready to face the challenges of the twenty-first century.
It is ironic, therefore, that today in the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada we are debating an issue which is so fundamental to meeting the future needs of this country that one would think that a government would have had the vision to address it before it became an issue on an opposition day in Parliament.
Clearly, the question we must ask is: What is our Government doing to prepare Canada to meet these future challenges? The answer, sadly, is: Not as much as it can and not nearly as much as it must.
Today, I speak to the motion which condemns the Government for its destructive and inadequate policies affecting post-secondary education, research and development, training, re-training, illiteracy and its failure to provide the necessary funding to these areas which are vital to Canada's future.
It is obvious from listening to the Speech from the Throne and the Budget that the current Government simply lacks the commitment and ability to summon a vision for Canada to carry toward the twenty-first century.
Supply
Indeed, the Government's vision of Canada at no time looks more than four years ahead to the next election. The Government's vision is a vision for Canada based on an electoral map.
The people of Canada are dealing with change. They want, need and expect government to lead the way. Education should be treated as a vital national and international priority. The relative economic strength of nations has always been determined by their ability to educate and train their people. That is truer today than it has ever been in the past.
Education is vital to Canada's future. However, you could never tell that by looking at federal Government policies and programs. Indeed, Canada's per capita investment in post-secondary education is less than it was five years ago.
Federal cuts in shared cost programs with the provinces have reduced funding to post-secondary education equal to the total budgets of the University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia, the University of Alberta, McGill and Dalhousie. When quality education is more important than ever, the federal Government has chosen to cut back. The Government must begin to wake up to the reality of this nation and this world. Today we live in a technological age. Our economy is information-based and we do business in a global market-place.
Canada's youth today must have a future and must be able to deal with the challenges of the global village. Regardless of their chosen field of study and career orientation, our youth must be well educated and have a thorough understanding of the math, science and technology and, at the same time, a knowledge and awareness of the humanities and social sciences. As the countries and markets draw closer and closer together, communication among people becomes more and more important. Our young people must be able to communicate so that our message does not get lost.
When we consider the unbelievably fast pace that this world is moving in, the increasing flow of information, goods and services, financial transactions among nations, continuous flow of discussion, debate, compromise, agreements between nations, it is only logical that the nation which better trains, educates and provides opportunity for higher learning will undoubtedly have an economic, social, cultural and political advantage. Investing in our universities is absolutely crucial to meeting

June 13, 1989
Supply
the demands of the global village, the village whose reality must be addressed in a serious way.
When we think of post-secondary education, we must realize that it is the way to open doors for future generations. We cannot build a strong, prosperous society in financial, social and cultural terms if we as a people are not able to understand the world around us. Post-secondary education gives our people the opportunity to become more and more masters of our own destiny. As a country, we must realize that knowledge is power and it is extremely necessary in maintaining self-determination as a nation in global affairs. An educated people is the answer to the challenges facing us today and in the future.
My concern is that we are not doing things we have to do to ensure Canada's ability to master the challenges it faces. The Government's answer to this reality that I expressed earlier is the following: Despite the obvious economic and social benefits associated with a highly educated population, Canada's universities are currently experiencing severe financial problems.
In 1986, the Government passed Bill C-96 which reduced the growth rate of transfers to the provinces by 2 per cent over five years, 1986-1987 to 1990-1991. The Government would have saved approximately $5.7 billion. The portion of financing for post-secondary education that was to be cut amounted to $1.6 billion. As if that were not enough, the Tory Government, beginning in 1990-1991, will further reduce the growth rate of the Established Programs Financing transfers to the provinces by 1 per cent.
Given the free trade deal environment and the need to be able to compete with our neighbour across the border-indeed everyone in the global market-place- we must for all the more reason be sure that we have a well educated workforce and a competitive economy. All this occurs at a time when enrolment and the need for post-secondary education is at its peak.
In the near future in Canada, almost half the new jobs will require more than five years of combined education and training above and beyond high school. Reduced funding for post-secondary education will seriously threaten its quality and accessibility. Without increased government support for post-secondary education and the development of strategy for post-secondary education and training, our youth will not be able to face the challenges of the years to come. Rather than compete in
the world, we will slowly fall farther and farther behind our competitors, such as the United States, West Germany and Japan.
Disorganization and lack of leadership has marked the Tory Government's attempt to deal with the deficit crisis. What has happened now is that our youth have to pay for it. The deficit, in budgetary terms, is obvious to all. Now what has become also apparent is a deficit of solutions. Future accessibility to our universities is in jeopardy.
I would like to conclude my remarks by requesting that the Government fulfil immediately its promises to provide sufficient increased support for post-secondary education, research and development, training and retraining programs which constitute the cornerstones of a strong, competitive Canadian society. I want to give back to young Canadians the dreams of our forefathers, the dreams and goals that brought people to this country and made us a great nation: The dreams of freedom, dignity, fulfilment and perhaps the greatest dream of all, the dream of equality and accessibility. Equality and equal opportunity to learn, equal opportunity to work and equal opportunity to succeed.
Thus, I call on the Government and my colleagues to recognize the importance of this issue. We cannot go from here where we want to go and where we want to be unless we begin to put programs in place and into effect and realize the importance of post-secondary education.
We are a resource rich country here in Canada, but the greatest resource of all is our people, especially our youth. It is now time to make education the number one priority. We cannot afford to block the major artery to Canada's future.


Mrs.   Duplessis@: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Bevilacqua) for taking part in the debate and I would like to remind him that it is not only a question of money, because he stressed the reduction in transfer payments. As far as my department is concerned, the Department of Science and Technology, I think that we have done a lot. His colleague just said that we had to change. I think that the change has begun, because the Minister of Science and Technology and all the other ministers of science and technology throughout the country have signed a policy to train all young people across the land, so that in all provinces, young people will have an equal opportunity, all Canadians will have the same chance to
June 13, 1989

enter useful occupations that can improve the quality of life for Canadians.
I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that this national policy that the ministers of science and technology adopted involves asking industry to cooperate much more in training young people to meet the needs of industry.
We have noticed, Madam Speaker, that students naturally go into the social sciences and humanities; they go more for medicine than for science. On the other hand, we have noticed that what sometimes gives other countries an advantage over ours is that many more people go into scientific disciplines, Madam Speaker.
I would therefore like to ask the Hon. Member for York North what evidence he has to support his statements that we are not interested in university research, when the facts speak for themselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think the Hon. Member meant to ask a question of the Hon. Member for York North.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, what really concerns me about the question and the comments made by the Hon. Member is that they are focusing into a particular area. However, I think that my speech was all encompassing as far as a philosophy and as far as a method and a vision for education as it relates to building our country.
The Hon. Member stated that in other countries there is a certain focus given to an education policy. I think that the most important thing is that students should also have the liberty to choose exactly what they want to do. To the point raised by the Hon. Member, if that is indeed the direction that this Government would like to take, then why have we not seen, for example, the development or any talk of a national apprenticeship program on that side of the House? As you know, in the past election, the Liberal Party of Canada went right across the country stating that we indeed require a national
Supply
apprenticeship program. So I think that we are in agreement.
We can speak of certain issues and what we have done in positive ways, but the reality is that this Government has developed a tunnel vision approach when it comes to the deficit. In reality, what it is really concerned about is the deficit of solutions and deficit of ideas to address the problem of the deficit. The reality, as I said earlier, is the fact that transfer payments to the provinces have been decreased once again. As I have mentioned, to the tune of almost $1.6 billion for education. So you cannot as a Government begin to take credit for a very small portion of the program on the one hand while on the other hand leaving some people out in the cold and not allowing them accessibility to a post-secondary education. We as a people and as a Government have a moral obligation toward students and young people. I think that post-secondary education should be looked at as a right, not a privilege. It is a right of citizenship. That is the way in which we as a country should be directing our resources in terms of our vision of Canada.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the Government's commitment to support post-secondary education and literacy. It is my first opportunity in this session to address the House. It gives me an opportunity to reflect quietly on November 21 and the visions set out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that day, his concerns for continuing to build a caring society, the vision for the future and the pathway to the 21st century. It also gives me the opportunity to say how pleased I am to be the Member of Parliament for Pierrefonds-Dollard, encompassing the cities of Ste-Genevieve, ile-Bizard, Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Pierre-fonds and Roxboro the so-called North Shore area of the West Island. Also, I would like to say how pleased I am to be able to work on behalf of and with the Government in areas of restoring and giving greater equality and social justice.
Yes, there was restraint. Yes, we did share the burden. Yes, we did believe that we could not continue to pass on the debts to future generations and that we had to do something about them now. However, we have a considerable program available-and some $450 million for

