1991-05-24

Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the government should take into full account the budgetary reality of the provinces and municipalities involved in Royal Canadian Mounted Police contract negotiations and therefore be prepared to negotiate a contract for RCMP services which does not unfairly transfer policing costs from the federal government to provincial and municipal governments.
He said: Madam Speaker, for the benefit of members and people watching this debate, we in the NDP are calling on the government to renegotiate in good faith fair policing contracts for those provinces which use the RCMP as their provincial and municipal police forces.
We believe this is an extremely urgent issue for Canadians because it touches on some of the most important issues that Canadians are debating today.
First and foremost is the national unity debate. As a result of Tory ideology, which has undermined or destroyed many of the national institutions and symbols that Canadians hold dear, such as the national passenger rail service, Canada Post, the privatization of Air Canada and Petro-Canada and the continuing attack on the CBC, many Canadians feel that the symbols and the structures underlying Canadian unity have been undermined almost to the point of destruction by implementation of Tory policy.
The Tories have justified their attack on Canadian institutions by saying that these institutions cost too much in this day and age. As many political observers have said, Tories seem to know the cost of everything and
the value of nothing. As a result, this country is facing its worst and possibly its last unity crisis.
The second issue in terms of the debate on the RCMP police contracts is the way that the Tories have handled the crisis in budgets and programs of the federal government. The recent Tory budget has cut back on transfers to the provinces, transfers which support cost-shared programs such as hospitals, post-secondary education, social services and other programs in the provinces in order to maintain a decent and level standard of equality services all across this country. As a result of those federal cutbacks, Canadians in various parts of the country are going to be receiving different qualities of service based on the ability of the provinces to support.
The Tories have also cut back income support programs such as family allowance and old age pensions, which are also seen as the basis of national unity in this country and which give every Canadian in every part of this country a fair shake regardless of place of residence. The criterion for eligibility for these programs is simply being Canadian. Now the federal Tories, based on their ideology, have .begun to tinker with these programs so that Canadians cannot access them equally, depending on where they live in the country, on income, and other things.
All of these national institutions, whether based on social programs or on national institutions and symbols such as the CBC, the communications system, the rail transportation system, or the Canada Post system, are being undermined. Canadians are losing a fundamental understanding of what really underlies this nation, something we have treasured over the last 125 years.
There is one national symbol of Canada that is recognized all across this country and all around the world. That symbol is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which was established as the North-West Mounted Police in the 1870s. That police force was a federal police force which was designed to bring law and order and orderly development to the west at a time when Canadians were viewing the chaos taking place in the United States. Canadians felt that a police force was necessary to bring good government, law and order, and good policing to western Canada. The North-West Mounted Police later became the national police of

May 24, 1991
Supply
Canada and the police force in many of the provinces and municipalities of Canada; a great deal of respect has accrued to that police force both in the country and around the world.
It is very difficult to identify any other symbol which might be more representative of Canada than the red serge uniform of the RCMP. When somebody comes to the Canadian capital they have their picture taken with an RCMP officer in the dress uniform.
In provincial capitals they do the same thing. In citizenship court one of the symbols of Canada that is evident along with the flag and the coats of arms is the red serge uniform of the RCMP. It is seen as a symbol of Canada both nationally and internationally.
In renegotiating the terms of the contracts with the provinces which use the RCMP in their municipalities, the Solicitor General and the Government of Canada are taking an intransigent position in demanding that the municipalities and provinces pay a higher share of the cost. In doing so, the federal government is putting even the institution of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in jeopardy.
What it is telling the provinces and municipalities which contract for those RCMP services is that it is going to raise the price so high and make policing such a burden on the taxpayers that there is now an option. They can create their own municipal police force or provincial police force and the federal government will get out of that area of policing entirely.
There are going to be serious repercussions across Canada in terms of national unity and in terms of recognition of the symbols and institutions of this country if the government proceeds in its hard-nosed intransigent stance in dealing with the Canadian provinces and municipalities which contract for RCMP services.
One of the major contractors for the services of the RCMP is the province of British Columbia, the province from which I come. According to the Union of B.C.
Municipalities, which has put together substantial research on this issue, 27 per cent of the RCMP force in Canada is in B.C.; out of 15,000 RCMP members 4,000 are posted to British Columbia.
The province of British Columbia is also a major contractor for Royal Canadian Mounted Police services. Out of 8,000 contracting RCMP members, 3,100 of those are posted in British Columbia. Thirty-nine per cent of all the contracted provincial police services through the RCMP are contracted within that province. That same thing applies to members of the RCMP who are contracted at the provincial level.
This is a very important issue for municipalities within the province of British Columbia because they employ 1,900 out of the 3,000 RCMP members contracted to municipalities across Canada. That is, 63 per cent of all the members of the force who are contracted to municipalities work in the municipalities of British Columbia, serving close to a million and a half British Columbians.
This is a very important issue in British Columbia. I do not want to understate how important it is in western Canada as well. The RCMP has been the traditional police force in western Canada since the North-West Mounted Police originated in the 1870s.
We are concerned about the effect on British Columbia. Municipalities have advised us that if the federal government persists with its intransigent position in RCMP contract negotiations, it is going to cost the municipalities of that province an additional $12.5 million annually to support the RCMP. That translates over the 10-year term of the contract into an additional $125 million being bled out of those municipalities to support police services.
In the case of the government of the province of British Columbia which contracts to the RCMP for its provincial police, it means an additional $27 million a year to a government which has just budgeted a $395 million deficit.
May 24, 1991

We are talking about a province unable to pay those kinds of increases and municipalities within that province which are unable to pass on those kinds of increases to their taxpayers without creating a serious burden. It will be a burden on taxpayers which in addition to other federal taxes such as excise taxes, fuel taxes, goods and services taxes, increased income taxes, increased charges for all federal services, and another tax increase passed on to municipal property owners and residents as a result of the policing contracts with the federal government is going to be absolutely impossible to bear. These costs run so high for municipalities in British Columbia right now-some municipalities pay up to 37 per cent of their revenues for policing costs-that there may be no legal avenue for them to pass those costs on to property taxes.
What we are talking about here is another element of Conservative policy that is involved in this debate: the aspect of constantly increasing taxes on the lower and middle classes in this country which are being expected to support these kinds of services when the federal government is fully capable of providing services at the current cost-sharing level.
I just wanted to mention some of the impacts on municipalities within my riding, and I will quote from some of the mayors in the riding of Comox-Albemi. For example, Mayor Ron Webber of Courtenay, British Columbia, has said that over the past years the presence of the RCMP has provided a cost effective and efficient method of providing total policing for federal and municipal responsibilities.
It is also an important factor in maintaining a federal presence in our community and contributes greatly to preserving a sense of national identity in these threatened times.
The increase proposed by the federal government represents a 17.35 per cent increase in a single year and would result in a 5.4 per cent increase in municipal property tax rates.
It should also be pointed out that this analysis is based on the city's fiscal year, which is the calendar year, and that the impact of the federal proposal for a full fiscal year at the new tax rates would result in a 25 per cent
Supply
increase in the cost of policing services for that small municipality and a 7.8 per cent increase in tax rates.
For communities like Courtenay, British Columbia, a 25 per cent increase in policing costs and a 7.8 per cent increase in taxing based on those costs and on the federal contract proposal are simply far too much for those municipalities and those taxpayers to bear.
As a result, they are going to be forced into a position either of cutting back on police services at a time when we are reading in The Ottawa Citizen that women in communities such as Ottawa are fearful of going out at night in their own neighbourhoods because of danger to their physical well-being.
Now is not the time to start cutting back on RCMP services or on the fairness of cost distribution among the federal government, the provinces and the municipalities.
Now is the time for the federal, provincial, and municipal governments to be maintaining and improving services. It is time for the federal government to accept its share of the responsibility so that men and women in our communities across Canada can feel safe going out at night in their neighbourhoods.
Now is not the time to start pushing this kind of contract proposal on to the provinces and municipalities in western Canada. Now is the time when they can least afford to bear it.
I would also like to quote the mayor of Port Albemi, the city where I live. He says: "A prime example of the federal benefit of municipal policing is their front line enforcement against dmg offences. This is an area of federal policing responsibility which is handled on a more cost effective basis by contract police forces. If it were not for municipal contracts, the cost to the federal government would most assuredly be increased".
The mayor of Port Albemi and I do not always agree, but in this case we are absolutely in agreement.
If the federal government persists in its intransigent position with respect to increasing costs to the province and the municipalities within the province of British Columbia, it is going to persuade some of those municipalities to go to municipal police forces.

May 24, 1991
Supply
It may persuade the province to go to a provincial police force, and we are going to end up with the kind of balkanized police jurisdiction where the transfer of information either slows down or does not exist.
We are going to have a situation similar to that in the United States where they have local police, county police, state police and the national police force, the FBI. Information transfer between those police agencies is often extremely difficult, if it exists at all.
There is often a confusion over jurisdiction on issues which are seen to be federal, state, local or county. As a result, police services in the United States often break down and do not perform as effectively as they should.
I do not think that there is anyone in Canada or around the world who is not aware of the effectiveness of the RCMP as a national police force, a provincial police force, and as a municipal police force.
Part of the reason for the effectiveness of that force is that it is able to integrate its services at all three levels of government. Its communications systems operate between the three levels of government and for that reason it is far more effective.
I hope that members in this House will support the resolution that I have put forward, will do their best to persuade the Solicitor General and the Government of Canada that the cost base of the RCMP contract in western Canada is appropriate, that we should not be trying to force increases in the provincial or the municipalities' share, and that the federal government should be accepting its full responsibility. If not, the result, as I have pointed out, is to jeopardize national unity. The result will further increase the tax burden on the provinces and the municipalities, while at the same time reduce the effectiveness of policing at the very time in Canada when we would like to increase the security and the safety of our citizens, at the very time in Canada when people are beginning to be afraid to go out in their own neighbourhoods.
I urge members to support this resolution. I also urge the Solicitor General to support this resolution and get down to the business of negotiating, in good faith, with
the western provinces and the municipalities that contract with the federal government for RCMP services.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, I am absolutely astounded that the member from lotus land wants other Canadian taxpayers to subsidize policing services in British Columbia.
British Columbia has an economy that is doing better than any other province in the country. Right now, for example, in Ontario we are having a very difficult time. I find it very odd that the member should be demanding that we pay for his province's policing services.
The RCMP can certainly stay there, but British Columbia should pay the cost of its own policing. Local control means that we have local funding for the level of policing that we want in our community. That should not be paid for by other Canadian taxpayers.
Certainly national unity is not dependent on subsidies.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I think if the member had any understanding or experience of British Columbia at all, instead of insulting it by calling it lotus land, she would know that in communities like mine we have just lost over 400 jobs in the plywood industry. There is some question as to whether some of those communities in western Canada are going to survive. Much of the losses are a result of Tory trade policy.
Perhaps the hon. member should spend a little more time in British Columbia to learn exactly how much British Columbia contributes, not simply to its own economy, but to the economy of Canada as a whole.
We are very proud, as British Columbians, that we have never stinted in providing the revenue from our resources and the income taxes and other taxes that hard-working British Columbians pay. We pay our share, and more.
What we are asking in terms of police services is that we get a little bit of that back. We are not asking for the whole amount back. We are asking that we get a little bit of the revenues that we pay to the federal government back in order to provide a decent standard of police services in the province of British Columbia.
May 24, 1991

I can tell the hon. member that British Columbians are not going to receive very well the insult of that Tory member calling British Columbia lotus land.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the member for Don Valley North insult the three million Canadians who live in British Columbia by calling it lotus land. The member should visit the province.
I finally discovered this morning what those opposite are trying to do. The Prime Minister is trying to get the Republican nomination for vice-president in the next election. How is he trying to do it? He is trying to turn Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and every city within driving distance of the border into shopping suburbs of New York, Buffalo and places like that. In the case of the member's constituency, he is trying to turn Toronto into a shopping suburb of Buffalo.
Where has the hon. member been. Does she not realize that 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in Ontario in the last 18 months? Where has she been for the last 18 months?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is an experienced member and he knows that his comments should be addressed to the hon. member for Comox- Albemi's speech and not from a comment from another member.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I was about to get to the question for the member from British Columbia.
How many young British Columbians joined the RCMP? Is it not one of the few federal agencies with which they have a chance to take positions and have careers? Does he have the figures on that, and perhaps for western Canada as a whole?


