1989-04-21

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River) moves: That this House recognize that the Government's arbitrary and misanthropic policy of unilaterally capping future funding for post-secondary education for Canada's native peoples severely undermines the right and efforts of these peoples to enhance their capacity to make meaningful and lasting improvements to their economic and social conditions and to establish their self-reliance, thereby condemning them to unacceptable living conditions and driving them to desperate measures; and That this House urge the Government to terminate its plans to cap this funding and to take steps to establish effective bilateral consultations on this and other matters vital to the improvement of the lives of and the ending of discrimination toward these Native peoples.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today in order to debate the issue of native post-secondary education assistance. What does not please me is having to debate this issue at all. The Government's lack of sensitivity to Canada's First Nations people and its lack of understanding of the issues facing them are appalling.
Under a former Liberal Government, funds were committed to the Assembly of First Nations to allow this organization to conduct an intense and thorough review of education for native peoples. This Government lived up to the former Liberal Government's commitment by channelling the necessary funds for this review. This review was recently completed at a cost of $6 million.
What I fail to comprehend in all of this is that the Government, so apparently concerned with spending, has not given this review any consideration whatsoever. The Minister's officials initiated their own review of the
E-12 guidelines, knowing full well that AFN was conducting a similar review. Does the Government not trust the native people of Canada to come up with a policy which would be of benefit not only to the native people but also of benefit to the Government?
It is obvious to all members of my Party that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) has been sandbagged by officials in his own Department. A 1972 policy adopted by a Liberal Government advocated Indian control of Indian education which would see Indian communities taking over the responsibility of education. This policy was developed after the 1971 subcommittee on Indian education heard from the National Indian Brotherhood, now known as the Assembly of First Nations. The NIB had prepared a policy paper which laid the groundwork for federal acceptance of the 1972 policy. This is what consultation does. A Government demonstrates leadership by consulting with the people most affected by a given policy.
Many Hon. Members will no doubt recall the Penner report on Indian self-government which was tabled in this House in November 1983. I need not remind Hon. Members that this report was unanimously endorsed by all three Parties. The Penner report identified education as a critical area of concern. Witnesses appearing before the subcommittee on Indian self-government stated time and time again that First Nations must have control of legislation and policy in order to ensure the survival and development of Indian communities.
In the closing chapter of the Penner report, it states: The Committee is strongly convinced that a major change in the orientation of federal policy must occur. The federal Government must establish new relationships that will enable Indian peoples to break out of the vicious circle of dependency, poverty and despair that now grips them.
This statement is a strong one. It is obviously not a statement the Government understands. If the Government really understood the meaning of establishing new relationships, it would have taken the time to properly consult with First Nations on changes to the E-12 guidelines. This Government could have avoided the backlash against this new policy for native post-secondary education. Had the Government taken the time to negotiate on a bilateral basis, many students would not be risking their lives today by fasting.
[Stage Direction]
April 21, 1989
Supply
Both opposition Parties in the House have raised this issue no fewer than 15 times in the last 14 days of sitting. The Minister claims to have listened to the native peoples of Canada on this issue. If the Minister had really listened to the Indian people, this debate would have been totally unnecessary.
The Government fails to understand that post-secondary education for our native peoples is the key to self-determination and economic self-reliance. Yet the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and members of his Cabinet have repeatedly stated that the country's future is dependent upon economic development. This seems to be a contradiction in terms. Does the Government have one opinion for non-native people and a different one for native people?
The policy is not only restrictive, but it is regressive. By capping the funding for native post-secondary education assistance at $130 million, the policy will restrict the number of native students enrolling in post-secondary institutions. This policy is regressive because it has undone everything which has been achieved by our First Nations in the area of education since 1971.
The changes in this policy will restrict the development of Canada's First Nations and condemn many of them to continuing dependency on the Government from birth until death. Under this Government, Canada's First Nations peoples will not achieve self-determination, nor will they achieve economic self-reliance. This Government has in essence put an end to the hopes and aspirations of many young native people.
I represent 46 native communities in my riding. Many of them have very active and successful economic development projects in the works which will ensure economic self-reliance in the years to come. Jobs have been created for their people. Welfare payments have decreased and so has drug and alcohol abuse. These results have largely been achieved by people who have been through the post-secondary education system and who have returned to their communities with the skills and the knowledge to carry out these policies.
It is no secret that the unemployment rate in our Indian communities runs anywhere from 80 per cent to 95 per cent. It is also no secret that many of our Indian peoples do have not have the minimum number of weeks required to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. The proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act will make matters even worse for our First Nations' peoples. As a result, many of them are on welfare. Last year some $316 million was spent by this Government on welfare pay-outs to Indian people. The changes to the native post-secondary education funding combined with changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act will result in welfare pay-outs of more than $400 million in the next year.
If this Government was committed to deficit reduction, it would lift the cap on native post-secondary education funding. It would not restrict the number of native students enrolling in post-secondary institutions, and it would soon see a dramatic decrease in welfare pay-outs to the Indian people.
The success stories of the native post-secondary education assistance program are many. Nine out of ten native students graduating from post-secondary institutions are employed. For Hon. Members on the opposite side who fail to understand economics, this means that 90 per cent of them have jobs. I remember clearly the words of the Prime Minister during the 1984 election campaign: "Jobs, jobs, jobs". Surely the Prime Minister and his colleagues can understand this.
Indian and Inuit lawyers, doctors, nurses, teachers, and administrators, to name a few, have successfully completed their studies, thanks to a post-secondary education. Those who have chosen not to return to their communities now pay taxes to the Government. I am certain that the Prime Minister and his colleagues understand this.
Canada's native peoples want to make a contribution to society. They do not want Government hand-outs, and they certainly do not want to be dependent upon the Government from birth until death.
April 21, 1989
[Stage Direction]
I have been listening very carefully to what the Indian peoples have been saying on this issue. The Minister has not been listening, contrary to his very own popular belief. Yes, the Minister has met with the First Nations leaders, and yes, he has stated that he is committed to a bilateral process and the Minister has stated that he will listen. However, I do not believe the Hon. Minister understands what is at stake. If the Minister and his officials had only undertaken a full bilateral consultation from the very beginning, we would not be here today debating this very critical issue.
Once again the Minister will tell us that he has consulted with the Indian people. I have yet to come across a single individual from the native community who supports the restrictive and regressive changes to native post-secondary education funding. Not one.
In fact, I have received well over 1,500 individual petitions from native communities, and more than 100 letters from various native groups and associations, all of which are in my riding. I will bet that the Minister's office has been bombarded with letters and petitions opposing the changes to native post-secondary education assistance. How can the Minister and this Government state that they have consulted with the Indian peoples?
The priorities of this Government are misplaced. Let us compare what it costs to put a young native student through college or university with what it costs to support that same native student on welfare. At today's rates a young native student can get a good, solid education for approximately $35,000. Once that young native student graduates, he or she finds a job and is self-supporting.
Now let us look at what it would cost the Government to support that same native student by way of welfare. If the Government had to support the student by way of welfare for the rest of his or her life, and providing that the individual remained unmarried, it could cost the taxpayers close to $300,000. Imagine what the costs would be if that same individual were to marry and have three or four children. Where is the logic?
When it comes to paying the costs for holding native youth in jail, there is no shortage of government money. There is no shortage of government money either when it comes to paying a lifetime of welfare and poverty.
Supply
This Government has under-estimated the strength of Canada's aboriginal peoples. We have seen demonstrations at Indian Affairs offices across the country, resulting in the arrests of several native people. We have also seen protests by our First Nations here on Parliament Hill, and we have seen hunger strikes by native students frustrated by this Government's new policy. The First Nations will continue to oppose the policy of the Government with respect to native post-secondary education. The opposition Parties will continue to oppose this policy. The Government will not be let off the hook until the Minister of Indian Affairs agrees to some serious bilateral negotiations, without deadlines and restrictions, with the native leadership.
The Minister of Indian Affairs will not lose face by admitting that he has made a mistake. In fact, if the Minister will only compromise on the question of bilateral negotiations without deadlines, he will be respected and admired for his commitment to the Indian people of Canada. I am afraid that if the Minister does not move quickly on this issue, he will lose all credibility with the people for whom he is responsible. If that happens, the Prime Minister will have no other choice but to remove him from his duties.
Support for the First Nations' views on native post-secondary education is growing. Many non-native Canadians have had an opportunity to truly look at both sides of this issue and have come to understand and support First Nations in their fight against these restrictive and regressive changes.
The native leadership and students have received support from the Canadian Federation of Students, from university professors, from teachers, from labour organizations, from churches, from social justice coalitions, and from our very own Human Rights Commissioner. How can the Government continue to ignore the importance of this issue? How can this Government implement changes to a policy without proper consultation? It is time for the Government to live up to its commitment of a bilateral negotiation process with the native leadership and the students. It is time for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make peace with the native peoples and negotiate in good faith without time limits.
I sincerely hope that the Government, and in particular the Minister who is here today, will have paid close attention to what I have said and I hope that it will pay close attention to what Hon. Members speaking after me will say.
[Stage Direction]
April 21, 1989
Supply
The future of Canada's First Nations youth lies with the Government. Let us all hope that the Government will not take away their hopes and aspirations but instead will give them a secure future filled with dreams and ambitions.
Mrs. Dobbie:: Mr. Speaker, will the Hon. Member tell me why he believes that $130 million is not a sufficient amount to cover the education of the students who are in need of help for post-secondary education in the coming year? Why does he think that $130 million is an insufficient amount of money to cover these educational needs? If the Hon. Member does have an indication that that is insufficient, can could he tell us from where he got his figures? According to our estimates, that is a sufficient amount of money to cover the needs of every Indian student seeking post-secondary education in the coming year.


Mr. Nault:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. I am pleased she asked that question because I was hoping it would come up.
It must be obvious to the Government that it did not consult with the native communities on this particular new policy, otherwise the Government would not have to ask this type of question. I have met with many native leaders in the last few weeks on this issue. The question has been put to them very succinctly. There will not be enough dollars to pay for the future generations of the First Nations people. It is obvious these individuals will not get into the system because they will not qualify under the policy of the Government.


Mr. Bouchard (Roberval):: How much?


Robert Daniel Nault: I will tell the Hon. Member right now that during the next few weeks, I, as a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, will ask the Minister that particular question, namely where he gets his numbers. There seems to be a conflict of information right now. We will soon find out from him, the man with all the numbers, exactly where he got his numbers and we will be more than pleased at that time to give him ours.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member did not answer the question. He seems to be basing his estimates on very vague unsubstantiated ideas.


An Hon. Member:: Where did you get your numbers?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: I ask the Hon. Member to answer the question and tell us why he does not think $130 million is enough to cover the post-secondary education needs of the Indian students for the coming year? Will he answer that question?


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that more specifically. Last night I met with a native student who has been unable to go to school this semester because she could not get a grant. She could not get the money from Indian Affairs to attend. She is sure that she will not be able to attend next year for the same reason, that she will not be able to get the money.
I would be more than happy to give the Hon. Member the name of the person because the student happens to be in a riding of an Hon. Member sitting on the other side of the House. As a member of the Blood Tribe, this person can tell you there is not the money in the program to put people through university next year.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, will the Hon. Member explain to the hon. lady on the other side of the House who just asked the question that the amount of money allocated is not enough because the number of Indian children wanting to go on to university is increasing, the total population of Indians is increasing and because of Bill C-31 which was passed a few years ago. Would he explain that to her and also explain that if the Government would cancel one nuclear submarine at $1 billion, the Government could cover this whole matter very easily.


Robert Daniel Nault: We will be all in favour of that, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Hon. Member for his statement.
First, the Government seems to have lost the understanding and the feeling for what is taking place in the native community. There was a population explosion in the native community as in the non-native community in the last few years that has caused this great need of money for native education to the tune of what individuals on the opposite side of the House are saying is a phenomenal amount of $130 million. I have been told by the native communities in the last few days that that explosion has stopped. The birth rate of the native people has levelled off as it has in the non-native society. The amount of dollars needed will peak very quickly and then will drop in the years to come. We have almost come to the point where we need that money to put the new generation through the university and college system. In the years to come the demand will start levelling
April 21, 1989

Supply
off. Now is not the time, because of the population growth in the native community, to cap the amount of money. Now is the time to put dollars into the system so that children can go to college and university to get an education and help their own people.
If the Minister and his Party would have consulted with the native community, or if they had travelled to just one reserve, they would have heard this exact same thing.I would love to take them with me to Kenora- Rainy River and into one of the reserves up North to see the population. The majority of the population in reserves up North is made up of young children. That growth in the population will soon end. Now is not the time to make cuts in post-secondary education.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, will the Hon. Member tell us what he means by the word "cap" in light of the fact that the budget has continued to expand 10 per cent over the past two years and will continue to expand in the future according to the needs of the Indian population? Perhaps the Hon. Member can explain to us what he means by the word cap when there is no cap on the program.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, obviously I have difficulty because the Hon. Member does not even know what a cap means. A cap means when you put a top on something and put a stop to it. The Hon. Member says that the money has been raised 10 per cent in the last couple of years-


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Each year, per year.


Robert Daniel Nault: Each year? Does that mean that that is enough? Does that mean that now, because there is a population explosion in the native community, that just 10 per cent will do it? What if the population explosion is at 20 per cent and 20 per cent more children want to go to university and college? Is 10 per cent enough? We are saying you do not need a cap. What you need to do is assess on an ongoing basis-


Mr. Cadieux:: That is exactly what I have said.


Robert Daniel Nault: If you need more money you get it from Treasury Board. Why are you putting a cap on it?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: There is no cap.


Robert Daniel Nault: There certainly is a cap.


Pierre H. Cadieux: No.


Robert Daniel Nault: If the cap is on there because the Government said $130 million is all these students will get for the upcoming year-


Pierre H. Cadieux: No.


Robert Daniel Nault: If the Hon. Member did not think there was a cap, why is the amount of money at $130 million? Why not say that is what we are starting with and if we need $150 million, the Government will be more than willing to go and get it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the Minister who has agreed to switch the order in speaking today. I think this could be mutually beneficial. I welcome the opportunity to speak now in part because I wanted the Minister to have the opportunity to reply to matters just raised by the person who led off this debate for the Liberal Party and by myself.
Having said that, I want to stress that in my judgment we are having this debate today in the House of Commons not primarily because people on the Opposition side of the House or people on the Government side of the House in some abstract way decided as a matter of equity that we ought to be debating the condition of the aboriginal community in Canada, but more specifically because of the condition of education at the post-secondary level in which aboriginal Canadians are involved. The reason we are having this debate, and it is crucial for us in Parliament to understand this, is that 31 days ago some young aboriginal Canadians decided to embark upon a kind of protest that regrettably, in terms of human reality in this country, they knew would be necessary to provoke the Parliament of Canada into having a serious debate on their condition. I am convinced we are having the debate because some young Canadians of aboriginal ancestry in Thunder Bay decided, to put it bluntly, to raise a little hell. I am convinced that is why we are having the debate.
The reason is that they perceived that in a policy, initiated some two years ago and finalized in one sense in March of this year, the Government has as its ultimate objective, if it were carried through, not to increase opportunities for young aboriginal Canadians but to curtail opportunities that have been growing in recent years. In short, this policy which ought to be aimed at

April 21, 1989
Supply
greater equality is going to lead to more inequality. Young aboriginal Canadians were right in initiating a protest. We are right in having this debate today. I hope the Government will do the right thing by reversing its policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: As I have already indicated, when you look at what started 31 days ago, a lot of Canadians could be excused for thinking it was a protest about some obscure Government regulation or set of regulations, labelled E-12 guidelines, emanating from one part of the federal bureaucracy. As we know, that is not the case. The details involved in this issue are important. The particulars involved in the dispute about post-secondary education are important.
What is fundamentally involved in this issue, as aboriginal Canadians first and foremost understand, and as parts of the trade union community, the university community, and Members of Parliament are finally understanding in this debate, is whether we are going to perpetuate inequality in Canada as it affects aboriginal Canadians, or whether we are going to move forward to a greater degree of equality. That is what is at stake in this debate.
I would like to put it in that kind of perspective. We as a nation outside the aboriginal community take pride in our democratic institutions. We teach our children that whether it is the Parliament of Canada, our judicial system, our federal system, or our range of liberties, our freedom to be what we want to be, this is a good and just country. It has its imperfections that all of us, certainly on this side of the House, are constantly preoccupied in trying to remove one by one. The basic structure of the common reality that most of us share is one that makes us the envy of a good part of the people on this planet.
If most of us can look with pride at what has been achieved, and point to particular instances that are a source of that pride, can any Canadian seriously point with pride to the aboriginal reality of Canada? I know that one of the most moving documents to have emerged, in its plain, sparse and lucid language, certainly in my lifetime as a politician, describes that reality. I am speaking about sections of the report of the Human Rights Commissioner, whose report came down just some two weeks ago, implemented. This is a document that should become required reading in every school across Canada.
Last week the Human Rights Commissioner issued in part his assessment of the human rights aspect of the existence of aboriginal Canadians. Without exception, we see this as some kind of report card. In the large majority of aspects of human existence, according to the assessment of the Human Rights Commissioner of Canada, the existence of our aboriginal peoples has to be seen as one of profound injustice. It is an existence that none of us, on either side of the House or outside the House as Canadians, should be viewing with pride or with anything less than an attitude that says something has to be done and done quickly to remedy the injustices.
He said the following: "The grand promise of equality of opportunity stands in stark contrast to the conditions in which many native people live". He went through them item by item and aspect by aspect of human life. For example, an Indian girl bom in 1980 can expect to live nearly seven years less than her non-native schoolyard girlfriend. Unemployment, the exception for most Canadians, is the norm for aboriginal Canadians. Imagine someone in Toronto or Winnipeg, in a non-aboriginal family, growing up and expecting an unemployment rate in those cities of 60 to 90 per cent? If that were the situation in any of our urban communities, there would be a revolution. That is the reality for aboriginal Canadians.
Apart from labour and the right to get a job, what about income? If an Indian is lucky enough to find work on a reserve, he or she can expect to earn barely in excess of half of the average income of the general population, some 54 per cent. Off the reserve, as the Human Rights Commissioner has pointed out, aboriginal Canadians are under-represented in terms of their percentage of the population in virtually every sector of the Canadian economy in the workplace. Is it any wonder that so many aboriginal Canadians live on welfare, and that so many end up in prison? It happens to be the case that 55 per cent of the on reserve population will receive some form of social assistance.
As the Human Rights Commissioner has pointed out, it is the case that "an Indian youngster in Canada has a better chance of being sent to prison than of completing university". I would be surprised if that were said of a part of a population in any other part of the world. I remind all Members of the House that these are aboriginal peoples. There is a certain historical myth about two founding races in this country. When it was developed it was said to be that the English and the French were the founding races. That in itself is illustrative of racism. The founding people of this country are the aboriginal peoples, and they are the people who have been most unjustly treated. If you look at the reality described in
April 21, 1989

these statistics about opportunities to work, income, who is in our prisons and who is collecting welfare, the picture is unbelievably bad as it affects our aboriginal community. There is one exception to that. It is the one we are talking about today, that is, the educational opportunities available, and available just recently, to young aboriginal Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, in 1960, only 60 natives were registered in Canadian universities and only 3.4 per cent of native students finished high school. At that time, native youths were taken from their homes and sent to boarding schools in faraway communities. These children had to adjust to a new school environment in a strange language and culture. Children had to learn under such conditions.
Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that this approach was a failure. The Government finally began to do what we now take for granted. It built schools in native communities. It put an end to the practice of punishing young native children when they spoke their mother tongue in class.
Today, we finally see young native university-trained teachers return to the village of their birth and teach the rising generation. And it works, Mr. Speaker!
The new generation of native teachers now takes part in curriculum development and language studies and they are models for their students.
Today, ten times as many students finish high school as in 1960.