June 13, 1989
Supply
these programs of equality and social justice in the areas of official languages, women's programs, minority and cultural communities and natives. In fact, we will be having more program funding for the disadvantaged and the doubly disadvantaged. Certainly, we are touching on one of those areas today. Thus I am very pleased to have this opportunity to be before the House today.
Our record is a solid one in both the areas that we are discussing today, our commitment to post-secondary education and literacy. As I will show, we have maintained and enhanced our support to all aspects of higher education and literacy because we understand the importance of Canada's human resources, both to our social and to our economic development.
Our basic commitment was set out in the Throne Speech of October, 1986. It is one from which we have not deviated.
We said then that the Government was committed to supporting with the provinces and the territories a system of post-secondary education based on excellence and equality of opportunity. These twin themes of excellence and equality of opportunity run through the initiatives we have taken to support higher education for the past few years. As well, they are the basis for our continued commitment to co-operation with the provincial Governments and for the funding we provide through federal-provincial transfers.
I might just quickly note that I kept hearing from the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Bevilacqua) about decreases. I do not know how more money can ever be a decrease. To me, more money is always an increase. We are maintaining our commitment to support post-secondary education. Our transfers for PSE and health will increase by $1 billion from 1989-90 to 1990-91. Over the next five years the EPF will provide $25 billion more than over the past five years. That is an increase in any language.
I would now like to give an overview of the federal role in providing financial support to post-secondary education. This has evolved over time and now encompasses four main expenditure areas. They are contributions to the provinces and territories for general assistance to post-secondary education, usually called Established
Programs Financing or EPF; support for research, some by federal Departments, but the bulk via the three research granting councils, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; student financial assistance, primarily by means of the Canada Student Loans Program but also through awards provided by a variety of federal Departments and agencies; and other direct federal responsibilities such as the higher education of Armed Forces personnel, of inmates in federal correctional institutions and of Canadian Indians and Inuit.
For 1989-90 it is estimated that the total amount of federal government support in these four areas will be in the neighbourhood of $7 billion. When one considers that Canada now spends over $12 billion annually on post-secondary education, the significance of the federal government support becomes readily apparent.
About 75 per cent of the $7 billion is provided to the provinces and territories by means of tax and cash transfers under the EPF. There was some element of doubt expressed by Members opposite as to where we stood in terms of the world, with respect to how we were competing aggressively and competitively with the world about us and in terms of how we were maximizing the use of our human resources. From what I have been advised, we are second in the world in terms of PSE participation, close behind the United States. We are one of the three highest countries in terms of education spending, very close to Sweden and The Netherlands.
We must, of course, be concerned that we stay in the forefront of developed nations. That is why we are stressing post-secondary education based on excellence and equality of opportunity. Our program of Canada scholarships and centres of excellence, plus our support for granting councils are important contributions to excellence in science, research and higher education.
On the subject of EPF, I would like to stress that the federal transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and health are not only very large, but are still growing substantially. Following the recent Budget, it is estimated that EPF transfers will continue to grow at a rate of nearly 5 per cent annually.
June 13, 1989

To be more specific, it is estimated that the total value of the EPF transfers for health and post-secondary education will be $19.8 billion in 1989-90 and $20.9 billion in 1990-91. EPF will provide $25 billion more to the provinces over the next five years than over the last five years.
Of these totals the federal legislation identifies some 29 per cent as being in respect of post-secondary education. Translated into dollars, this means that the post-secondary share of EPF is expected to be about $5.7 billion in 1989-90 and $6 billion in 1990-91, up from $4.2 billion in 1984-85.

In other words, federal contributions to post-secondary education are extremely generous and increasing steadily. In the same area, other major federal support programs were spared during the latest budget cutbacks, and I am referring to the Canada Student Loans Program, the Official Languages in Education Program and also the Canada Scholarship Program and the centres of excellence.
At this point, perhaps I may offer more detailed information that will give a clear picture of our commitment to supporting post-secondary education. In this respect, the latest updated information may be found in the 1987-88 Report on Federal and Provincial Support to Post-Secondary Education, tabled in the House on April 7 this year.
In addition to established programs financing, the federal Government provides financial support to the provinces and the territories so that they can pay the additional cost involved in maintaining and developing official language minority education programs and second official language teaching at all levels: primary, secondary and post-secondary.
Bilateral agreements, representing a total of $199 million in 1987-88, provide the framework for contributions made under the Official Languages in Education Program. These contributions total $57.2 million at the post-secondary level.
In addition to these contributions, the federal Government provides direct assistance to the provinces and territories. A total of $18.1 million has been granted for
Supply
other activities such as the Summer Language Bursary Program and the Monitor Program.

With respect to student assistance, under the Canada Student Loan Act, the federal Government provides loan guarantees to post-secondary students with demonstrated need. The main feature of the Canada Student Loans Program is the fact that the federal Government pays the interest on these loans while the students continue full-time studies and for six months afterward. In 1987-1988, the total value of new loans was $589 million. The cost of interest on outstanding loans plus program expenses was $211 million in 1987-1988. In addition, the federal Government paid $77 million as an alternative payment to Quebec as that province has always opted out of the program since its inception in 1964.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that a wide variety of federal Departments and agencies also provide scholarships, bursaries, fellowships and other support to post-secondary education students for a total of $143.4 million. The federal Government also provided close to $600 million in 1987-88 for university research, about $500 million of which went to the three research granting councils. The remaining sums came from the federal Departments and agencies that provided grants and contributions related to their own areas of responsibility by contracting out research required for their own internal purposes and by providing other research-related services.
Finally, in respect of its constitutional responsibilities for education, the federal Government spent a total of $104.1 million for its three military colleges, its Canadian Coast Guard college and for post-secondary education courses for federal inmates. As well, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs spent $73.6 million in support of native post-secondary education in 1987-1988.
To summarize, the federal Government makes transfers to the provinces and territories under the EPF arrangements and the official languages and education protocols. It provides direct support to post-secondary students either through loan guarantees or awards such as scholarships and bursaries. Mainly through the work of the research granting councils, it provides support to university research and it assumes its own constitutional responsibilities for education.

June 13, 1989
Supply

The federal Government plays a very active role in this respect because it sees itself as a partner in supporting post-secondary education, and as such, it pursues the following objectives: to encourage institutions to offer programs and services that are in line with broad national objectives such as official languages, multicul-turalism and promoting the status of women; to provide financial assistance to the provinces through the established programs financing system, enabling them to provide accessible and high quality post-secondary education; to provide financial assistance for research and development; and finally, to fulfil its own constitutional obligations with respect to the education of Native peoples, armed forces personnel and other specific groups.
In line with these broad national objectives, the Government, as I said earlier, maintains its focus on excellence and equality of opportunity.
I am sure Hon. Members will understand that, for the sake of Canada's future, we must do everything we can to help our colleges and universities aim for excellence in education. The future of our country is at stake, if we want to keep up with an increasingly competitive world.
Making post-secondary education accessible should also remain one of our major concerns. We already have one of the most open and most accessible systems in the world, and we must maintain our emphasis on equality of opportunity.

Let me outline some of the achievements of the Government in the field of post-secondary education over the past two years. We held the first national forum on post-secondary education, an historic collaboration of federal and provincial Governments with universities, colleges, the private sector and other interests. We organized, under the sponsorship of the Prime Minister the first national conference on technology and innovation, much of which was focused on the contribution of higher education and university research to Canada's competitiveness.
The Canada Scholarships Program has been introduced to encourage 2,500 of our brightest young men and women to enter science or engineering each year. The Centres of Excellence program will provide $240 million to support projects that will enhance our ability
to compete internationally. Doubling the number of CIDA sponsored students and trainees will benefit both our own higher education system and the countries which receive our aid. Our support for a French language college in Ontario and le college de l'Acadie in Nova Scotia will improve opportunities for francophones outside Quebec to study in their own language at the post-secondary level.
These examples show that the Government is already fully committed to supporting post-secondary education for Canada's future. Let me now turn to the Government's commitment to tackling the problem of illiteracy.
Illiteracy is a national problem. In every town and village, every region and district, every city and metropolitan area in Canada, there are men and women who cannot function in everyday life because they cannot read and write. Two years ago, Southam News commissioned a survey which revealed for the first time the full extent of illiteracy in Canada. I remember being shocked by the survey's findings. I know every Member of this House was equally shocked, equally dismayed and equally determined to end illiteracy.

Illiteracy is expensive! According to a study by a business task force, it causes annual losses of around $4 billion in the private sector and $10 billion in Canadian society as a whole.
However, the cost is highest at the personnal level: there are men and women who cannot read the newspaper or make sense of the bus timetable; they cannot take a full and active part in community life.

The road to literacy is one shared by all of us. The road to literacy is not followed exclusively by one level of Government. It is not followed by one political Party. It is not followed by the private sector alone. It is a road of partnership, of shared effort and of shared energy.
On September 8, 1988 we announced that the federal Government would be one partner among many in the journey on the road to literacy and we are working with many partners. Two weeks ago, the Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador said in its Speech from the Throne that it was committing greater provincial resources to literacy. Advisory councils and task forces have been set up in Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia to work with the provincial Governments on literacy. Ontario, New
June 13, 1989

Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the two territories have all increased spending on literacy programs.
Quebec has passed legislation guaranteeing all adults the right to complete their secondary education. There is no limit on age or level of financing. This measure, which is unique in Canada, will help to increase literacy in the province.

I notice you signalling, Madam Speaker. I am deeply appreciative of having had an opportunity to work in these particular areas. The issue of literacy is an important one for all of us. We have now developed a very important partnership with the provinces, with those dedicated people who have worked in the field for countless years, very often strangers in the wind, looking for an oasis in the desert. We have been more supportive of those groups. We have found new partnerships to build on. We are now bringing forward initiatives with the business and labour movements and with the voluntary sector. Having 25 per cent of Canadians functionally illiterate is shocking, intolerable and it is something we must work to eradicate.
We will continue to do everything we can through the programs in my Ministry, programs that will be working to provide greater equality and social justice. We will do all that we can to make sure that this becomes a more open, more accessible, more understanding society and that we continue to be a country of freedom and opportunity which will continue to give all of the members of our community a full opportunity to participate. It is then and only then, Madam Speaker, that we can really take our place and say that ours is the great country of the 21st century able to challenge other countries of the world in the knowledge that we are much more effective and productive when we use the full capacity and full potential of all Canadians.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Prince George- Bulkley Valley.