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his questions. I also thank him for his comments on the previous questioner. I feel that they should not have gone without a response because they were so far off the mark.
No, unfortunately I do not have the numbers of British Columbians joining the RCMP and so I cannot provide that information.
Supply
As aboriginal affairs critic for the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons I am concerned, for example, about the number of aboriginal people who enter the RCMP. The department of indian affairs pays a substantial amount to the RCMP for native auxiliary RCMP. The RCMP does not even meet the quota that the department of indian affairs funds. The RCMP is subsidized by the department of indian affairs but does not deliver the number of aboriginal police officers they should be delivering.
I cannot provide the hon. member with the number of British Columbians who join the RCMP on an annual basis, but I will definitely look it up. There are some problems with recruitment which have been identified in a number of the justice studies across Canada.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I do have one quick question for the member from Vancouver Island.
In my area the proposed cutbacks in RCMP funding by the federal government have resulted in what can charitably be described as ill will toward the current government from people across Alberta. This is a major factor contributing to the growing unlikelihood of the re-election of Conservative members in Alberta. I was wondering if the same holds true in British Columbia.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, the likelihood of a Conservative member being elected in British Columbia is very remote at this point. It is about as remote as the possibility of a federal election. In fact, I am told that 14 per cent of the population believe that the Conservative government is doing a good job and 15 per cent believe they saw Elvis Presley in the 7-Eleven last week. What is really scary is that some of those are the same people.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Royal Canadian Mounted Police celebrated its birthday. In 1873, the North-West Mounted Police was founded. It was later to become known as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The RCMP, as was indicated, is an important national symbol for Canadians. It is one of the most important national symbols that we have in Canada.

May 24, 1991
Supply
People world wide know about the RCMP. In fact, they make movies in Hollywood about the RCMP and the work of the RCMP. It is well known that the RCMP always gets their person.
The federal government is now bent on wiping out the RCMP in western Canada and in Atlantic Canada. At present, the RCMP acts as the provincial police force in eight of the 10 provinces and in the two territories. The federal government also contracts the RCMP to municipalities in those eight provinces.
In the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, there are provincial police forces. In the province of Ontario we have the OPP and in Quebec the Surete du Quebec. Those of us who reside and have our constituencies in Ontario and Quebec do not realize how important the RCMP is to western Canada and to western Canadians.
Over the last number of months, in fact over the last year, the government has been negotiating a new contract, and has acted in bad faith. The old contract expired on March 31 of this year. The present Solicitor General is sitting in the House today. He is responsible for negotiating this new contract with the provinces to ensure that the RCMP continue to provide the important and essential services it provides in western and Atlantic Canada.


David Kilgour: He is also an Ontario member.


John V. Nunziata: That previous contract expired and the government, in advance of the expiration of that previous contract, said it was not prepared to bend at all regarding the proposal it had put forward to renegotiate the contract. This is a new 10-year contract that will see the relationship continue from this year until the year 2001.
The contract expired and the contract services continue, but under no contract. The government has been totally intransigent in terms of negotiating in good faith.
At present the federal government pays 30 per cent of the cost of those services in western Canada. The member for North York should know that the provinces and municipalities in western Canada pay the lion's share, 70 per cent, of the cost of RCMP services in western Canada and in Atlantic Canada.
The government is proposing to cut the federal share to 25 per cent. As well, the Government of Canada, through the Solicitor General, wants to impose additional administrative costs on the municipalities and the provincial governments. That will mean an additional cut of $79 million from the federal government. At present the federal, government's share is some $251 million.
It is my view that these cuts are part of a systematic and deliberate program to dismember and destroy our country and the national symbols that exist in Canada that promote national identity and Canadianism. In seven short years-long years to a lot of us on this side of the House-this government has systematically cut institutions right across the board. It started by dismantling FIRA, the Foreign Investment Review Agency. It is privatizing Petro-Canada. It has privatized Air Canada. It is in the process of privatizing Harbourfront in metropolitan Toronto. It has cut the CBC. It is cutting Canada Post. It has destroyed VIA Rail and now is bent on destroying the RCMP in western Canada.
What is the agenda? I believe that is a fair question to ask.


David Kilgour: Brian wants to run as vice-president in the U.S.


John V. Nunziata: My friend from Alberta says that the Prime Minister wants to run for vice-president of the United States.
The cynics among us would tend to agree that the government's agenda includes the gradual disintegration of our country and integration into the United States.
Municipalities will be hard hit by these proposals of the federal government. In effect, what the federal government is trying to do is reduce the deficit on the backs of municipalities in western Canada and in Atlantic Canada. They are trying to off-load expenses, in this case $79 million this year.
When you consider the importance and the benefit of the RCMP in western Canada, it really makes you wonder about the government's priorities. It seems to be able to find money, left and right, to accommodate the friends of the Tory government, friends of the Prime Minister, and friends of cabinet ministers, giving them all kinds of untendered contracts. The government is paying legal fees for Sinclair Stevens, $500,000, and $5 million to conduct a royal commission of inquiry into the conduct of a former Conservative cabinet minister who was found to be in breach 17 or 18 times over of the conflict of interest guidelines.
May 24, 1991

The government seems to be able to find money when it comes to accommodating its own interests. But when it comes to dealing with some important matters that face Canadians, it does not seem to be able to find the necessary resources. Is it any wonder that western Canadians sense this growing alienation when people from central Canada, the Conservative Party, and Conservative members like the hon. member for North York speak the way they do, showing a total lack of understanding and a total ignorance of what is happening in western Canada?
Here we have the Solicitor General from Ontario, Orillia of all places, acting in bad faith in negotiating this new contract. What will the federal cuts actually mean to the various provinces that are affected? In the province of British Columbia the extra cost will be $120 million over the 10-year period of this contract. In the province of Alberta the extra cost will be $15 million. In fact, municipalities within the province of Alberta are considering establishing their own police forces. In the city of Red Deer, for example, the additional cost has led municipal leaders there to seriously consider establishing their own police force, thereby eliminating the presence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In the province of Saskatchewan, in the town of Rosthern, they are considering establishing their own police force in view of the proposals of the federal government.
In the province of Manitoba the federal proposal will mean an additional $90 million over the life of the contract.
In Nova Scotia the federal proposal will mean that the municipalities in the province will have to pay 23 per cent more in the first year of the new contract, $9 million more annually.
The province of New Brunswick, which became fed up with federal irresponsibility in this area some time ago, established its own highway patrol, thereby taking that responsibility away from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There, too, the province suffered substantially.
It has gone back to the RCMP because it believes the force provides an excellent service. The RCMP is highly respected right across the country. It is one of the most respected police forces anywhere in the world and, if this
Supply
government has its way, it will systematically slash and cut and destroy the RCMP in western Canada.
We know that this arrangement, negotiated by the previous government, in which the RCMP contracts its services to the provinces in western Canada and to municipalities, results in a significant cost saving for taxpayers. For example, in the province of Quebec the per capita cost for policing is $170. In Ontario that cost is $155. That includes, of course, all the various police forces that exist in the two provinces. In the municipality that I represent we have the Metropolitan Toronto Police, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, all providing police services.
The cost in B.C. to provide police services is $127 per capita. From $170 in Quebec, $155 in Ontario, to $127 in British Columbia, you can see, Madam Speaker, the significant cost saving for this arrangement.
The member for North York would have people believe, or is suggesting that the benefit is only to the provinces in question, that the provinces and municipalities which contract for these services are benefiting, and that the fat cats in Ontario and Quebec are in effect footing the bill or paying the cost of policing in those particular provinces and municipalities.
The member forgets that there is significant benefit to the federal government and to the federal taxpayer with this particular arrangement, remembering of course that the federal government is only paying 30 per cent of the cost and that there are federal taxpayers in the western provinces who pay their taxes to Ottawa every April and from every pay.
What are the benefits to the federal government, to the national government? We have spoken about the visible national symbol. We cannot attach a price tag to that in terms of the benefit to Canadians. We have a national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The men and women who serve Canada well are seen as an international symbol.
When you are in western Canada and you see the RCMP, you see Canada. You see security. You see a highly respected police officer who works hard and diligently on the part of Canadians. Wherever you travel in western Canada, you see that national presence.

May 24, 1991
Supply
The RCMP is one of the few institutions in Canada that provides that national presence. We have Petro-Canada stations across the country. We have Air Canada across the country. But the RCMP comes into contact day in and day out with people, providing that service.
If the federal government had its way, as you travelled through western Canada you would see a separate police force in Calgary, a separate police force in Lethbridge, a separate police force in Red Deer, a separate police force in Vancouver and another police force in North Vancouver. There would be all kinds of separate police forces in the municipalities, separate provincial police forces in the four western provinces and the provinces in Atlantic Canada, the Northwest Territories and Yukon.


An hon. member:: That is nation building.


John V. Nunziata: My friend and colleague says "nation building". He is absolutely right, because from 1873 to the present moment the RCMP and its predecessor, the North-West Mounted Police, helped build this nation, helped provide the symbols of importance to our country.
That is a significant benefit to the federal government. For a mere $270-odd million a year the cost is well worth it. As well, there is one single police structure in western Canada as opposed to having a separate RCMP detachment, a separate OPP detachment, and a separate office for the Metropolitan Toronto Police for example. There is one single structure that allows the government to save significantly in terms of its responsibilities in enforcing federal laws. The RCMP, the federal police, whether or not we like it, will still have a role to play if the provinces in western Canada provincialize their police forces and the municipalities go with their own police forces. We still need the RCMP to enforce federal drug laws, for example.
If we have that duplication of service, we will not have the uniformed RCMP any longer. We will have the undercover RCMP officers as we have in Quebec and Ontario investigating drug deals and drug trafficking, for example.
There are significant savings to the federal taxpayers when we have a single policing structure. Let us make sure that the wrong impression is not left with Canadians
that somehow central Canadians are paying for policing in western Canada and are not receiving any benefit in return.
Western Canadians are Canadians. They are federal taxpayers and they are contributing to the federal coffers distributed from here. You do not see western Canadians or Atlantic Canadians complaining when federal funds are used for massive expenditures in the province of Ontario or in the province of Quebec.
It really surprises me that a Conservative member would begrudge giving western Canadians the moneys necessary to ensure the continuation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in western Canada.
It is clear that this government simply does not care about the continuation of the RCMP. It is attempting to shift the tax burden in an irresponsible fashion on to the municipalities.
We know that the federal government is seriously affecting the universality of health care throughout the country by trying to off-load some of the federal costs on to the provinces. In effect, health services are already suffering because of the massive cutbacks of this government.
In education as well, the government has severely cut back in terms of federal transfer payments to the municipalities. Education is suffering and now policing will suffer in a very significant way.
What is encouraging is that the eight provinces and the territories which are affected are standing together shoulder to shoulder and they are fighting this. They are fed up with it and they are not going to put up with it. They are not prepared to bend over and die as the federal Solicitor General hopes they will. They are adamant that they will not be forced into paying the substantial additional costs.
The provincial solicitors general have met over the last number of months and their position remains firm. They will not send the additional moneys to the federal government. The ball will then be in the federal court.
Will the Solicitor General, perhaps when he gets up in a few minutes, indicate his intentions in so far as this particular matter is concerned? Does he intend to unilaterally pull the RCMP from western Canada or Atlantic Canada? Is he prepared to negotiate in good faith?


May 24, 1991

The deal that was struck 10 years ago was a good deal. It was a fair deal. Why then would the government now want to change that relationship which has worked so well over the last 10 years and in the many years before that?
One can understand that both levels of government will have to pay the additional cost in terms of inflation and other associated costs of providing policing, but why, pray tell, does the federal government want to off-load or renegotiate this particular agreement in such an unfair fashion?
The provincial governments are sticking together. They do not appreciate the federal government's take-it-or-leave-it attitude. They are prepared to call the Solicitor General's bluff and say: "We will continue to pay our fair share when we write the check every month or every two months. We will write a check according to the old formula".
Then it will be up to the federal government and the Solicitor General to decide what the next step is in terms of trying to further their unfair proposal. I have indicated in my submissions the reasons why I believe the federal government should continue to pay its fair share.
Has my time expired, Madam Speaker?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It has expired.


John V. Nunziata: My time has expired.
In closing, let me say that the Liberal opposition endorses fully the positions taken by the provincial governments other than Quebec and Ontario.
The Liberal Party fully, completely and unequivocally supports the continuation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in western Canada, in Atlantic Canada and in the territories. When we get on the other side of the House we will ensure the presence of the RCMP in western Canada.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: First of all I want to thank my colleague for his comprehensive analysis of this particular problem. I particularly appreciated the comments with respect to our proud force, the RCMP, in its efficiency as a policing unit and its importance as a national symbol, particularly for western and northern Canadians.
Supply
There are two questions which I would like to raise. I want to make certain that all members recognize that when we say this is another attack on a bond, a national symbol that contributes to the unification of Canada, it is understood that this is not only being said by Liberals and other members on this side of the House. I have a quote here from Minister McCrae from the province of Manitoba who is a member of the Conservative government there: "At a time of great stress on our country it would be a tragedy if short-sighted federal fiscal policies snapped another bond that unifies this country".
Does my colleague know of any other individuals who have made similar observations?
The other question is with respect to the cost that would be off-loaded to provinces. He did mention those. I think they are particularly important and assuming that he can reach them without a whole lot of difficulty I would like to have those repeated for Canadians who are listening because they do represent an additional major burden on provinces and municipalities. That is one of the ways the federal government is able to say it is controlling its expenditures at 3.7 per cent. Obviously it is. It is dumping it on to the provinces and the municipalities.