From 1960 until two years ago the federal Government offered post-secondary assistance to any aboriginal student who met the entrance requirements. There was real progress during this period. In short, the program, to use the language of the city, was open-ended. It was designed to meet all the needs demonstrated by the aboriginal community. If there was a desire to go on to further education, then at long last during this period the federal Government said that the federal Treasury would ensure that money would be available for students' access to that education. As long as there was a need, the commitment was to ensure that that need would be met.
Supply
This program has its flaws, as was pointed out to the Government by members of the aboriginal community as well as by those outside who were doing an assessment of it. However, the crucial point I want to make is that the program was working. As a result of it, there are today some 15,000 aboriginal students in universities and colleges across Canada. The number is increasing every year.
Having said that, it is also important to know that even these numbers represent a participation rate at the post-secondary and university level of 4 per cent of the native population compared with 27 per cent for the national average. The program was a start in the right direction. Aboriginal people were prepared to accept it and prepared to build on it.
However, two years ago the program was working so well the Government decided to fix it. At a time when aboriginal people were finally starting to use the program, the Government decided to limit financial accessibility. The Department of Indian Affairs introduced a fixed annual budget and introduced a ranking system that discouraged enrolment flexibility. The latest round of changes which were announced in March of this year and which took effect in April saw a capping of the program. Aboriginal people, students and adults alike, feared that this was a major step in the wrong direction. They were right. We are going to do everything we can to get the Government to reverse itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In this context, in the last 24 hours the Minister has said that there is no such gap. He knows that the language, to put it euphemistically, has been quite ambiguous. However, according to his own correspondence, he also knows that the desire was to limit spending, and I use those words with care and precision. This is what he stated in a letter written this year to the chiefs and councils: "The time has come for a major reappraisal to determine how the program could produce larger numbers of graduates within a budget that could not continue to grow at the pace of the last decade". Those are the words of the Minister. He said that the budget could not continue to grow at the pace of the last decade. We say that is a wrong policy. As long as there is a need, as long as students want access, we hope the budget will continue to double, if it needs to, in order to provide that access.

April 21, 1989
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is the point. If the Minister is prepared to get to his feet today and say what he said in that letter is no longer Government policy, that all the funds that are necessary without qualification are going to be made available, then we will support him in that change and say so publicly.
It is precisely to this kind of letter written last month-not last year-by the Minister that the young students and the aboriginal community have been reacting. Canadians with a sense of decency and commitment to equality have been reacting to it as well.
What the Government was doing and saying in justification of the program was that it hopes to save money. The Government has been using some figures. Well, I have some figures as well.
It costs an average of $7,200 to pay for one year of post-secondary education for a native student. It costs $14,000 to cover the cost of training a young man or woman to become a nurse or, in short, to become a self-supporting contributor to the whole of the community instead of being dependent upon it for the rest of his or her life. Surely there is a moral and economic improvement involved in this that constitutes an immense improvement over life of petty crime and welfare dependency. I say to the Government so preoccupied with cost-cutting, a Government that seems to be run by accountants instead of human beings concerned with improving human welfare, that surely it makes more sense to provide money for education than it does to build prisons. Surely it makes more sense to educate aboriginal Canadians than to keep them dependent upon welfare. Surely it makes more sense to treat an aboriginal Canadian as having the same right to human dignity that comes from self-fulfilment as a white person in our society. As soon as we understand that, we will make sure that the money is available.


Mr. Thacker:: What a hypocrite.


John Edward Broadbent: The Hon. Member says that I am a hypocrite. I want him to get to his feet to demonstrate what he means.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I will. You just sit and listen to me.


John Edward Broadbent: I have been told that there are just a few minutes remaining in my allotted time. I want to conclude my remarks with two points.
First, we believe that there should not be a cap where there is a legitimate need for aboriginal Canadians for education. We believe it is long overdue. The rest of us pay for that. They have paid for it indirectly themselves as ultimate contributors to Canadian society. However, we believe that we have an obligation in the Parliament of Canada to make sure that money is available for that.
Second, in terms of the process itself, we believe that the desire of the students initially supported by aboriginal leaders for the Minister to suspend implementation of this program for the coming academic year makes sense. Keep the old regulations in place for the coming year. Work out with the aboriginal community during the coming months a new set of regulations or proposals that are acceptable both to the aboriginal community and to the Government of Canada. Surely that makes sense.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I conclude now with this point. A former Member of Parliament, Jim Manly, who was for many years the critic for my Party on Indian Affairs, once used what I think is a wonderful metaphor for the rest of us to consider. It was a metaphor involving a canary. Jim used to put it something like this. He said that when miners went into the mines they took a canary with them. They used to look at the canary and observe it. As the canary began to weaken they knew it would not be long before they would begin to weaken; that if the canary died then they would die. I would like to extend Jim Manly's metaphor in this way.
We should begin to see aboriginal Canadians as our canary. Whenever they suffer, we are going to suffer. Whenever they experience inequality, we experience inequality. The real objective ought not to be to contain the canary. The real objective ought to be to set the canary free. The real means of achieving that for aboriginal Canadians is for them, as they have been doing, to produce their own generation of leaders. The programs that have been put in place have been producing not hundreds, but thousands of new, self-possessed, competent, committed leaders in the aboriginal community. We should do everything we can to further that process, not inhibit it. We should not take steps that would lead to the suffocation of this canary, but to its liberation. When it is liberated and not until then will the rest of us will not be able to regard ourselves as a truly free people.



April 21, 1989


Mr. Holtmann:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent). He stood in this House today and indicated his great concern, which I am sure many of us in this House have, with regard to our aboriginal Canadians, a good number of which I represent in my constituency. I visit and talk with them quite often.
Did not the Hon. Member for Oshawa this morning in his statement give some false impressions or try to capitalize on the plight of some natives? He indicated his Party is perceived now to be the only one concerned about native Canadians. As a matter of fact during the Thirty-Third Parliament, his Party never once put forth an emergency debate in this House with regard to natives. Yet today he wants to be the champion of natives.
Let me ask him some questions in view of his statements. How can the Hon. Member say that the budget has been capped when in fact the increase has been 10 per cent per year? That is a fact he forgot to mention this morning.
Further, I would like to ask the Hon. Member how can he say the budget is capped when the total post-secondary education for native people has increased by 34 per cent of all secondary education over the last two years? How can he stand and tell Canadians we have cut their budgets? In fact, we have not. If he looks at the real facts about post-secondary education among natives, how can he say to the people of Canada that we want to cap this budget when the Minister has said in this House that he is actively pursuing increases to this budget? I would like some answers, and so would Canadians.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to that particular well-informed question. I would like to respond. I first of all never said that we were the only people concerned. In fact, I went out of my way to say that there was a policy that was started in 1960. We were not the Government then. I gave the Government at that time credit, some Members here were Ministers of the Crown in that Government. I am prepared to do that. I have as recently as yesterday paid public tribute to the Minister involved in the issue as a man who has shown humane concern, not only in his present portfolio, but in his previous one. What the Member says about that is just totally wrong.
Supply
I have referred to the issue of capping. Indeed, I used that language. In reports I have had and in discussion with the Minister, as well as the document I put on the record that the Minister wrote-at least he signed it, he is responsible for it-it said: "They want a budget that could not continue to grow at the pace of the last decade". That clearly aims in the direction of a cap.
The Minister will comment on it. According to the students, and I have not seen him deny this publicly, he has refused unequivocally to say that there will be a total open-ended budget. Whatever the need, it should be met, not in terms of moving people from the back of the line to the front of the line, but from the point of view of removing the line. That is our policy.
What we now have with the present Government is not 10, 12, 20, 30 or 40, but hundreds of students who cannot get into post-secondary education because funds have not been available. That is the reality. The funds have been there have been inadequate. We are saying, meet the need, provide the funds, have an open-ended budget. As long as there is need for education, make sure the money is available. That is my reply to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have three minutes left in the question and comment period. We will give a minute and a half to the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and a minute and a half to the Hon. Member for Oshawa.


Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do not have more time to ask the Hon. Member questions on his comments because they are extraordinary. I would like to ask the Hon. Member if the implications of his statement are in fact true? Are there only two approaches to funding programs in this Government, one to be totally open-ended and the other to be capped? The Hon. Member suggests that the Minister's comment that a budget item could not continue to increase at the rate of the last decade somehow implies that this is a cut-back when the rate of the last decade is an increase of 30 times. Is this necessary to meet the needs of these programs? I think the comments are absolutely extraordinary.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member, and unfortunately there is not a great deal of time, what provisions in the new guideline he disagrees with. The new guidelines provide the opportunity for the Minister to make reasoned and informed presentations to Treasury Board. For the first time we will begin to assemble the kind of statistics that we need. Two-thirds of these funds are administered directly by bands.

April 21, 1989
Eighty per cent of the students who are funded under these guidelines will in fact receive more money. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we should not implement these guidelines and deny those 80 per cent of students increased funding, many of whom live in high rent areas like Vancouver and Toronto? I would like to ask the Hon. Member if in fact he has read the guidelines. His comments in this House today reflect not only a considerable amount of intellectual dishonesty, but a great deal of ignorance about what this has said. I think it is not intellectually sound. As someone who began her career in post-secondary-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. The Member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: I really liked that question from the Minister. It certainly shows what performance we can expect from her in the exercise of her ministerial duties.
I was using the Minister's language when I talked about open-ended. What we on this side of the House mean by open-ended is that so long as there is a need by an aboriginal student, we should meet that need. What we are saying is that the language used by the Minister, I say categorically, is unacceptable. It was the Minister who said that the time had come for a major reappraisal, and the objective is to have a budget that could not continue to grow at the pace of the last decade.
I heard the Minister's question. I wish she would listen to the answer. We do not agree with that. She is right. We believe it should continue to grow if there is a need.
All we want the Minister to do is admit he was wrong-


Dorothy I. Dobbie: He wasn't.


John Edward Broadbent: -and to take back those words and say that if there is a need they will meet the need. Then we will be onside. The Government is wrong on this with human priorities, not this side of the House, I will tell you.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 31


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, like the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead (Mr. Gerin), who is a Conservative, I would like to vigorously denounce in this House the unacceptable attitude of the Mulroney Government in going against the will of its own Members by turning over the thorny issue of political party financing to a commission of inquiry.
It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Mulroney Government is once again acting inconsistently in this important debate which should have involved the elected Members of all political parties, those who suffer from the lack of sound, firm regulations on this subject.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the Mulroney Government is trying to postpone tabling a bill, although one had been promised for the beginning of its second term.
Another fine promise that has not been kept-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboine (Mr. Wilson) has the floor.



PROGRAMS ENCOURAGING TOLERANCE AMONG CANADIANS

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most enjoyable occasions afforded Members of Parliament is surely the privilege of meeting participants in youth exchange programs such as the Forum for Young Canadians, Adventures in Citizenship, the 4-H Movement, Terry Fox Youth Centre and others.
Young people, leaders in their schools, come from cities, towns and villages across Canada and, in some cases, from beyond our borders. They arrive as strangers and depart as friends.
April 21, 1989

These programs are rich and varied, but their common goal is to increase tolerance among Canadians and to bring us closer together. Participants are moved by a common desire for knowledge and the pursuit of a greater understanding of themselves and others.
Canada has an abundance of natural wealth, but its most precious resource is its youth, young people such as those in Ottawa this week.
We extend our sincere congratulations to the sponsors of these very worthy programs, and to the participants we extend our very best wishes for the future.



SCIENCE


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, today's Le Devoir contains a special section which gives the whole program of the 57th convention of the Association canadienne frangaisepour I'avancement des sciences.
I want to congratulate not only Le Devoir for publishing that information to the public at large but also, as a scientist and a Member of Parliament, a society trying to make everybody understand the importance of science for the future.
May it inspire the rest of Canada!



MULTICULTURALISM


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, as Citizenship Week draws to a close I want to offer greetings and congratulations on behalf of this House to the Western Canadian Sudeten-German Alliance on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of their arrival in Canada.
In 1939 our country offered refuge to over 1,000 Sudetenlanders who were suffering from the political oppression of Nazi Germany. One hundred and fifty-two families settled in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. In spite of their former urban way of life, they managed to transform thousands of acres of bushland into productive farmland.
5. ft 31
Sudetenlanders have made a significant contribution to Canadian life by becoming professionals in education, community service, and government.
Let us join all Canadians in recognizing the tremendous achievement of our Sudeten community and in congratulating them on their first 50 years as part of our Canadian family.
Clearly our multicultural identity is strengthened by their being here.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Soviet Union has recently expressed its willingness to initiate talks with Canada and other countries to restrict military activities in the Arctic. That idea was launched in the fall of 1987 by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and was recently taken up by a Soviet official in charge of disarmament.
Since the Government was foolish enough to allow the testing of sophisticated American cruise missiles and is even contemplating the purchase of nuclear submarines, Canada would be well advised to take part in those talks. Otherwise, the Soviets would be forced to intensify their military presence in the Arctic, thereby increasing the number of cruise missiles and Soviet nuclear submarines in that area.
During the upcoming talks between the Soviet Union and other nations, the Canadian Government should strive to conclude agreements on arms limitation and disarmament-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! I regret having to interrupt the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).



VIA RAIL


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail is a hot topic in the news these days. As usual, VIA being in the news is not necessarily good news for the people of northern Manitoba.
After the NTA hearings, the public relations people cited the Winnipeg-Churchill run as follows: "Apart from providing a social service, it is hard to justify that route". The Ottawa Citizen, upon receiving that information said that the Winnipeg-Churchill run is a horror story. Other papers, taking VIA's PR lead, have agreed.

April 21, 1989
5. ft 31
I think it is important that the truth be told. For many people in northern Ontario, VIA Rail is still the only available form of transportation to other communities. It is in effect the lifeline to the North. VIA takes people to their grocery shopping. It takes people to the doctor. VIA takes people to their friends and family.
For years we in the North have watched in anger as stations have been closed down and the frequency of trains has been cut back. Train fares, of course, have continued to rise.
It is important for people in the House and for those newspapers who have taken the PR press releases and used them for their information to know that local passengers have stood at train stations in the middle of the night waiting for the next train and seats have not been available.
Tourist operators have come to me and said they want to book sleepers on that train but VIA will not provide the necessary sleepers.
VIA has said the train is not being used. It had better provide the service, then it will have the usage. If the Government's slogan is "use it or lose it", make it usable.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, a serious study put out this week, by the Environment Protection Committee for Rouyn-Noranda points to the clear conclusion that the soils and streams in the Rouyn-Noranda and Val-d'Or areas are contaminated. This would be caused by a strong presence in our environment, of heavy metals and very toxic wastes, in concentrations well beyond the standards of the Quebec Minister of the Environment.
If this is the case, clearly the very health of my fellow citizens is in jeopardy. I therefore urge the Canadian Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) to contact without delay his colleague from Quebec to verify these allegations, and if they are found accurate I would ask the Governments involved what concrete steps they intend to take in order to solve that serious problem.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, there are real changes taking place in the Soviet Union. Perestroika and glasnost are real.
Some recent events tend to confirm that. For example, results of the elections held on March 26 show that one prominent official candidate of the Communist Party, Anatoly Gerasimov, First Secretary of the Leningrad City Committee, got only 15 per cent of the vote, and this week the Soviet newspaper Moscow News condemned the use of what it calls poison gas during the riots in Georgia last week, in which 19 people lost their lives.
Those are real changes that are taking place. Democratic principles seem to be working.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), during his projected visit to the Soviet Union, should support President Gorbachev in his efforts to liberalize the Soviet system. We should applaud those changes and build closer relations with that country.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Government is scaring the people of Atlantic Canada with more rumours of cut-backs. This time it is attacking the Atlantic transportation industry by removing two vital subsidies, the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act.
We know that transportation is the cornerstone of regional economic development and these programs have been just that in Atlantic Canada for over 60 years.
The assistance programs provide reduced freight rates for shippers so that they may compete with the markets throughout central and western Canada. Without these programs the ability of Atlantic Canadian shippers would be impaired. Freight rates would increase by at least 35 per cent to 40 per cent, and over 12,000 jobs would be lost. I call on the federal Government to keep its word. In 1985 the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) promised that the federal Government had no intention of cutting back on the program.
April 21, 1989

The federal Government must maintain these programs, and Hon. Members can be assured that all the Liberals in Atlantic Canada will fight for them.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: How would you like to spend a day in prison? Not to worry-not as a prisoner, but rather as a tourist!
From June 3 to June 30 1989, Saint-Vincent-de-Paul will host a major tourist, cultural and educational event, with more than 100 young students working there and more than 300,000 people visiting.
After 117 years of history, Mr. Speaker, the old Saint-Vincent-de-Paul penitentiary will be open to the public at large, and I invite not only hon. members but the Canadian public to visit that historical place in order to better understand human realities.
Thanks to the strenuous work done by committees from the correctional service and local people, the premises will be set up to show that hidden side that people at large never had an opportunity to see. Tickets will be available through the Ticketron network for approximately $1.
I would invite the general public to take this unique opportunity to visit the beautiful city of Laval to celebrate the beginnings of a national historical museum. This old dream of mine today is partly achieved.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I raised in the House the matter of a proposed policy for Transport Canada dealing with crash-fire rescue.
I am sure that the people who fly in and out of the following airports will be interested to know what the proposal of the Government of Canada is: Abbotsford, Baie Comeau, London, Norman Wells, Prince Rupert, Quesnel, Sandspit, Smithers, Stephenville, Terrace, The Pas, Wabush, Watson Lake, Whitehorse, Williams Lake, Yarmouth, Sarnia, and Campbell River are all on the hit list.
In order to facilitate deficit reduction elsewhere, these airports will be asked to give up their fire-fighting services so the larger airports in Canada can receive needed rescue services from crash-fire rescue crews.
These are very important services that the Government two years ago said were not necessary. Sypher Mueller International has concluded that the Government was wrong and recommended that these services be placed in those airports to ensure that when there is a crash, something none of us want to see happen, the airports will be protected, but the price is too much to pay.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, during the first week of February one of my constituents rented a sound pressure level monitor from McMaster University. He wanted to test the loudest jet aircraft noise over the town of Ancaster as compared to his three children, aged five to seven, jumping up and down and screaming at the same time as the next scheduled jet came overhead.
The youngsters went into the next room and did their thing with the door open, as the jet roared overhead. The plane registered twice as loud as the three kids screaming.

April 21, 1989
Oral Questions
The day before yesterday, an ancient Lancaster bomber cruised along Highway 53 at approximately 500 feet, rattling windows and knocking things off peoples' man-tlepieces.
I use these examples to illustrate why thousands of my constituents in Ancaster and Dundas are just a wee bit upset about the lack of enforcement of noise abatement bylaws, and apparent confusion over jurisdiction in these noise sensitive areas. Because our airport is about to take off, I am urging that something be done soon by Transport Canada and the region to straighten out noise abatement procedures in the Hamilton-Wentworth area.



EDUCATION


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that post-secondary education in Canada is becoming a matter of increasing public concern, it was with considerable dismay that I read in The Canada Gazette of March 18 that the Government is proposing an amendment to the Canada student loans regulations which will reduce amounts available to students and set lifetime limits on student loan borrowing.
Young Canadians in the gallery take note. This lifetime cap of $20,000 for undergraduates is less than 50 per cent of the maximum amount currently available.
There are several problems here. One is that the caps are too low.
A sum of $5,000 per year will not allow a student to attend university full-time, especially since many students are not able to find employment to supplement this amount.
Another is that family income tables have not been adjusted for several years. This impacts negatively on a student's capacity to obtain student loans.
Third, this proposed program is not only inflexible but is totally at odds with the Government's stated concerns for retraining. The lifetime cap will effectively prevent people from returning to university.
This appears to be another ploy to force the provinces to increase their provincial bursary programs and allow the Government to shirk further its responsibility to the youth of the nation. I ask the Minister responsible to give this matter his immediate attention so that students can plan for the upcoming year.