Mr. Gardiner:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his comments. I have a brief comment to make and a question to put to the Minister.
The Minister will know that I forwarded to him earlier in the year a report that had been prepared by residents of the Prince George, B.C. area who are arguing for a university in that community. I will be making some comments on that later in the afternoon. I appreciated the information which the Minister provided to me.
My question relates to the transfer payments to the provinces. There have been allegations, perhaps across the country but certainly in British Columbia, that the provincial Government has perhaps used those funds since they have not been, as has been put, tagged to be spent on education and health care. In fact, in British Columbia from the Social Credit Government the charges are that health and education money has been used for pavement on highways.
Has his Department done any studies to establish whether those charges are, in fact, correct? If his Department has, would the Minister be prepared to make them available to the House?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague recognizes that significant funds are transferred and, indeed, we are hopeful that they are being fully used. We realize that there is a lot of goodwill involved here. We work in close collaboration with CMEC, the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. We have a very good relationship with all of the Ministers of Education. We meet from time to time. There is a genuine feeling on the part of us all who serve at any level of Government to continue to make sure that our young people are the most competitive in the world, the best trained and the funds being advanced in this particular area are used for the purposes that they are intended.
The Member is certainly in the knowledge that this is somewhat of a complicated nation, that there are jurisdictional differences and it takes, as a great Quebecer, Frank Scott, once said: "When you deal with issues of this type it takes realism and goodwill. It takes co-operation, not confrontation." We will continue to work

June 13, 1989
Supply
actively with our provincial colleagues for the delivery of service, which is their jurisdictional area, but certainly as I indicated in my comments this afternoon, we have a vital interest. We want to make sure that Canadians and young Canadians are completely qualified and competent and can challenge anybody in the world today.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I did not hear the answer coming through as forcefully as I would have liked it.
On several occasions all across the country, university professors as well as student federations have called upon the federal Government to introduce some sort of a mechanism whereby whenever they are putting money toward education and passing it on to the provinces that that money be used for education. Unfortunately, that has not happened as of yet.
I want to just quote from an article published by The Ottawa Citizen today, contrary to what the Minister was saying "that we are fairly well equipped internationally to compete", which quotes a statement of Lynn Burton who is a senior adviser to the Prime Minister's National Advisory Board on Science and Technology.
To be quite blunt, Canada is ill-prepared for the new world
competition and for the changing environment.
She goes on to state:
-that figures from the 22-country Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development show that Canada lags in several key areas, including employee productivity, vocational training, quality of skilled workers and worker motivation.
That is true. We have been saying these things for years. When the Hon. Member was on the opposite side of the House he made those statements. We are both saying today that illiteracy is one of the major causes of lack of international competitiveness when it comes to Canadian society.
Unless we make education a national priority, unless we make illiteracy a national issue and we deal with those who think on that basis, we will be spinning our wheels in the air. It is very important that the Minister start addressing this issue with a little more seriousness than just telling us about the federal commitment to educational illiteracy. I know the funds are there. I know the Minister made a statement over the past two years to put some money toward illiteracy. He has set up an agency. He is doing very well and I have to commend him on that.
Since we have all of this confusion would the Minister be prepared to set up a national strategy to deal with education, namely, a National Education Act whereby you can set standards? We can set the bible for the provinces to follow. We can set the ABCs on how we want to see our kids prepared for the future.
In my view, no way can we carry on in the international market the way we are now with over 70 per cent geared toward the service sector rather than the manufacturing sector.
I would appreciate if the Minister would respond.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate my hon. colleague's recognition of the great progress we have made in fighting illiteracy. It was this Government that last September brought a $110 million program forward. I recognize that the Member might say "What's $110 million in an over-all field of $50 billion?", but that is very significant. We not only set up a small secretariat of veiy, very dedicated officers who are working well on the initiative, but we brought forward initiatives with the provinces and the territories. I was able to sign agreements with nine provinces and two territories by the end of March of the last fiscal year. Prince Edward Island, I believe, is the only one that we missed out on. We were not quite ready with them. We have agreements with Quebec, Ontario and all of the other provinces building new partnerships. In each one of those cases new funds were advanced for new projects and new community commitments to help eradicate illiteracy.
We went further. We are now building partnerships with the business people, with labour organizations, with new participants, individuals who were not involved in the so-called literacy movement before but we have not forgotten the dedicated volunteers who worked for decades on the issue, often without any helping hand.
As far as The Ottawa Citizen is concerned, while I have not seen the article personally, I would want whoever wrote it to be able to reflect also on the information that I have been given as advice that we are one of the three top countries in terms of educational spending. We rank with Sweden and The Netherlands. We are second in the world in terms of post-secondary education, very close behind the United States. We do not have to be ashamed of anything that our young people are doing. We are the equal of anyone in the world today. In fact, when we make full use of all our citizens by letting us all be completely involved, which is what I work for in another

area of my endeavour, on the multicultural and citizenship side, watch how much more productive, competitive and effective we will be.
On a recent trip I had the opportunity to visit a company operated by two individuals who had come into this country in the early 1950s from Germany without two nickels to rub together. They are now running a business which employs 800 people who have come from 50 different cultural communities. That company is doing $50 million to $70 million worth of business, and looking forward to doing $150 million worth of business in the future. That is the type of competitiveness that we are developing.
What am I doing? We work very actively with the provincial Ministers in the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada Committee. We have initiatives and aims in common. There is no confrontation. This is co-operation. All of us recognize the need and the ability to deliver better by working together. The national forum was a focus that brought forward important initiatives. I will be meeting with my colleagues, the provincial Ministers, in the very near future and certainly will continue to look for ways to build a stronger and better system together.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to have this opportunity to speak on this motion that in many respects deals with our responsibility as leaders in Canada to the youth of this country and to the students of this country. There is a distinction there, Madam Speaker, as more and more of today's students, although they may claim youthfulness, as you and I do ourselves, are much less youthful than students of previous generations.
The decisions made now will provide for the foundations of a strong Canadian economy, a country that will be equipped and able to compete globally, whose people have the necessary educational background and technical skills, as well as the intellectual skills that will enable us to compete in the changing global economy.
This is a particularly timely motion. As universities and colleges were in the process of winding down their regular academic terms, it was announced in the federal Budget that transfer payments to the provinces for
Supply
health and post-secondary education would once again be capped.
At the same time, the Government is creating the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology which is intended to have the purpose of stimulating and being responsible for science, research and development in Canada
Finally, the Government has introduced Bill C-16 to create the Canadian Space Agency. At the same time, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in openly contemptuous remarks, criticizes the very people who will be the foundation of that new agency for expressing hesitation about moving their families from the areas where they live to the south shore of Montreal.
Previously, I have spoken in the House on the Government's rhetoric in the area of science and technology. It has a lot of rhetoric, and I believe it is mostly good. Unfortunately, the substance has not been particularly grasped, nor has it been shown to have action to follow it. After all, it was the Prime Minister of Canada who, in the September, 1987 edition of the University Teacher's Bulletin wrote: "This Government stands ready to co-operate fully with the provinces and all others involved in post-secondary education and will help create and maintain a system of higher education capable of meeting the challenges facing Canada."
In the light of that statement by the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, I invite you to accompany me on a brief journey across Canada to some of the post-secondary educational institutions on which we rely.
First, let us visit Memorial University in Newfoundland, the first and largest university in that province. At first glance one cannot help but notice how well it is used, or perhaps overused. Memorial University was built to accommodate 7,000 students. It now attempts to educate 12,000 students.
In Nova Scotia, one is struck by the fact that tuition costs are the highest in the country. That is a reflection of the fact that over the last 12 years tuition has doubled in this country. In British Columbia, tuition has tripled.
In Ontario, at the University of Toronto, join me in a fight to get a seat in Psychology 100. For the information of Members, the lecture is held in Convocation Hall. At the University of Windsor, the library selection has so badly deteriorated that students have been referred by

June 13, 1989
Supply
their professors to Wynne University or the University of Michigan to do their research and reading.
At Carleton University in Ottawa, from which I am proud to have graduated, biologists are using outdated equipment in their labs, making measurements unreliable and morale very low.
In British Columbia, it is not uncommon for students to arrive in September to register for classes only to find there is no room for them. What is as crazy as the campus of Kwantlen College in Surrey, British Columbia? It is a campus composed entirely of portables. I am told the only thing that is permanent on the campus is the sign.
At the University of Regina, buckets are dispersed throughout the buildings to catch the rain. This is only a reflection of the larger problem of underfunding in that institution. It is clear that we have compromised our educational system.
In 1864, Theodore Rand, the Superintendent of Education for Nova Scotia stated words which are still appropriate today: "Is not education in fact the power of the people to make all the resources of their countiy tributaiy to their interests and comforts? And is not this the most obvious and prominent distinguishing feature between an educated and an uneducated people-the power of the former, and the powerlessness of the latter, to develop the resources of nature and providence, and make them subservient to human interests and enjoyments?"
There is no question of the importance of science, engineering and technology to Canada as we move into this globally competitive market-place. There is also no question of the problems we face. In the past in the House we have talked of the ratio of research and development expenditures to Gross Domestic Product. The Prime Minister promised to increase it to 2.5 per cent from where it currently resides at around 1.4 per cent. The GERD ratio, as it is called, is a misleading indicator. It may indicate that we do have a problem, but there are other things that are more significant.
There is a lack of industrial research in Canada. There is a flagging commitment to government research and to basic fundamental research. There is a massive trade
deficit in high technology and medium technology goods. To me, those factors are perhaps more important than the ratio of research and development expenditures themselves, much as we would like to increase that.
Post-secondaiy education and Canadian universities are key to Canada's competitiveness and ability to do fundamental research. There are very serious problems in addition to the ones that my example suggested. There is the research capability. The number of research scientists and engineers in our universities is largely determined by the teaching requirements of the institutions. Those have remained pretty static since the early 1970s with the consequence that our university engineers and scientists are now middle-aged. They are not yet at retirement age. We have gone through a period of years when people holding PhDs have had difficulty finding positions in Canada. As this group of scientists and engineers reach retirement, we will have difficulty replacing them. Therefore, we are going from the problem of having a shortage of jobs for our PhD holders to the reverse problem of an inadequate number of PhD doctors to fill the university positions.
There is underfunding for basic research. I wish to refer the House to the report of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology formed by the Prime Minister. In its university committee report it states on page 43:
Because of inadequate funding, individuals and groups at the forefront of their disciplines in Canadian universities cannot undertake venturesome and leading-edge research projects. Success is likely to be achieved late in the process, only after leading foreign research universities have established their pre-eminence in new scientific trajectories.
Few large groups of scientists thrive in Canadian universities. When a notable innovation is achieved, the advantage tends to be lost shortly after to better-funded groups abroad who are in a position to exploit the opportunities it can provide.
We lack a policy in Canada on what might be called big science, major projects. When do we fund them and with what resources? What resources are directed from other scientific endeavours? We face the problem of obsolescence in our laboratory facilities in the universities. The estimates of the need to raise the level of our scientific and technological equipment to a satisfactory level have been massive. The National Sciences and Engineering Research Council estimated $50 million per year is

required. In fact, we have been spending $10 million to $15 million per year.
The problems are massive. We need certainly the renegotiation of the EPF arrangements. We need to increase the budgets of the granting councils. We need to increase research funds available to the environmental sciences. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, we need to integrate our endeavours in science, research and development with those of the industrial sector as well as our concerns about maintaining a clean and healthy environment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments?