John V. Nunziata: At present the federal government's share of RCMP contract policing is $251.7 million. The proposal put forward by the federal government would see that particular share cut by $79 million.
You simply cannot cut $79 million and hope that the cost disappears somehow. That cost will have to be borne by provinces and municipalities. Municipal taxpayers will bear the brunt of this increase. That is a significant amount of money for municipalities when you break it down on a city-by-city, town-by-town basis across western and northern Canada and in Atlantic Canada.
As far as the question relating to the other people who have commented about the disintegration of Canada and the destruction of national symbols, particularly the destruction and dismembering of the RCMP, many Canadians right across Canada revere and highly respect the RCMP and have been shocked to learn of the hidden agenda of this government: to destroy the RCMP throughout Canada.

May 24, 1991


Barbara Greene: I find it extremely interesting that the member for York South- Weston is suggesting that his taxpayers, who are paying not just the $155 Ontario average cost for policing but a substantially higher figure because it is metropolitan Toronto, should in fact be subsidizing communities in provinces such as British Columbia which have policing costs of $127 per capita, on which they are getting a further subsidy of 30 per cent. It seems to me that they are paying in some areas of British Columbia around $89 for policing.
In metropolitan Toronto many people have great difficulty paying their very high property taxes and living in one of the most expensive cities in North America. It seems to me that while hon. members are trying to turn this into an issue by suggesting that the RCMP should disappear, it really is an issue of fiscal fairness. Nobody is suggesting the RCMP disappear. We are suggesting that communities pay their own costs of policing and determine the level of policing services they require.
For the information of some of the other members, I have visited all parts-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may interrupt the hon. member, she has the possibility of pursuing her question after Question Period.

It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Members' Statements, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, the removal of interprovincial trade barriers as a means to stimulate economic growth from within Canada was one of the central themes in the government's Speech from the Throne.
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island moved one step closer to that goal yesterday when the Council of Maritime Premiers released their discussion paper calling for the removal of a number of
interprovincial trade barriers over the next 18 months. Citing the fact that the three provinces are too small to put up walls, the premiers outline a number of areas in which economic integration can begin, including the free movement between provinces for professionals and trades people and the elimination of costly bidding wars used to attract businesses into a particular province.
It is high time the rest of the country took the lead from the three maritime premiers and began working to remove the over 500 interprovincial trade barriers that are currently choking economic growth in Canada.


CANADA FITNESS WEEK
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, today, on Sneaker Day, all Canadians are invited and urged to wear their running shoes and show their support for a healthy and active life style. Sneaker Day kicks off Canada Fitness Week which starts today and will continue until June 2. Canada Fitness Week has now been recognized internationally as the biggest celebration of physical fitness in the world. This year, more than 8 million Canadians are expected to take part in some
14,000	activities that will take place across this country. In our communities, hundred of thousands of volunteers will donate their time and energy to this annual celebration.
During the next nine days, I invite all members to join Canadians from coast to coast in promoting and taking part in the many activities scheduled during Canada Fitness Week.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Madam Speaker, the Self-Employment Incentive Program of Canada Employment and Immigration has proven to be the best economic development tool available in my area.
Under SEI, unemployed people are provided incentives to start their own small businesses and get off unemployment insurance benefits. To date there are over 150 participants who are operating their own small businesses and in some cases already employing others.
May 24, 1991

Not only is SEI successful in helping people get off UIC, but it is providing a foundation of new business experience and fostering a new entrepreneurial spirit.
Cumberland county enjoys perhaps the very best success rate in Canada under the SEI program. It is so successful, in fact, that funding for 1991 is now exhausted. If Cumberland county is to continue their success rate, we need the budget to continue this program. I know of no other government program which provides better value and I strongly urge the minister to reassess this situation and provide the additional funding required.


SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced $7 million in funding for small craft harbours. I stand in this House today and ask that some of that money be spent in the Cardigan riding.
Since the 1988 election I have written countless letters asking that repairs be done to the wharfs in eastern Prince Edward Island. I know of two wharfs in eastern Prince Edward Island that needed approximately $50,000 in repairs last spring. Because these repairs were not done, the cost to the taxpayer today is about $1.5 million.
However, the government commitment is only to minor harbour maintenance. Cardigan riding could probably use the $7 million itself, because the government did not perform the minor harbour maintenance in the past.
The minister should act today and help the fishermen of Cardigan riding.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, six months ago I wrote the then Minister of Employment and Immigration about discriminatory hiring practices on the international bridge between Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and Michigan. This bridge is a jointly owned and operated bridge with supposed equal interest between the United States and Canada.
A 30-year old agreement between the two countries designating a 50-50 worker ratio is being denied by the American government. Presently 25 Americans and 18 Canadians are working at various tasks on the bridge. Why the discrepancy you ask? Why, after six months, is there no answer? Why is the prepared answer being reconsidered by the new minister?
It would appear that not only the playing field is tilted in favour of the Americans, but also the working field.
I have not received a written response to my letter, but I have been told that once again the infamous FTA, free trade agreement, has struck down Canadian workers. Chapter 15, which appears totally irrelevant, impedes Canadians from an equal employment opportunity on this bridge.
We are meeting this summer to resolve this inequity. Let us hope this government will be strong in its resolve to correct this obvious inequity.


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines in our Constitution the principle of multiculturalism which promotes respect for cultural and linguistic origins of all Canadians, encourages Canadians to get to know and understand each other, and ensures that all Canadians of whatever origin can and must participate equally and fully in the wider Canadian society.
Multiculturalism has come under fire from two different sources. The Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future says that many Canadians reject government funding for multicultural programs and believe that new Canadians should embrace our symbols, our culture, and our definition of what it means to be a Canadian.
On the other hand, the Quebec Belanger-Campeau report says that multiculturalism implies the equality of all cultures and cultural origins in Canada and thus conflicts with the concept of two founding nations.
Surely we can find a way to reconcile all of these views and principles without disregarding any of them. In the past, we have emphasized our differences. Now it is time to emphasize the things that make us all Canadians. Certainly we have more-

May 24, 1991


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, the hon. member's time has expired.


VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, the news media report that IVACO of Marieville, Quebec, which operates steel mills in several Canadian towns and cities, including L'Orignal, Ontario, in my riding, is preparing to relocate part of its operations to the United States.
Why? Because, according to IVACO's president, Paul Ivanier, the Canadian dollar is now artificially high. Mr. Ivanier says that he thinks the Canadian dollar should be worth 80 cents U.S.
Madam Speaker, we in the Liberal Party have told the government for a long time that its monetary and fiscal policies were driving away investors and encouraging business operators to transfer jobs to the United States.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked the Canadian government several times to lower the value of our dollar so that we can keep our jobs in Canada. Why does the government opposite refuse to act? Why does it refuse to protect these jobs?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Madam Speaker, the Reform Party uses the words "phased reduction and elimination of all agricultural subsidies and support programs".
There are no countries in the western democratic world which do not support its agricultural producers. The farmers of Canada have contributed to the growth and prosperity of this great land. The minimum support which our government has contributed during drought, flood, and low world prices has kept in excess of 100,000 farmers from abandoning their livelihood, production, and contribution to Canada.
This Conservative government will continue support programs to ensure the survival of farmers, while the Reform Party will eliminate programs and farmers.
Preston Manning is now saying that by eliminating farm program assistance and elimination of the Crow benefit, the government can reduce the national debt.
This Conservative government has no intention of reducing the national debt on the back of farmers. That hare-brained idea we will leave to the Reform Party and Preston Manning.


GUN CONTROL
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, the RCMP recently reported that there are almost one million restricted weapons in Canada. Last year, more than 45,000 new restricted weapons were registered. Only four were refused. We have no idea how many guns there are in Canada because non-restricted weapons, such as the semi-automatic that killed 14 young women in Montreal, are not registered anywhere. Children have shot each other and themselves with legal weapons. In my community of Burnaby we have seen the horror of a random, drive-by shooting.
I have called on this government to bring in effective gun control legislation. They have ignored this and with Bill C-6 they have gone right off the deep end. It encourages the manufacture and export of automatic weapons.
The empty rhetoric of this government in damning the gun trade during the Persian Gulf crisis rings very hollow. When it delayed gun control legislation before, Canadians thought it was weak-kneed and ignorant of the issue. Now the government has proved it.


EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the creation of a computerized national emergency response information system which will enable firefighters and other authorities to obtain accurate instant information at the scene of a hazardous materials incident.
Technologically advanced systems are available which not only aid in identifying what hazardous materials are present but offer detailed information on appropriate emergency response techniques.

I join the International Association of Firefighters and urge this government to consider seriously the implementation of such a national emergency system.


OPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Madam Speaker, more than 50 years ago, a group of men and women in the Montreal area founded the first Optimist Club of Quebec. Today, with more than 40,000 members organized in 760 clubs, Quebec has the highest concentration of Optimists in North America. This enthusiasm is even more remarkable when we consider that the sole purpose of the world's 4,000 Optimist Clubs is community service.
Last year, 4 million young people were able to take advantage of programs offered by Optimist International. The wide range of programs offered by the Optimists includes drug awareness programs for young people and programs designed to help children who are disadvantaged or disabled. This kind of involvement in our communities, Madam Speaker, is essential to our wellbeing, and I urge all Canadians to support the efforts of Optimist International.
Madam Speaker, in concluding I want to congratulate the Chairman of Optimist International, Dr. Tate Thigpen of Jackson, Mississipi, and his colleagues, all of whom are here today, as they are having their annual meeting here in Ottawa.


BANGLADESH
John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, the people of Bangladesh continue to suffer from the devastating effects of a cyclone that has ravaged their country. Already there are over 125,000 confirmed deaths and estimates that the number may increase to as many as 500,000.
As is too often the case, the poorest portion of the population is suffering the most. The Canadian government, through its development agency, has contributed emergency aid to help relieve this suffering and it is undoubtedly helping in the short term.
My concern lies in what happens in the long term. Lack of equitable land distribution in a country dependent on agriculture is the root cause of the increasing poverty level in Bangladesh. It is this problem which is forcing people to migrate to the coastal areas, the first and most severely affected regions when the cyclone winds start to blow.
In a country where 10 per cent of the population owns 50 per cent of the land, the poorest farmers are left with little choice and less opportunity. They can either rent land from absentee landlords or they can move to the coastal areas where they might have a chance to own land. It is these coastal areas which become danger zones when the winds arrive. It is these poor migrant farmers who-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
The hon. member for Chambly.


CANADA POST
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I rise to urge this government to stop the post office closures that are occurring all over Canada, including in my riding of Chambly. To date over 950 federally owned and operated post offices have been closed or privatized. By July over 150 more post offices are scheduled to be closed.
How can this government justify taking away reliable postal services from Canadians? The government takes great pride in offering a Decima poll which says 91 per cent of the people who have privatized service are satisfied.
If this is such a reliable poll, why will the corporation not allow the municipalities to decide if their post offices should be closed. The hundreds of letters I have from residents of Mabou, Nova Scotia, the rally staged by residents of Avonmore, Ontario, yesterday on the steps of Parliament, and the court challenge launched against Canada Post by Rejean Lemare of La Redemption, Quebec, on Wednesday do not suggest a 91 per cent approval rating.
I urge this government to stop talking down to Canadians. This government must stop-
May 24, 1991

Oral Questions


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but time is up. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


CENTRE D'lNITIATIVE D'EMPLOI DE LOTBINIERE-OUEST
Mr.   Maurice@: Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about an organization in my riding called the Centre d'initiative d'emploi de Lotbiniere-Ouest (CIEL), which was created in 1985 further to a job development program for ten municipalities in the riding that have a total population of about 15,000.
This organization makes up for the deficiencies in the banking system and reaches those who are often unreached. It is non-profit and depends on its 270 member subscribers who deposit from $30 to $2,000 in a fund. In addition, the local Caisses Populaires contribute substantially to this fund.
Since it was founded, the organization has helped more than 31 local businesses with interest-free loans totaling some $46,325 and has managed to maintain and often to create jobs.
Madam Speaker, that is an example of people who have taken charge of their affairs and have confidence in one another.
I congratulate Rolland Paradis and his team on having set up such an organization for the greater good of our community.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance or the Acting Minister of Finance.
Yesterday in the House the minister admitted that the economy had hit rock bottom. Today numbers released by the government confirm that for many people there is
no hope for an early recovery because they have gone bankrupt. Over-all bankruptcies are up by 77 per cent.
When will the government admit that the policies of the previous Minister of Finance are bankrupt. And when will the new Minister of Finance take his responsibility and introduce the new budget, something that Canada needs very badly at this time.