SURVEILLANCE OF INMATE RECEIVING MEDICAL TREATMENT

Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I expressed my conviction that regulations of the Canadian parole system should be tightened up to prevent dangerous criminals from repeating their crimes.
Next week convicted murderer Daniel Gingras, who escaped while on a day pass visiting West Edmonton Mall, is scheduled for surgery at the Royal Alexandra Hospital.
While prisoners cannot be denied medical attention, it is imperative that society be protected.
Edmontonians are concerned about their own personal security and want to know what measures are being taken to ensure that this prisoner does not escape.
I urge the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) to provide the most extensive security measures possible and to reassure Edmontonians that Gingras will not have the opportunity to escape again.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity- Conception):: Mr. Speaker, late last night I returned from Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred J. Mifflin: I returned with good news. I am very pleased to report to the House that Newfoundland has a new Government, a resounding Liberal victory! I would ask Hon. Members to join me in extending our congratulations to the Premier-elect, Clyde Wells, to the Government-elect, and to all the candidates for a hard-fought fight and a well won battle.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred J. Mifflin: My question relates to one of the major issues of the campaign, and indeed it is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
April 21, 1989

In view of the fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade, six months ago, promised Newfoundlanders and indeed all Canadians that there would be no change to the Unemployment Insurance Program, and in view of the fact that six months later we heard about sweeping changes, will the Deputy Prime Minister please instruct the Minister of Employment and Immigration to withdraw these changes?
Newfoundlanders have spoken and the message is clear. They have passed judgment on these changes and they don't like them.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, last week it was announced in Newfoundland that there would be no more unemployment insurance, which is not true! The safety net continues to exist. The unemployed who lost their jobs through no fault of their own will continue to receive their unemployment insurance benefits today, tomorrow and the day after. The only losers in this context are workers who quit voluntarily and workers who cheat on the system.


FUNDING OF CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, my next question is again directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister of Employment and Immigration stated that the money that was being switched around in these sweeping changes was to be used for the unemployed-those without jobs.
I note that the Minister of State for Youth intends, according to what I have heard, to tap into the savings, for other than those who do not have jobs. Can the Minister reassure Hon. Members that this money will be used for those who are unemployed?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, just to make things clear, the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act that will enable the Government to make some savings through the account, and the savings will be used for unemployed people only. That is correct.
The Hon. Member should know, and I presume he must know, that these global changes through the system will enable the Government to have more flexibility
Oral Questions
through its Canadian Jobs Strategy program which will enable the Government in the next four years to quadruple the amount of money that will be put into co-op education while trying to target more specifically students at the secondary level, those potential high school dropouts, the most vulnerable people in society and within the labour market.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUNDS
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that such logic could drive one in any direction, to any distance, and to any conclusion which hope, fear, and any other passion might suggest.
My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the statements made that no change will be made, can the Deputy Prime Minister reassure the House that the Minister of Finance will be instructed that no changes will be made to the federal government contribution to unemployment insurance funds?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat all the benefits Newfoundland will enjoy as a result of the unemployment insurance reform announced last week: access to employment, access to better paying employment and access to training.
As for your main question about what will happen on April 27, I would ask you to be patient and to wait until the Minister of Finance brings down his budget. You will get your answer in a matter of days!


FUNDING OF CO-OPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a very important point raised earlier. My question is directed to the Minister of Youth.
As the youngest Member of Parliament I am deeply offended and, frankly, disillusioned by the announcement made yesterday by the Minister that the Government intends to steal money from the unemployed to pay for co-op education for young people.

April 21, 1989
Oral Questions
How does the Minister justify breaking a sacred campaign promise made by the Prime Minister that the Unemployment Insurance Program would not be changed?
How can the Minister pit two needy groups in our society, the young and the unemployed, against each other?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the Hon. Member on his election to the House of Commons, and welcome him here. I am sorry that after a few days in the House of Commons he has already declared himself disillusioned. I am also a young Member of Parliament, and I am not disillusioned at all.
The Hon. Member should know, if he is so interested in the issues related to youth, the real issues related to youth are that those in our society who are the most vulnerable are the young people who drop out of high school, and the young people who have the lowest level of education in our society.
After four or five years of Progressive Conservative Government we have the lowest unemployment rate for young people in the last 17 years.
The money used in co-op education will be used under the CJS Fund, and money made available because of the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


REQUEST THAT FUNDING BE MADE AVAILABLE FROM GENERAL REVENUES
Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I would advise the Minister that I also agree with co-op education, but I do not agree with it being done on the backs of unemployed Canadians.
Not only is the Minister breaking a sacred promise made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign, but he is also breaking the promise made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration who stated that the money that she is taking away from the Unemployment Insurance Fund will only go to train unemployed people.
How does the Minister justify breaking this promise? Will the Minister get serious about co-op education and fund the program from general revenues, rather than taking funds from the unemployed people who desperately need them?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, let me applaud the Hon. Member for actually stating, I presume on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, that this is the first time they are actually for something, including co-op education. That is something new.
Let me assure the Hon. Member that it is quite clear that the money that will be saved through UI reform will go to people who are unemployed. That initiative will enable the Government to have more flexibility through the Canadian Jobs Strategy which will enable the Government to quadruple the amount of money that will be put into co-op education, which the Hon. Member is for.
May I conclude by asking the Hon. Member to stop fighting change, and stop being a dinosaur. He must accept the fact that we live in a new world where change in inevitable, and this country has to face up to that.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Approximately half an hour ago the Minister of State for Indian Affairs stated there was no cap on the Government's program as it affects post-secondary education for aboriginal Canadians.
Would the Minister comment on the accuracy of that view?
As the Minister knows, a good part of the motivation for the concern of students affected is that there has been a cap.
I refer to the letter of the Minister dated March 20, 1989, in which he stated: "The program will have to live within its annual allocation-". If that is not a cap, what is it?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on numerous occasions, both inside and outside the House, two years ago my predecessor announced that the program would have to function within budget. This is exactly what the program has been doing for two years. Annually a budget is determined with respect to this particular program.
April 21, 1989

As I have indicated on numerous occasions, if the needs increase, in my humble opinion the funding for the program will increase in order to meet those needs.


MINISTER'S LETTER-BUDGET FOR PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on page 1 of the same letter the Minister talks about the need to stop the growth of the budget because it cannot "continue to grow at the pace of the last decade". I have already quoted him as saying that it has to live within its annual allocation. In the same paragraph the Minister states that this will mean that a "number of students will temporarily have to seek those sources of support available to-other Canadians", because there will not be spaces available.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. He has just stated in the House that if there is going to be a need, and the students have that need, presumably they will not have to seek other sources. In the letter the Minister states that they have to seek outside sources. Is the Minister now saying that they will not have to seek outside sources, and that the Government will provide all the money needed for a young aboriginal person who wants to attend post-secondary education? Is that the policy? If so, make it clear, please.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, we must also look at the guidelines. The guidelines state that assistance will be provided within the limits of funds voted by Parliament.


John Edward Broadbent: That is a cap.


Pierre H. Cadieux: That is voted annually. That is why each year we will look at the needs and determine what funds we need to meet those needs.
If the Hon. Member also wants to quote from my letter, he should also quote the second to last paragraph which states:
But no program design endures forever. In light of the many constructive responses the Department has received, I am instructing my officials -


Mr. Keyes:: Dispense.


Mr. Gauthier:: Table it.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Hon. Members opposite do not want to hear the truth.
I am instructing my officials to review the policy periodically to ensure that it keeps pace with the changing needs and aspirations of students in your communities.
Oral Questions
Obviously the increase in the number of students will justify the increase of funds for this particular program. I have been saying that from the outset.


FUNDING REQUIREMENTS OF STUDENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Minister has not been saying that from the outset.
Without exception the aboriginal Canadians with whom I have spoken, and there are many fair-minded Canadians among them, do not understand the Minister to have the policy he now states. They understand his correspondence to state that there is a cap.
I want to clear this up. Is the Minister saying, unlike what he states in his letter, that any student in the coming academic year of 1989-1990 who wants to go to post-secondary education will receive funding this year from the Government of Canada? Yes or no?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I have been saying from the start that there is an annual budget and that we will be seeking funds on an annual basis with respect to the demand increases that will come from year to year. That is why there has to be an exchange with the native population, which I have encouraged from the start, which I have instructed my officials to continue in order to ensure that we have the appropriate data to seek the appropriate funds to continue a program in which the Government believes. This program has gone from $4.2 million to $130 million, which is an increase of 30 times.


FINANCE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Bank of Canada raised the bank rate to 12.61 per cent. The real interest rate in Canada is now over 8 per cent, the highest level in 20 years. The spread between Canadian and American interest rates is more than 2 per cent, compared with historical spreads of 1 per cent.

April 21, 1989
Oral Questions
Why is the Conservative Government attacking Canadian consumers with this high interest rate policy?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I don't think Canadians want to go back to the severe recession we experienced under the Liberal Government in the early eighties.
As you know, current interest rates are part of the Bank of Canada's general policy to fight the threat of inflation.
As for the spread between Canadian and American interest rates, let us not forget that while today, the spread for 90-day commercial paper is 2.6 per cent, in the early eighties it was as high as 4 per cent.
We intend to continue to support the Bank of Canada in its efforts to ensure that interest rates will go down in time, and do so permanently, in the best interests of Canadian consumers.


MORTGAGE AND CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: I come now to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. All Canadians are affected by the high interest rate policy of this Government. One year ago an $80,000 mortgage was financed at 9.75 per cent.


An Hon. Member:: Who is talking about high interest rates?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Today that same mortgage is renewed at 13 per cent, an additional cost of $2,000 a year.
We also know that on June 1 the interest rate charged on credit cards will rise to more than 20 per cent. Why is the Government maintaining this high interest rate policy which is difficult and disastrous for Canadian families?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the Government has been monitoring the economic situation in Canada very carefully. In four years we have shown that we have been able to deal with the situation. However, losing control of the economy and letting interest rates become even more devastating as a result of increased inflation will certainly do nothing to improve the situation to which the Hon. Member is referring.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
M. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Andre).
Given the fact that branch plants do not do research, that there is a lack of risk capital for Canadian research companies and that foreigners take over Canadian firms like Lumonics, Connaught Laboratories, what does the government intend to do to protect our research companies?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, that question begs a speech of at least 40 minutes to go over all of the things this Government is doing to demonstrate our commitment to research and development-the establishment of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, the establishment of NAPS, the $240 million to Centres of Excellence, the $200 million extra to granting agencies, and the $80 million for the Canadian Scholarships Program. There is a whole range of programs to indicate our Government's commitment to science and technology and industrial development in this country.


ACQUISITION OF COMPANIES BY FOREIGN INTERESTS
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister had the opportunity to give a 40-minute speech yesterday and he did not address the question of Canadian ownership. He has pointed out the problem himself. He is quoted in Computer Dealer News for March 9, 1989 as saying:
If three or four branch plants close, due to free trade and the
economic restructuring we're witnessing, that will, perhaps, facilitate
the creation of one Canadian firm to fill the void, one that will
conduct R and D.
I think this is known as the Khmer Rouge method of developing a research community.
The Minister continued:
Branch plants just don't do research.
Does the Government think that Canadian control of our research companies is important? If so, what is it going to do about these sell-offs?
April 21, 1989


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Investment Canada Act provides that only those take-overs which are a net benefit to Canada, including research and development, are allowed to proceed. The Act is there.
If the Hon. Member has some evidence of where, in fact, the Act does not provide that, let him bring it forward, but these blanket, wildly unsubstantiated charges are absurd.
I would remind the Hon. Member that it was his Party which fought Bill C-22 to the bitter end, a Bill which has brought about hundreds of millions of dollars of research and development in this country. I am glad to see that the new Member is showing a break from that terrible Liberal tradition of saying one thing and acting in another way.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. An Alberta scientist, Dr. Mendoza, whom I had telephoned about atmospheric nerve gas tests in Alberta, was recently taken to a motel room in Medicine Hat and interrogated by military police. He was denied the right to legal counsel at the interrogation.
According to Dr. Mendoza the interrogation focused on my communication with the scientist, a communication that I would point out was never made public.
Why was the scientist denied legal counsel? Is it the view of the Government that communication between Members of Parliament and public servants is somehow improper?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the Member, as I am sure he is aware-I think he has had correspondence with Dr. Mendoza for some years in official capacities- that we have within the Department of National Defence a regular review of security clearances. Dr. Mendoza has had those interviews, voluntary interviews, I might advise the Member. Of course, for any further concerns that Dr. Mendoza may have there is an appro-
Oral Questions
priate grievance procedure in the Department through which he may address those grievances.


BURGLARY OF MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT'S OFFICE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
My office was broken into here on the Hill on March 6 and the confidential files, including my communication with Dr. Mendoza, were gone through. A few days later Dr. Mendoza was interrogated without legal counsel. According to Dr. Mendoza the military police described revelations about Suffield as being politically embarrassing.
Do the military in Canada work for the Conservative Party or for the people of Canada? Don't Albertans have the right to know that the air they breathe is being used for open atmospheric nerve gas tests?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the allegations made by my colleague are quite serious and I advised him yesterday that I would check upon them with the Commissioner of the RCMP. I discussed the matter at length with him this morning and he has advised me that he has been in touch with the Toronto and Ottawa City police concerning the pattern which according to the Hon. Member does exist in the various break-ins. I have been informed by the Commissioner, and I made a careful examination of the information given to me, that no pattern emerges out of these break-ins, Mr. Speaker, and that the Hon. Member has not asked directly any police force to investigate what happened in his office.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for External Relations. Canadians are concerned about the tragic events that are taking place in Lebanon. There has been a fresh outburst of armed conflict in that country, centred in Beirut. Bombardments affect the civilian population indiscriminately, claiming thousands of victims. Could the Minister inform the House about the measures taken by Canada to offer help to the people of Lebanon, the victims of this terrible war?

April 21, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question, which gives me an opportunity to inform the House and all other Canadians about the measures Canada has put in place to help the Lebanese people who are now suffering the consequences of a devastating war. I think that at this point, Mr. Speaker, we should make a distinction between the assistance extended to the Lebanese that remain in their country and the assistance given to those who are trying to escape the combat zones.
At the present time, our embassy in Damascus is able to provide all immigration services. We have four officers on the spot, and I can give the Members of this House and all Canadians the assurance that our services are able to cope with the demand. Yesterday, we heard from our representative in Syria that Lebanese citizens can enter Syria on their Lebanese I.D. Card or passport.
People living in the Christian sector of Beirut, have passports that will get them to Cyprus. As for the services we are able to offer in Cyprus at the present time, I said yesterday in a statement in the House that we had a consular officer on the spot, and I can inform Hon. Members that in Cyprus, it is estimated that since the beginning of March between 11,000 and 15,000 Lebanese have applied to emigrate to various countries. In fact, most have already left Cyprus. As for applications for admission to Canada, all I can say is that we are able to cope with the demand for the time being-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to add that as for the services we are offering people in Lebanon, I announced this week that half a million dollars-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but I will have to interrupt the Minister. The Hon. Member for Saint-Laurent.


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, my question was meant for the Minister of Employment and
Immigration, but in her absence it is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
We have waited long enough for news about the hearings that are supposed to take place in Montreal and Toronto to deal with the tremendous backlog of refuge claims!
The Minister knows perfectly well that the backlog of refugee claims in our large urban areas is a very real problem. Why the delay in establishing bodies that will decide whether these refugees will be allowed to stay? When does the Government intend to deal with the ever increasing problem of refugees waiting to have their claims heard, both in Montreal and Toronto?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague who is responsible for Immigration, I would like to reassure Canadians and tell them that since we introduced our new refugee status determination process, things have become much easier. The figures prove that the system works well, and I can give Canadians the assurance that although there is still room for improvement, current evaluation reports are very positive.


PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In a press release on March 31 we were informed that the Immigration and Refugee Board is developing new facilities in Montreal and Toronto. What does the Government plan to do to alleviate the refugee backlog in Montreal and Toronto? Why is the Government planning two different systems, one for Montreal and Toronto and one for the rest of Canada? Why does the Government not have a policy that treats all refugee claimants equally?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, we have a system in use across the country, in Montreal as well as in Toronto. I repeat, the measures we have put in place during the last few months are working well, and we are satisfied with the results.



April 21, 1989


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. On Tuesday, April 19, the Welland Canal Development Board held a press conference at which it released the contents of a report that suggested how the Welland Canal lands could be developed. Even though I am a member of the board I have not yet received a copy of the report, a report which cost $30,000.
Has the Minister been apprised of this report? Does he agree with the recommendations of it, one of which is that the Welland Canal lands be sold to the highest bidder?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this question affords me the first opportunity I have had to congratulate my colleague on his re-election to the House.
I wish to inform him that, yes, I have been apprised of the report. I also wish to reassure him that this consultant's report was only intended to identify potential development of the land. I emphasize the word "potential".
I understand his concern that any private development might impinge on the public use of the land. I am pleased to tell him that there will be further consultations. Nothing definitive will be done without input from the City of Welland and, as far as I am concerned, from the Hon. Member himself.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS
Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister assure the House and, indeed, the people of my riding, that in future all of the meetings of the board will be held in public so that indeed the public can be apprised of what is going on and how the deliberations are proceeding?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, prima facie that sounds like a reasonable request. I will look into it and report back to the Hon. Member.
Oral Questions HOUSING


REQUEST THAT SPECULATORS' TAX BE INTRODUCED
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Housing. There have been repeated calls to cool off the hot real estate market in Vancouver and Toronto by imposing a tax on speculative real estate profits. Yet the Minister of Housing keeps saying that he will have to do more with less in terms of solving the critical housing crisis in Canada.
If the Minister is short of funds why is he ignoring the money that could be realized from the imposition of a speculators' tax on real estate property?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Hon. Member is aware, I had an opportunity to visit Vancouver last month to see for myself the red-hot real estate market in Vancouver. It is certainly one of the hot spots of housing in the country.
At that time I had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Housing for the Province of British Columbia, the Mayor of Vancouver, the Mayor of Coquitlam, and other providers of market and social housing in and around the Vancouver area, in an effort to try to come to grips with and to see if there is not a way to solve the problems, and have the federal Government made a part in that process.
One of the suggestions of the Hon. Member has to do with land speculation tax. That is a very interesting possibility.
When I was a Private Member I urged the Province of Ontario to institute such a tax. Perhaps the Hon. Member might like to urge the Province of British Columbia to do the same.
My advice at the moment is that that sort of a tax would have to be imposed by a provincial Government. However, if my advice changes I will certainly advise the Hon. Member.


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the same Minister. He is undoubtedly aware that in the last few days a piece of property was sold by the B.C. Government to a numbered company for $2.2 million and resold the same day for $10.5 million.

April 21, 1989
Oral Questions
When the Minister was a back-bencher he advocated that the federal Government introduce a speculation tax. Will the Minister explain why he has changed his mind, and that it is not the federal Government's responsibility but a provincial responsibility?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the Hon. Member, my current advice now is that such a tax is one that must be levied by the provincial Government. If my advice changes, the Hon. Member will certainly be advised. I share his concern about property flipping over at a great rate at veiy inflated prices.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alan Redway: There is an awful lot of excitement from Members opposite, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: All the fire is gone!


Alan Redway: Certainly, part of my discussions with the Province of British Columbia and with other jurisdictions is to try to co-operate to prevent things like that in the future.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. A recent study tabled some months ago with the Quebec Environment Department and made public by an environmental group in my region this week would show that the ground and streams in the area of Rouyn-Noranda and Val-d'Or are seriously contaminated by heavy metals. So, Mr. Speaker, since this is a serious situation that may endanger the health of my fellow citizens, I would like to ask the Minister whether he intends to verify these allegations with his Quebec colleague and, if they are accurate, what does he intend to do to remedy this serious problem?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the situation revealed by this study. I asked my officials to make the necessary checks and I intend to open discussions with my colleague, the Quebec Environment Minister, on this subject.


FINANCE
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. There was a symposium on poverty in my riding recently. Research conducted by the Nipissing University revealed that one in every five children in my riding lived below the poverty line. That works out to roughly 4,000 children. My question is this. What can the parents of these thousands of children, where the household income of 900 of these children was less than $5,000 per year, expect from this Government in the Budget on April 27? What hope can be offered to the poorest of my constituents?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that this Government has always been attentive and will continue to be attentive to the neediest. And I will point out to him that the recent tax reform reduced income tax for 9.7 million households and that 850,000 low-income Canadians no longer have to pay income tax or they receive refundable credits. Income tax was reduced for some 1.3 million households with at least one person 65 or over. And I could go on, as the Minister of Finance did very eloquently a few days ago. So we are and will continue to be very attentive to the poorest members of society.