Mrs.   Duplessis@: Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by the Hon. Member for Ottawa South; he said that the universities' equipment was completely outdated and that this problem occurred all over the country.
I think that the Government is aware of this problem. That is why, in its Inovaction program, the Canadian science and technology strategy, the Government, together with the provinces, set up a task force to deal with this problem and other related matters. It will certainly have solutions to suggest to us.
It is important for us too that universities have facilities with the latest technology. We think it is absolutely essential for the students and the researchers who must follow the students' progress very closely.
I would like to say to the Hon. Member that the centres of excellence program is one way. The $240 million that the Government has allocated for centres of excellence is a way for the universities and researchers to get the very sophisticated equipment that they need. But of course, they must apply for it and you know very well, Madam Speaker, that a committee is now dealing with the selection of the centres of excellence.
Supply
But I want to say to Hon. Members that this is an approach for researchers and I think that those people are very aware of it and they have been very enthusiastic in making proposals to the Government.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member, because I heard him criticize and say that the Government was not giving enough money to this and that; I would like the Hon. Member to tell me whether he and the members of his party would be in favour of increasing the deficit to give the money that is being requested all over the place. That is the question I have for my hon. colleague.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for her question.
First, I agree that the centres of excellence program is a good one. It was developed by Mr. Peterson's government in Ontario and it is now being applied by the federal Government. I believe that this program has a lot of merit.
Concerning the deficit-

With regard to the deficit, this is a very important issue. I know that nobody on this side would trivialize the importance of the deficit. As it was said earlier this morning, if you think education is expensive, you ought to check out the price of ignorance. There are some things in Canada that should be regarded not as expenses but as investments. It is absolutely essential to the future well-being of Canada that we adequately fund our educational institutions. There can be no other choice. We talk about the problem of the deficit putting the expenditures of today onto future generations. What a burden we put onto future generations if we burden them with ignorance. Therefore, although I think the deficit is an important issue, I think that the deficit that exists in our intellectual development, in our scientific and technological endeavours and engineering vis-a-vis the rest of the industrialized world is much more serious to Canadians and to our future than is the financial deficit.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, my question will be short and I want to put it to my hon. friend from Ottawa South. It has to do with his remarks earlier about facing the possibility of a shortage of scientists and engineers somewhere down the road. I am simply wondering whether it is a matter of throwing money at the problem. I know that our hon. friends across the way would

June 13, 1989
Supply
suggest at times that we are not sensitive to the deficit or to the Budget and that we would like to just spend money like drunken sailors. I do not think that is the case. But I want to ask my friend from Ottawa South, is it a matter of just throwing money at the problem? Will it go away by throwing money at it or is the problem much more complex than that?


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I just have a short answer!

No, we cannot solve the problem by simply throwing money at it. It is a complex problem, but money is part of the solution. If we are going to attract more students into the natural and engineering sciences, we need to ensure that we have job opportunities for them at the conclusion of their educational careers. It was not much of an incentive to undertake a very arduous program such as science or engineering with the prospect at the end of not finding work and having to go off to the United States.
As for the problem that will likely arise in the 1990s of an inadequate supply of Ph.D scientists and engineers in Canada, I think we need to address also the problem of the funding of our facilities ensuring that we have adequate lab and research facilities in our institutions available to encourage students to pursue those disciplines.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, this Liberal Party motion which is before the House asks the Conservative Government to provide more support to post-secondary education, more support to scientific and technological development in Canada and more support for job training, retraining and the battle against illiteracy. I want to congratulate my colleague from St. Boniface who prepared and put this motion to the House of Commons today for the issues involved in this motion are among the most critical that face Canada in the 1980s and the 1990s.
If Canada is to survive, let alone progress as a major player in world commerce, then education and training must be among our highest priorities. Much more must be spent if we are going to compete in this very competitive world.
We have just signed or implemented the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. We in this Party opposed that agreement, but it is in place now. It has been passed by Parliament. But unless we do more to prepare our workforce, both young and older, to be more productive and more competitive, then we are going to lose. The Americans will gain most of the benefits to be derived from that agreement. Our nation will also be facing competition in Europe in 1992 when the Common Market countries remove nearly all barriers between them. It will be more difficult for Canada to compete in the European market. Consequently, it becomes absolutely essential that Canadian workers be the best trained in the world.
Education is not simply an option or a luxury, it is absolutely essential for our economic well-being. That is why I could never understand why governments at any level could cut back on education and training when we were in a recession or faced with difficult times, such as now when the Government alleges that there is a problem with the deficit. The way to dig out of a recession and to reduce the deficit is to make sure that the workforce is highly skilled and can produce the income and revenues necessary to turn the situation around.
If we look at European countries like West Germany and Sweden, we can see that at times of recession and depression they spend more money on education and training than they do otherwise. They use that opportunity when people are off work due to cyclical or structural changes in the economy to upgrade their training and re-educate them so that they are put in line to take up the new jobs that will come after the recession or depression.
Education and training is like the basic infrastructure for the economy. Just as businesses need roads, railroads, ports and airports, they also need a skilled workforce. Rather than skimp on money in providing for a skilled workforce, it is necessary to put more money into it.
It is also important to do something about the wasted human resources. We have very high unemployment rates in Canada with respect to our disabled population and our minorities. Almost 30 per cent of Canadians are illiterate and there are many drop-outs. These are wasted human resources unless we have appropriate

training programs and education programs to make these people productive, as they all can be.
Switzerland is a small country which does not have very much in the way of natural resources. It does not have a lot of minerals, oil or gas, as Canada has. It does not have large areas for agriculture and fisheries. Yet that is a very progressive country because it has a veiy highly skilled labour force. It is highly skilled in chemicals, machinery, banking and finance. Tourism is another important part of its economy. Every Swiss citizen is skilled to play a role in the economy so that there is very little wasted resource. It is a highly productive economy with only about 1 per cent or 2 per cent unemployment. Switzerland makes the best use of its labour market force, which makes that economy very successful.
As our Party's critic for unemployment, I will deal more specifically with the training and retraining aspects of this motion. I want to refer the House to a recent report that I believe is the best report on the subject before us today. It was published in the spring of 1989 by the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre. The feature article in that spring issue is a review of education and training in Canada. I urge all Hon. Members to read this article because it is short and to the point.
The report states that for the year 1988-89, spending at all levels for education in Canada was about $40.8 billion. It goes on to point out that on a per student basis, Canadian public spending on secondary and post-secondary education represents a smaller proportion of Gross Domestic Product per capita than the average for 17 OECD countries. It also points out that during the 1980s, spending per student in real terms rose at the primary and secondary level in Canada but spending fell significantly at both the college and university levels. It goes on to say that Canadian post-secondary institutions have not been able to make up for reduced government funding and shrinking tuition income.
That is the case with respect to post-secondary education. There has been a drop in funding on a per capita student basis, which is adversely affecting post-secondary education in Canada.
Supply
Let us deal with training. The Conservative Government has cut training and employment programs by 32 per cent since 1984. The budget for training and employment in 1984 was $2.2 billion. That has been reduced to $1.5 billion in 1989, a cut of 32 per cent.
According to a table in this report, in 1982-83 under the former Liberal Government, there were 235,000 Canadians in government-sponsored institutional training courses. After the election of the Conservatives in 1984, this dropped significantly. In 1984-85 there were 216,000; in 1985-86 there were 201,000; and in 1987-88 there were 133,000. There was a drop from 235,000 in 1982-83 to 133,000 in 1987-88, which corresponds to the cuts in moneys available, to which I have already referred.
For example, let us consider what happened with air traffic controllers. This situation has hurt the country significantly in several main centres. In its 1985 Budget, the Government cut moneys for the recruitment and training of air traffic controllers. It only took about three or four years before there were shortages in Toronto, Montreal, Moncton and elsewhere, to the extent that there were no new air traffic controllers available. The Government had to go to the United States to get air traffic controllers and it is now trying to train them here. Another example of cuts in post-secondary education is the Government's recent cut to Indian post-secondary education. We have already debated that in the House. That spirit shown by the Government, to cut in areas of education, is extremely worrying and bothersome to many Canadians.
There is much to be said on this subject but I will conclude by referring again to the report of the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre. This report does not represent the Liberal Party criticizing the Government, or the Opposition in Parliament criticizing the Government, it is the report of a very respected centre set up by labour and management to deal with these issues. They state in their conclusion that the evidence cited in the report suggests that Canadians have not given education and training the priority they deserve. They state that real spending per student on post-secondary education is declining and there is only a limited amount' of job related training and retraining done by both government and employers. That is the issue we are debating in the House today. We will be

Supply
asking Members of the House to support this motion which says that more must be done. I think Canadians will be watching Members of Parliament on both sides of the House to see where they stand on this critical question before the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Question or comment. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Mrs. Browes:: Madam Speaker, I just want to be sure that I heard the Member correctly. I think what he meant to say was that there was an increase in the amount of spending which the Government was having on post-secondary education. Now, there are not any cuts, there is an increase in the amount of money that is being transferred to the provinces on health and post-secondary education, $19.8 billion in 1989-90 and in 1990-91, $20.8 billion. Of these amounts, some 29 per cent is identified as being for post-secondary education. I would hope that the Member would realize that this is a growth of over $1 billion from 1990-91 in the first year of the Budget that we have the restraint program in place. Indeed, there has been an increase in our commitment to fund post-secondary education. The funding will provide $25 billion more to the provinces over the next five years, than over the last five years with $83 billion, for 1984-85 to 1988-89, and $108 billion for 1989-90 to 1993-94. When I hear the Member speaking, it concerns me because the support from the federal Government for post-secondary education has exceeded the support increase from the provinces.
When the Hon. Member said that more money should be spent, I want to ask this Member of Parliament where he would get the additional money to fund these programs which he is speaking of?