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I think all Canadians know that Canada has been going through a recession.
I would like to remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that in our 1989 and 1990 budgets, we warned Canadians that demand was far too high, that they were overspending and putting themselves at risk. We are now in the midst of a recession, but fortunately-these are numbers from last month-there are many signs that we are beginning to extricate ourselves from this. One of them is the bank rate which went down again yesterday.
Interest rates have gone down 5 per cent in a few months. This is quite an achievement compared to the Liberal record of high interest rates in the 1980s.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, this government jacked up the interest rates four or five points above the Americans; now, rates go down a bit, and it takes credit. If it had not made mistakes some years ago it would not be able to take credit for anything at this moment. The results are there. This budget was the wrong budget at the wrong time. I can see the former Minister of Finance regretting now what he has done. What are the results today?

The results are that in Ontario, personal bankruptcies have risen 123 per cent; in British Columbia, 109 per cent; in Alberta, the present finance minister's province, 96 per cent.
So when will the government realize that its economic policies have been tragic for very many Canadians and when will it act to stimulate the economy and not impose policies that just slow down the economy and create more bankruptcies every day?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition just said that we had forced interest rates up artificially, according to him.
May 24, 1991

I would say to him that interest rates were so high because of the disastrous debt that the Liberal administration left us. When we showed in our budget that we were determined to solve the government's financial problem, interest rates started to go down. It is precisely by creating such conditions without backing away or letting interest rates rise to 22 per cent, as the Liberals did, that we are bringing them down to their lowest level in three years.
Everywhere we see signs of the new R-word, "recovery"; we see indications that at last Canada is getting ready to enjoy several years of great prosperity, as we did before under this Conservative government.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, in this morning's papers, the president of IVACO said that what was hurting the economy was the fact that interest rates were higher than in the United States and that the government maintained the dollar at artificially high levels which made it hard for Canadian products to be competitive. When will the government realize its mistakes, ensure interest rates are more competitive than they have been during the past four years, and bring the Canadian dollar back to levels that will help our exports since our economy depends to a very considerable extent on exports? Why not let the dollar go down so that manufacturers can stay in business and not go bankrupt?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I hope God will protect us from Liberal solutions which have proved extremely costly for Canada. We cannot run away from our problems. Canada must meet these problems head on. And that is what we are doing. If we consider one particular sector or group that has been severely affected, the manufacturing sector for instance-I suggest we listen to what was said by the chairman of this group yesterday in committee in response to the Liberal industrial critic, Mr. Peterson, the hon. member for Willowdale. Mr. Thibault said the following and I will quote him in English:

"Many of the policies touted by Peterson would force the federal government to increase its spending and that would only make the current economic mess worse. The
Oral Questions
result would be higher taxes, a larger deficit, and higher taxes".

Madam Speaker, I must say that the only proposal we have had from the other side of the House regarding every single policy we have adopted is this: spend more. That is not the answer, Madam Speaker.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance). What will the minister do to help Canadian retailers who are threatened with bankruptcy as a result of losing $100 million annually to American stores across the border?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday, we have embarked on a nation-wide consultative process with the hope of taking some immediate steps to alleviate this very complex problem which spans all three levels of government and includes problems associated with the private sector, labour, as well as consumer organizations. We are well on our way to making some definitive suggestions to what all of these stakeholders together should and must take.
As far as the customs operations are concerned, we have begun to put into place more efficient and effective ways of collecting applicable duties and taxes. Although border crossings have increased by some 20 per cent, 23 per cent last month for example, our customs collections have increased by well over 150 per cent. Action is being taken at the border, but this is a much broader problem which comes down to the fact that Canadians are not as competitive as their American counterparts.
I think that the Speech from the Throne addressed that in a very positive manner. This government has taken and will continue to take action to make it possible for Canadian businesses to become more competitive.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue who clearly has not implemented any new policies.

May 24, 1991
Oral Questions
Thirty-three tax increases in seven years have driven Canadians south to shop. Mobs of Canadians at our customs offices have slowed the entry of American residents to this country to a trickle.
Will the minister take immediate steps to designate a special line for Americans at our border crossings so that Canadians can profit from American visits to Canada to help offset the government's persistent inaction and blundering?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is totally misinformed when he says that we have not taken any action at the border. Through our Customs 2000 program we have initiated a variety of proposals too numerous to mention today: automated cash registers and use of new technology including electronic data interchange and pre-clearance of commercial traffic, more efficient use of staff, special express lanes, PACE project and so on.
At customs operations, we have to perform a fine balancing act from, on the one side, collecting duties and taxes more effectively and efficiently while at the same time relieving congestion at the border which would allow tourism and commercial traffic to come in. We are trying to perform that balancing act.
I have made a commitment to each community that we will develop tailor-made projects for those communities, which we have put in in many places. We are willing and anxious to co-operate with each community and we are meeting with the mayors in the communities involved.
I know where this government is going and what this government is doing. I would like to know if the Liberal Party wants the borders to be wide open or wants the borders to be totally closed? Let us know where the Liberal Party stands because we know where we stand.


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, my question is on the record increase in bankruptcies which has hit this country.
Yesterday, there was brave talk from the government about the fact that we were into a recovery. Today the harsh reality is there of this 77 per cent increase in bankruptcies.

There were nearly 7,000 bankruptcies in April, 77 per cent more than last April. Will the minister keep pretending that all is well? Or is this government finally prepared to do something for Canadians and take steps to end this recession?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member may wish to check what he said. In quoting a figure he referred to millions which is not correct. It was probably an oversight.
That being said, I do not deny we have been through difficult times. However, we are talking about figures that are now behind us and we have good reason to look to the future.
The hon. member asked when we would start doing something for Canadians. There are several ways of doing things for people. We can intervene artificially- and I would say this was more or less the approach taken by the government of Ontario-by borrowing and passing the bill on to our children, meanwhile giving the impression that we did something. The important thing is to provide a climate in which Canadians can take care of their own development under the best possible conditions.
That is what we have done since 1984, and we were very successful if you consider the 1.5 million jobs that were created. After this recession we intend to let Canada launch its recovery on a solid basis.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, there are often victims of bankruptcy who do not appear even in these numbers; those are the workers in these companies.
Other countries have political disappearances, we have economic disappearances. For instance, Brant Castings in Windsor went bankrupt a year ago and 100 workers have still not received any severance pay. The company failed to pay its pension contributions and half the workers are still unemployed.
What does this government have to say to Russ Jackson, Jim Leblanc and the other workers of Brant Castings? Why is there not a bankruptcy law reform in front of this House as was promised by the minister responsible many months ago?
May 24, 1991


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that he has a very good question about the bankruptcy law. I can tell him that he will soon have news from my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The hon. member says that our policies are causing economic disappearance. I have views from people here who are business people and manufacturing people. They say that the NDP is killing factories and that their policies add to business costs. There is no easy way out of a recession. You can buy your way out once.
I would like to remind the House that when we came in, the government was spending $1.33 for every dollar it was bringing in. This makes people happy for a little while, but eventually it catches up with us. It has now, and we are getting Canada out of this mess.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, such hypocrisy from a government which spends 34 cents of every dollar which it receives-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member will want to put his question. There have been long preambles to both previous questions.


Steven W. Langdon: Let me repeat for the Speaker the key point I want to put across.
The yearly Carleton University study, How Canada Spends, is coming out this week. It concludes that this government has no positive economic strategy.
I want to ask the minister if he will recognize that these growing bankruptcies call for a change in strategy. Will he recognize that he cannot talk about economic recovery in the face of these kinds of bankruptcies taking place?


Gilles Loiselle: Whenever one particular manufacturer closes it is always very sad and it has, in some instances, a very dramatic impact, and I recognize that.
The hon. gentlemen, like most members from his party, thinks that he has a monopoly on caring. I can tell him that coming from a family of 21 children-and I am the 18th of the 21 children-from northwestern Quebec, bom in 1929, raised during the depression, I do not need lessons from him.
Oral Questions
There are right ways of solving problems and there are wrong ways. His way has been tried in eastern Europe and it has proven a failure.


ARMS TRADE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
During the Iraq war, the Prime Minister condemned the international arms trade which helped Saddam Hussein build his aggressive military force and said Canada would not take part in this trade.
On February 20 the former Secretary of State said, and I quote: "It is imperative that the world declare that there be no Middle East arms bazaar; 95 per cent of the weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein came from the five permanent members of the Security Council".
In light of these statements, how does the government justify Bill C-6?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-6 is designed to tighten up the restrictions on export of arms. We are providing for transparency. There will be a report to this Parliament on all the exports of arms made. There will be consultation with countries to which we propose to make arms sales. There will also be a need for Canada to have an arrangement with countries with which we have arms sales.
I want to stress to my hon. friend that what Bill C-6 does is provide additional controls on the sale of automatic weapons in excess of the existing controls that are there for higher powered weapons. So we are increasing the controls, not decreasing the controls.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, for many years it has been Canada's policy not to sell arms to areas of conflict. The Middle East has had 26 wars since 1945, more than any other region, and except for Egypt there are no peace agreements between Israel and the Arab countries.
Why then is the government facilitating sales to this region? Who will be on the list of eligible countries for arms sales under the bill, and what controls will there be to prevent another aggression, such as we saw last summer?

May 24, 1991
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, under this legislation each export permit will be decided on a case-by-case basis. There will be decisions taken that will judge whether the export will destabilize the region. If there has been an excessive buildup in arms in the region that will be taken into account in any decision as to whether or not a permit should be provided. I repeat, there will have to be an intergovernmental arrangement on defence, research and development production of any use of arms. That is the protection that we are providing to Canadians.
I would stress to my hon. friend that there will be additional controls on the export of automatic weapons as provided for under this Bill C-6 legislation. There will be additional controls over and above what is now provided for other exports of arms. This is a tightening up and an additional set of controls over and above what we have today.


SMALL BUSINESS
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the acting minister responsible for small business.
The government's high interest rate policy, its increased unemployment insurance premiums, its GST, have all diminished the ability of small business to lead the badly needed economic recovery in Canada and get us out of this recession.
I want to ask the minister when this government will provide relief to small business from the damage inflicted by this government's policies.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In the last eleven and a half months there has been a drop of about five percentage points in interest rates and that translates directly into relief for small businesses. I would say that is probably the greatest area of relief that we can provide.
I also point out to my hon. friend that there are many small businesses that are involved in the construction industry and, if she noticed, in the month of April there was a significant increase in housing starts. That is
supported by the drop in interest rates. It is also supported by the increase in the number of housing sales which is a reinforcement to the increase in housing starts.
One final point: My hon. friend mentioned the goods and services tax. We agree that the goods and services tax, when it is applied alongside the provincial sales tax, is an extra burden. We are working with the provinces and we encourage the provinces to harmonize their provincial sales taxes with the goods and services tax and in that way make a major contribution to lessening the burden of taxation on small businesses.


Catherine S. Callbeck: My supplementary is for the same minister.
Is the minister not aware that retail sales declined 3 per cent in the first four months of this year? That is the largest decline since the Diefenbaker government. It is the biggest drop in 30 years.
If the minister believes that this is grounds for optimism, that his government's policies are working, then this minister is badly out of touch with the needs of small business.
Will the minister admit that his government's policies have harmed the small business sector of this country and thus put at risk our ability to recover quickly from this recession?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: am sorry, I missed the final part of the question. Would the hon. member just repeat the last part of the question?


Catherine S. Callbeck: I will repeat the question, Madam Speaker.
Will the minister admit that the government policies have harmed the small business sector in this country and thus put at risk our ability to recover quickly from this recession?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, one of the concerns that small businesses have expressed to me is that the levels of debt they have incurred in recent years have become quite large. One of the policies that we have followed in recent years was to discourage the increase in debt by keeping interest rates high during the period when that debt was growing very quickly, 15 to 20 per cent per annum.
May 24, 1991

If we had followed the policies that my hon. friend would have us follow of keeping those interest rates down, debt would have been just that much higher and the burden on small businesses today would have been just that much higher.
Madam Speaker, the only thing that I conclude here is that the Liberals have no understanding, no alternative policies, no idea whatsoever as to how they would manage economic affairs in this country.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. CIDA's secret and internal corporate review is causing alarm and confusion within CIDA and within the international development community in general. By awarding the lucrative management contract to a friend of the Prime Minister and the minister responsible for CIDA, the government has created a controversy which swirls about it.
To help clear up the confusion caused by the conflicting statements made by the Minister for External Relations on the one hand and her senior officials on the other, will the government today table the terms of reference of the CIDA strategic management review, as well as other reviews of the patronage award to Secor Incorporated?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, this is just another one of those examples where the New Democratic Party desires to draw things through the mud. Secor is one of the top consulting firms in the country. Secor was offered this business because of the quality of its work, its understanding of CIDA, its understanding its of the international development process, and its capability of helping CIDA go through the strategic review process. It is on that basis that Secor has received that bid.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My friend over there is making some other scurrilous remarks about the award. He is the expert in slime.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Given the government's sorry record in patronage, we understand its sensitivity in that area. These things tend to happen when the Prime Minister is in the Orient.
Since the Canadian Council of International Cooperation and other development organizations are asking for a review of sharing our future, the policy under which we are supposed to be operating in CIDA, will the Acting Prime Minister undertake to refer the report of CIDA's strategic management review to the standing committee on external affairs in September when it is completed?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I would imagine that that is a matter for the business of that committee. If it requests ministers to appear before that committee to provide information on this strategic review that is certainly a power that is quite in keeping with what the committee is capable of doing.
I want to remind my hon. friend that before he draws conclusions he should also reflect on the fact that other experts have been hired by this government, including Peter O'Malley, the former press secretary of Ed Broad-bent, the former leader of the party. Why have we not had a question on that? Why have we not had a question on the capabilities of Mr. O'Malley? Why is it just these other people?