PLIGHT OF THE POOR
Bob Wood: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister obviously does not seem to know by his answer the meaning of the word poverty, it is kind of hard to tell that to the kids of Nipissing.
My supplementary question is this. Other than a likely value added tax on goods they cannot already afford, could the Minister indicate to the 250 families in my riding, who were forced to rely on the food banks in North Bay and in northern Ontario to feed their families last month, what concrete steps will this Government take right now to demonstrate that their plight really has been taken seriously?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, will show very clearly in the Budget what he intends to do. As for the tax you talked about, if you are talking about the


April 21, 1989

value added tax, the White Paper has already indicated and my colleague the Minister of Finance has said several times that basic groceries would not be taxed.

So I would like to repeat that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has indicated very clearly that basic groceries would not be taxed whenever the value added sales tax is put in force in Canada.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, is addressed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In its desperate effort to increase its job creation figures, the Government has replaced full-time jobs with six-month service contracts on Canadian Forces bases throughout this country, and particularly in Kingston and the Islands. By doing this, the Government is able to claim that it has created two new jobs every year. Now that the election is over, will the Government abandon this short-sighted policy?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member would be congratulating us on the tremendous creation of jobs that this Government has undertaken in the past five years. I thought he would be congratulating us about the effort in all Departments of Government to conduct our work in the most efficient way possible. If this can be done with contractual arrangements, obviously we will look into that and use that wherever feasible and practicable to help the Government to save money.


REHIRING OF SIX-MONTH CONTRACT EMPLOYEES
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, if I thought that the project were saving money I would not be asking the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The fact remains that the administrative costs of this program are very great because job interviews have to be conducted on dozens of applicants every she months. A full-time person who filled a job before was able to do the job perfectly adequately. Now we have this rotating six-month arrangement. People on six-month contracts are frequently rehired because obviously they are the most experienced of the applicants the
Oral Questions
next time around. They sit idle for six months and then work for six. However, because they only work for half the year, they cannot get mortgages or bank loans or any sickness or other benefits. This is unfair.
Why will the Government not change this unfair policy? That is my question to the Minister.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I was not quite sure what that question was all about. Obviously in our Department, as in every Department, we look at our requirement for personnel and the time frame for which we may need those personnel, and make the most appropriate arrangements. In this particular case we want to have the opportunity of reviewing those jobs on a regular basis. We will continue that practice in the public interest for the greatest efficiency and operation of our Department and of the Government.


MULTICULTURALISM
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State who is the Minister of Multiculturalism. Early in this century the Canadian Government introduced racist legislation requiring Chinese immigrants to pay a Chinese head tax. This was followed by the discriminatory Chinese Exclusion Act. The Minister is aware of the proposals of the [DOT] Chinese Canadian National Council which are very important symbolically in today's context to reaffirm Canada's complete rejection of any form of racism.
Will the Government on behalf of all Canadians and all Parties in this House now acknowledge the injustice of the Chinese head tax and take action as proposed by CCNC with appropriate compensation to elderly survivors who were forced to pay this tax solely because they were Chinese?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have met with members of the community and the leadership of the CCNC on a number of occasions. They have presented their proposals and certainly have helped explore and explain the issue as thoroughly as possible. Those initiatives have now been brought forward. They are under review and discussion.

April 21, 1989
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT ON ISSUE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister had promised, after Japanese redress was settled, that this would be the next item for action. The Chinese Canadians in my riding and those throughout Canada are very concerned that this promise be fulfilled. In view of increasing racism in many of our communities it is particularly important. Will the Minister now assure the House and assure Canadians that he will personally take this matter to Cabinet and ask the Prime Minister to make a statement in this House, with the support of all Parties, to erase this past shame and tell the children of today that such discrimination will never again happen in this country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I met my commitment to the community completely in my meeting with them and the manner in which I brought the issue forward. I want to tell her that from coast to coast the activity of this Government is being applauded in the area of multiculturalism, in showing the vision and helping in the understanding of all Canadians to create a more fair, more open, more accessible and more tolerant society.
People from coast to coast have realized the significant progress. I ask her to look forward to new legislation that will be brought forward creating the new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, initiatives in race relations and the establishment of the foundation and heritage languages. There is much activity to help Canadians understand their cultural and racial diversity and how important it is to our identity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will close Question Period with one question by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I was a member of two committees of this House that strongly recommended co-operative education, but we never recommended that it be paid for with unemployment insurance money. In the overwhelming number of cases, those who are eligible for co-operative education were not contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and not eligible for unemployment insurance. In these circumstances, how can the Minister justify funding co-operative education with moneys that are supposed to help people when they are unemployed?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that the money that will be saved through the changes implemented in the Unemployment Insurance Act will go to unemployed people only. Those changes will enable the Government to have more flexibility in the Canadian Jobs Strategy which, in turn, will enable the Government to quadruple the amount of money we will put into co-operative education.
If the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) took the time to reread his own report, the report that the committee on which he sat filed in 1987-


William Warren Allmand: It never recommended paying for co-operative education.


Jean J. Charest: -I think he would find that his own words were: "If we have the courage to seize the opportunities which this kind of expenditure provides, unemployment insurance can be more than just earning replacements while unemployed. It should be a vehicle to help people realize better and more stable employment opportunities in the future". That is what you said in 1987-


William Warren Allmand: Not co-operative education. For beneficiaries of the fund.


Jean J. Charest: Why are you changing your mind today?


William Warren Allmand: 
PRIVILEGE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at the beginning of March requesting an RCMP investigation into what I viewed then and still view today as a pattern of burglaries which now include my office here on Parliament Hill, the Canadian Environmental Law Association offices in Toronto, Science for Peace offices in Toronto, the Ontario Environment Network in Toronto, and the Green Party headquarters in Vancouver.
Following the break-in into my office on Parliament Hill, I met immediately with the Speaker and Sergeant at Arms, and then with House of Commons Security on a number of occasions regarding the break-in.
I believe my privileges have been affected because I have learned this morning that, according to Dr. Mendoza, my communication with him, which was completely proper, is now the focus of an investigation by the Department of National Defence. I have a right, as a Member of the House of Commons, to communicate with public servants and citizens generally about my duties and this should not be hindered. In fact, information that was not public but was tampered with in the break-in of my office has now been used in an investigation of a respected Canadian scientist.
Also this morning I received a call from an ex-serviceman who is concerned about the loss of a kidney which might be linked to Canadian military experiments, but expressed fear of giving his name, phone number or address to me as a result of the recent publicity surrounding these events. This directly affects my ability and capacity to assist Canadians, which I should properly be able to do. I believe that the combination of these events clearly constitutes privilege. If the Speaker considers that there is a question of privilege in relation to these matters, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion at the appropriate time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has a problem with the matter because the Chair does not feel it is a question of privilege arising out of Question Period. Therefore, the proper notice has not been given to the Chair.
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
However, if notice is given in the proper form, obviously the Chair would be willing to entertain the question of privilege at a later time.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not make it as clear as I should have. If the Speaker looks at the "blues" of the remarks by the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), he will see that the Solicitor General indicated that, coming from his meeting with the Commissioner of the RCMP this morning, the RCMP are not undertaking an investigation of a pattern in the break-ins because I, as a Member, have not been in touch with the Toronto or Ottawa city police. I do not think in any way it is my role or duty to be asking for investigations of burglaries in Toronto or Ottawa.
I believe the Speaker, the Sergeant at Arms and House of Commons Security, if they believe they need assistance for fingerprinting or further investigations here on the Hill, are perfectly capable of doing so.
I think my privilege relates directly to the remarks of the Solicitor General.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Solicitor General want to respond? The Chair recognizes the Solicitor General.


Pierre Blais: Briefly, Mr. Speaker. I would like to read the blues to check what I said because the words reported by my colleague from Skeena (Mr. Fulton) are not quite accurate. I mentioned-I would not want to comment on what was said during Question Period concerning inquiries which have nothing to do with the Hon. Member for Skeena.
As to his own situation, his own allegations concerning his personal situation, what I said-I would want to check the blues, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know whether it is possible to find out how long that would take, but I would rather not comment on what I said. We will see what I said and take it from there, Mr. Speaker. However I do not think that what the Hon. Member has just said exactly reflects my own words because the issue is getting complicated. I prefer checking the blues if that does not take too long, I do not know but I would rather look at them, Mr. Speaker.

Mi. Deputy Speaker: If the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) would agree, the Chair would propose that

April 21, 1989
The Late James Edgar Walker
the Hon. Member for Skeena give a formal notice to the Chair as to the matter of privilege. In the meantime we will look at the "blues" and Hansard. We will then discuss the matter again whenever the Member for Skeena would wish. Is that agreeable?


James Ross Fulton: Yes.


THE LATE JAMES EDGAR WALKER
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: I rise to share with the House sadness at the news of the death of James Edgar Walker, a former colleague and friend who was known by Canadians as Jimmy.
Jimmy was much loved in this place on all sides and in the community which he represented so ably here from 1962 to 1974,namely the riding of York Centre in North York which I now have the honour to represent.
Jimmy died in a hospital bed in Toronto on Wednesday. He was 77. His beloved wife Lillian and his sons John and James were close at hand. He came to the House in 1962, a veteran of World War II, and a veteran also of North York municipal politics, already well known and respected in our community of North York.
He filled many assignments here with distinction during his long career, but there is no doubt that the most difficult and challenging one was that of Chief Government Whip in the minority Liberal Government of Lester Pearson. Jimmy's assignment was bringing out the troops, often for surprise votes at all times of the week and at all times of the day, under unrelenting House rules, which have long since been repealed because of their inhumanity.
This assignment took its toll on Jimmy and that should be recounted here, as should his service to Prime Minister Trudeau as Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know of anyone around here today like Jimmy. In the days when social service was not a normal part of a Member of Parliament's job, he was deeply involved in problem-solving for his constituents. He cared for his people and their needs, and his colleagues here all benefited also from his friendliness, and from his availability to give advice and to help us. He was always optimistic and he was always positive. He spoke well of everybody.
I think that Jimmy could have been elected to this place forever, whatever stripe the Government happened to have. His decision to step down in 1974 and to encourage me to come back to Parliament in this seat, gave me an opportunity for which I will always be indebted to him. To his family, Lillian his beloved wife, to his sons John and James, we send our sympathy.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government of Canada I want to join with my hon. friend, the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), in paying tribute to a very dear friend and very outstanding and special Commoner, Jimmy Walker, who has departed. I concur with all the sentiments that have been expressed by the Hon. Member for York Centre. In so doing, I simply want to reinforce the fact that to me and I am sure to many others, Jimmy Walker was considered a very decent person and a very honourable man, one I would consider a friend.
I recall when I first came to the House in 1968, Jimmy Walker was one of the first Members to come across the floor to introduce himself. I learned at that time that he was born and raised in Vegreville and we became very, very close friends from that day hence. As the Hon. Member for York Centre had indicated, he was always there to lend a helping hand and to reach out, and he certainly did that for me. He was a friend. He was always helpful. He reached out to help other Hon. Members from all sides of the House. I think that was really one of the very basic qualities of Jimmy Walker. He really was that kind of a person, always seeking ways and means of helping people.
When I came here in 1968,1 presume his role as Whip was a little easier than it was during the minority years. Nonetheless, being a government Whip is never an easy job. He discharged that responsibility in a very exemplary fashion.
As a Member, he defended his principles and ideals with vigour but he did it with dignity and honour. We all come here as members of a certain political Party, but Jimmy was certainly not noted for his partisanship. He was veiy even- tempered and he was more interested in the final results. He set an example in maintaining the very highest and finest traditions of parliamentary democracy.
April 21, 1989

He was a great House of Commons man, he was a tremendous people person and he dedicated his life to helping people. He was a family man, he had a distinguished military career and he was a very successful business person. He was a great Canadian, but I think most of all, we can hold Jimmy Walker up as a clear example of what a Member of Parliament should be. In so many respects, I think he epitomized the finest qualities of a Member of Parliament.
On behalf of my Party, and I know on behalf of all Hon. Members, I join with colleagues opposite in expressing our deepest sympathy on his passing. He was a great Canadian who will be sadly missed.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to associate ourselves with the words of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and say a few words about the passing of Jimmy Walker. The Leader of my Party, myself and those others of us in the NDP who knew him were very saddened to hear about his passing. He was a Member of Parliament from 1962 to 1974.
I can remember when I was first elected with the Hon. Member for Vegreville in 1968, Jimmy Walker was one of those friendly Members of Parliament who came across and made himself well known to members of other Parties. He was certainly very well liked and highly respected by those of us on the opposition side. I recall him being a conciliator, a bit of a peacemaker in terms of the operations of the House of Commons. He was the Parliamentary Secretary to Pierre Trudeau, and I think that showed the respect that the Prime Minister of the day and the Liberal Party of the time had for the conciliation abilities of Jimmy Walker.
If I remember correctly, Jimmy Walker was a progressive Liberal, a person concerned about the disadvantage in society and what he could do for people who were less fortunate. He retired in 1974, and as his successor said, there was no doubt that if he had run again in 1974, he would have won the seat. However, he retired to become a citizenship judge. Those of us who knew him will miss him.

Mr. Speaker, I would want to extend my personal condolences and those of my Party to his wife Lillian, his two sons James and John, and his seven grandchildren.
Tabling of Documents



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today in the House, in both official languages, the annual report that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canadian housing agency, is presenting to Parliament for 1988.

It was a year marked with real achievement in helping Canadians secure suitable and affordable housing.

We go forward on these successes to meet the challenge of the future, to further improve the quality of life for Canadians.


PETITIONS
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to all petitions presented during the First Session of this Parliament, that is, those numbered 341-0001 to 341-0016 inclusive.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



THE ADMINISTRATION


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the Government pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1). These are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.

April 21, 1989
Supply
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of certain constituents of my riding, a petition which has been certified correct as to form and content. The petition calls upon Parliament to ensure that private music lessons not be the subject of any taxation measures to be implemented by the Government.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of
Robert Daniel Nault: That this House recognize that the Government's arbitrary and misanthropic policy of unilaterally capping future funding for post-secondary education for Canada's native peoples severely undermines the right and efforts of these peoples to enhance their capacity to make meaningful and lasting improvements to their economic and social conditions and to establish their self-reliance, thereby condemning them to unacceptable living conditions and driving them to desperate measures; and
That this House urge the Government to terminate its plans to cap this funding and take steps to establish effective bilateral consultations on this and other matters vital to the improvement of the lives of and the ending of discrimination toward these Native peoples.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the post-secondary education program, I would like to start by commenting on certain remarks made by the Leader of the NDP with respect to Mr. Yalden's report tabled last week. I think the Leader of the NDP, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), accurately summarized certain statements in Commissioner Yalden's report, which we have of course read very carefully.
I believe Mr. Yalden described a situation that does in fact exist. Unfortunately, I feel that he failed to mention certain improvements that have been made over the years. I also believe that although governments have made considerable efforts in recent years to deal with the situation, a great deal remains to be done, and that being understood, I partly agree with Commissioner Yalden's comments, and I am sure that in the months and years to come, there will be many opportunities to discuss these issues.

With respect to this particular subject of post-secondary education, I am obviously glad to have the opportunity to address this issue fully in the House today. It is plagued by serious misunderstandings. I hope that the remarks made here today will give all students, including the ones who are on the hunger strike, Members of the House, and all Canadians a much better understanding of the new policy and guidelines on Indian post-secondary education assistance.
I am obviously very concerned with respect to the hunger strikers. I know that they sincerely believe in the validity of their actions. I have asked them to believe in my desire to hear their views fully and to respond to them.
I believe that we are far closer on this issue than the controversy today suggests. We share common objectives and equally strong commitments to meeting them. Over the months ahead we can sit down and work out specific concerns with the program. Today I particularly want to focus on the program and the guidelines, and attempt to explain them fully, and to explain why changes were necessary and why they are beneficial.
The Government is proud of this program, as are Indian people of their graduates. We need to overcome the serious misunderstandings that have arisen and have now become so charged with emotion and controversy. I want to establish good communication, and an effective working relationship with Indian people on this issue. I hope that the debate in the House today can serve those

April 21, 1989

objectives. I want to reassure Indian people across the country who are concerned about this program that I recognize their concerns and have always been ready to discuss them. As I have indicated from the outset, I am ready to start a bilateral process as soon as possible to formally address these issues and other related ones.
We are facing difficult times. Several major issues face us. The Post-Secondary Education Assistance Program is one of the most important of those major issues. We have to deal with it. I know that education is the best way to heal the social malaise and physical hardship that now afflict too many Canadian Indians. I know that the greatest hope for strong, vital Indian communities in the future is education. I know that Indian people have the talent, will, and commitment to make education work for them. I know that last fact because assistance for Indian post-secondary education is one of the most successful programs the federal Government has ever undertaken.
Under the previous policy, the number of post-secondary students increased from 3,500 in 1977-78, when the E-12 guidelines were introduced, to some 15,000 in 1988-89. During the same period, the budget for this program grew from $9 million to close to $130 million. Nevertheless, even the most successful policies need updating and revising from time to time to meet changing needs and emerging trends.
In this case, there is a need to increase the number of successful graduates of the program. Further, there is a need to encourage more Indian graduates who are able to help make self-government and economic independence a reality for their people.
One year ago, my predecessor launched a consultation process to consider revisions to the previous policy. A draft policy proposal was sent to all regions of the country. We were committed to formulating a policy that met Indian needs and Indian aspirations.
The concerns and recommendations of these groups are reflected in the revised policy. For example, the old policy system of limiting the length of student support to a specific number of student months has been changed to a system which provides for up to five years for a four-year program, and up to four years for a three-year program.
Supply
The previous wide range of regionally determined rates of assistance has been replaced by a nationally consistent rate structure. Average rates provided to students in most categories under the old guidelines have been increased under the new policy.
The earlier draft policy identified only a $1,000 scholarship for studies for self-government and economic self-sufficiency. A strategic studies scholarship of up to $3,500 per year has been developed under the revised policy. An academic achievement scholarship has been added which is up to $1,000 annually for qualified students. A special allowance has been provided in high-rent cities for single parents with dependants, and married students with both dependent spouses and children. Tuition fees are now covered regardless of time spent in post-secondary education. One result is that there is no limit to the number of degrees for which tuition, books and supplies are provided.
Those are ways in which our consultations with Indian people have helped make this policy a vast improvement over the old policy. However, those are only part of the whole range of benefits that would be available to eligible students under the new policy.
To summarize all those benefits, I would like to underline the following. Complete tuition assistance is provided to eligible full-time and part-time students. This includes fees for registration, tuition, and the cost of books and supplies required for a particular course of studies. Full-time students who must live away from their permanent places of residence may qualify for travel grants back to their homes once every semester for themselves and any dependants who reside with them. Students living away from home will be eligible to receive monthly allowances to help cover their living expenses, for example, food, rent, hydro, daycare, calculated by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto according to the costs of living in Toronto, which are higher than anywhere else in Canada. In addition, under certain circumstances provisions have been made for increased allowances in high-rent areas.
The following is an illustration of some examples of levels of assistance. A single student living away from home will receive a maximum monthly living allowance of $675. A married student with an employed spouse and three dependants will receive a maximum of $1,205 per month. A single-parent student with three dependants will receive a maximum of $1,355 per month, plus a rental supplement where applicable.