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, it seems that the Hon. Member was not listening closely to me. Of course there is an increase in the Budget of this year compared to last year with respect to post-secondary education by this Government. We have not said that there was not.
What we are saying is in the Budget the Government has cut back the rate of increase which was supposed to be there. In other words, the provinces were expecting to get so much but because of this Budget, they are going to get less than they were expecting and on which they were
planning. That is the point. Sure, the Government is increasing it but it is not increasing it by the amount which was committed in the earlier years of this Government.
In the Budget, it definitely cut back on the rate of increase of funds to the provinces for health and education. That is the point.
To deal with the last question of the Hon. Member, we would certainly find more money for education out of the other budgets of the Government. It is absolutely essential that we have a highly skilled and a highly trained workforce.
By the way, this is not Liberal Members who are speaking. I challenge the Hon. Member to read the feature article, Spring 1989, of the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre. This is a centre made up of business and labour. It is not just a labour centre. What do they say? They say that on a per student basis, Canadian public spending on secondary and post-secondary education represents a smaller proportion of GDP per capita than the average for 17 OECD countries. This report is critical of the Government, not just this Government but provincial governments as well for then-commitment to education.
With respect to training-and training is pretty clear- the Government cut 32 per cent from 1984 to 1989. This was a serious cut-back. The figures are there. What has the Government done? It is trying to make it up now by taking $800 million out of the unemployment insurance fund, because it was criticized by the de Grandpre Commission and other commissions for not putting enough money into training and it is going to try and put that money back in. Instead of taking it out of general tax revenue, it is taking it away from unemployed workers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Burlington.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to respond to the motion. In fact, it seems to me that the Hon. Member has provided me with an opportunity to make some positive remarks about the accomplishments of our Government.
Our Government does not need to be called upon to take steps to build a foundation for the future prosperity
June 13, 1989

of this country. We have taken those steps. We are well on our way to ensuring a strong and competitive Canada.
During the last four and a half years, this Government has rewritten the book on employment training. We have worked with business, labour, communities and anyone else concerned, to create programs which will best serve Canada, the Canada of tomorrow.
Several billions of dollars have been spent to train and re-train our country's workers so that they can fill the jobs of the future.
In the Hon. Member's riding, this Government has spent $2 million for job training in the last year, and a total of $14.4 million since 1985. He of all people has no basis upon which to base doubts about the efforts to help Canada meet the labour market demands.
Can any Member of this House deny the massive challenges Canada faces in light of expanding global markets and technological change? In a world of enhanced international competition, Canada's most important need will be a workforce which is equipped with proper skills. Our human resources are the key to preparing Canada for a labour market which is radically different from the one we know today.
Right now 40 per cent of all jobs call for professional white collar skills. By the year 2000, 80 per cent of all jobs will demand those skills. It is clear that job training is a critical part of the march toward the next century. Equipping workers for the needs of the labour market will ensure Canadians the degree of prosperity which we have enjoyed until now.
Two-thirds of Canadians who participated in a recent poll said they need skills training to keep up with economic competition and technological change. Less than half who work full time have received training in the last two years. More than half of the unskilled workers polled had received no training at all.
The example of other countries has proven that business must constantly help their workers upgrade their skills in order to keep their businesses competitive. In 1987 only one out of four Canadian companies spent money to train their employees. Canada spends about half the amount on training that the United States does.
Supply
It has been evident for some time now that this is not just the Government's problem.
When Canada cannot keep up with the world competition because its workforce does not have the right skills, it is the problem of every Canadian. That is why our Government since its first term has worked to put relevant training programs on everyone's agenda. Labour, that is business and communities, have an important role to play in providing training.
In 1985, this Government replaced more than 40 ineffective make-work programs with a co-ordinated regionally driven initiative called the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Rather than making work, we set out to make permanent jobs. The Canadian Canadian Jobs Strategy is aimed at individuals and their specific training needs. It allows people in the regions and those who understand the local labour market to direct the programs. Canadian Jobs Strategy has been just as successful as we expected.
Most of those who take part in the Canadian Jobs Strategy training program find work using their newly acquired skills, skills which will continue to be in demand for a long time. Building on the philosophy and the success of the Canadian Jobs Strategy, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) recently introduced an important national program which will lead to further improvements in the training and employment structure of the Canadian labour market. The Canadian Labour Force Development Strategy represents this Government's commitment to work with its partners in business and labour, to prepare Canada's workers for the future. It also represents a shift from former passive income support for the unemployed to more relevant and active support in line with labour market needs.
On examining our unemployment insurance program, we found it needed a new look to keep it in line with the times. The purpose of the unemployment insurance program remains what it was upon its inception almost 50 years ago: to protect people out of work and to maintain economic stability. However, unemployment insurance must evolve with current economic needs. Under the strategy, unemployment insurance will help clients get relevant training so that they can return to the workforce with the skills needed to keep a job longer.

June 13, 1989
Supply
Since 1977, some UI money has been used to train claimants. Last year, for example, 74,000 claimants were trained under Section 26 programs. The strategy proposes to extend the training to an additional 60,000 trainees. Some $100 million is earmarked for skills training and education upgrading for displaced and older workers. For young people, $100 million has been set aside for entry level skills development.
Some of the other services to be made available are financial support for administrative course and travel costs, income support, allowance for child care, job search counselling and access to vocational training. This strategy recognizes that training means paying for much more than the cost of taking a course. We have tried to ensure that adequate support is available so that those who need training do not encounter financial barriers.
In addition, the strategy provides $25 million to help an expected 5,000 claimants relocate. Those who want to travel out of town to look for work or who want to move where job prospects are better will now have income support available. The strategy also encourages those claimants who want to start a business. About $20 million has been designated to support the entrepreneurial ideas of those receiving unemployment insurance.
As well, some of the unemployment insurance funds have been allocated as incentives for those claimants who find work quickly. This may be in the form of bonuses or temporary earning supplements.
In addition, we are fine tuning certain aspects of unemployment insurance. In areas where there are no more job opportunities, claimants will have to work longer to qualify for benefits and the duration of their benefits will be shorter. But in areas that continue to experience high unemployment, the number of working weeks to collect unemployment insurance will not change.
Canadians are eager to work and contribute to the prosperity of their country. The unemployment insurance changes under the Labour Force Development Strategy mean unemployed Canadians will go back to work faster with the skills that will hold them in good stead for longer than the time needed to qualify for another UI cheque.
As for Canadians receiving social assistance, the Labour Force Development Strategy offers new solutions. Currently, the federal Government spends $400 million a year on a training program for social assistance recipients. We have been encouraged by its success,
although it has only been in effect since 1986. Under the strategy, however, the federal Government is ready to commit an additional $50 million together with $50 million ordinarily spent on income maintenance under the Canada Assistance Plan to train more social assistance recipients for meaningful work. If the provinces agree to match this money, together we will make an additional $200 million available to help the 20,000 additional social assistance recipients across Canada.
It is critical that government programs reflect today's changing work patterns. In addition to the changes I just outlined, the strategy will provide more training opportunities to employed Canadians. Under the strategy, $230 million will be directed toward human resource planning and training. Almost half this money will be spent on entry level training to be provided by the private sector.
In recognition of the importance of the school-to-work transition, we plan to quadruple the funds for co-operative education. As well, we are providing human resource planning to industries to help them get ready for the future labour markets. The strategy also doubles funds for the industrial adjustment service. The IAS is our proud example of how labour market adjustment should be done. It works with management and workers to find solutions to obsolete skills, technological change and plant shutdown.
Our Government has tried to cover all the bases. We have analysed our weaknesses and directed our efforts to overcoming the faults. With the help of our partners, there is no question that we will meet the challenges facing this country. Such challenges cannot be met by sticking rigidly to principles or ideas that are no longer relevant.
It is incumbent upon the Members of this House to remain open to new ideas and new schools of thought. While we may all agree on the goals that must be attained, such as the need for more effective retraining and training, we are far from unanimous on the means. The issues are complex and involve all sectors of the labour market. Governments alone do not have all the answers. That is why we recently met with the leaders of 13 national organizations to launch a consultation process on future labour-market programming. These representatives of business, labour and training organization and other interested groups agreed on five key labour, market and training issues which must be addressed. They are entry level training programs for unemployment insurance recipients, human resources planning,
June 13, 1989