CANADA POST
Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. The corporation has just rented a box at Toronto SkyDome, not a mail box, but a corporate box, a penthouse box for its corporate friends.
The question is simply this: At a time of recession and restraint, how can it possibly justify renting a corporate box, a suite at the SkyDome?
Also, Madam Speaker, I want to know this: Why does the minister not instruct Canada Post to take its financial resources and use them to reduce postal rates? I do not

May 24, 1991
Oral Questions
think the Canadian people will stand for the rental of a suite at the SkyDome.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Clearly a set-up question.
Madam Speaker, in 1981 when Canada Post was made a Crown corporation, it was on the basis there would be no political interference. I am sure the hon. member would not want me to interfere politically.
May I also say that 80 per cent of Canada Post's revenues come from business, and 45 per cent or thereabouts of its total business is fully competitive. Like everybody else in business, it has means for promoting the corporate image and entertaining business clients and so on.
Canada Post does a lot of promotion. For example, it participates in events like Winterlude in Ottawa, the Quebec Winter Carnival, the 1988 Olympics, the Games for the Disabled, the Canada Winter Games in Prince Edward Island, Literacy Organization, the Terry Fox Run for Charity and a lot of others.
I think it is a tremendous corporate citizen and should be applauded.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Deputy Prime Minister who, of course, is responsible for the conflict of interest code.
It is in relation to the issue that was asked about a moment ago on the contract given to Secor Company after Mr. Marcel Cote was working for the government. Of course, Mr. Cote went back to work for Secor with his interest immediately upon terminating employment.
Has the Acting Deputy Prime Minister sought the advice of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General who is responsible for the administration of the code? What advice did the ADRG give him? If he has not done that, why not?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the question was asked to me as acting for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I am not the Deputy Prime Minister. I will ask him the question that my hon. friend has just put.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, my questions to the government are very specific.

I would like to ask a supplementary question. Surely someone opposite is in charge. Someone must be the Acting Prime Minister today.


An hon. member:: No one!


Don Boudria: Not getting an answer is unsatisfactory. I want to know from the government opposite what advice this government received from the Assitant Deputy Registrar General concerning this contract. Is the government assured that the conflict of interest guidelines were not violated? Yes or no.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has enough experience here in the House to know that the questions he just asked will be answered. The minister who is responsible under the law is not here today. He is here most of the time. He is not here today. The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade, on an important but technical question, told the hon. member and the House that he would take note of this question and give an answer as soon as possible. That is quite normal. It has been the parliamentary practice for decades.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, the government has waxed eloquent in its Speech from the Throne. However, its pretty words do not camouflage its lack of an action plan.
If this government is serious about cutting illiteracy by the year 2000 and if it is serious about cutting down the very high school drop-out rate, will it take its first step in
May 24, 1991

a plan of action and withdraw that insensitive and stupid tax on books, magazines, and newspapers?
Will it do that today?


Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, time and time again in this House I have explained to the hon. member the intent of the GST.
I would like to remind her that the difficulty of that particular industry, together with a lot of other industries, is not necessarily or at all linked to the GST.
We are in a period of recession. We are slowly coming out of it, and I suppose that that industry feels the pain.
The government has said that if, over a period of time, there is some evidence that the GST has some impact, the proper departments in due time will look at ways of helping them along.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I find that answer perfectly unbelievable.
If you need proof, just read both the English and the French press today. Go and listen to the coalition that has a problem.

The government cannot both tax books and reduce illiteracy. While a third of the bookstores in Quebec are closing and book sales have dropped 35 per cent in Quebec, how can the Minister still justify the GST on books? Why does the Minister not avoid disaster by immediately eliminating this absolutely unacceptable and disastrous tax? Why not?


Gilles Loiselle: Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I have the feeling that the members opposite forgot to do their homework on the GST. On the one hand, it is very easy. Parts of this tax reform give Canadians who may be less able to afford books more income than they had before the reform. Therefore, I would say that they could use it to buy books.
Madam Speaker, I just said that the present recession and business slowdown affects all industries. I do not see in what way that industry would be particularly hurt. However, I also said, as the government has said before, that if as time goes by we see that this industry, the Canadian book industry-and we should clearly define what we mean by that-was adversely affected, we would try to find ways to help that industry. It is very dangerous
Oral Questions
to think of removing a very broadly based tax that applies to all goods and starting to make exceptions, because on the other hand, we would have to raise the rates on the rest, so that the taxpayer would end up with the same amount in his pocket.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns a different but equally and perhaps even more serious form of cross-border shopping. It has to do with the fact that the CPR is now shopping for different rail lines in the United States.
Is the Minister of Transport aware that CP has requested the federal regulatory agency in the United States to provide a waiver of compliance which would enable it to move unit trains of coal and potash from North Portal, Saskatchewan, to Thunder Bay through the United States instead of through Canada. This move, if successful, would result in the elimination of at least 200 trains a year going through Manitoba and have a serious economic impact on such places as Brandon and Winnipeg.
Is the government aware of this and if it is, what is it going to do about it? If it is not aware of it, will it please look into it and do something about the effect of deregulation, something we predicted a long time ago.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Madam Speaker, CPR as a private business has to compete in the world as far as transportation of goods is concerned. The decisions that the hon. member speaks about are ones I am not aware of because it is not up to the government to make business decisions. It it up to business to make business decisions. If this decision is being made to try to make it more competitive in the world in the shipping of goods, then this is its right as a business to make that decision.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I would have thought it would be the business of the government to know the effect of its own regulations. The effect of its own regulations, which is to say its own deregulation, is to have this precedent being set for the diversion of rail traffic through the United States that would otherwise have gone through western Canada.

May 24, 1991
Oral Questions
Will the minister make it her business to be concerned about the future of Winnipeg, Brandon, and a lot of other communities that depend on rail traffic for their subsistence? Will the government finally start to listen to those of us who have analysed the effects of these things?
The free trade agreement with Mexico is about to be fast-tracked through negotiations and the government is not going to listen. It was not willing to listen before and now some of the horrible predictions-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has put his question. The hon. minister.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, the government listened before. It is listening now. It listens to the shippers in this country and to the businesses. In order to keep the jobs in western Canada in the potash industry for instance, they have to be able to ship their goods economically. The reason for deregulation was-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, our concern is to make Canada competitive. We are working at that as a government. Companies are working at that and working people are working at making us competitive. They are attacking it where it needs to be done, and that is making Canada competitive around the world in all areas and not just standing in this House and blaring out as the opposition did.


WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS
William D. (Bill) Casey: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications.
Four weekly newspapers in my riding are facing dramatic postal increases as of June 1. For months and months they have been demanding an extension to the deadline just to survive. June is now upon us. Will there be relief for these weekly newspapers or not?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, like many members of Parliament in this House, I come from a rural community and I am very much aware of the fact that rural community newspapers are part of the very heart of rural communities.
As a consequence, in response to representations from community newspapers and rural MPs across Canada, I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. member and the House that the government has agreed to extend until next March 1 current rates for rate code 2 newspapers in order to enable them to make the transition.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I wrote to the minister of employment last week and, indeed, I sent a notice today of my question regarding the severe ice conditions that currently prevail around the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, specifically the northeast coast and the northwest coast of the province.
The minister knows that fishermen's benefits ceased on May 15, that fishermen and their families have had no incomes since that time, and he knows that because of the severe ice conditions fishermen and their families have no means now of acquiring an income.
I want to ask the minister of employment who, indeed, as a former minister of fisheries, is aware of the severity of this problem, whether or not the government is going to extend unemployment insurance benefits for people who, through no fault of their own, have no income at this time of the year.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I can inform the hon. member and the House that my colleague, the minister of fisheries, and I are monitoring the situation closely. We are surveying these ice conditions on a daily basis along the west coast and the northeast coast of New-foundland-Labrador, and we will establish how ice conditions may be preventing fishermen from starting their regular season. We know that they have not started yet, as the member rightly points out.
The member also knows full well that this government has not hesitated in the past to meet and to assist the fishermen who are affected by severe ice conditions. We are monitoring the situation and we will respond accordingly.
May 24, 1991


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. Unfortunately, in past years, and this is not to look for an argument, the monitoring process has sometimes gone on so long that the suffering that results from a lack of income has been severe.
What fishermen and their families want, and I hope what the minister will give the House and through the House, fishermen and their families today, is an assurance of quick action. If it becomes clear, as it appears to be the case, that these are the worst ice conditions in some regions since 1974, that the minister will, as he is able to do, move quickly to restore those unemployment insurance benefits.
We are simply talking here of a case of fishermen and their families needing the dollars to prepare for the spring season to gear up for the fishery and, indeed, to keep their families and their children in clothing with bread and butter on the table.
Will the minister give us an assurance of quick action? We would appreciate that if he could.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I want to make it absolutely clear that there has never been an extension of UI benefits in Newfoundland-Labrador for fishermen. We cannot go into the UI fund to extend benefits because we would have to do that throughout the country.
We have DFO and the ACOA and my department is, as I stated, closely monitoring this. We are on the case and I can give assurance to the hon. member that we will be attempting to move as quickly as we can when these benefits expire around June 2 or 3.
We are standing ready. The last payments were May 15. They go for two weeks. We are monitoring the situation and hopefully will be able to act as quickly as possible.


TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, yesterday I sent the minister an urgent letter out of concern over the plan of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council to launch its campaign against tobacco taxes using tax protest forms which will soon appear on the side of cigarette packages.
Point of Order
Yesterday the minister said in this House that he has asked his department's legal advisers for some legal opinion on this campaign, announced four days ago, and which likely will start Monday. Has the minister received the legal opinion and if not, why does it take so long to obtain such an opinion?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Madam Speaker, I do not know why it takes so long for the lasers to provide an opinion, but I believe many people in this House have faced the problem many, many times.
Actually, I have not yet received the advice. It should be received today. I hope it will be this afternoon. As soon as I have the information from the department, I will act on the recommendation.
I repeat what I said yesterday: I fully share the concern of my colleague about this campaign. I repeat that what we do at the Department of National Health and Welfare is advise Canadians of the fact that smoking is unhealthy. Every time we increase taxes by 10 cents, some 14 per cent of young Canadians do not start smoking because of that increase. That is why we support the policy. If there is any way that we can prevent the campaign, we will do that.
My friend will understand that I have to act within the advice I receive today from the advisers.


POINT OF ORDER
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention that I was on the list for questions today. My constituents sent me here to Parliament to speak for them and to represent their concerns, and I am trying my best to do that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his words. I think the hon. member knows as well that the Speaker has given the House his opinion on this type of point of order and remarks. I do share Speaker Fraser's opinion on the subject.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, following my question to the minister responsible for Canada Post, I wanted to ask a supplementary, but we on this side of the House very seldom get a supplementary on a hard hitting question. I wanted a further explanation from the minister and no supplementary-

May 24, 1991
Point of Order


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have listened carefully to the hon. member's question. What could have been a supplementary was also added to his original question, which is why no supplementary was allowed.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: On the
same point of order, Madam Speaker.
I am on the same point of order because I see a trend. This week and last week government members have been rising in this place, coming to the Chair and pleading about the fact that they are not getting questions during Question Period.
If there is going to be a continued harassment of the Chair on this question, I think the whole matter must be referred to a committee. We must get our act together. There is no way the government members can continue to harass some of us on this side by maintaining that they cannot ask questions of the government. If they cannot ask the question, they should write to their minister about the darned thing and get their answer like we do.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I think it is totally out of order for the hon. member to accuse members on the government side of harassing the Speaker. What hon. members are doing is standing up for their legitimate rights as members of this House who are not members of the executive and not members of the government but members who happen to be supporters of the government. They should have the same rights and privileges as any backbench member in this House of Commons.
Mr. Gauthier Madam Speaker, I object strongly to the government representative, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader, coming up here and preaching, being so sanctimonious about this whole thing. He knows and I know how we operate around this place. He knows darned right that there is absolutely no fact to what he is saying. It is an organized, orchestrated fact that the government members want to make the front bench of their group, the ministers, understand there is division on that side. They even want to take our places. We will give them up in the next election and they can sit here and get in all the questions they can once in a while, but
ask their ministers and get the answers from them. Do not come to me and complain.