April 21, 1989
Supply
Students will be eligible to receive funding to complete community college diplomas, certificates, undergraduate degrees, Masters, Ph.D. or professional degrees. Student allowances will be provided for the official length of each successive academic program: three years for a three-year program, four years for a four-year program. An additional year may be provided for a particular student to complete a degree or diploma program at each level.
Therefore, successful students will experience no difficulty in obtaining support through all the academic levels to the conclusion of a professional degree in law or a graduate program such as a Master's degree or a Ph.D.
Administering organizations, bands, tribal councils, education authorities, or other Indian organizations may also offer special incentives to eligible students in addition to the allowances provided under the basic policy.
For example, academic achievement scholarships of up to $1,000 may be granted to community college or undergraduate students who attain an average B or higher. Strategic studies scholarships may be granted for undergraduate students which may be worth up to $3,500 to encourage them to follow courses such as commerce, public or business administration, economics, applied and physical sciences, mathematics, computer science, forestry or engineering, courses that would contribute directly to achieving self-government and economic self-reliance in Indian communities; and awards of up to $1,500 for full-time students enrolled in advanced or professional degree programs such as Master's or Ph.D. programs.
Under the new policy, those administering organizations will have an even greater opportunity to participate directly in the post-secondary education process.
The new policy is sufficiently flexible to allow administering organizations to establish their own operating procedures provided these are consistent with the policy and respect the maximum rates and limits of assistance. To ensure fairness and equitable treatment under the policy, administering organizations will have to have an appeal process in place. The new policy also requires the establishment of a student registry that will greatly improve the data base for the program.
We need to work together with administering groups to establish an improved system for research and data collection. Two-thirds of the program is managed by bands, tribal councils, education authorities and other Indian groups. It has been very difficult in the past, Mr. Speaker, to obtain full statistical information. Therefore, cost projections from year to year have been based on historical trends in expenditures rather than actual demand. We need better information in order to plan and to forecast demand and costs. Because the new policy relates to support for individual students, provides incentives and scholarships and has a rate structure based on individual student costs, the budget for this fiscal year has been set on those criteria. However, if the data indicate there should be changes in financial resources in the future, I am prepared and will ask Cabinet for increased financial resources for the coming years to meet those growing demands.
I would like now to say a few words about treaties. I recognize how strongly Indian people feel about treaties. For Indian people treaties are fundamental to their existence as a people. They represent the contract that the great chiefs and their people signed with the Crown. They form the basis of the historic relationship between Indian people and the federal Government. My Government respects and values that relationship and so provides elementary and secondary education to Indians who reside on reserves. This commitment has been formalized in the Indian Act. In fact, my Government goes beyond the Indian Act and provides educational and support services far beyond what is required by the law. Our support includes pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and post-secondary programs. With our elementary and secondary education programs I believe that my Government is observing the full spirit and intent of the education references in the treaties, but I do not agree that post-secondary education is a treaty right.
We must strengthen our policy commitment to encourage Indian people to attend colleges and universities and to graduate with the skills that much of the rest of this country takes for granted, skills necessary to develop the special potential of this vital part of our population. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we must all maintain our strong support for this program and to improve it in every way possible.
April 21, 1989

I have indicated my willingness to review the specific terms of the new policy. We have approximately four months before the program becomes operational. We should use that time to correct any inequities in the new policy that together we can identify. If it is determined that more is required to complete the review, then we will determine it at that time and take more time if necessary.
I am willing to sit down with the chiefs and student representatives to design a bilateral process of consultation on post-secondary student assistance as they have requested. I believe that this policy is better than the previous one. However, there may be some areas where there could be further improvements, or areas where there are unintended inequities. I have stated from the beginning that I am prepared to look at these if they can be demonstrated.
In this great country we share, there is a tradition of democratic processes. These include discussion, negotiation and, yes, even criticism. The goal we all strive for is a fairer, more productive Canada for all its citizens and I am prepared to contribute to that and to obtain the appropriate means in order to ensure post-secondary education for our native people.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, in this morning's Ottawa paper I was amused by a clipping under the heading "Indian Affairs stonewalling either dumb luck or genius". The writer was Frank Howard who was calling the Indian and Northern Affairs Department trying to obtain some accurate data on this whole issue which was brought to the nation's attention by the hunger strike. Of course, it took an opposition day to get the Minister on his feet to give us some facts and figures.


Mr. McDermid:: That is not right. Be fair.


Jesse Philip Flis: Let me quote the reporter:
In the face of Indian hunger strikers, the Department has been inept in its media relations-or maybe not.
It seemed inept earlier this week when I was looking for numbers about the make-up of the 15,000 or so people claiming access to some $130 million per year for keeping them and their families on campus.
I wanted to know how the money was being spent, how many of the recipients were in community colleges, specialized institutes, post-high school re-entry courses, university under-graduate courses, graduate courses and so on.
Supply
The department's first response at the bureaucratic level was that
questions could only be answered by the Minister's office.
Since you are rushing me, Mr. Speaker, could the Minister tell this House what percentage of the students who enter post-secondary education actually graduate with some sort of a degree or a diploma? Second, what is the make-up of the approximately 15,000 students who claim access to this annual $130 million cap which the Minister has put on?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I obviously welcome the Hon. Member asking this question. Of course, he is entitled to make whatever comment he desires. I would point out to him that I have been on my feet for a while now answering the concerns of the members of the Opposition but I have not seen the Hon. Member on his feet asking questions.


Jesse Philip Flis: You will.


Pierre H. Cadieux: That being said, I only say this because of the particular comment made by the Hon. Member which I thought was unfair, and unfortunately I am just as fair as he is.
With respect to the particular newspaper article, I respect the views of all people of the press and I am sure they express what they have to say in their own articles whenever they want to.
If the Hon. Member listened very carefully to the comments that I have just made, let me stress that I indicated that 66 per cent of the program is administered by the bands and councils themselves. We do need an enhanced co-operation and communication in order to establish as precisely as possible the correct data with respect to this program. There was not a sufficiently good system of control with respect to the moneys invested in this most important program. That was one of the flaws of the old policy. What we want to establish is a better system to evaluate the needs and the costs so that I can go on an annual basis to Cabinet and request the appropriate funds in order to meet the needs of post-secondary education of our native people.


Jesse Philip Flis: You did not answer my question.


Mr. Fee:: I would like to commend the Minister for his presentation. He has done an excellent job of presenting it, and his sincerity in presenting it is evident. There have been a number of criticisms that have come out. We have read them in the media. We have heard them in the House. There is one that he did not mention in his

April 21, 1989
Supply
comments, and I would like him to elaborate on the criticism that I have heard from a few people, that this program appears to dictate to certain Indian students which educational institutions they will attend, and what courses they will take. Will the Minister comment on whether that is his intent?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, we do not dictate which course a student has to attend, or which institution a student has to attend. We recognize that there are domains that perhaps are not gone into sufficiently by Indian students. Bearing in mind the ultimate goal of self-government and self-sufficiency, we have designed some incentives in this particular program, in order to encourage students to consider these particular programs and courses, so that they can obtain degrees in those domains in order to help, enhance and achieve the ultimate goal of self-government and self-sufficiency.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: One of the things that the Minister did not mention was the objective of equality in terms of participation rates for native students and non-native students. Mr. Yalden had discussed this in his Human Rights Commission report. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) discussed this in his speech, that if we are to obtain equity between the participation of native students in post-secondary education, which is now around 4 per cent, as opposed to the population of Canada as a whole, which is around 27 per cent, a substantial amount of Canada's resources has to be allocated in order to achieve that equity. That should be our goal. I believe the Minister indicated that at the close of his statement.
I am wondering exactly what the Minister's goals are. When does he intend to achieve that equity, and over how short a period, because we should be talking about a relatively short period, the shortest period feasible? Is the Minister willing to allocate resources, in order to achieve equity over the shortest period possible? Is that his goal?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech earlier, when I addressed Commissioner Yalden's report, unfortunately the Commissioner did not acknowledge in his report things that had been done. It is a fact that more has to be done. I appreciate that particular question. We have to bear in mind what has been done. In 10 years, we went from
3,000	students to 15,000 students. There was a fivefold
increase. Right now what we are trying to establish and determine, in co-operation with the bands and councils that administer two-thirds of our program, is the obtaining of the most accurate data, so that I can have the needs, evaluate the costs and request the appropriate money.


Mr. James:: The new post-secondary policy that we are talking about today has been criticized by some people as reducing the length of time that support will be forthcoming to the students and that this could possibly restrict their long-term education goals. I ask the Minister, what does the policy really say? I think there is some confusion there.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the policy does not restrict Indian students is obtaining degrees. The policy states that if an institution, college or university determines that a given course should be completed in three years, then that course should be done in three years. Notwithstanding that, recognizing and acknowledging that in certain circumstances there may be difficulties or problems with respect to a given student, for example, if the institution recognizes that a particular student needs an additional year in order to complete that particular course or obtain that particular degree, we will acknowledge that. We will acknowledge that also for whatever consecutive degree a student wants to obtain.


Mr. Harb:: I would like to congratulate the Minister. I enjoyed his speech very much, especially when he indicated his intention to meet with the different groups, and when he spoke about the consultation with the different groups. I am interested in seeing some sort of an administrative support system to make an assessment of the program on an annual basis, so the Ministry could have the information the Minister was talking about. In light of the fact that we do not have all of the data, for example, what the success rate and the attrition rate are, I believe it would be very difficult for the Ministry to embark on a capital project without having all of the elements. In view of the fact that over the past four years we have been fishing in the mud, will the Minister tell the House what his intention would be over the next three months in order to get out of this dilemma, and in order to give the House a proper assessment of the actual costs for the program, over the next year, or over the next five years? The more money we spend on education, the less money we spend on welfare and UIC. Will the Minister please tell us his intention?
April 21, 1989


Pierre H. Cadieux: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Elon. Member for his most reasonable comment. The intention from the very start is relatively clear. We want to pursue this very successful program in post-secondary education for Indian students. I believe the numbers speak for themselves. As we have already indicated on numerous occasions, it went from $4.2 million to a $130 million, and from 3,000 students to 15,000 students. We are committed to pursuing this program. We recognize also that education is a solution to improving the situation of our native people.
What I have indicated from the outset when I announced the policy, is that it would have to be reviewed regularly. What I have also announced and agreed to since then, is to establish a bilateral process in order to obtain the data that we absolutely need to establish on a year-to-year or on a five-year prediction, the needs that we are going to encounter, so that we can plan and receive the appropriate funds, in order to recognize and enhance this post-secondary education program. My intention from the start has been to sit down in normal circumstances, go over the data and information plan and go to Cabinet to plead this case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand).


William Warren Allmand: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me focus on the key issue in this debate. We have here a growing number of young Canadian Indians who want to go on to university and college, to improve their human condition, to get off the welfare merry-go-round, and to escape poverty, but the Government is putting restrictions on their ability to do this. That is the issue in this debate. The Government is doing this by capping the funds available for Indian post-secondary education, at a time when the Indian population is expanding and more Indians are qualifying for university. What kind of perverse logic is that? It is almost as if the Government would prefer to continue paying out welfare moneys rather than help people get off welfare.
In a recent article in The Globe and Mail by Peter Desbarats, the dean of journalism at the University of Western Ontario, Mr. Desbarats said the following: "For centuries we have been telling native people that educa-
Supply
tion is the road to self-reliance. As soon as they started to follow this advice in significant numbers we backed away from it. Surely, the impact of this type of hypocrisy on the Canadian native population will in the long run be more costly than the relatively small amount of money it will save".
In 1982-83 I had the good fortune to serve on the Special Committee for Indian Self-Government chaired by my former colleague, Keith Penner, the Member of Parliament for Cochrane-Superior. I say "good fortune" because during those two years we had the opportunity to travel across the country and to meet Indian people in all parts of this land, to visit their lands and to find out about their dreams and their ambitions. When we published our report in 1983, before making recommendations we catalogued some of the social conditions faced by Indian people in the country at that time. I would like to detail some of them.
In terms of child welfare the proportion of Indian children in care had risen steadily to more than five times the national rate-five times higher than the non-Indian population. In terms of housing, nearly 19 per cent of on-reserve homes had two or more families living in them, these conditions affecting 40 per cent of all status Indian families. Facilities: fewer than 40 per cent of Indian houses had running water, sewage disposal or indoor plumbing facilities. The national level of properly serviced houses is over 90 per cent. The average income of Indian people is one-half to two-thirds of the national average. The death rate, despite improvements over the past 10 years, is two to four times the rate for non-Indians. The infant mortality rate among Indian children is 60 per cent higher than the national rate. The life expectancy for Indian people is 10 years less than for non-Indian people.
That was in 1983. The conditions have not improved that much since that time. If we look at the report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which was published just a few weeks ago, we see that Mr. Yalden stated: "The situation faced by Canada's native peoples is in many ways a national tragedy. The grand promise of equality of opportunity that forms the central purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act stands in stark contrast to the conditions in which many native people live".

April 21, 1989
Supply
Mr. Yalden went on to state: "Native peoples are drastically under-represented in employment in virtually every industrial sector and eveiy occupation, even in locations like Winnipeg or Regina where there is a high concentration of natives. Within federal government Departments themselves, where programs to promote native hiring have been in place for some time now, the representation of native peoples is abysmal in all but the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs". Those are the social conditions that are facing the native people of Canada.
I spoke a moment ago about the dreams and ambitions of Indian people. I just want to refer Hon. Members to a special study that was done with respect to our Indian people by The Free Press of Winnipeg on October 14, 1988. In carrying out this study the newspaper conducted an inquiry among Indian children as to what their ambitions might be. I would like to quote from some of the letters that were sent in by Indian children on the reserves.
Anne, a 13-year old girl, wrote: "When I grow up I would like to be a store manager and I would like to help the old people find what they want. First I will finish my education and go on to high school and university. Then after that I would come home and be a store manager".
Linda, 12 years old, wrote: "I would like to be a police girl because I do not like people getting drunk and if they do I will make sure they are not getting hurt and my family will be very proud of me, of being a cop, that I will be a cop forever and I will never break one rule. I won't drink".
Candice, who is 11 years old, wrote: "When I get out of school I will go to school at Brandon University. I am planning to be a teacher when I grow up. My Mom is a teacher".
The citations by young Indian people with respect to their ambitions and with respect to their dreams goes on.
One must not forget in this debate that in the last Parliament we passed Bill C-31 which greatly added to the number of status Indians in Canada. The estimate is that the number of people who have been added to the rolls of status Indians as a result of that law is between
30,000	to 80,000. We cannot get an exact figure, but it is relatively high.
In the debate so far there seems to be some confusion on the government side with respect to capping. Some have said that there is no cap. Then, earlier this morning in answer to questions from the Leader of the NDP the
Minister admitted that there is a cap. There is a limit on the amount of money available to the students for post-secondary education. No one has said that the Government has cut back on the funding. We have not said that. Of course there have been increases in the funding. However, there has been a limit on the increases in the funding. The increases have not been sufficient to cover those people who are qualified for university and accepted by universities.
I would now like to refer to a brief that was sent to us by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians who stated: "The new policy and guidelines would create undue hardships for Indian students. The capping of the funds available, combined with demographic realities that accelerate demand for post-secondary education by Indian students, would severely limit the financial resources available on a per-student basis, and effect a reduction in the numbers and success rates of students enrolled in universities, and other post-secondary institutions already under-represented by 50 per cent in comparison to enrolment rates of the general Canadian society. Indian participation in post-secondary education should be promoted and increased, helping to raise, not lower, the proportion of Indians in post-secondary education".
With respect to this capping, as I have said, there is some misunderstanding. Perhaps I could put it this way for purposes of the Government and the public. Let us consider a program such as Old Age Security. Under that program when someone turns 65 he or she receives Old Age Security, whatever the fixed amount is. No matter if the health rates improve or if the population increases, as soon as someone turns 65 and no matter what the numbers are, they all receive Old Age Security. We do not say to them: "There is only a budget of so much and, unfortunately, the budget level has been reached and now we must reduce the Old Age Security. It is first in, first served". We have a program which states that no matter how many people turn 65 they will receive the old age security pension. That is a program without limit, without a cap.
In the program that is put before us and what the Minister is doing is putting a limit on the amount of moneys available for Indians in post-secondary education. He is saying that they will only be admitted into the program up to the point of reaching that limit. What we are saying, and what the Indians are saying, is that all Indian students who are qualified and are accepted to university should have the right to go to university without limit.
April 21, 1989

This is not a great number of people. It is increasing, certainly, and I mentioned the figures in that regard. However, the total number of Indians and aboriginal people is at most one million. A few years ago we had about 300,000 status Indians. Perhaps that number has gone up to 400,000. There are 15,000 Indian students in post-secondary education. In the City of Montreal we have more students in post-secondary education than 15,000. That is not a great number. So perhaps there is another 1,000 or another 2,000. Surely a rich country such as Canada can afford to pay for that. There should be no capping with respect to these people.
I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity, but he is part of a Government. He is subject to the restraints of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and so on. When he is enunciating a policy, he has to enunciate it in the context of what they will permit. Unfortunately, it is a very narrow approach that they are taking. Those young people who are risking their lives in this hunger fast have not been risking their lives for nothing. They are risking their lives because they understand that they will not be able to get the education they need. That is a serious matter.
Once again, I say there should be no cap. All those Indian students who are qualified and accepted by universities should be given the financing necessary to pursue their studies. The alternative open to them, Mr. Speaker, is welfare. When I was sitting with the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, we heard people asking, Why should there be a special program for Indian post-secondary education? Why should they have a program that is different from any that we non-Indians have? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that such a program is part of our settlement with the native people, with the aboriginal people, for occupying this land that once was all theirs. At one time, all this land that is now Canada was the land of the aboriginal people: the land, the water, the mines, the resources, the oil, the gas. It was all theirs. We came from Europe and elsewhere and occupied the land in great numbers, and very often pushed them off to the less productive lands.
Supply
In turn for taking a lot of their land, we made agreements, sometimes in treaties, sometimes not in treaties, on the basis of their aboriginal rights to pay them back for that land. We have not paid very much. Part of the pay-back is funding for post-secondary education. If we look at the result of the takeover of this land by the European peoples, who is rich and who is poor? The people who owned the land in days gone by are certainly not the rich people. They are not controlling this country and this land. So the least we can do is have a generous program for education, especially postsecondary education. This is small payment for the lands that we took, lands which are making most of us rich. That is a small compensation that we who have come from European stock and other stock can pay to these people who once owned and occupied all of this land.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. In a recent report on aboriginal justice, it was pointed out that a native child today has a better chance of ending up in jail than receiving a university degree. George Erasmus, the President of the Assembly of First Nations, has pointed out that there is no cap on native welfare programs, but there is going to be a cap on native education programs. It will be far cheaper in the long run to help Indian people with their education than to perpetuate the cycle of welfare and dependence. In considering these matters, I would ask the Minister and the Government to reconsider their foolish policy of limiting this money for our Indian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member enjoys quoting from The Globe and Mail. I would also like to quote an editorial from The Globe and Mail of April 20, 1989, where it states, "We have trouble finding Ottawa's position unreasonable". The Globe and Mail goes on to say that "the principle of imposing a budget on the program and making students more accountable for completing their degrees within a reasonable amount of time is not the ogre its critics make it out to be."
I would like to know how the Hon. Member can argue that the program has been capped or that it has been decreased when it has been increased so significantly.

April 21, 1989
Supply


William Warren Allmand: Obviously the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary was not listening to me. At no time did I say the Government has cut back on the program. They have not. They have increased the program. We admit that. But they have not increased the program to the limits that are necessary, and they have put a cap on. That is clear in the letter that was written by the Minister to the Chiefs of Canada. This was quoted earlier by the leader of the NDP and by my colleague. It said:
The time has come for a major reappraisal to determine how the program could produce larger numbers of graduates within a budget that could not continue to grow at the pace of the last decade.
They are increasing the budget, but they are increasing it with a cap on it. The Hon. Member referred to The Globe and Mail. The Globe and Mail congratulates the Government for putting a cap on it-that great Tory newspaper. In an editorial of April 20 headlined "Native students and higher education", they say:
This month, Ottawa did to this assistance program what it has done, or will be doing, to other programs it finances. It set a global budget for the spending, to control expenses and impose some discipline on students taking advantage of the program.
So The Globe sees that they are doing that and congratulates them for it. I do not agree with The Globe, Mr. Speaker. What we are saying is that this is not the kind of program where there should be a limit. This should be like the old age security program. In the old age security system, if you turn 65 you qualify and the Government has to provide the money. We are saying that if you are an Indian student and you qualify for university and you are accepted, you should get the money.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I have always found my hon. friend for Notre-Dame-de-Grace to be very reasonable. We have served on committees together on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I find it difficult to understand why he continually refers to a budget item as a cap. He says it should work exactly the same way as old age security. I know he recognizes that when budgeting takes place in the Department responsible for old age security, we have the data, we have the figures, we know what to budget for, as his Government did, and as our Government has done. What we are budgeting for is old age security. How much is the Government going to spend? With the best available data that the Indian Affairs Department had, they budgeted $130 million for post-secondary education feeling that they had covered every student. This was the budget. This is what they felt
was needed for every student who qualifies for post-secondary education to be included within that $130 million.
The problem that we are having is getting all of the data together. That is the push that the Department is trying to make now, to gather the data together. Surely, the Hon. Member does not believe that we should just submit a zero figure, or a question mark, when we are budgeting. Surely he does not believe that. It has to be a budget item. That is what it is, a budget item. It is not a cap. If the budget is out, it will be increased the following year.
If the budget is too much the following year, it will be reduced. But we need the co-operation of the bands who administer the funds in most cases. We need to have the figures on those students who are streaming in. If you go to any school board, they budget. If you go to any university institution, they budget. That is what we are talking about; it is a budget. It is not a cap. If more money is needed, more money will be put in the budget. That is what it amounts to, and I would ask him to comment on that.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Minister and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development do not have full control over that matter. Even if their forecasts were good and they could forecast exactly how much money they would need for all the Indian students who might be qualified for university, they have to go Treasuiy Board, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Privy Council Office. I served in that particular ministry. I know.
We also know that right now the priority of the Government is to cut the deficit. It will be making cut-backs in all kinds of departments. It is the Government that budgeted. We do not know whether that is what the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recommended. All we know is what has come from the Government. It has budgeted an amount of money that many people say is inadequate.
For example, Chairman Beth Brown, president of the Canadian Student Federation said that under the old policy, enrolment of native students in post-secondary schools rose to about 15,000 from 2,500 in 1974. She says that the restraints that are being proposed means that 1,100 students would not be able to attend college or university in September. That is what the president of the Canadian Federation of Students says.
April 21, 1989

I also remind the Member that in the days when our baby boom children were going to school, we did not put a limit or cap on our public school system.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: We had a budget.