programs for social assistance recipients and programs for older workers.
During the summer months, six representative task forces will meet to discuss these issues and prepare papers for five symposia scheduled for the fall. Probably the chief concern is apprenticeship and the extent to which it can be used to address entry level training. We need a new entry level training program based on apprenticeship's best features for occupation now not covered by apprenticeship. We will be seeking extensive advice from the private sector on this question.
A second task force will look into co-operative education as a practical tool to guide young people in making realistic career decisions while they are in school. Since co-op education will be expanding under the new strategy, we will require support and input from both the education community and the private sector.
I have already stated the critical need for more training in Canada. That is a fact of today's world. We need to know what approaches are necessary to motivate the private sector to work with the Government to achieve common goals. A third task force will explore these ideas.
The ongoing quest to help social assistance recipients integrate into the labour market must be re-evaluated to ensure that we are taking the right approach. This will receive the careful research and experimentation from a fourth task force.
As for older workers, the problems are acute and the solutions may require a response from those familiar with their needs in the fifth task force.
The sixth, and one of the most critical of task forces will concern the need to make training more effective in helping unemployment insurance beneficiaries get back to work.
The coming months will be busy ones for the she task forces. In the fall, the Government plans to begin negotiating training agreements with the provinces. The agenda is demanding. The Government eagerly awaits the reports which will guide us and our economic partners in shaping the labour market of the future. These new measures are part of a long process which
Supply
began in 1985 with a goal of building a strong and competitive workforce for the 1990s and beyond. But the experience of the past four years proves that this Government is not afraid of a challenge. We have worked hard with our partners to begin the necessary reshaping of the Canadian labour market and the success of our program to date is a testimonial to the fact that this Government is headed in the right direction. Today we are eager to get on with the further changes so that Canadians can continue to prepare for future prosperity.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Madam Speaker, I was quite intrigued by the presentation given by the Hon. Member. In the first little while, I wondered if my ears were ringing as a result of a debate I heard not too long ago with respect to the kinds of moneys that are established for a new training ethic in this country.
I dare say that if we are going to establish a true training ethic in this country, then we have to be cognizant of all the factors that enter into the play of education. When we are talking about education-and my colleagues on this side of the House, will understand this very, very well-we are talking about three elements. The first element is the formation of character and personality. The second is the instructional components that go into preparing a student, be he or she young or old. The third involves training components that are either skills specific or skills transferable.
We are talking about three dimensions in education. None of them exist on their own. Yet we have the Government, in this case thanks to the Hon. Member's presentation in this debate, that seems to concentrate on only one, and it in a vacuum.
It is important for us on this side of the House who have presented this particular motion today to stress the importance of education as an investment for the future of the country, a future that will be determined and shaped by the kind of role we see for ourselves in the international market-place, not only as producers, consumers or entrepreneurs but, I dare say, as individuals who will propagate the message of equality, of freedom, of justice and brotherhood everywhere. We can only do that if we are going to make each and every Canadian competitive and productive, productive in the philosoph-

June 13, 1989
Supply
ical sense but productive as well in the ability to harness entrepreneurial energies to the challenges of tomorrow.
I cannot sit by and allow the Hon. Member in his remarks to stress and outline a series of initiatives that represent to Members on this side of the House a retrograde step in terms of how we will prepare some very skills specific individuals for the coming decade.
I wish to finish off my commentary by asking the Hon. Member how he can justify reading through a list that suggests that the Government is preparing a new training ethic for the country when what we see in fact through the Estimates is a diminution of funds available in job development for those people who need skills preparation most, for those people who find it most difficult to enter the job market and for those people who the Government has been failing at both the formation and the instruction stage.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I do not know what planet the hon. gentleman lives on. He certainly does not seem to be in the real world.
The job of retraining workers in the labour force today and retraining those who will enter it in the years ahead is a joint problem among Government, labour and industry. If one were to go through the industrial countries with whom we compete, one would find that industry has large sums of money dedicated to training workers. I was recently in Washington listening to an industry group which told me that it had dedicated $200 million to upgrade the qualifications of the people in that labour group in order to maintain a competitive position in the world market.
I recently read summaries concerning the following industries in Canada: electrical, steel, automotive, textile and chemical. The summaries dealt with how much these industries were prepared to spend on labour training and upgrading the skills of their employees. It is millions of dollars. It is a joint job with respect to which labour, Government and industry will have to put their brains and thoughts together. That is what the six communities that have been set up to look into the six major areas that I outlined in my remarks have set out to do. It is how we
are going to go about this and what the requirements will be for the various divisions in our industry.
We have much work to do. I do not think that it will be an easy job at all. We certainly need the co-operation and support of everyone. If we are going to continue to nit-pick it apart and raise hypothetical situations such as the Hon. Member has done, then we are not going to make very much progress.
I know that the Minister and the Government are dedicated to this program. We will see that it goes through.


Mr. Mifflin:: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to make a comment to put in perspective some of the specifics mentioned by the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling). He talked about the job development strategy. Indeed, we had a very good discussion on that topic last week. We did not always agree but I think our figures were pretty much the same.
The Hon. Member talked about job development strategy. I note that this year in looking at the Estimates the Government is putting in $53 million less in job development strategy than it did last year and, indeed, $50 million less in the job re-entry program.
I would like to make the point that in a more macro sense I do not think there is any question that the Canadian education system is on the ropes. In continuing to provide university education at least to an ever increasing number of Canadians, the central problem in the last 25 years has been the juxtaposition and to a certain extent the tension between trying to provide quality and accessibility.
In fact, to take it a step further, I think we have a triangle. On one side we have quality and on the other we have accessibility. At the bottom of the triangle there is money. I think we are looking at somewhere in the vicinity of $7 billion. If that $7 billion-or the money that is required to support the other two sides of the triangle-is not there, then the other sides will cave in.
The amount of money that is spent per student in Canada, as I understand it, has declined considerably to the point that, as mentioned by my hon. friend a few minutes ago, we are behind 14 other members of the OECD countries. Indeed, the operating grants in Cana-
June 13, 1989

dian universities have risen less than 3 per cent in real growth in the last decade while enrolment is 30 per cent higher.
I would just like to make the point that we have 500,000 full-time students in Canada. We have 37 universities. There has been a 35 per cent increase in enrolment in the last decade. That was not predicted by the statisticians. In fact, what they did not allow for is that 12.5 per cent of students are now enrolling as opposed to 9 per cent.
I would like to wrap up by saying that with those kind of statistics, those kind of people and those kind of growth rates we cannot afford not to have the investment in education that we should be having.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I think the only thing I could recommend to the Hon. Member is that he get out of the Parliament Buildings and go around to visit this country from coast to coast as I have done.


Fred J. Mifflin: I have done it.


William James Kempling: He could look at some of the things that have been done.
I was reading today in my mail about a company called Generation 5 Technology which is working on the Alaskan oil spill in Valdez using a new process called a Munmap mapping system. The company is using computers to determine the thickness of the oil slick, where it is going, wind directions and the movement of the ocean. Five Canadians have put this company together. It is absolute first-rate top-of-the-line work that is being done by Canadians trained in Canadian universities. They have something that no one else in the world has. They are in demand.
The Canada Centre for Inland Waters has developed a process for turning sewage sludge into oil that can be used as heating oil. The City of New York wants that technology, as does the City of Melbourne, Australia. We will put it down in Halifax. Let me tell Hon. Members that this technology was developed by Canadians.
There is another company called Xenon Environmental at which I witnessed the delivery of a filtration process that can be dropped from the air. It weighs seven tonnes and can be dropped out of a Hercules aircraft.
I asked the scientists who designed it what it would have done in Chernobyl. They said that with this process, which is a membrane technology process, they could
Supply
have delivered drinkable water, pollution-free water to the people of Chernobyl had it been available at that time. There are a lot of good things going on in this country and we want to build on them. We do not want to live in the dark world of Members opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member. We shall resume debate with the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulk-ley Valley (Mr. Gardiner).


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, the Members on this side of the House have had some positive comments to make in today's debate, and I appreciate that. I am pleased to join in the debate on this motion presented by my colleague from the Liberal Party, a motion which calls on the Government to offer more support for post-secondary education.
I would like to congratulate the Liberal Members for making this a votable motion. As we all know, last night there was a vote on an excellent motion on the environment presented by my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter). Unfortunately, the Government voted against the environment last night. I hope it does not vote against education tonight. I ask government Members to vote with us on education tonight.
I would like to use this opportunity to speak about education on a national level as well as on a regional level, specifically the region of northern British Columbia. Nationally, it is important to realize the role post-secondary education plays in the economy. It plays an important role for young people, industry and, indeed, Government.
Earlier today, the Minister made some comments about the Government's funding. I asked him about the concerns that those of us in the Province of British Columbia have about where the Social Credit Government of British Columbia is spending its education and health money. In reply, the Minister suggested that we need goodwill. I am all for goodwill and I think that is what this House operates on for the most part. However, when it comes to funding for post-secondary education and health care, I ask the Minister if Treasury Board asks goodwill from him. We need more than goodwill, especially when dealing with a province led by Premier Vander Zalm. We in that province have some very deep