Ross Harvey: On this point, I would just suggest that the-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may, just one moment. I will not be shouted at by members screaming "point of order". The hon. member will sit down when the speaker is standing, please. The Chair cannot give the floor to more than one person at a time. I will listen, but not that much longer.
The subject was discussed earlier this week when Speaker Fraser was in the chair. He gave the House his opinion on the subject. He gave what I think was very wise advice to all members of this House and I do not think that using a Friday when the Deputy Speaker is in the chair to start again will get anybody any further and I want the House to know this.
I have listened to some comments from the government side. I have listened to some comments from the Official Opposition. I will listen to one member from the New Democratic Party and the hon. member for Edmonton East had sought the floor and had been recognized.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, there is nothing I could add to those wise remarks.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I see the hon. parliamentary secretary seeking the floor. Is this on the same point of order again?


An hon. member:: He wants to pursue it.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I think it is important both in terms of tone and in terms of any reflection that may have been cast upon the chair. I want to express to the chair very clearly that members on this side did not particularly pick a Friday to raise this question. They did not pick it because of the occupant of the chair.
I think the reason for the interventions today is that there was a question put that was obviously not a set up question to the government. The member wanted to raise the question of supplements. It has nothing to do with the fact that it is Friday but everything to do with the fact that it is current.
May 24, 1991


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his remarks.
I think we may conclude this in saying that the Standing Committee on House Management has the mandate to look at such matters. I think that hon. members who are on this committee should get together on this. That is the right place to have such discussions. A report from this committee would be quite useful to the Chair and I think would avoid these types of discussions, which do no good for this institution and for its members.
Tabling of documents, the hon. Minister for Constitutional Affairs.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 13(3) of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, I have the honour to table a bilingual copy of the annual report of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Board: Recency and Retroactive Rules affecting Disability Benefits.
Routine Proceedings


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table the Sixteenth Report of the Canadian Branch of the International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians, which covers the meeting of the Policy and General Administration Commission, held in Paris from April 14 to 18, and the meeting of the Parliamentary Affairs Commission, which I have the honour to chair.


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on House Management, I have the honour to table the second report of the committee. With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day. Considering the length of the report, I suggest that we dispense with the reading of the report. Copies are available at the Table.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the request of the parliamentary secretary. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PENITENTIARY ACT
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: for leave to introduce Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Penitentiary Act (visit to penitentiaries).
He said: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill concerning the Penitentiary Act.

May 24, 1991
Supply

The purpose of the bill is to ensure that both members of Parliament and members of the other place may visit a federal penitentiary at any time and have free access for the purpose of visiting any person in such penitentiary.


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

Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, with leave of the House, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on House Management, tabled earlier today, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by a number of my constituents living at 890 James Street, 55 Outlook, on Jasper Avenue, on Corbett Avenue and throughout my constituency.
The constituents are calling on the Government of Canada to rescind the regressive and unfair goods and services tax.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present another petition in the House today, which is signed by numerous residents of Kingston and the Islands.
The petitioners, in an effort to protect the Canadian flag from destruction or desecration, urge that this House pass a law making it an offence to destroy or desecrate the flag of Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to table today in the House. They concern a decision by Canada Post Corporation to close Branch No. 23 at 580 Rideau Street in my riding in Ottawa.
The petitioners would like this decision to be reviewed so that they and their neighbours, who are mainly seniors, can continue to receive services from this excellent postal location.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Skelly (Comox-Albemi) (p. 499)
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When the House proceeded with Statements by Members and Question Period, the hon. member for Don Valley North was concluding her comments. Had she concluded?


Barbara Greene: Yes.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, the Conservative member for North York, in her question, suggested that the taxpayers of her municipality, her constituency, the taxpayers of Ontario, were subsidizing western Canadians for RCMP services in western Canada.
The hon. member, in putting her question, is reflecting her total misunderstanding of the issue. It does not appear that the member knows anything at all about the role of the RCMP in western Canada. In fact, the provincial governments in western Canada are now
May 24, 1991

Supply
paying 70 per cent of the cost of providing RCMP services there under a contract that expired at the beginning of April.
As I indicated in my submissions, the Government of Canada is bent on destroying the RCMP in western Canada and, in fact, in Atlantic Canada and in the north. The RCMP is an important and essential national institution and the Conservative member for North York, speaking on behalf of the government, is saying to the people of western Canada, Atlantic Canada and the north that the federal government wants to get out of the business of providing RCMP services.
As I indicated in my comments, yesterday was the 118th birthday of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It was founded in 1873 as the North-West Mounted Police and it is a shame, a tragedy, that this government is now bent on destroying the RCMP by withdrawing its fair share of funding. The RCMP provides an essential service to communities in the western Canadian provinces.
If the RCMP were withdrawn, it would be a serious blow to national unity. As I indicated earlier, the RCMP is a highly respected police force. It is one of the finest police forces anywhere in the world. Indeed, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is recognized world-wide for its thoroughness and its efficiency. Indeed, the motto of the RCMP is that it always gets its person.
On behalf of the Official Opposition, we would like to send a very definite and clear message to the Solicitor General who is here in the House today. That message is to negotiate in good faith. The provinces that contract for RCMP services, the provinces that do not have their own provincial police forces, are not asking for anything more. All they are asking is that the federal government negotiate in good faith to continue paying its share, that is 30 per cent of police services in western Canada and in Atlantic Canada. They want to continue the contract that expired on April 1. They believe it was a good contract.
Unfortunately, the government has not been acting in good faith. Hopefully, as a result of the debate here today, the Solicitor General, who I note is listening very attentively, will instruct his officials immediately to consummate and negotiate a new contract on the basis of fairness and equity.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I would just like to ask if the hon. member concurs with the following evaluation that I made of his speech.
The first point is the government's determination to cut the budget for policing in western Canada. This is having a really devastating affect on policing services in many of the smaller communities. There are communities in my riding that are discussing putting together ad hoc police forces and doing vigilante work. As a result of the recession and some of the cutbacks, crime is rampant in those communities. At the same time, we have cutbacks to the police force.
There was a woman in the emergency ward of the Sechelt Hospital who phoned for police and could not get a police officer. She had to phone Vancouver. There is one police officer on the peninsula. There are 1,600 individuals working on a mine construction project and another 200 people working on a pulp mill project in an area of 15,000 population and only one police officer, no additional funding, and the potential for chaos.
One of those communities is talking about private police forces and vigilantes. In another community there is a group meeting to do this as well. As a result of this ad hoc police work, somebody is going to get hurt and people are going to get killed.
The second point is the Prime Minister's appeal for national unity. On northern Vancouver Island the government has cut out the fishing, the unemployment insurance, the police force and recently cut the number of ports where people could land fish which harmed processors there. The government shut down coast guard radio stations. Everything in those communities costs more and is far more limited. The Prime Minister now increases the cost of policing 10 per cent to 30 per cent in those communities.
The Prime Minister is saying: "Hey, we have got a commitment to this country. We want to get national unity rolling." It is not working. Those folks are saying that what we can expect from Ottawa and from this government is nothing better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. They are asking: "What do we get?" The answer is absolutely nothing but more hardship and more heartache.

May 24, 1991
Supply


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is from British Columbia and he knows that B.C. will be the hardest hit province as a result of the cutbacks. It will cost British Columbia residents $120 million over the life of the new contract. He points out that his province and the province of Manitoba are considering their own provincial police forces, that communities like Red Deer in Alberta and a number of other small communities right across the west are considering establishing their own police forces which will mean the removal of the RCMR It is all because of the federal government's irresponsibility.
The federal government is shirking its responsibility to provide the necessary funding to ensure that the RCMP continues to provide the very excellent service it is providing to Canadians from one end of the country to the other.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend's motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take into full account the budgetary reality of the provinces and municipalities involved in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police contract negotiations and therefore be prepared to negotiate a contract for RCMP services which does not unfairly transfer policing costs from the federal government to provincial and municipal governments.
This motion could not have been presented at a more opportune time. I was appointed Solicitor General just over a month ago. I have had an opportunity to brief myself on the RCMP contract file. I took the occasion to fly to Vancouver and meet with my colleagues, the solicitor general of British Columbia and the attorney General of Manitoba. In fact, I discussed this file with the solicitor general of British Columbia as recently as this week. The file is very current.
In the short time that I have been the Solicitor General, I have also had an opportunity to discuss this file with my cabinet colleagues, particularly those who serve as members of the Treasury Board.
I met the Treasury Board ministers concerning this issue at nine o'clock this morning.
I am grateful to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni for the timeliness of his motion and the way in which it is worded. The motion is not derogatory, it is not inflammatory, and it allows us to have a fair and frank exposure of the issue without a great deal of political posturing.
I am also very grateful for the opportunity that this motion presents me, as the Solicitor General of Canada and as the minister responsible for the RCMP contract negotiations, to share with the House and with the public the federal government's position in these negotiations.
At the outset there should be an appreciation of the scale of the contract policing program. There are approximately 10,000 RCMP officers, almost one-half of the entire force, engaged in contract policing. The RCMP are providing the policing services under contract to all provinces, except Ontario and Quebec, and to the two territories and some 191 municipalities within the provinces and territories. The federal government shares the cost of providing RCMP policing services with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that use the RCMP, on terms that were last negotiated in 1981.
It is also important at the outset that there be an appreciation that the federal government remains committed to the RCMP and the RCMP policing program. There has been no suggestion in these negotiations that it has been any part of the federal government's agenda to remove the RCMP from its contract policing responsibilities. Notwithstanding the expiration of the present contract on March 31, 1991, the RCMP has remained on site and remained on duty providing the same high level of policing duties after March 31 that it was providing before March 31, 1991.
As all members of the House will know, the 1981 agreements expired on March 31,1991. The negotiations for a new contract have been stalled for some time as a result of a disagreement over the allocation of costs, particularly over the question of the proposed increase from 70 to 75 per cent of the provincial share of the cost of provincial policing services.
The federal government has been seeking in these negotiations to achieve a more appropriate apportionment of the costs of provincial, territorial and municipal policing. For their part the contract jurisdictions have acknowledged, without specifically committing themselves, that the cost base should be adjusted to ensure that it more fairly and fully reflects the costs of delivering RCMP policing service to the provinces, the territories, and the municipalities that are receiving that service.
May 24, 1991

I want to digress for just a minute, if I may, to emphasize that we are not talking about the costs associated with the federal law enforcement responsibilities of the RCMP. In addition to its contract responsibilities, the RCMP also has significant federal law enforcement responsibilities. I am referring here to the RCMP's responsibilities for the enforcement of federal legislation relating to drugs, customs, immigration and the like, as well as to its responsibilities for protective policing and the enforcement of executive orders.
Those responsibilities are exclusively federal responsibilities and the costs associated with those responsibilities are therefore borne exclusively by the federal government. The costs of federal law enforcement therefore are not an issue in these negotiations.
What is at issue in these negotiations is the share of the provincial, territorial and municipal policing costs that should be borne by the contract jurisdictions. The provinces, and this is fair, are questioning the federal government's proposal that a more appropriate sharing of the costs would be 75 per cent provincial, 25 per cent federal. Their suggestion is that the 1981 agreement was definitive and permanent in establishing a 70-30 split of costs.
I want to make two points that I think are relevant to that. First of all, I would point out to the House that the provincial share of costs has been moving up over the years as the provinces grew in size and became more capable of paying for the service.
The provincial share in 1928 was 40 per cent. In 1971 it was increased to 56 per cent, and between 1981 and 1991 the provincial share went from 56 per cent to 70 per cent.
I imagine that the 70-30 compromise was taken with the realization that the increase was substantial and therefore should be tempered.
However, the historical trend is clear. I think it is really a question of the provinces assuming a greater portion of their financial responsibility consistent with their constitutional responsibility for the administration of justice, including provincial and municipal policing.
Supply
Second, by contrast with the 1981 agreements, I think it is fair to say the present federal offer is a very modest one. Apart from some adjustments to the base to ensure that the costs of delivering the service are more fairly reflected, we are only asking that the provinces pay an additional 5 per cent of the costs of RCMP provincial policing, an increase that we are prepared to phase in over time.
What we have here, then, is a gradual movement toward a more accurate matching of costs and benefits. In fact, we believe that we are suggesting a fairer rather than an unfair treatment of policing costs.
We acknowledge that there is a federal benefit in RCMP contract policing. It has been suggested that the 1985 Neilsen report established the federal benefit at 30 per cent.
I understand that the 1985 Neilsen report concluded that it was impossible to quantify the federal benefit with any precision. It went on to suggest that the real provincial and municipal burdens were lighter than the cost share ratios would indicate since the cost base only partly reflected the cost of delivering the service.
I suggest that the cost share ratios established in 1981 represented an incremental assumption by the contract provinces of a greater measure of their financial responsibility consistent, as I say once again, with their constitutional responsibility for the administration of justice, including provincial and municipal policing.
It would be consistent with the entire history of the RCMP contract policing which has been characterized by graduated increases in the provincial shares of the costs of the policing service.
It also has to be appreciated that over the last 10 years the cost share ratios have been applied to a negotiated cost base. For example, for some reason the cost base excludes the employer's contribution to unemployment insurance premiums. The Auditor General of Canada has noted this anomaly several times, specifically in his audit of Saskatchewan, and said that that should be included.
Second, only a portion of the employer's contribution to RCMP pensions is included in the cost base.