William Warren Allmand: If there were children ready to go to school, we built the schools, hired the teachers and made sure they had a place to go to school. We did not say that because of the budget it is too bad, that child got in first and that kid cannot come in. There was universal access to education at the public level. We took care of all the children who wanted to go to school. That is what should be done with native people in this country.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I am sure my Liberal colleague has noted the difference between referring to The Globe and Mail in respect of a news report and referring to The Globe and Mail in terms of support for Tory policy and ignoring what Indian journalists might say in their newspapers about their rights.
It cannot have been missed by anyone that there are any number of programs which exist without caps. Nobody questions the necessity of having budgets, but budgets are always over-run on the basis of supplementary estimates when it is found that the cost exceeds what was budgeted. For instance, as prisons expand, the ones that incarcerate Indians and others in the population, there are infinite funds for that. Of course, there is the Canada Assistance Program which feeds the welfare budgets of our municipalities all across this land. No one has ever said that should be capped. Indeed, one might recall that there should have been a bloody cap on the amount of this country that was taken from the Indians in the first place.
Does my hon. colleague not believe that it is more than fair to have a program which will make it possible for every aboriginal person to have access to post-secondary education? After all, they gave a whole country away in order to have it.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is what I thought I had said, but I appreciate the vigorous way in which it was seconded by my hon. friend, the Member for Windsor- Lake St. Clair (Mr. McCurdy).
Supply
He referred to my citation of an editorial in The Globe and Mail. The only reason I did that was to indicate to the Government that it is not only the Opposition Parties that know there is a cap being applied. The Globe and Mail, the Government's great supporter, also recognizes that a cap is being put on. The Globe and Mail, because of its small "c" conservative policies, congratulates it for the cap. We do not congratulate the Government for the cap. There is a place for caps in some types of budgets which vary from year to year.
I point out again that the path to self-reliance for our Indian people is through education. The way for them to get beyond those social conditions that were described to us when we travelled throughout this country is through education. The way to do it is through education, and we should be more than generous in assisting that.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. In my nine years in public life, I have never found that debates in this House have done anything more than inform Canadians and give them both sides of the story. I think it particularly helps the Government to set out all the facts and give the background on an issue. It gives greater balance to Canadians who are discussing the issue, whatever it might be.
We come from a huge country, with many interests being represented. This Parliament administers and allocates $132 billion. In each one of those interests and those budgetary allocations there are strongly held views that there should be more or should be less, or that new programs should be established and existing programs should be cut. This is where that entire process takes place and where the final decisions are made. That is the nature of democracy and the nature of government in Canada today.
Today we are dealing with the issue of native education. I happen to represent, as part of my riding, the largest Indian reserve in the land. It is one of the most progressive native communities in this country. They are great farmers and great ranchers. A few weeks ago an agreement on an irrigation project was signed to help irrigate their land and produce food, not only for Canada but the world. That is a genuine achievement of a band that is ready for self government in every way. If I had my way, they would have a lot more of it than they do today, but even on that issue within the blood group itself not everyone is in agreement with the concept of self government. It is necessary to meet, talk and debate.

April 21, 1989
Supply
I believe all Members are concerned about the specific students who are on a hunger strike. In a free democratic society that is not the way to show one's concern or point of view. Certainly, one is free to do that. In a society, one is free not to eat. One is free to starve to death if one wishes, but that is not the way we ought to do it.
In this vast country with its many interests, everyone would do that if it were a strategy to which governments would succumb. We are multicultural. Immigrant groups could be starving to death. Refugee groups could be starving to death. Some of us feel strongly about the entrenchment of property rights. Some feel strongly enough that they would starve for that right, just as some of our ancestors fought and died to get the entrenchment of property rights in their constitutions. There are people who feel very strongly about both sides of the abortion issue.
The fundamental point to determine is how a society resolves that. In a totalitarian state that is controlled by one party, the party will make the decision while the citizen has no say. In a totalitarian state with a military junta, a few generals will make the decision. In a monarchy, a family compact will make the decision. However, in our western world where we have a democracy, the citizens elect 295 people to come here. We have strongly held political views which sometimes cross Party lines, but this is where the issue must be resolved. Not only we as Members but the Government itself is accountable to the people every four or five years.
Personally, I do not believe that hunger strikes are the way to pressure for change. I therefore sincerely urge the students to stop their hunger strike and meet the Minister. I believe other Members should be encouraging that as well.
I believe the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) should have stood in the House and rejected this method as the way to resolve the issue. They should have asked the students to give up their hunger strike, to talk with them so that their views could be presented within the parliamentary process. They did not do that. I think they took advantage of these young students on this particular issue.
Let us deal with the program involved in this issue. It is a program of enormous success. When we came to government, some $50 million to $54 million was being spent on the program. This year the amount is $130 million. In the last four years, when other programs have received less, this program has more than doubled, as it should because of the success that the native students are achieving at the high school level. They are qualifying to go on to college and university.
Once students, native and non-native, graduate from high school and decide to go to post-secondary education, all are subsidized up to about 90 per cent in terms of the cost of that university. For natives and non-natives, all of that tuition is subsidized. Non-native students pay for their books, their travel, their room and board, their clothing and all of the rest of it. This program provides for natives something that non-natives are not entitled to. This was a policy decision made by this Parliament and I think it is a wise policy decision, one which I am prepared to talk to non-native students about.
There are many, many thousands of non-native students who come from families that are desperately poor. In some families, the fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers work to help those young people get through university and college. For native students, we use the Consolidated Revenue Fund to help them.
I do not believe that anyone in this Parliament is opposed that policy. We believe that these funds should be set aside so that natives get tuition fees and books and supplies for their whole life if they wish to go to university that long. There is no limit to funding for tuition, books and supplies. There is a limit for the extra expenses of transportation, day care, room and board and the like.
The policy provides that a native student can have up to five years to finish a course that most would finish in four years. Again, that is because of the unique situation from which they come. For a three-year course, they can have up to four years. That is not unreasonable, but I submit that Hon. Members ought to consider that there is a possible defect in this when it comes to the Charter of Rights.
If a non-native student were to bring a Charter action under the equality section against that policy, who knows what a court would ultimately do. This would mean that society would either have to provide this funding for all students, native or non-native, and some might want that to happen, or else it would have to cut the program out entirely.
April 21, 1989


Robert Evans Skelly: Read the Charter.


Blaine Allen Thacker: My friend is no doubt referring to affirmative action, but we never know if a court will go along with that. Is it fair to non-native students who come from desperately poor families that native students receive this funding and they do not? A court might find that to be not equal treatment, in which case the program would either be totally lost or would have to be provided for everyone. Even members of the NDP realize that there is not enough money in society to provide that degree of help for every student, native or non-native.
There are other issues at play as well. There is the question of self-government. It is my own personal view, and I believe it is the policy of Parliament, that natives should move to self-government as quickly as they themselves can be ready for it. That is why under the program there is an extra supplement for natives who will take programs that will assist in self-government and in self-management of the reserves. That is a good policy. I personally believe that self-government is a good policy and we should be pushing it forward more quickly.
There is also the question as to whether or not post-secondary education is a treaty right. Natives have always held the view that it is and are pushing it vigorously. I do not believe that there is a Party in this House or in the country that has ever adopted the position that post-secondary education is a treaty right. Is that the view of Members of the NDP? I do not think they have formulated that policy.
The Liberals formed the Government for many years and we all have a policy for giving extra assistance to natives, but I do not believe it is a Party policy that post-secondary education is a treaty right. To the extent that Hon. Members are misleading natives on that, they are not correct. They should not be doing that. It is not fair to do so unless a Party is prepared to state that that is its policy. If it is, that policy should be announced so the Canadian people may judge it.
Members of the Opposition are using the political cliche of a cap on the budget. It is a very effective tool that Members of the Opposition have adopted, and I praise them for it. When we were in opposition, we tried
Supply
to use those little cliches that would crystallize things, and so they are using the word "cap" as if the program had been capped. That is nonsense.
Indeed, we as Members of Parliament have an obligation to budget properly and to account for that budget. In this case, two thirds of the post-secondary education budget is operated by agencies not attached to the Department but by native agencies themselves. To make an annual budget, the Department makes estimates and then spends them. If the money runs out, it comes back for supplementary estimates.
We as a Government have an obligation, but Members of the Opposition do too. Are they calling for wide open spending without knowing how many students are involved and how the money is spent? If that is what they are advocating, that is irresponsible to the Canadian public as a whole. We have an obligation to account for the money and that is what the policy does. The Minister has quite properly taken that view. Give us the data. If there are more students and they need help, we will go to Cabinet and to Parliament with supplementary estimates.
Members of the Opposition are saying that they do not need data, that they do not care how many students there are. They are saying that if these agencies want $200 million, we should give them $200 million. Is that really what opposition Members are saying? Of course it is not, because they are responsible Members of Parliament as well and have to account to the public.
I would like to deal further with the role of the Opposition. It is proper for us to have strongly held views that may differ. However, on one issue we should all be unanimous, and that is in the way we express dissent in a democracy. I would like opposition Members to ask publicly if they believe that a hunger strike is the way to go. Why have they not asked those young students that question? They should encourage those students to talk to them, they should offer to help them present their case and then hope they will vote for them in the next election. However, they should say that in a democracy, with great respect, we do not starve to death. That is not an appropriate way to do it, because if everyone does that, our whole society will go into a state of chaos. I would like opposition Members to rise and tell us their view on that point.

April 21, 1989
Supply


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I am quite disappointed in the statement of the Hon. Member. Obviously he did not listen to what the Minister said. He did not listen to the admission of the Minister that the Government failed in establishing a data base to obtain statistics pertaining to the program. The Hon. Member also said that 90 per cent of fees for all students across Canada is paid by the Government. Is that an accurate figure?
I was disappointed that the Hon. Member spoke of education as being related to a treaty. In my view, education is the right of every Canadian, native or non-native. The educational system should be revamped to the point where there would be no differentiation between native and non-native students. If that means that the Government should invest more in education, then let it do so because that is the only way to go.
The Hon. Member said that Members of the Opposition should call on the Indians to stop their hunger strike. It is not our duty to tell those students what to do. They know best what to do. They have been trying for months and months to deal with the Minister. Obviously the Minister stonewalled and the Indians did not achieve their goal. Now it looks as if the Minister is indicating that he seems to be coming to an agreement to at least discuss the matter.
I must commend the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) for admitting honestly to the House the failure of the Government over the past four years to address the issue and to set up a proper support program. However, I was very disappointed in the speech of the Hon. Member because obviously he did not listen to the Minister on this matter.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I reciprocate the Hon. Member's disappointment. I am quite disappointed in his so-called question or comment, because I thought he would have understood far more than he appears to have done.
I must say that the Hon. Member's election brought us some glee. We wish we could have had a Conservative elected in Ottawa Centre, but at least the man he defeated was a thorn in our sides, and we welcome the Hon. Member as an alternative to the former Member.
The policy has always been subject to change. I think the Hon. Member got sucked into this capping argument, that somehow there was a sum of money that would never increase and was fixed for all time. That was
never the purpose. I will grant that members of the Opposition led Canadians to believe it, and many do believe it. However, that simply was never correct. In the second last paragraph of his letter announcing the policy, the Minister made it clear that it would always be subject to review. However, we need the data.
Are members of the Liberal Party saying that the Minister should be allocating unlimited resources to two-thirds of the agencies that administer this policy, without having any checks or balances, without knowing how many students, or without knowing how much is spent on room and board? That is irresponsible.
If Members opposite are not saying that, what is their criticism? If we have the data which shows that more students require it, then the program will be increased.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair on a question or comment.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The Hon. Member was very careful to draw a picture which contrasts the treatment accorded to native people in terms of free post-secondary education with the situation for the rest of the population. I was not able to understand whether the Hon. Member thinks that this is unjust, or whether he was attempting to draw divisions between native people and the rest of the population and suggesting that it was unfair for the majority that native people should be accorded this. Was the Hon. Member suggesting that free post-secondary education ought to be available for everybody, as it is for native people? If the Hon. Member meant the latter, then we could support him. Our Party stands for free access to post-secondary education for all Canadians of post-secondary age.
I am also disappointed that the Hon. Member suggested that what he expressed or fought for as a member of the Opposition is somehow different now he is a member of the Government. I would like to assure the Hon. Member that when we on this side become the Government we will be saying exactly the same thing as we are saying right now.
The Hon. Member also said that we should have talked to the native students so that they would vote for us. I would point out to the Hon. Member that we do not talk to native people because they are going to vote for us. We talk to them because we believe in what they believe in, in terms of justice.
April 21,1989	COMMONS
I would like to ask the Hon. Member who thinks that we are making too much of the term "cap" to dispose of it and answer the question clearly. If we want to resolve this problem we can do so very easily. We can understand that there will have to be budgeting for native post-secondary education. I hope the Hon. Member can answer my straightforward question on behalf of the Government. Were there to appear more native students than are budgeted for, and assuming the Hon. Member has all the data he needs, in the coming year will the Government provide sufficient funds to ensure that no native student is denied access to university because of the cap that exists on this budget?


Blaine Allen Thacker: I am always impressed by the sanctimony of the members of the New Democratic Party.


John Horton McDermid: And the volume.


Blaine Allen Thacker: And the volume. Members of the New Democratic Party seem to think that the louder they speak the more sincere they are and that Canadians will love them more.
If I were an aboriginal person in this nation listening to the NDP, my instant reaction would be to ask what has happened in other countries where the socialists are in control. For example, what about New Zealand, Australia, or Scandinavia? Are the native people there better off than here?


Robert Evans Skelly: Free post-secondary education for everybody.


Blaine Allen Thacker: One will find that natives return to Canada and are glad to be here. Would the Hon. Member like to go to the ultimate socialist state in eastern Europe, to the Soviet Union? The aboriginals here are treated far better, and so they ought to be because we are a free society where they can express their views. Their members are being elected to the House of Commons on an increasing basis. They are doing better.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Sanctimonious!


Blaine Allen Thacker: I am proud to be Canadian.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: You ought to be proud to be sanctimonious, too.

Supply


Blaine Allen Thacker: I think as Canadians we should be immensely proud of what we have done. We took on the English and the French problem. We took on the Catholic and the Protestant problem. We have done more in this country as a multinational culture than any other country in the world. I am immensely proud to be Canadian. I am sorry that members of the NDP here today do not seem to be proud to be Canadian.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James.


Mr. Harvard:: I think the Member has shown his true blue colours today. He is flying high. He commenced his speech a few minutes ago by giving us a short lesson in democracy. I do not know what that had to do with the issue. Instead of giving us a lesson on democracy, perhaps the Hon. Member should give us a lesson on sanctimony. The Hon. Member is an absolute pope when it comes to sanctimony. I cannot believe my ears.
What I found most striking about the remarks of the Hon. Member was the insensitivity of what the Hon. Member was talking about. Not only was he attempting to give us a lesson on democracy, but he was attempting to give those Indian students a lesson in the efficacy of a hunger strike. I do not think those Indian students need to take any lessons from the Hon. Member.
In his remarks, I noticed the total and complete absence of comments about the low income of the Indian population, which is nothing when compared with the income of the non-native population. The Hon. Member mentioned nothing about unemployment rates which are so much higher than for the non-native population. The Hon. Member talked about Indian reserves. In my capacity as a journalist, I have visited Indian reserves many times, and it saddens me to find unemployment rates of 85 per cent and 95 per cent. In his remarks the Hon. Member did not say a word about the life expectancy of native people. He did not even say anything about the expectancy of educational opportunities. Earlier today in a speech it was pointed out that 4 per cent of the native population go to university, while 27 per cent of the non-native population go to university.
My simple and straightforward question is the following: Where does the Government stop in its obligation to provide educational opportunities to native students? What is the Hon. Member's personal cap, because he is obviously fond of a cap?

April 21, 1989
Supply


Blaine Allen Thacker: Here we have a Grit speaking, a member of that great Liberal Party that governed this country almost exclusively for the last 100 years. Where are the native students? It was under the Liberal Government that the natives wallowed and did not have a chance to get ahead. Even in the last four years the amount spent by this Government on post-secondary education has more than doubled, when everybody else was taking less. This is a good program.
I lived through the period when the Liberal Government brought in the National Energy Program that killed thousands and thousands of westerners. Here is the great moralist up there, type of thing.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Talk about the issue. Shame on you!