June 13, 1989
Supply
concerns about the spending priorities of that Government.
The Government opposite had an opportunity to change the legislation back in 1984. The original legislation was changed by the Liberals who were in power at the time. Transfer payments to the provinces were made in a lump sum and the money was not tagged. When the Conservatives first came into office, they would have done a good service to education if they had gone back to the original proposal in that legislation.
An excellent article in The Financial Post of January 14 by Allan Evans from the University of British Columbia talks about the importance of education and the need for a debate about its role. That debate has been missing from the Conservative Government and from some of its friends in the provinces.
We are not suggesting that spending is controlled solely by the heavy hand of the federal Government. The people in our ridings elected us to watch over the funds the federal Government spends. It is our responsibility to see that we do so.
I would like to comment briefly in the short time I have this afternoon on the role of education, particularly in Prince George in northern British Columbia. My colleague, the Minister of State for Forests (Mr. Oberle) the Member for Prince George-Peace River, is in the House today. I know he will support the comments I will make about the need for a university in northern British Columbia. I would like to use this opportunity to draw to the attention of Hon. Members, the Government and people across Canada of the ongoing campaign for a university in our community.
If the Government were participating fully in a debate about post-secondary education, it would support in whatever way it could the establishment of a university in Prince George. In March of 1986, at a regional conference called "New Democrats North", our Party talked about the need for a university there. Perhaps Members from some of the more populated parts of Canada believe that having universities in their communities is a foregone conclusion. We do not have a university and part of the goal of northern British Columbians is to build and develop the resources in our area, including our young people.
Currently, the provincial Minister of Education has set up an implementation committee which is listening to views and advice from members of the community. It will be reporting back at the end of the year. I hope that committee takes into account the comments and concerns of all Members, including my colleague from Prince George-Peace River.
We have talked about other issues that relate to post-secondary education. We have talked about what a university in our area could do to aid education in native languages. We have talked about forestry. I have written to the Minister with some suggestions for a forestry research centre in Prince George, our home town. That could tie in with a post-secondary institution in Prince George.
It is not only transfer payments that assist in the development of post-secondary education, it is the various granting institutions including the Science Research Council which provide that assistance. There is a report suggesting a regional multi-campus proposal, something which is subject to debate. The report is called Building a Future of Excellence. That is what we are trying to do. That is what my colleagues and friends in the area are working toward. We are trying to keep the pressure on the community and the province to ensure that we get a commitment from the province toward that goal.
Some have suggested that it may take an election campaign to get a university built in Prince George. So be it. We will take a university if it also means an election campaign in which we will get a provincial Government that will do something about education in our area.
As many Members have said today, education is an investment in the future of our country. Some time ago, when I studied for my degree, education meant going to university for a general arts education. Now it means a lot more than that. In the debate surrounding a university in Prince George, my initial focus was on an ongoing arts program, but I have been convinced, primarily by my provincial colleague, the Member from Prince George North, Lois Boone, that we have to concentrate as well on the professions. We need health professionals, forestry professionals and others. The continued attention of the federal Government and the provincial Government to post-secondary education is what we need.
June 13, 1989

I would encourage government Members to support this motion. I would encourage the Minister to consider seriously studying the concerns of Canadians about transfers of funds to the provinces to ensure that they are being spent in the right places. Let us lay to rest those concerns.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate my colleagues for bringing this motion forward. I hope the Government will vote for education, because that is how we will interpret Government support for this motion. I appreciate having the time to raise these important concerns that exist across country and in my home province.
[ Translation]


Mrs.   Duplessis@: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Hon. Member's speech, although of course I am not very familiar with the situation in northern British Columbia. However, since he said that we were not doing enough for the universities, I would like to quote a few statistics. Earlier, my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State, mentioned there has been an increase in transfer payments for medical services and education. In the last Budget, we also saw a 12 per cent increase for science and technology. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that additional funding in the amount of $1.3 billion was earmarked for science and technology. In fact, this was announced by the Prime Minister on January 13, 1988.
Furthermore, $520 million has been allocated to university research and instruction. This includes $80 million for our Scholarship Programs; $240 million for the centres of excellence, as I said earlier to another Opposition colleague; and $200 million for the base budgets of research granting councils. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that funding allocated to the granting councils will total $3.7 billion over five years, until 1990-91. He should realize, if he looks carefully at these figures, that this represents an increase of $1.4 billion or a little over 60 per cent, compared with the five previous years from 1981-82 to 1985-86.
Since we came to power, this Government has increased the annual budgets of granting councils by 20 per cent. The annual budgets of the three granting councils
Supply
added up to $531.4 million, and that total is now $635.4 million. In 1990-91, the councils' budgets will practically double, an increase of 48.9 per cent or $791 million compared with 1984-85. Private sector contributions to university research under the matching funds policy will total $380 million over five years.
I have many more lists of figures I could quote to the Hon. Member, but I would like to ask him, because earlier, at the beginning of his speech, he practically implied that the Government of British Columbia might misuse federal transfer payments. The implication was there, and I wish the Hon. Member would make himself clear in this respect or withdraw what he said, because I think these are very serious allegations which may be quite disturbing to the Government of British Columbia.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Malone):: I might remind the Hon. Member that he has two minutes.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. My point and concern is one a number of people have made in British Columbia. Let me talk about the current Established Programs Financing legislation. When that legislation was changed by the Liberals from having tagged funds, meaning that the province must spend the money on health and education, the money went basically toward general revenue. The charges made by many and why I asked the Minister of State my question is to try to lay to rest that concern, if there is one, as to whether the provinces are spending that health and education money where it should be spent. The Minister did not tell the House whether his Department has done any studies to confirm or deny that. He suggested that goodwill was required and I, in return, suggested that we need a little bit more than goodwill. A phrase that many people from B.C. are familiar with sums up everything. It is called the Coqui-halla Highway. This is a provincial Government that spends funds in one area and uses them in another. That is how you answer a question like that.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to enter this debate on the motion:
That this House call upon the Government to take steps to enhance the federal commitment to support post-secondary education, scientific and technological development, job training and retraining in the battle against illiteracy, all of which provide the essential foundation for building of a stronger and competitive future for Canada.

June 13, 1989
Supply
I certainly agree with the intent of the motion and it gives me a great deal of pleasure to add a few words in support of it.
There are many areas that should be examined as we look to the wording of the motion. There is the educational part of it and there are a number of things that I could add to that educational part. There is also the re-training part. I would particularly like to add a few words on the re-training aspect of the motion today, particularly as it affects the Province of Saskatchewan from where I come and the rural and remote areas to which many people who live in my riding look to their future.
The Government in the last month has introduced Bill C-21, the unemployment insurance legislation, that we on this side of the House oppose vigorously. It is a motion which intends to change the direction of unemployment insurance in this country. One of the things addressed by this motion today is to redirect about $800 million in funding from unemployment insurance premiums to the re-training elements of our educational and employment system. I object not so much to the fact that we are putting funding into re-training but rather that we are diverting funds from unemployment into re-training.
I am a great advocate of training programs in Canada. I believe the commitment of the Government to training and re-training is the sort of commitment that we need to enhance the future ability of people who live in the remoter parts of the country and to enhance the future ability of those who live in urban Canada where technology is rapidly changing the workforce.
1 want to suggest very strongly that the Government looks at the way in which Canadians view the commitment this Government is making. Let me cite an example from the Province of Saskatchewan. The previous Government under former Premier Allan Blake-ney put a training program into place for dental therapy which attracted a large number of young people from the Province of Saskatchewan. The training program for dental therapists eventually led to an entire dental program for school children. Dental chairs and offices were put into each and every public school throughout the province. We provided free dental check-ups and
basic cleaning of teeth for all children in the school system.
In 1982, shortly after the Government changed and the Conservative Government headed by the present Premier Grant Devine was in power, there was a redirection in thought. While 400 recently trained individuals were doing therapy and hygienic work on children's teeth, the new Premier removed the program entirely. He fired the 400 recently trained dental therapists and hygienists, pulled the dental chairs and equipment out of every room in every school in the province. Not only was there anger among parents who had benefited a great deal from having their children's teeth looked after but there was also anger among the people who had trusted the previous government to provide them with the training for what they expected to be long-term jobs.
After the announcement by the provincial government, the premier of the province came to my community of North Battleford and at a meeting of the dental therapists promised that every single one of those individuals who had lost their jobs as a result of the cancellation of the dental therapy program would get jobs in the private sector. Private dentists in the province would now have more children to look after and they would hire the dental therapists because after all they were so well trained.
That promise of guaranteed jobs for those dental hygienists and therapists in the Province of Saskatchewan has fallen dead. Only 6 of those 400 people who were trained by the Province of Saskatchewan for that program are now employed in private practice in the Province of Saskatchewan. That was the commitment, trust and respect that had been commanded by the government in the Province of Saskatchewan to the people in their retraining.
I have a great deal of skepticism about the commitment that the Government might be making and its good words about retraining programs and committing funds to training. It is all well and good to talk in grandiose terms about moving people from unemployment and welfare into jobs that will be created as a result of retraining efforts on behalf of the Government. In the Province of Saskatchewan, there is no trust from the people in the Government's moves toward that end.
June 13, 1989

The other day in the House I mentioned the Government's policy to end the branch line rehabilitation program. However, other government policies are disentitling people from existing within their own future in my part of the country. The cancellation of the branch line rehabilitation program may damage the ability of the community of River from sustaining a future. But if there is no redevelopment or opportunity for growth in that community, there will be no jobs to retrain people for. Those people will have to move into a larger community in order to build a future for their families and children. As a result, we are creating another group of unemployed in the larger urban centres. Policies such as maintaining the branch line rehabilitation program would ensure that those people who live in that rural community will have a future in their community and not have to move to a larger centre to compete with people who are already unemployed for those jobs that the Government is now considering in terms of its retraining program.
The community of Big River is not looking to the Government for assistance to retrain its workers, the people currently involved in agriculture production, in the lumber industry, and in the sawmill operations. That community is simply looking for the opportunity to maintain its economy and maintain the way of life enjoyed by its residents for quite a period of time. There are 700 homes in the community of Big River. As a result of the possible discontinuation of the rail line, those people are now looking at what is the future. If they cannot ship their grain, or move their lumber from the sawmill that is keeping the other element of that community open, what opportunities do they have? We are not going to be retraining people to do oil work, welding, or any of the other things proposed under this scheme to help the people in that community.
Regional development programs, community development programs, funding for community education-based programs to keep people active in rural and remote areas are the types of programs that we need from the Government. I certainly support initiatives that have been taken in the past to direct community and regional colleges into the rural areas by all governments of all political stripes in the Province of Saskatchewan and in the federal Government. Those regional colleges are delivering some of the programs that are being offered under the Unemployment Insurance Program and the Canada Jobs Strategy. That has to be expanded and built
Supply
upon. I can see that there is a future if the Government is committed to doing that.