May 24, 1991
Supply
Third, concerning accommodation charges, when the federal government rents to the provinces it is one-third of comparable market rates. We find that when the provinces rent to us, however, we are paying market rates. There has to be an adjustment there.
In my preliminary discussions with Ivan Messmer of British Columbia and Jim McCrae of Manitoba, I sensed that there was a willingness to reach a fair cost base structure, and I am sure we can make progress on that particular issue.
What is at issue is the value to the provinces and contracting municipalities that they receive from contract policing. Speaking as a chartered accountant, I would suggest that this is not quantifiable in terms of dollars and cents as we can quantify some of the things in the cost base.
I think one has to look at what it would cost the province or municipality if it were doing it on its own. Rather than pontificating on this from a lofty federal viewpoint, I want to refer the House to an opinion recently expressed by Dennis Moffatt, an alderman from Red Deer, Alberta, the same municipality which was referred to by my hon. friend opposite in his remarks. This exchange took place on Alberta News Hour on April 26, 1991.
The reporter says:
Dennis Moffatt sat on the local council for 15 years and has heard the complaint before, that the RCMP are too expensive. He says: "Even if the city has to pay 100 per cent of the bill, it is still a good buy".


Mr.   Moffatt@: When we buy a constable, he comes equipped with uniform, training out of Regina and Ottawa, a car, radio back-up, access to laboratories right across the country, access to Interpol, the FBI, the CIA, the MI-5 right across the board. We would have to pay for that at the municipalities if we did it by ourselves.
What Mr. Moffatt was talking about were the benefits of the economies of scale that the provinces and the municipalities receive from the RCMP contract policing. Duplication is eliminated in areas such as communications, computer systems, management structure, recruiting, training, personnel services and in a number of operational support areas, including fingerprint identification services, dog services and air and marine services.
When I was in B.C. I had occasion to discuss this matter with some officers out there. It occurred to me as
a layman that there are some benefits I have not mentioned.
If the RCMP has a constable who has reached his or her level of excellence in one province and is looking for a greater challenge, an opportunity to further his or her career and if there is a need in a larger province or another opportunity for that particular individual, then there is so much more flexibility in the RCMP and the provinces, be they large or small, to get a better constable. That is another benefit which I would say accrues to the provinces.
It may be difficult to assign dollar values to these benefits, but I believe they represent significant benefits to the contract provinces and the territories.
I mention these benefits because I am concerned that they are not always given the prominence I think they deserve.
In addition to the direct benefits that I have described above, there are also a number of significant indirect and intangible benefits which are enjoyed by the provinces, the territories and the municipalities that contract for RCMP policing services. Some of these are as follows.
First, law enforcement services: These include the Canadian Police Information Centre, a large computer centre that police can use via terminals to check on stolen vehicles, criminal records and missing persons, the Canadian Police College and the forensic lab. These services are available to the entire Canadian police community at no charge. Again it is the federal government that covers these costs.
Second, non-police duties: The RCMP, particularly in remote regions, performs a number of duties that are strictly speaking not police duties. I am talking about issuing lottery licences, inspecting vehicles on behalf of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, et cetera. There have been some recent RCMP estimates that the RCMP dedicates as much as 30 person-years to serving as prosecutors on behalf of the Attorney General of Newfoundland. It is the federal government that covers these costs on behalf of the provinces and the territories.
Third, the Corps of Commissionaires at division and subdivision levels: Although the facilities at the division and subdivision levels are often being used by three levels of government, all security costs are charged to the federal government.
May 24, 1991

Fourth, divisional staff relations representatives program and labour challenges through the Federal Court: All of the labour related costs of the RCMP, from association to litigation, are carried by the federal government. The contract jurisdictions are receiving their policing free of the labour related charges. Put more directly, the contract divisions are receiving a strike free policing service and again the federal government covers the cost of this benefit.
Five, civil actions, compensation claims and ex gratia payments: The contract jurisdictions are receiving their policing free of all the legal liabilities that ordinarily are attached to a police force. The federal government pays 100 per cent of these costs.
Six, centralized audit and program evaluation: There are a number of smaller items, which are impossible to quantify with any precision, which come into this. I am speaking of centralized audit programs, bulk buying, et cetera. The federal government carries the entire burden of these costs.
Most important perhaps, the federal government makes a considerable contribution over and above the contracts to building and maintaining high national policing standards and the contract jurisdictions get the benefit of that contribution at no additional cost.
In the short time that I have had the privilege to serve as Solicitor General I have developed a very real concern that perhaps the contract jurisdictions do not fully appreciate the cost advantages of the RCMP on the street, as it were. As a recent report of the British Columbia police services branch acknowledged, the RCMP provides what is probably the most frugal policing service in the country.
This conclusion is borne out by data produced by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, a division of Statistics Canada. These data tell us that on a per capita basis, that is per capita of provincial residents, each resident of Ontario is paying $245.14 for the provincial policing service. Similarly, each resident of Quebec is paying $247.04 for the provincial policing service.
Supply
By contrast, each resident of British Columbia is paying $136.26 for the provincial policing service. That is quite a saving compared to Ontario and Quebec. In Nova Scotia each provincial resident is paying only $80.68 for the RCMP provincial policing service.
Put another way, using Ontario and Quebec as reference points, policing services would cost the contract provinces on average more than twice as much as they are now paying if they were to establish their own police forces. The cost sharing formula in the RCMP contract policing is in need of review in order that-to paraphrase the words of my hon. colleague, the member for Com-ox-Albemi-the policing costs fairly reflect the RCMP services which the provinces and the municipalities receive.
In conclusion I say we, the federal government, seek a fair apportionment of the policing costs in the provinces and the municipalities in which the RCMP provides services. We are conscious of their fiscal realities. We are sure that they are conscious of ours.
We are both conscious of the fact that the RCMP, through its national service, serves as an effective national operation which benefits federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions.
We do not seek to put at risk this national institution because of a need to budget. Effectiveness and essentials can often transcend dollars and cents. That is what we seek to do. I am confident that we can do it.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Solicitor General, I find him very interesting. Having dealt with the Solicitor General in the past, I feel that the new contract arrangements will be fair. I trust also that the Solicitor General would know though that when we hear "fairness" from the other side, it is a strange word when we see what has happened in the past dealing with the economy and dealing with other social programs.
I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the Solicitor General. I am very hopeful that he will carry out these contracts in a very fair way.
As a Quebecer, and we have our own police force, I would be willing to bet that most Quebecers would say that we have with the national police force, the RCMP, a very fine force. If we are talking about one of the threads

May 24, 1991
Supply
that unify this country, we are looking at the RCMP as most definitely one of those.
I have come here to not only praise the RCMP but also to criticize it as a Quebecer. No matter which contract is agreed upon with the provinces, I would like to request a response from the Solicitor General that his attention be paid to the most recent tendency of politicians to put their cotton picking hands into the RCMP's business.
As a Quebecer I can speak to you about barn burning, I can speak to you about raids on political parties' membership lists and, most recently, I can speak to you from my own riding about a former member of Parliament. While he was under investigation the search warrant being carried out was delayed deliberately. It was a political decision because that former member of Parliament was a candidate in that election. I was a candidate at the same time in the same riding. Only after that member of Parliament won was a search warrant carried out.
What happens to the RCMP is that when we get it politically involved, it loses its fine reputation temporarily, but it takes a chink out of the armour. I would request that the gentleman on the other side, the Solicitor General, be veiy, very careful that does not occur again.
There is just one more recent case which has always been bothering me since I have been here in this House. It deals with a political decision with the RCMP on bilingual bonuses. Bilingual bonuses are approximately in the amount of $800. They were supposed to be paid since 1976 to RCMP members. They have not been paid. There was a judgment of the Federal Court of Canada in March, 1990, which said that the $800 bilingual bonuses should be paid. In the same judgment, Gingras v. Her Majesty the Queen, Judge Dube said: "The question, therefore, is whether the board enjoys a discretion"-I am talking about the Treasury Board which has refused to pay these bilingual bonuses-"and it can, with impunity, ignore its own policies and impose an unofficial exclusion which was never stated in the policy". In other words, the Treasury Board abused its powers and therefore acted illegally.
Judge Dube said that the Treasury Board acted illegally and abused its powers.
I have a paper here from the RCMP Association. RCMP members are not allowed to have a union as such.
They have a French and English association. They were talking about this court case as a possibility where they could obtain a bonus which was legitimately theirs since 1976, a bonus which generally reaffirms our commitment to two official languages. At the time of the writing of this internal document from the RCMP Association, there was great hope that they would be able to get the bilingual bonus because the case had just been won.
There was a political decision to be made. Do we appeal this decision or do we give these RCMP members their money?
According to this document, and I just want to quote it briefly and then I will listen to the Solicitor General's response, the members of the RCMP say:

"According to the uncontradicted testimony of Mr. Gaston Guenette, an official language policy officer at the Treasury Board Secretariat, no ministerial order has excluded non-civilian members of the RCMP from the bonus. The decision came from Cabinet and was communicated to the RCMP by the Board. The Board's decision was influenced by the opinions, fears and pressures of the RCMP Commissioner. Given Mr. Guenette's testimony, there is reason to fear that the Commissioner was certainly involved in the decision in question."
Finally, they add that this matter was brought up with one of the predecessors of the Solicitor General, the Hon. Pierre Blais, and they mentioned that he was in agreement that this bilingual bonus be paid and he was bringing that before Treasuiy Board.
Before concluding, I would like to add that this problem of a bilingualism bonus is presently having an incredible deteriorating effect on morale at the RCMP. It is becoming a language issue between English and French and it is not conducive to the proper, efficient functioning of the RCMP. I would like to ask the minister if he would look into this, as he has looked into other things which I have presented and has done a very good job, and get back to me on the possibility of doing something about this sore which is festering between English and French speaking officers in the RCMP.
May 24, 1991


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. I think it is fair to say that there is appreciation on the part of all residents of Ontario and Quebec as to the value of the RCMP to the country and the contribution it makes to national unity. I have every confidence in the fairness of the RCMP and its ability to police in any province.
With respect to the suggestion of political interference, I can tell my hon. friend that I have no intention of interfering with the RCMP in the conduct of its duties. I am sure that no other Solicitor General would have done so either. To do so would have been to breach the oath of office and I do not think the RCMP would go for it.
Let me now turn my attention to the Gingras case. I would say that in my previous capacity as Attorney General for Canada that appeals are not taken on a political basis. In my experience as Attorney General there were some decisions of the Federal Court which were not appealed because we agreed with the decision. In other cases there were decisions of the Federal Court which we felt in order to get a definitive answer should be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and then move on that as a government having received the benefit of the wisdom of the Federal Court of Appeal as opposed to a single judge. It is not a question of political interference or will; it is a question of trying to get the best decision possible for the country.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with the matter of RCMP policing, costs and procedures, I wonder if the Solicitor General might take a moment to tell this House whether he intends to present amendments to the RCMP act to deal with the RCMP public complaints procedure. It is an extremely fine service to the public in that grievances have been quickly resolved by this institution. There are about 40 amendments in this book that need some serious attention to make this police force better.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I appreciate my hon. friend's comments. I have had a briefing on that particular institution. I want an opportunity to discuss this with the force and the ministry and I will come to my conclusions after I have had the benefit of that advice. It is not something I am ignoring. It is just in the flow of things I have to deal with and I have not had an opportunity to fully apprise myself of the facts.
Supply


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of debate today.
It is very useful that there is an opportunity to debate the question of policing and the cost of policing in Canada. I am pleased that the Solicitor General, the minister responsible for the RCMP, is in the House to hear the concerns of members of the House.
The cost of policing and the level of policing is an extremely important issue today. The level of policing in the community of Campbell River, British Columbia has created concerns that more police officers are required. It is like many other communities.
We have a recession going on. During the recession crime has continued to rise pretty dramatically. The crime that is happening is unusual. There is the standard form of break and enter in which a professional individual breaks into an establishment.
It is hard to tell that the individual has entered. The most valuable material is removed. There is very little damage, and indeed, there is very little indication of the entry and theft.
Then there is the other kind of situation, of which there is apparently an enormous increase in communities, in which an individual breaks into a home, restaurant, or another operation and removes things like cigarettes, food, and small amounts of money. It is almost subsistence stealing. This is occurring during a period of recession and high unemployment.
The kind of action that will deter that type of activity is more attention by government to support of social services and, as well, more policing. This is absolutely not the time to create a situation where we are going to see a reduction in policing.
An increase of 27 to 30 per cent in the operating budget of a small community because of increased policing costs is certainly going to be a deterrent to any expansion in policing. Indeed, we are going to see cuts in policing.
At a time when crime is rising in many areas this is absolutely critical. This must be put on the back burner. The minister and the government should begin to negotiate and be willing to go to the table with the provinces involved and make some accommodation during this very difficult time.