Blaine Allen Thacker: My final comment is this: The reason I like the House of Commons is because a day like today provides an opportunity for the Government to get back. Canadians can see how insensitive, how silly most of the arguments are, and how the opposition Parties tiy to take cheap political advantage of any issue, no matter who might be hurt out on the streets.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commence my remarks by saying how proud I am to be a Canadian, and how proud I am to be a Member of the House representing 8,000 Indian children in the riding of Prince Albert-Churchill River. I say it is historic because even though the issues may seem relatively small, that they are just some departmental guidelines, they have come to symbolize the gulf that exists between this Government and the aboriginal people as to what the historic obligations of the Government of Canada are. I also say it is historic because for many Canadians who do not have the opportunity of close contact with the Indian and Inuit communities, this is the first time there has been enough media coverage of a major issue of importance to the Indian community for them to know what is going on.
As I was going through my files on this issue, I realized that I first became aware of this matter in May of 1988 when the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) answered my request for a copy of a purported Government document known as the Buffalo Jump Plan, an internal document of January 19, 1988, from the Department of Indian Affairs. This document has some very interesting things in it that are germane to this debate. Under communications, it outlines what the Government is supposed to say as it implements this plan. It says:
Confirm the themes of-we honour our commitments, we're fair, we are making progress. We're not seeking dramatic change, but rather to be fair and businesslike. When it can be done it will. Both for Indian and general audiences, it is good to emphasize the fairness theme: it's fair that Indians be well educated, fair that Indians take charge of looking after their own children, fair that the Indians govern themselves.
Those are the fine soothing words the Government is instructed to use to cover up what comes next.
What does come next in this document? First, no to C-31:
Be prepared to stick with C-31 as it is.
That is where the Government took on its obligation to provide funding for the people coming into the treaty under Bill C-31. Here the Government says no. Section 14 says that there will be fewer schools. It says:
We can build better schools, but fewer. Need to consult so as to balance the good news ("better") with the bad news ("fewer"). Should get our material out before AFN tables their long-promised report on Indian education.
They are playing games with that issue. Then we get into child abuse. It reads:
Cannot avoid support on child abuse, since anyone would see this as part of "basic care".
What they are talking about doing is going to the Governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, redirecting off-reserve welfare assistance to provide funding for better child care services in those provinces.
The situation is so bad and the Government is so concerned on that one that it is prepared to take money from social assistance rather than big corporations to use it to counter the problem of child abuse. Then we get to the Student Grants Program. Here we see the first hint of what is happening:
Agree to consultation in 1988, for implementation of amended program criteria in 1989.
This is the pre-election program of the Government.
Important to sustain rate of funding increase in 1988-89 while consultation proceeds.
So we have a scam here. What the Government has done is artificially inflate the 1988-89 budget to come up with that figure of $130 million so that it looks like the Government is being very generous and so people would not notice when the Government starts its capping and cutting and whatever else it is planning to do with the new guidelines, which means that there is no longer a treaty obligation to provide post-secondary education. That is why the Indian and Inuit people feel so strongly about the issue. They feel strongly about it because they know what is happening with post-secondary education guidelines. They know that is part of the Government's plan and it is the Government's plan they have to stop and stop now. They have to stop this plan because it
April 21, 1989

directly threatens them with having to go to court to get their treaty rights recognized.
Let me go to another section of this document where it reads:
Wish to proceed under Treaty Land Entitlement. Wish to proceed pragmatically (no announcements) with selected negotiations based on land entitlements to date of first survey. Not prepared to go further unless forced to by courts eventually.
If eventually somebody takes this to the court the Government is prepared to talk about treaties but not until that time. That is why the people in the Indian world see these guidelines as being so sinister. It is because they are part of this plan and no one has told them that this is not the plan of the Government. In fact, they have reason to believe, as we do, that it is the plan of the Government.
I think this all goes back to the basic constitutional framework of this country. The Minister made what I think is an appalling statement when he said that he unilaterally felt that post-secondary education was not a treaty right. It is not the job of the Minister or of any Minister or any individual or any Party to determine what are the treaty rights in this country. Section 35 of the Constitution Act of this country states that those rights will be determined in consultation, in negotiation, formal nation to nation consultation between the Governments of Canada and the Governments of the First Nation. That is the only way you can determine what treaty rights are. For two years the Government has had that particular consultation on hold.
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to go through some of these historic obligations to show that this is not just some archaic or arcane type of document that someone filed some place in the distant past. It says some very important things. Reading from The Royal Proclamation:
-the several Nations or THbes of Indians with whom We are connected and, who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds.
Supply
I think that is very germane also to the Innu issue, if I may digress, where it says that they will not be molested or disturbed on their lands until their lands have been formally ceded or bought. That is something that has not happened. This is what commits the Government to making treaties. It also says:
We have thought proper to allow Settlement: but that, if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the Said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the Said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie-conformable to such Directions and Instructions as We or they shall think proper to give for that Purpose -
In other words, when this land is ceded there are instructions which either they or the Government, the Indian people or the Government, lay down in treaty and they then become part of the constitutional framework of this country. The Government either does not know that or is totally ignoring it.
That brings us back to the now infamous guidelines. The Indian people are convinced on the basis of the treaties which do exist that post-secondary education is an obligation of the Canadian Government which they pre-paid with their land. It is a pre-paid obligation. There is no such thing as this being subject to a budgetary whim of this House. It is a pre-paid obligation which they paid for by allowing their lands for settlement.
Further to that, all the numbered treaties that I have read, and I believe I have read them all, state specifically that education is a treaty right. The Commissioner who signed those treaties said in his comments on the treaty that what he meant by that and what he had agreed to was that the Indians would have access-in the words he used, "the cunning of the white man". There can be no other interpretation of that, I believe, in the framework of 1989 than to mean that this means post-secondary education, because that is how you happen by "the cunning of the white man". That is why the potential threat of budgetary limits is so alarming to the Indian community. A budgetary limit would mean that what is theirs by constitutional right would suddenly become subject to the budgetary mercies of the government of the day. With this Government, in the post-free trade environment in which we live with big business on a rampage, there is no good reason why the Indian people of this country should have any faith or confidence in the budgetary mercies of this Government.

April 21, 1989
Supply


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Or anybody else.


Raymond John Funk: Or anybody else for that matter. I do not have time to go into all the details of what is wrong with the guidelines. Those have been discussed very well elsewhere by Sharon Ironstar and others of the fasters, by the Indian leadership, by other colleagues in this House and the co-ordinated action across the country which some of us who have been here have not been aware of, but there has been an extensive program of education across Canada, and those have dealt with many of the issues, as has the Minister.
I would like to zero in on two myths, the soothing language which has become the heart of the Government's defence in this issue. First is the myth of generosity. The Government has made much of how generous it is being in these post-secondary guidelines which it is coming in with now. I would point out that some former colleagues of mine in private life-I did research into these issues-did an analysis of these guidelines for the Prince Albert District Chiefs and they found in the guidelines the proposed increases from 1982 to 1989 represented an increase of 6 per cent to 10 per cent over 1982 levels. That is 25 per cent less than the rate of inflation over that period of time. It leaves every one of these people under the nationally defined poverty level. Although there is perhaps no big argument that some of these allowances are in fact adequate, many of them are not. It certainly is wrong to describe this as generous. It is not. It is niggardly.
Then there is the myth of consultation. I enjoyed speaking to the rally on Friday afternoon on the Hill-


An Hon. Member:: Shame, shame!


Raymond John Funk: -and describing to the people my brush with this Government's consultation process. The consultation process that I experienced happened as follows: On December 16, representatives of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations met with us and presented us with their arguments and documents, outlining point by point what is wrong with these guidelines and the consultation process, and asking for our commitment to do something about it. On behalf of the Saskatchewan New Democrats in this House, I wrote a letter to the then Minister of Indian Affairs, the Hon. Bill McKnight, in which I pointed out:
The proposed changes totally ignore the fact that the issues involved are addressed directly in Treaties between the Indian people and the Crown, and they cannot be addressed in a unilateral fashion.
That is what I did, and what my colleagues did. We were very surprised when we met for the first time with the Indian students and they hauled out the list of people that had been consulted. There on the list was the Saskatchewan NDP caucus. This is the consultation. We wrote them a letter saying we fundamentally disagree and the Government is saying that they consulted with us. No wonder the Indian people in this country think this was a bogus process. It was a bogus process. I know that.
Maybe the Minister who is caught in the middle of this mess should consider who it actually is that is holding him hostage. Is it the Indian students, or is it the people that penned the infamous "Buffalo Jump" document and committed the Government to this suicidal course of action? I believe he is being held hostage by somebody other than the students. I believe that the people who wrote the "Buffalo Jump" are the people who are holding the Minister hostage.
Allow me to summarize my remarks by repeating that I believe the evidence which says that post-secondary education for the original people of this country is a constitutional obligation of the Government of Canada, and the Minister has no unilateral right to change that.
I believe these guidelines represent an abrogation of this historic and constitutional obligation. But by way of trying to contribute constructively to this process, and realizing it has been difficult for a lot of people, particularly the Minister who is caught in it, I tried on Friday to table a five-point program which, if the Minister were to accept it, would lead to a rapid resolution of this issue. Hopefully, the Minister will still do that.
That is why I stand in the debate to support this motion. I think it makes economic sense to not proceed with these guidelines because we are talking about future burdens on future taxpayers of this country. There is no greater burden on the future taxpayers than to save $30,000 to educate a person now and then have to pay $500,000 in welfare over the next 65 years. It makes budgetary, fiscal and economic sense to not proceed with these guidelines and to have a bilateral process of consultation, because that is what the Constitution obligates us to do. If we are going to do that, it makes sense to not proceed with these guidelines until such time as that consultation is complete.
April 21, 1989

In conclusion, I would like to take a moment to recognize the contribution of other people to this debate. I would like to acknowledge my many teachers through the years, particularly the Indian people I have known who have taught me their ways. I would like to thank the Indian leadership and the students for being open, honest and very forthcoming in our discussions with them. I would like to thank my colleagues in the NDP caucus, because I believe we have exemplified what team work can do in bringing an issue before the people of Canada. I would also like to thank all other Hon. Members on this side of the House and the other side who have taken a serious enough interest in this issue that we are having this debate. I would finally like to acknowledge the Indian children of this country. It is because of their hopes for the future that all of this is worth it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Minister of State for Housing (Mr. Redway).


Alan Redway: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the course of the Hon. Member's comments, I recall him making the statement that as a result of the passage of Bill C-31 there were no further funds allotted for post-secondary school education. In fact, Bill C-31 was passed in 1985. During the fiscal year 1985-86, out of a total of $71 million that was allocated for post-secondary school education for native people, $1 million was allocated as a result of Bill C-31. In the fiscal year 1986-87, out of a total of $96 million allocated in that post-secondary budget, some $9 million was allocated as a result of Bill C-31. In the fiscal year 1987-88, out of a total of $107 million, $11 million was allocated as a result of Bill C-31. In the immediate past fiscal year, 1988-89, out of $130 million allocated, some $26 million was allocated as a result of those reinstated under Bill C-31.
I wonder if the Hon. Member could tell me if I misunderstood his remarks, or if in fact he would agree with the information I have supplied the House. If he does, I wonder if perhaps he might re-examine some of the other facts and figures he has presented before the House today.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince Albert-Churchill River (Mr. Funk).


Raymond John Funk: I thank the Hon. Member for the opportunity to clarify my intention in the remarks that I made. I do not believe that I said there was no money for post-secondary education under the Bill C-31 program. I know there was money in that program, and I did not mean to suggest otherwise. What I did mean to suggest was that there is a general pattern of implementation of the infamous "Buffalo Jump'' document. What I said is prepared to stick with C-31 as it is, no amendments before the next election, possible commitment or minor adjustments later. I believe that is the policy of the Government, that there has not been new money under C-31.
While we are talking about C-31, in many ways it crystallizes some of these issues. In my own constituency there are 5,000 people in the C-31 category that are living in no-man's land. The Government has granted them status but there has been no parallel provision for them to be absorbed into the bands which they want to belong to. The bands are reluctant to be pushed into this because there is no money for them to provide the services which those people then come to expect. That is one of the sinister aspects of these guidelines. If there is a budgetary limit, if in fact the first 15,000 get funding and the next 2,000 have to wait until next year, the pressure is on those bands to determine who will get that money and who will not. The presence in my constituency of 5,000 C-31 people just increases those pressures and makes it that much worse.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State for Indian Affairs on a question or comment.


A. Kim Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has made reference in his address to something called the infamous "Buffalo Jump" document. I assume he is talking about a discussion document that was put out by the ministry in May of last year on the issue of revised post-secondary guidelines. I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member that if he reads the guidelines that were actually implemented, on April 1 of this year, he would notice that they are very different from the guidelines that were put out for discussion in May of last year. The reason for that difference was a response to those initial proposals through the consultative process. Perhaps the Hon. Member would be gracious enough to concede that in fact the Government did enter into a very extensive consultative process on the basis of which it has quite considerably amended the new guidelines on post-secondary education.

April 21, 1989
Supply
I would also like to comment on the Hon. Member's suggestion that because his Party did not agree with the guidelines it is not entitled to be included among those who were consulted. I think many people in the House will find that a very novel definition of consultation. The Hon. Member seems to say that somehow if someone does not agree with someone after a discussion then one cannot say legitimately that there has been consultation.
If the Hon. Member feels that all the people who consulted with him must be agreed with, I find that very promising. If there should ever be the opportunity, and if in some strange event he should ever be part of the Government, I will look forward to consulting with him on many issues.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Minister that if I am ever part of a Government it will not be because I have crossed the floor.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Funk: For the information of the Minister, although I did not deal with the specific reference to guidelines in the document, I was referring to a scenario which I think is quite clear.
The scenario is that in fact the Government would be seeking what might be considered to be an inflated level of funding in the election year and that the consultation process would proceed against that backdrop. I contend that that was an unrealistic impression the Government was trying to leave, and not a totally accurate one. We have seen the results of that as the figure of $130 million is repeatedly pointed to as an indication of how fast this has increased in the past.
With reference to the consultation process, I agree with the Minister that it is useful to listen to dissenting views. However, to be considered part of a process that the Government takes some pride in-in fact to call it consultation-when someone writes the Minister a letter, is not accurate.
I would assume that consultation would include some back and forth, that the Government would provide us with some information and that we would get back to the Government with some information and so on. That was not the case. I was surprised that on the basis of one
letter we should be listed as having been involved in the consultative process, along with the Assembly of First Nations, the Prince Albert District Chiefs, the Inuit Tapirisat and all the other people. If this is how we had been consulted I was left to wonder how they had been consulted. Indeed, the Indian leadership and the students say that they have not been consulted.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague agree that this new attack, what some perceive to be a new attack, is part of a Tory strategy which has been ongoing for several years and that we are seeing the usual shell games trying to cover up real budget cuts?
Does he think that this indeed relates to the over-all philosophy of the Conservative Government which is that it has abandoned the very concept of universal access for natives?
I would like to give one illustration from my riding of Vancouver East which many native people say is the largest reserve in Canada. The Native Education Centre in my riding serves students from all over British Columbia. It does an outstanding job in both academic upgrading and in practical courses, as well as in programs for native training. There is a course for native child care workers, administrators for bands, as well as people training in high technology of different kinds. The institution has had a very good success rate with highly motivated students who attend regularly.
In 1987 the budget of the institution from DIA was $125,000. In 1987-88 that budget was cut by 60 per cent. The next year there were no funds at all for a very major educational institution which has made a terrific contribution to the education of native people in British Columbia. As a result of a very strong process in which a number of us were involved, the Government found $82,000 in 1989.
I would like to point out where the money for this came from. The Government took the money out of moneys that were designated for students. That is what I mean when I say a shell game. I wish I had time to give the rationale that the Minister gave, which was incredibly ignorant of the real situation people are facing.
I think the Hon. Member heard my question earlier so I will sit down.
April 21, 1989


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. It is quite correct for her to assume from what I said that in fact I see what is happening here as part of a larger Tory agenda. We hear all kinds of fine language in the House about the Government's concern, commitment and so on, in this case to the future educational needs of Indian people and the Indian community. In fact, the reality on Indian reserves is dramatically different. When we look at the budgetary process that is going on here now, short months ago the Government promised all types of money to projects such as Hibernia and Fort McMurray. There was money to burn. Just a few short months later there is no money at all. We are being told to brace ourselves for next Thursday when the Budget comes down. This is why I think Canadians are responding to the issues raised in this debate. They are wondering: "Are we next?"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, you are probably wondering what a Member of Parliament from a Toronto riding such as Parkdale-High Park knows about this debate on post-secondary funding for natives. First, let me establish my credibility about why I want to participate in the debate.
I had the good fortune of being bom and raised in the Province of Saskatchewan where my parents started on a homestead. They farmed there for 25 years. As a young boy going to school I grew up with Indian children and their families. We did similar things to what the First Peoples did. In order to supplement our farm incomes we had to trap. As a young lad we trapped weasels to get $4 or $5 a pelt. That was good money in those days. We would snare jack-rabbits, skin them and sell the pelts.


John Horton McDermid: Don't tell the NDP that.


Jesse Philip Flis: The Hon. Member from Brampton does not even want to listen. He is an urban boy who cannot relate to this type of pioneer life. There are probably not too many Members in the House who can, which is why I am sharing this with all Members of this House. I am sharing it to establish my credibility.
What did we do for dessert? We picked Saskatoon berries and so on with the Indians.
Supply
We took that life-style away from our first Canadians. What did we replace it with? Since we took it away from these people I think the best replacement, the best investment, is a post-secondary education.
Not all the children in my family could go on with their educations. My oldest brother had to work on the farm. He could not go on to post-secondary education. I am pleased that my parents and my country allowed me the opportunity to complete my post-secondary education at the masters and other levels. That education allowed me to go in to teaching with the Toronto Board of Education where I spent over 30 years. Most of those 30 years were spent working with exceptional students, the physically handicapped, the emotionally disturbed, the mentally handicapped, and with students who had learning disabilities, a new group that has been discovered in this category of exceptional students.
The Toronto Board of Education is a leader in North America, and probably in the world, as far as opening up new opportunities for students with all these different handicaps is concerned. People with mental handicaps never went on to post-secondary education.
Today I am very pleased that community colleges are accepting them. Students with learning disabilities are now going to universities. Many of them are very bright but have some learning disabilities, and experts to this day do not know the cause of them.
I would like to compliment universities such as York University, the University of Toronto and others that have set up special departments to accept these students into post-secondary education. Ten years ago these students would never have found themselves in a university setting. Today they have the same opportunity as many other students. At a time when universities are opening their doors to students of all abilities, of all handicaps, the Government is closing doors to the children who have the first right to attend post-secondary education.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jesse Philip Flis: I could not agree more with the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) when he said a native child today has a better chance of ending up in jail than receiving a university education. This is a sad commentary for the Government and for this country.

April 21, 1989
Supply
I wanted to participate in this debate because of the students who went on the hunger strike. Is it not sad that it took a hunger strike to bring this debate to this House today? I was involved in a hunger strike five years ago. Three people in Etobicoke-Lakeshore went on a hunger strike. They had come to Canada as refugees. Their spouse and the children were caught in Poland; Poland would not allow them to join their families here. We went on a hunger strike. I saw the physical and emotional damage that was done to these hunger strikers.
I felt for the Indian students while they were striking. I would not recommend to these students to continue such tactics because if your health goes, and heaven forbid even if your life goes, you will be no good to this countiy. We need your talents. We need your expertise.
I had a hand in ending that other strike. I was the liaison person between the people on strike, our External Affairs Department and the Polish Embassy in Ottawa. I had to take messages back and forth. I was pleased when the strike finally ended.
Today I am pleased to announce, Mr. Speaker, that within a year after the hunger strikers agreed to end their strike all three families were reunited, and we have three additional happy families living here in Canada.
Let us hope that this incident ends the same way, that it ends in happiness and ends with greater opportunities for our First People at the post-secondary level.
Once again we see an example of the lack of commitment of the Government to the people in our country who are most in need of our help, our support and our generosity.
In 1984, a national review was undertaken on the First Nations educational systems. This review included recommendations from aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. A lot of time and energy was spent on this review, and it was forwarded to the Department of Indian Affairs in December 1988. It was in good faith that the First Nations did not expect the Government to implement any changes to the education system until there had been bilateral consultations based on the review which would subsequently lead to action that was palatable to all parties involved.
This did not happen. The Government has not responded to the review. In fact, it has once again chosen to renege on its promises. It is becoming painfully obvious that this is not an election year and because this is not an election year, the people in this country who are most in need are paying for it.
On March 20 of this year, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Cadieux) decided that it was time to stop playing nice guy. He announced changes to the guidelines for First Nations' post-secondary education. He announced these changes, not in consultation with the people who would be affected by them but in consultation with his departmental officials in Ottawa. There is nothing wrong with consulting with departmental officials. I pay a high tribute to the people working in our Public Service in all Departments, but surely the Minister could have consulted with the users of the program.
These changes come at a time, in the National Chief's word, "when the First Nations are looking to the future and are planning a long-range holistic approach to education, a time when the First Nations are striving for self-government and self-reliance".
What is happening today is a travesty. If the Government is cutting back in the area of post-secondary education, what is going to happen to the other levels of education? We already know that at present there are
85,000	students utilizing educational facilities. At a minimum we would expect over 3,000 classrooms to house all these students. That is not the case. There are presently only 2,000 classrooms.
In 1977 there were 3,500 students eligible for post-secondary educational programs. Today, as we heard from the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), they number around 15,000. The numbers are increasing. The funding is being cut back. With all due respect to the Hon. Minister, the funding over the years has not taken inflation into account. Therefore any comparison is not being done in real dollars. The 10 per cent he talks about does not cover increases in educational costs, inflation increases, et cetera.
In 1987, the Government brought in new guidelines. At the same time, they introduced a cap on the budget. They promised at that time that were they to bring in more changes they would be brought in, in consultation with the First Nations. This is not what they did. They unilaterally imposed new guidelines. They unilaterally implemented changes to a program which they obviously did not understand.
April 21, 1989

Ever since the election all we have heard about is cut-backs-cut-backs in our unemployment insurance programs, cut-backs in programs that affect those who need them the most. This type of behaviour is not going to win them any votes. In fact, this behaviour has already cost them a few points in the polls. It will be very interesting to see where this Government which makes its decisions based on public opinion polls will end up in those same polls after next Thursday when the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) goes to work on the rest of the people of this country with a hack-saw.
We all know and accept that post-secondary education is an investment in the future. We have heard this from our previous debaters. This Government continues to talk about its commitment to the First Nations of this country. It continues to talk about its support for Indian self-determination, for Indian self-reliance.
I have been an educator for many years. However, it does not take an educator to know that there is an undeniable link between education, especially post-secondary education, and better employment opportunities. It boggles the mind to see what this Government is doing. It is inconceivable to me, and obviously to my colleagues here, that the route to the well-being of the First Nations is being nipped in the bud.
I will not repeat, Mr. Speaker, what the Members for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, Kenora-Rainy River, Oshawa and others have shared with this House about the difference in mortality rates, welfare rates, alcoholism, and suicide rates between the people of the First Nations and the rest of Canadians. I urge the Government to rethink its policy on post-secondary education. I urge the Government to give the First Nations a chance to prove that they are capable and competent; that they contribute to this country as much as you or I do, Mr. Speaker; that they are not a burden on society; and that they are the First Nations.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague opposite. Prior to 1984, there were fewer than 3,500 Indian students enrolled in post-secondary education in this country. Can the Hon. Member tell us why his Government failed to deal with the problem during its many years in power?
Supply


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, when we were in government no native students went on a hunger strike.