William James Kempling: As I listened to the hon. gentleman speaking, I wondered when he was going to get to his point. He seemed to be relating the experience of some people with the Saskatchewan Government and a program that it had in place, and somehow was trying to lay that problem on our back. That is too bad. Whatever happened out there happened with the government that was in vogue. It was not done in conjunction with our government.
I would suggest to the Hon. Member that the people in the community of Big River contact the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) and ask whether a Community Futures Program could be designed for their particular situation. We have signed hundreds of Community Futures Programs for situations exactly the same as the Member is describing. I am sure that the Minister would be pleased to have her officials look into it.
As far as other training is concerned, I know there are those in the world who think that all training should be done in colleges or schools. We always have this difficulty. There are people in industry who tell us that they do not want the tool and dye makers who are coming out of certain community colleges because they do not have the qualities or they do not want a certain type of worker. Our job is to upgrade that wherever we can.
The Government negotiates, talks and discusses with industry groups and with the provinces what their labour skills requirements will be for the period ahead. That is what we will engage in this fall through six industry groups which will be discussing with the Government, labour and management what labour skills will be required in the period ahead. Our job is to train people as a result of the reports that come back here and we will do that.
I do not see the doom and gloom the Hon. Member seems to see. I have been here for 17 years and I look forward to the time when one day we will hear a Member from the NDP speak about something that is not doom and gloom.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: I thank the Hon. Member for Burlington for his question. I have a certain amount of respect for the Member. Not too long ago I attended a Canada-United States interparliamentary group meeting where the Hon. Member spoke eloquently about the steel industry. That is something that I have very little contact with in my part of the country. I certainly learned a lot from the Hon. Member's presentation on steel and I feel

June 13, 1989
Supply
more a part of this country as a result of that presentation. I do not know where the steel industry is going. I hope that the Hon. Member's presentation to the Americans will help them to work out the difficulties that we have.
The Hon. Member was trying to figure out what the point was about the provincial Government in the Province of Saskatchewan. The people of Saskatchewan recognize the point very clearly, that a Tory is a Tory. It does not matter whether they are federal or provincial. The de-emphasis on training and success of individuals working collectively within our society for the benefit of each other is no more evident than in the Province of Saskatchewan. There is a desire on behalf of the people to work collectively to achieve group ends. The Government of that province and the commitment that this Government is making through federal legislation is not in the same vein as that of the people of Saskatchewan. That was my point.


Jim Jordan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the debate. I would like to narrow in on just one aspect of the debate, something that I think is a blemish on our society. It has been alluded to here today several times-illiteracy. It seemed to me the pre-election commitment to illiteracy was very strong on the part of those sitting opposite. In the Speech from the Throne, there was a lessening of commitment. That of course was after the election. Now I find mere tokenism has set in and that should be accepted as a compliment because it is not quite that.
Whatever the reasons for the Government to arrange things in that sequence, which are obviously political, it is clear that illiteracy results in a great loss of potential both for the state and for the individual. Its over-all effects are often hidden. They impinge on economic development, or lack of it, and on unemployment. On the personal level they impinge on health, social maladjustment and the general well-being of those identified in our society as illiterate.
The importance of literacy can hardly be overestimated. The social, political and economic structure of the modem community rests on the assumption that every citizen can communicate and be communicated with by means of the written and printed word.
There are any number of definitions of literacy. The one that I like is the United Nations definition of literacy. It is an old one now, but I think it is still pretty valid:
A person is literate who can, with understanding, both read and
write a short simple statement on his everyday life.
Failing to be able to do that, according to UN standards, a person is considered illiterate. In this sense literacy is viewed as a means of self-fulfilment and full participation in society. The last figures available show that one in every five Canadians over 15 years of age does not qualify as literate and therefore is not able to reach self-fulfilment and full participation in society. That is an alarming statistic and one which we can be truly ashamed of in a rich country that prides itself on being so civilized. One in five over 15 years of age is only able to function on the periphery of life, having to stay in the background in many respects. Another interesting statistic is that illiteracy increases as we move from west to east in Canada. It is an interesting point.
Illiteracy increases then in Canada as we move from B.C. to Newfoundland. Luck plays a part in it. Being disadvantaged plays a significant role, but luck is still a very important component. I do not think that luck is a good way of equalizing opportunity in Canada. To attempt to identify the social effects of illiteracy is extremely complicated. Complex relationships including various factors affect an individual's social outcome. Cause and effect are very difficult to separate. It is therefore more accurate to discuss circumstances associated with illiteracy than to speak of its effects or its results. Those with low education tend to have poor health-that has been established-a shorter life expectancy, more disabilities of one kind or another. All this can be statistically proven. Other circumstances often related to illiteracy are poverty, unemployment, personal
June 13, 1989

problems resulting from family breakdowns and so on. It is a very serious Canadian problem. Those identified in the category of illiterate are high risk when it comes to poverty, unemployment and when it comes to having personal problems. Very often all three are combined.
I want to talk for a moment on poverty and illiteracy. Canada, like most other countries, is still a long way from breaking the vicious cycle of poverty leading to inadequate education, meagre job opportunities and continued poverty into the next generation and the generation after so that we will have a second and third generation of illiterate people. The cost is high economically and socially. No country can afford it.
Unemployment is another factor associated directly with illiteracy. The connection between illiteracy and unemployment in western democracies has been well established. The higher an individual's educational attainment, that is to say the farther he or she moves away from illiteracy, the better chance he has to join the labour force, the more likely he or she is to avoid unemployment, the more likely that he or she will have a better job with an opportunity to attain higher lifetime earnings. Simply put, the better educated one is, the better chance of finding a job. When people have jobs, everybody in the country gains. Those who do not possess a functional level of literacy are and will remain the least likely to be employed. If they do not find a job, opportunities for advancement are not possible resulting in low self esteem and the problems which accompany that feeling of limited worth.
The federal Government has provided funds through the Department of Secretary of State to support voluntary community based initiatives for literacy and literacy training. But that really is not a commitment. There is no concerted effort. It is one of those on-again off-again approaches to a very serious problem. It is never going to correct the problem of illiteracy in Canada. The Speech from the Throne in 1986 committed the federal Government to work with the provinces, the private sector and voluntary organizations to develop resources to ensure that Canadians have access to literary skills. That was in 1986. They were very fine words but that is all. No action followed.
On September 8, 1988-a critical time since an election campaign was on and the Government's interest was
Supply
intense then-the federal Government announced its intention to invest $110 million over five years to fight illiteracy in Canada. That works out to $5 over five years for everyone classified as being illiterate in Canada. That is like sprinkling a little bit of water out in the Sahara Desert, a real tokenism as I described it earlier. Several years ago it was easy for Canadians to be complacent about this. They assumed that their country was one of the best educated societies in the world. Recent studies have shown, however, that a substantial proportion of the Canadian public is now functionally illiterate and that the national cost of this is enormous.
We are proud of how successful we have been in teaching our two founding languages to great numbers of Canadians, but we failed miserably to teach one in five Canadians who are over 15 years of age to read and write in just one of our official languages. It is a reflection of the lack of priority on the part of the Government.
The Government's response to illiteracy requires commitment. It requires input from all sections of society. In devising this response, illiteracy should be recognized as a complex, long term social and cultural problem that requires money and research. It would be put on the basis of a consistent amount of money based on our Gross Domestic Product, an item which has all but disappeared on the scale of spending on the part of this Government.
The cost of illiteracy to business in Canada is horrendous. From that point of view alone, fighting illiteracy should be looked upon as an investment. Unskilled and what we refer to as muscle work is declining. It is in that group that you will find most illiterates. Technology demands are increasing and the new skills necessary are beyond the comprehension of most of the illiterates. The problems feed upon themselves and compound upon themselves. Good communications skills which are ever increasing are beyond most illiterates. Industrial accidents are higher among illiterates.
Let us consider some of the everyday things which most of us take for granted but which illiterate people cannot do. These include reading directions on a bottle of medicine and the potential pursuant problems; filling out a cheque correctly or completing some simple business transaction, or following a route on a map.

June 13, 1989
Supply
Being able to understand the Charter of Rights is very important, yet so removed to people who cannot read with comprehension. It is very difficult for illiterate people to find an amount on an income tax table, or to find a store listed in the yellow pages.
In closing, I want to encourage the Government to stop trying to find the future by gazing at the past, and to take seriously the plight of 20 per cent of our population over 15 years of age who cannot comprehend from the printed page either one of our official languages. The methodology exists now to combat illiteracy. It takes commitment and some imagination from the Government. This is in growing immediacy one of our major national problems. It has been my pleasure to address this issue and I hope the Government has been listening.


Pauline Browes: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the Hon. Member for his remarks today. A program dealing with this issue is probably one of the most important policies we can institute for the benefit of all Canadians. I am pleased that we can agree on the importance of literacy programs.
The examples set forth by the Hon. Member only show the importance of the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) last year of $110 million for a literacy program in Canada spread over the next five years. One of the projects that I am sure the Hon. Member would be pleased to hear about is at the Frontier College in Toronto, where $417,000 is being put forward to launch a program called Read Canada.
Read Canada is encouraging Members of Parliament and members of the community to read to their constituents, to children and to people within the community in order to assist them to learn the importance of reading. The Prime Minister's wife will be reading on Parliament Hill on Canada Day and it is hoped that Members of Parliament from across the country will indeed take the opportunity on Canada Day to participate in this program called Read Canada. I hope the Hon. Member will do so.
I want to compliment him for his outstanding remarks and to indicate that we on this side of the House are doing everything we can. I look forward to working with him on these particular projects that will help all Canadians to participate in the economic and social life
of our community so they may fulfil their own opportunities in Canada.


Jim Jordan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate those comments. I think we can get along well on this issue, but there seem to be a few obstacles. I am sure that in spite of those who think that this is not a major national concern we will be able to do something collectively.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said he would spend so many millions of dollars over five years. It is like saying there will be so much spent on health care and presumably, when that is gone, there will be no longer be an interest in health care. Of course, we have a much greater commitment to health care than that, but when there is a fixed amount over a span of time it seems to me that it is simply a band-aid approach. I think illiteracy requires a much stronger commitment if we are going to make any inroads.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 81(14).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion 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.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.16 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 14, 1989