Kenneth Albert James: What kind of answer is that?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable attention to the comments of my hon. friend today. Would he clarify for me and other members of the House whether it is the official position of the Liberal Party that post-secondary education is a treaty right? Yes or no?


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question because the Hon. Member and I worked on many committees together. I am surprised he even asked that question because it is a Canadian right.


Mrs. Catterall:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments. I want to bring it to the attention of the Hon. Member and the House that while we are concerned about funding of post-secondary education for native children because it is crucial for the equality of opportunity for native people in Canada, we must also be concerned about young native people who never make it through high school.
I am dealing with a particular case in my riding of which I believe the House should be aware. I hope Hon. Members opposite will bring it to the attention of the Government. It is the case of a young 12-year old status Indian boy who is suffering from foetal alcohol syndrome with an attention deficit disorder. This is causing severe emotional and behavioural problems. This boy was adopted at the age of one by a family living in my riding.
They are having extreme difficulty and are meeting nothing but road blocks with the federal and provincial Governments in trying to get the help this boy needs before he reaches an age where he cannot be helped, which is within the next two or three years.
The parents are at their wits' end. This young boy may never have a chance even to grow up properly, let alone go to university, with the limited funding that is available.
They have been told that the cost of the residential treatment recommended by professional advisers is $50,000 a year. That is more than the total income of the family, which is needed to provide for them and their other two adolescent children.

April 21, 1989
Supply
This morning, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Nault) spoke about the devastating cost in dollars and human potential of not providing what is needed. The funding to provide adequate treatment for this child is not available under health funding. Funding is not available because he is a status Indian. This young life will go down the drain. The cost of providing treatment for him, to give him a chance at the opportunities we are discussing today, is less than the cost of one year in prison, less than the cost of 30 days in a hospital.
The parents have approached the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In September 1988, they were told that there is no help for their son. They approached the Department of National Health and Welfare and were told there is no help for their son. They cannot turn him over to the Children's Aid Society because he is a status Indian and the band would have to be consulted on his care.
I ask Hon. Members to bring this problem to the attention of the Cabinet and to save this one young life and many others like him who will never have the opportunities we want for all our native peoples.


Jesse Philip Flis: I am glad my colleague has raised this point. There are thousands of cases such as this one. Because we do not have early identification, the students are spotted too late to bring them help.
I think any system of education that is funded by the federal Government should provide the same opportunities as any child gets from Kindergarten to Grade 13.
I urge the Member to take this case to whatever board of education is involved. It is under provincial jurisdiction. She should turn to the Director of Special Education and get help as soon as possible.
This student will never make post-secondary education, yet he could be a brilliant and gifted student. However, because of the problems-


Dorothy I. Dobbie: What does that have to do with the topic?


Jesse Philip Flis: The Parliamentary Secretary asks what this has to do with the topic. The whole topic is that you are cutting off post-secondary funding for our native children, for our Indian children-


John Horton McDermid: She is talking about provincial education.


Jesse Philip Flis: Does she not realize that these students eventually reach the age where they have to be provided with post-secondary education, or are they writing these people off? Because they have this handicap, because this student in particular has a multitude of handicaps, what does the Government want to do, kick him deeper into the gutter? That is its approach and I say shame.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Get on the topic.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting back listening to the debate today and have found it very interesting. I listened to my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis), whom I have known for a number of years. I was surprised at his last statement, which forced me to my feet. I think it was very unfair. It was not like him to come out with a statement like that. It was very unfair.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mrs. Catterall) raised an educational problem which he properly identified as a provincial educational problem. I say to the Hon. Member for Ottawa West that there are ways to approach these problems. We are all concerned about them. We all have, in our ridings throughout the country, problems in education with special needs for children from all walks of life.
The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park made the statement-if he checks the "blues" I think he will see that it is fairly accurate-that the Government is kicking people further into the gutter. That is very unworthy of the Hon. Member. I think, when he reflects on it and realizes what he said, he will apologize to the House because he knows it is not true.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I make no apology. I welcome the Hon. Member's intervention. If I hit a sore spot, I apologize for that, but the case that was described was clearly implicated with medical problems which become federal jurisdiction, requiring residential help and so on. If I am not mistaken, I believe some help should be provided under the Health Act.
It is time we stopped passing the buck, at the provincial level or at the federal level. This is a student who everyone recognizes needs help. Surely we can get the three levels of government together-municipal, provincial and federal. Can we not put our resources together to help this youngster, regardless of cost because the investment now will pay dividends in the future?
April 21, 1989


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to my friend, Hon. the Member for Parkdale- High Park (Mr. Flis). The point I want him to clarify is related to the question I asked first. It is a very simple question.
Is it the official position of the Liberal Party that post-secondary education is a treaty right, paid for exclusively by the federal Government? That is an important question because that is the underlying problem we are facing with treaties.
If it is the position of the Liberal Party that it is a treaty right, then I would accept the comments the Hon. Member has made. If it is not the position of the Liberal Party, if the Hon. Member wants to waffle and say it is a Canadian right or something like that, speak with a forked tongue in his answer, or if he wants to say that it should be referred to the courts, then everything the Hon. Member is saying about the situation we are now facing is blowing in the wind. It is making politics out of a very serious situation.
The Hon. Member must answer that question and state emphatically one way or the other where his Party stands on this issue. We have to use the budgetary process in an attempt to determine how many students in the next fiscal year will be using the system so that we can budget for it. The budget was not cut. It was submitted to Treasury Board at $130 million. Not one cent was cut from that budget. It was not rolled back. It was based on the very best information available to the Department of Indian Affairs at the time the budget was submitted.
Again, what is the position of the Liberal Party? Does the Liberal Party adopt the official position that post-secondary education is a treaty right? If the Hon. Member cannot answer that question he should say so, but if he does answer it, he must answer it emphatically. If the Liberal Party does not adopt that position, then everything the Hon. Member has said is blowing in the wind.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question. The Hon. Member forgets that his Party forms the Government, not ours. I already told the Hon. Member that this is a people's right. It is the right of every Canadian. The question he put is very irrelevant. He is trying to get his Government off the hook of providing additional funding for the many more students who are reaching the post-secondary level. He is trying to get his Government off the hook on which it was elected. He should not be playing constitutional games.
Supply
Students went on strike. They did not ask that question. They are asking for an opportunity to go to university or college, to have some education after high school. That is what they are asking for and they have the right to it.


Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the topic before us today. As a preface to my comments, I would like to compliment members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for picking this topic and for devoting two opposition days to its discussion.
In his comments this morning, the Minister said that this was a topic plagued by misunderstanding. Hopefully, through our discussions today and the subsequent ones on Monday, we can help to educate the people in the House and in the country a bit better, and this topic will be a bit better understood by everyone.
I am very concerned about the perception that some Hon. Members opposite are trying to establish, either by rhetoric or in some cases by volume, that they are the only ones who are concerned about aboriginal post-secondary education. We on this side of the House are every bit as committed to improving the economic situation of aboriginal peoples as anyone on the opposite side. However, we recognize that we have another responsibility, a responsibility to ensure that the moneys we spend on behalf of all Canadians are spent as effectively as possible.
This morning, the Minister also reflected on a view that is well shared by his colleagues on this side of the House. He said that we are as proud of this program as are the Indians of their graduates. I think that is a very profound statement and it does reflect our feelings.
The funding level of this program has increased significantly under this Government. This has resulted in significant progress on behalf of the Indian and Inuit people. The Government, through the Minister, has reinforced its commitment to the program and to supporting reasonable levels of funding based on consultation and negotiations with representatives of the native community.
It is not enough to say simply that because a program is good it should have open-ended funding. This program is a good program. It should be continued. The program is a fair and a generous one because the Government believes in the importance of the post-secondary needs of Indian students, and we are prepared to support them.

April 21, 1989
Supply
I would like to take a moment to put the current funding levels for native post-secondary student assistance into perspective. In terms of financial support to Indian students, this program is one of the most generous in the entire world. The student assistance program in Canada provides a significantly greater level of support than similar programs in other countries.
Let us compare it to the United States. Last year, the federal Government post-secondary grants to American Indians totalled $32.9 million. That supported 15,000 students. This represented 25 per cent of the funding that is provided in Canada to support for an equal number of students.
Our new policy is generous. It is fair and it can be administered by Indian authorities. It can be administered by Indian authorities in ways which best meet the needs of their students.
The Government assists Indian and Inuit students this generously because it believes in making an investment in Canada's future. Educated people prosper. Economic development opportunities open up and welfare rolls decrease.
Assistance for post-secondary education is one of the most successful programs the federal Government has ever undertaken. Since the introduction of the previous policy, the E-12 guidelines, the numbers of post-secondary students has increased from around 3,500 in 1977-78 to some 15,000 in 1988-89. In the same period, the budget for the program has grown from $9 million to close to $130 million.
The policy has been successful. Every member of the House appears to recognize its value. Nevertheless, we recognize that even the most successful policies must be updated and revised to meet changing needs and emerging trends. In the case of post-secondary education, there was a clear requirement to produce more graduates to ensure that there would be more Indian students who entered colleges and universities to complete their studies and then help make self-government and economic independence a reality for all Indian peoples. The objective of this policy is to help Indians gain access to a post-secondary education so they can pursue individual careers and contribute to the achievement of Indian self-government and economic self-reliance.
I would like now to take a couple of minutes to explain some of the benefits available to eligible students. To begin with, complete tuition assistance is provided to eligible full-time and part-time students. This category of benefits includes student fees for registration, tuition, and the cost of books and supplies required for a particular course of study. A simple example is that if a student in nursing requires a stethoscope, it is an eligible expense and it would be covered.
Full-time students who are required to live away from their permanent places of residence may receive a wide range of benefits. For example, they may qualify for a travel grant back to their homes once every semester for themselves and for any dependant who lives with them. These students will also be eligible to receive allowances to help cover their living expenses including food, rent, heat and electricity. In areas where rental costs are higher than normal, Indian students may receive a special rent supplement.
Let me cite some examples of the level of assistance. Beginning the next academic year, a single student may receive a maximum monthly living allowance of $675. A married student with an employed spouse and three dependants may receive a maximum of $1,205 per month. A single parent with three dependants will receive a maximum of $1,355 per month, plus a rental supplement where applicable.
Students will be eligible to receive funding at three levels. To complete community college diplomas or certificates, undergraduate degrees, and Masters' or professional degrees. Students allowances will be provided for the official length of the student's program, three years for a three-year program, four years for a four-year program, and so on. When required, an additional year may be provided for a student to complete a degree or diploma program at each of the three levels.
Let me put those rates into perspective. A single mother with two children in her first year of a Master's of Psychology program at the University of Regina will receive a grant of $1,205 per month to support herself and her family. Her tuition, books and supplies are paid for. She is also eligible to obtain a scholarship of up to $1,500 for the year. Expenses for travel between Regina and her normal place of residence, if it is outside Regina, will be provided once each term for her and her dependants.
April 21, 1989

A single student from a reserve in Ontario in his second year of a Bachelor of Arts Degree at the University of Ottawa would receive funding to pay his tuition, his books and supplies, and his travel from the reserve to Ottawa once each semester. In addition he is eligible to receive a grant of $675 per month from the Post-secondary Student Assistance Program to defray living expenses. If this student in his first year maintained a grade average of B-plus, he would also be eligible to receive a scholarship of $1,000 per year.
A married student with three children whose wife and children are dependent upon him for support, in his first year of studies at a Montreal CEGEP where he is hoping to complete the required courses in Business Administration, would receive a grant of $1,355 per month from the Post-secondary Student Assistance Program, above and beyond the funding he receives for tuition, books and supplies. He would also receive an allowance to enable him and his family to travel to and from his normal place of residence once every semester. If he maintains a grade average of B or better during the year, he may also be eligible to receive a scholarship of $1,000 for his next year of study.
These students may not be millionaires, but it is a significant level of support. Grants for single students living away from home are equivalent to a full-time job paying $4.96 per hour. Grants paid to single-parent students with three dependants would be equivalent to a full-time job paying $12.14 per hour.
Successful students will experience no difficulty in obtaining support to the conclusion of a professional degree like a law degree, or a graduate program such as a Master's degree or a Ph.D.
Under the terms of the new program, administering organizations such as bands, tribal councils, education authorities, or other organizations, will have an even greater opportunity to directly participate in the post-secondary education process. The new policy is sufficiently flexible to allow administering organizations to establish their own operating procedures, provided these are consistent with the policy and reflect the maximum rates and limits of assistance.
Supply
The Post-secondary Student Assistance Program is designed to encourage improvements in the level of academic achievement, resulting in a generation of Indians and Inuit who are better equipped to face the future.
I would like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. colleagues, that the only "cap" Indian students will see in this program is a mortar-board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James on a question or comment.


John Harvard: I appreciate the comments made by my hon. friend. He certainly brought forward to the House an impressive list of figures and benefits that are available to Indian students. I am sure he brought those forward sincerely and respectfully. However, I do think that he misses the point of the entire debate. The major point of today's debate has to do with capping the educational opportunities of native students. We are not saying that it is not a budgetary matter or not a money matter. We have conceded or gone along with the point of view of the Government that there has been an increase in funding. We believe our point, which is sustainable and unassailable, is that there is a capping element which will ultimately limit the educational opportunities of native students. We do not think that that is a good policy, particularly for native students. However, it is not a good policy for the native community, and ultimately it is not a good policy for the country.
It has been demonstrated that the native population is under-represented in almost all major areas of the economy. I believe that all Members would like to see more native accountants, lawyers, engineers, and architects. We would like to see natives better represented in the professions, and throughout the economy. We find the unemployment figures that natives face every day loathsome, horrendous, and appalling. They face despair and desperation in their home communities on the reserves. One way to break out of that and to give them hope and the opportunity to produce and give their all to the country is through education. On this side of the House we feel that we cannot afford to miss this opportunity. We cannot afford not to give native children this opportunity.
Does the Hon. Member not understand how this policy will backfire? Ultimately it will not only harm the native students, but it will harm the country. We want to get natives off the welfare rolls and make them productive. We believe that there is a great risk that the Government's policy will backfire.

April 21, 1989
Supply


Douglas Fee: I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague opposite. I would like to assure him that the comments and the figures I shared with him and with the House were presented sincerely and respectfully. I would also like to assure him that my colleagues and I share his objective of seeing the natives take their proper place in our society and that they contribute far more economically to the country than they have. We are seeing an increased number of natives join us in the House, and I think that is good and healthy.
The numbers of native students availing themselves of the opportunity to participate in post-secondary education speak for themselves. We are not discouraging that by any means at all. The Hon. Member stated that there should not be a cap. Nobody on this side has said there is a cap.


Mrs.   Blondin@: Then impose a moratorium.


Douglas Fee: We are trying to establish a reasonable budget so we know where we are going. The Minister has offered to meet and to negotiate. He has said that if we can prove there is a need, he will fight. From the comments that have been shared by myself and other Members, the Minister will have support in that fight for extra money, if we have the proof that the students are there who actually need it.
The Minister involved is one of the first cabinet Ministers I met after I received my nomination last year. My riding of Red Deer in central Alberta has very few Francophones. There are a large number of students enrolled in French immersion. That is the only way to learn French, because there are not enough people who speak French on the street. Red Deer is not exactly a hotbed of labour activity. Yet in his capacity as Minister of Labour, a French-Canadian cabinet Minister came to Red Deer to present a cheque and a grant to the Canadian Labour Congress and to meet the press. A man who is willing to do that will not be afraid to negotiate with people and meet them anywhere. I am convinced that this Minister's door is open, that he is honest and sincere and willing to meet people and discuss issues with them. There have been numerous discussions with native groups throughout the past year. He has already changed the original policy based on those negotiations.
Personally, I am convinced if the need is proved he will change it again. I do not think that it is a good policy for government to spend money open-ended on any program regardless of how good it is. We cannot write a blank cheque. We have to know where the money is going.


Mrs.   Blondin@: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. It is anticipated that there will be 30,000 new registrations next year of native students. The Hon. Member has indicated there is no cap.
Will the Member reassure this House, according to the conversations and reassurances he has had with his Minister, that the policy cap will not kill the possibility for post-secondary funding support as the Member has described so eloquently for those 30,000 registrants?


Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the numbers. I am not sure whether or not they have been shared with my colleague, the Minister responsible. The Member says 30,000 new registrations. Is that over and above the 15,000?


Mrs.   Blondin@: New.


Douglas Fee: One of the things the Minister has emphasized over and over are his attempts to meet with native groups to establish a statistical base on which we can put this program. I have not seen that number. I do not know from where the Member is coming, so it is very difficult for me to react to a hypothetical situation.


Mrs.   Blondin@: I feel the same about your numbers.


Douglas Fee: If the question does come up and if there is statistical backing, I am certain the Minister will address it properly. I have full confidence in him.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Fee), on a very excellent presentation and ask him whether he would elaborate on a point raised by one of his questioners, I believe it was the Member from Winnipeg-Strathcona, with respect to the desire to see more native students in the professions.
It seems to me that one of the very important elements of this program is a desire to provide even stronger financial incentives for students to engage in the professions in those areas of expertise which will contribute very strongly to native independence. Would the Member comment on that?

%


April 21, 1989

Also, the Member gave some very interesting figures. They are certainly available. The policy is not a secret. It is well available, and I wish it had been read by Hon. Members before engaging in debate on the issue over the past few weeks.
Perhaps the Member would advise the House from where the figures on levels of support came. It is extremely important for Members of this House to understand that these figures did not come out of thin air. They are very careful analyses of the kinds of expenses the students might incur. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Red Deer would elaborate on those to some extent.


Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, it is almost more fun answering questions from the other side of the House because they put you on the spot much more than questions which come from one's own side.
Every one of us here has heard discussions today that if we do not expand this program and leave it open-ended, we are encouraging a continuation of the unfortunate situation that exists in all too many Indian reservations today, a situation of welfare payments and substandard living standards. The two are related. We can help, but an open-ended chequebook or an unlimited amount of money is not the answer. We have to make effective use of the moneys that are there. We have to encourage students to get into programs which will benefit them and their people. The intent of this program is not to say you have to go here or you have to go there. It is to encourage people to go to places where they can best benefit and their people can best benefit from the results of their training.
Supply
The statistics we have, as the Minister pointed out, are all available in the informational sheets from the Department. They have resulted from a veiy careful analysis that has been done. I have checked them. I think they are quite reasonable from what I have seen, and I would encourage any of my friends opposite who have not read them to avail themselves of the opportunity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. We will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to participate in the debate. I am rising in light of the hour. We have a speaker on this side ready to proceed, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. Volpe). He will have only five minutes which will cut his speech into one and three-quarters.
In the circumstances, might we consider calling it three o'clock today so that he can commence his speech Monday morning and avoid an interruption over the weekend? I hope that will meet with agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it three o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence will have the floor on Monday morning. We will now call it three o'clock.
Therefore this House stands adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 24, 1989