May 24, 1991
Supply
In one area that I represent on the Sechelt peninsula there are two communities, the town of Gibsons and the district of Sechelt. They recently underwent an enormous expansion of population which is growing very rapidly. Unfortunately, there has been no expansion in police services in that community.
The other thing that happened in that community was a major expansion to the pulp mill. In my recollection, the pulp mill took on about 1,600 people, mainly single men who arrived in the community to work on the mill construction. They lived in bunk houses creating considerable stress in the community.
In addition, we had at one point 200 pipeline workers from the province of Alberta who arrived on the Sechelt peninsula to put in a gas pipeline. They were there for a few months, and then they were gone. Again, that created enormous stress.
On many occasions, there was a single police officer to deal with the entire area. Something on the order of
1.800	single men, or men who were by themselves, in the community created a substantial strain.
In one altercation in the emergency ward of the St. Mary's Hospital a nurse was unable to get police assistance. There just was not a police officer to be had. They wound up having to phone Vancouver to see if they could dispatch somebody.
News of the concern eventually reached my office and the local RCMP and the RCMP said: "Look, we are using all the people we have to the maximum extent they can be used". Ultimately the conclusions of the municipalities, the regional board, and everyone on that peninsula is that they needed more policing and that no consideration was being given to the natural growth of a community which is a bedroom community of Vancouver and is growing extremely rapidly.
There was no consideration given to the quick 1,600 or
1.800	increase in the population because of the pipeline and mill constructions. That cannot be allowed to continue in an area as it could create a very unsafe situation for people.
It is incumbent upon the Solicitor General and the Government of Canada to ensure they do not make these cuts in funding at this time and cut policing in the municipalities even further. The federal government has a responsibility to assist the provinces in providing adequate levels of policing in those communities and in determining how to solve those problems, rather than to create problems and make them more intense.
In the community of Sechelt there has been talk of hiring private police. Break and entry of businesses is rising at a rapid rate and business people in the community are now taking a look at how they might hire people to take on police and security work. There is talk of vigilantes. This, of course, is absolutely not an acceptable direction to go.
It is ironic that the scepticism expressed by many of the people is that this is what the federal government wants. It wants privatization of services. This is the direction it will move in. So the people will hire their own police force. That is the direction they see. There is a lack of care and concern on the part of the federal government.
I would suspect that there are groups meeting. There have been discussions in Campbell River on Vancouver Island. This is going to happen. There are very serious concerns about the number of break-ins of homes and businesses and the people are very, very concerned about the level of policing.
There are discussions now on how people in the business community and the core of the community can create their own private operations to try and give them a little more security and a little more safety. This has to happen.
The federal government has to fight the increase of police forces in the hands of a number of individuals and look at providing better levels of trained, professional peace officers in those communities. This is moving in a very dangerous direction. I see a population out there that is very sceptical about this government's concern for their well-being.
The costs that are going to fall on small communities of 5,000 or more people are enormous. Their operating budgets have been hammered very badly.
I would like to use the example of the community of Alert Bay on northern Vancouver Island. Alert Bay has had an interesting encounter with this federal government. It has a Coast Guard radio station which provides about 13 jobs for this very small community of about
1,000	and a native community of about 900 people. The Conservative government decided that it was time to remove those 13 jobs from a community that can ill afford to lose them. They were terminated in spite of some very constructive cost-saving proposals which were totally ignored. The government has now adopted the Prime Minister's slogan: "I do not care how unpopular it is. I know best". So it did not listen to Alert Bay. It did not listen to northern Vancouver Island and the people's suggestions on how it could be made more efficient and how some of the economic benefits could be retained. Out it went.
May 24, 1991

Seven federal government jobs in the RCMP marine division were moved out of Alert Bay. They are gone. Again the Prime Minister knows best and the community is damaged.
There are cuts to the postal service, and the Prime Minister knows best.
Johnstone Strait communities are based on fishing. It was decided to drastically cut the Johnstone Strait fisheries. This fishery is absolutely critical to Alert Bay. It provides seasonal jobs for the Indian community and the non-Indian community. No, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans knows best. It is going to cut down on fishing in Johnstone Strait and limit the ability of these people to earn an income.
They are up in arms over this. Ottawa does not care. It does not care about the jobs provided by the RCMP marine division. It does not care about the Coast Guard radio station. It does not care about the hundreds and hundreds of jobs related to the Johnstone Strait fisheries. It is going to get rid of them.
To add insult to injury it was decided to make it harder to get unemployment insurance. Now, these people cannot get work. They want to work in traditional jobs as they have always done but they cannot do it. They hope they can feed their families by qualifying for more than 10 weeks of unemployment insurance. But no, fisheries and oceans and the Government of Canada will not do it. Many of those people are now collecting welfare because of this federal government.
Another insult added to injury is that fisheries and oceans-again the Conservative government knows best-decided it was going to eliminate Alert Bay as a port of landing for halibut, for sable fish. Even though there are two producers in that community, they are gone.
Turning to policing costs, Alert Bay will get less policing out of the northern Vancouver Island thing because of what is going on with the federal government today. In the middle of a recession the community is being devastated by this government. Policing services,
Supply
which are desperately needed there, are going to be cut back as well.
It is ironic that this is being done at a time when the Prime Minister of Canada is asking the people of Alert Bay to become concerned about national unity, to become concerned about all of us as Canadians with the federal government as a focal point. Those people are saying: "The best thing I can expect from the federal government is another poke in the eye with a sharp stick."
When we talk about national unity, there are still some very strong Canadians there who totally blame the Prime Minister and the government for the misfortune that has befallen them. Every individual, every business, every person in the fishing industry in that community cannot wait to vote against the government.
Just a stone's throw across the water from Alert Bay is the community of Port Hardy. Port Hardy has suffered under the lash of this uncaring government. Port Hardy is a community of close to 5,000 people. It was a growing, healthy and a vibrant place to be and in the 1981 census it went over 5,000. As a result of having a population over
5,000,	they wound up having to pay policing costs which were a substantial part of their operating budget. All of a sudden, the recession came on the next year, in 1982, and their population base collapsed. It went down to 4,000. They should not have had to pay policing costs, but unfortunately there is no mechanism in the agreement to relieve them of the policing costs once they hit 4,000 or fewer.
Unfortunately there is Port Hardy, with barely 5,000 people, paying policing costs for almost 10 years. There is some real evidence that it should not have been doing that.
About one-third of the people in that community work in Island Copper Mine which used to belong to Utah. Now it belongs to Broken Hills of Australia. The jobs of those 650 people are projected to be gone by 1996. It should turn Port Hardy into an economic distress area of serious proportions. At the same time, the Government of Canada wants to load greater policing costs on them. This community needs those policing services.

May 24, 1991
Supply
Again, the federal government does not stop there. Port Hardy is also suffering because it is dependent on seasonal industries such as fishing and forestry. Unfortunately those industries suffer because of the federal government: the 15 per cent softwood lumber tax on lumber going into the United States; the cutbacks in Johnstone Strait fisheries; the eliminating of certain points for landing fish. Then the federal government decides to close the military base at Holberg. There was no money or real assistance for these people to try to find an alternate activity for that particular asset. The government by and large just said: "Close the operation, eliminate those jobs", putting more economic hardship on the community of Port Hardy which is adjacent to Holberg.
The government closed the military base. It cut back access to unemployment insurance. It cut back the Johnstone Strait fisheries, and Port Hardy is looking at the closure of a mine in 1996 that employs about one-third of its population. That mine is going on strike at eight o'clock or being locked out at eight o'clock tonight. In fact, the worst case scenario is if the company says: "We are going to close it earlier". There is a real fear that that is going to happen.
How do those people in Port Hardy see this federal government that will not even come and talk to them about the problems, that will not accept their suggestions for alternatives? They do not.
It is ironic that the problem is not just policing costs. It is the Conservative government saying to the people of Alert Bay: "I don't care"; saying to the people of Port Hardy: "I don't care"; and saying to the people of Gibsons and Sechelt: "I don't care about you". That is the message being communicated. Then we have the gall of the Prime Minister who turns around and says: "Be concerned about central Canada, be concerned about all of Canada. We are leading the charge for national unity". And they say: "Well, if you re leading this charge for national unity, we don't want anything to do with it. We want an election because we want to get rid of you".
If you go into that community and ask them about the GST and all the money that is going to Ottawa, about the trade agreement with the United States, about being involved in a trade agreement with Mexico, about whether we should have higher policing costs, they say: "You don't care about us. You are going to destroy the economy of our community. There is nothing there. We know that you think you know better".
One of the things that is absolutely painful is that that community is desperately trying to build up an economic sector around tourism. It needs a customs officer in order to make Port Hardy a point of landing in Canada.
For three years they tried an experiment. They put in a customs officer and at the end of that period they said: "We don't like the numbers that came up there; therefore we are pulling the customs officer out. Besides, we are kind of into privatizing our services so if you want one you should look at paying for one yourself".
The Mount Waddington Regional Board, under which Port Hardy finds itself, came up with a solution in which a customs enforcement officer would be paid a stipend of 20 hours a month and they would make up the difference. They would pay for four hours a day for a customs officer. They were prepared to go along with this user-pay, privatization of the services, and pay the federal government in order to pay the customs officer.
The customs people came back and said: "No, no, we don't want to do that. We don't want any part-time customs officers. We want a full-time customs officer in there at $27 an hour for 52 weeks of the year or you can't have it".
Unfortunately these people do not have the money. They are paying for policing costs and for a certain number of social service costs to their communities because of the economic hardship that is going on. These people are burdened to death with charges that have fallen on them because of the Conservative government. This is a devastating policy.
May 24, 1991

The Reform Party is growing like wildfire and it is growing at the expense of the Conservative Party. They cannot wait to get rid of this government. Their tongues are hanging out for an election.
I have never seen an organization like it. In 1984 they just swept the country and in every other area they were the second choice. They have absolutely devastated themselves. It will be a surprise to see the Conservatives get their deposits back in many of the ridings in British Columbia. I sat with a prominent member of your party who said they have not got a safe seat in the entire province. Does that not say that the Prime Minister really does not know what is going on, that he really does not know what is best? What about the chopping out of Johnstone Strait fisheries, getting rid of the customs officer, jacking up the price for the RCMP, cutting off people from unemployment insurance, cutting out ports of landing, closing the base at Holberg, getting rid of services that are absolutely critical such as harbour services for marine transport, fishing harbour services, aeronautical services in those areas, skyrocketing transportation costs? Does that not tell him that he is doing something wrong?
It is ironic. A comedian stood up in Victoria one day and said: "We have a government in this country that is proposing to change the Constitution, that is proposing to change the relationship between Canada and Mexico and the United States and create a situation where our economy is going to be devastated in transition and may never recover-we may be Puerto Rico-and the Prime Minister enjoys the confidence of 14 per cent of Canadians". Then he said: "To get that into perspective, 15 per cent of Canadians think Elvis Presley is still alive".
This government is so far out of touch with what Canadians need and want it is wrecking the country piece by piece. It is wrecking Port Hardy. It is wrecking Alert Bay. It is wrecking many, many other communities and regions in this country. This situation has got to be turned around. .
What does this government want? Does it want to wreck this country?
As we approach 1993 the Prime Minister turns around and leaves office because he cannot be re-elected and the party cannot be re-elected with him as Prime Minister; he walks out and says: "I achieved everything I set out to do. I wrecked Canada".
Supply


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker,
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member and would like to comment.
Port Hardy is familiar to me because my daughter and son-in-law worked as physicians there, and I can confirm what he is saying. They said this community was devastated by the policies of this government. So I perfectly agree with what he was saying.
I would like to point out as well that the principle of the contract we are negotiating with the eight provinces and two territories was established in 1981. One of the principles was that 70 per cent of the services provided by the RCMP in those provinces and territories were under the Criminal Code and provincial statutes. This is why the provinces agreed to pay 70 per cent of the costs. Thirty per cent of the services were federal statutes and laws like immigration, drug enforcement, migratory birds, wildlife, and white collar crime.
Therefore, a principle was established that 30 per cent of the activities of the RCMP in a given province were of federal jurisdiction. Now the Solicitor General tells them: "We want to pay only 25 per cent, and you pay 75 per cent". Naturally, you are shifting the burden on the taxpayer of that province.
As far as the municipalities are concerned, they were paying 90 per cent for the services of the RCMP and the federal government only 10 per cent. This was logical; they accepted that.
Therefore, I think what the government does is put the burden on the taxpayers of that province. I listened before to another member here, I think she was a Conservative, who said: "But you know, Quebec and Ontario are subsidizing the RCMP to do the policing duties in the other provinces". I think one thing they forget is that the RCMP performs duties in the province of Quebec and Ontario. There are about 2,000 officers in those provinces that are being paid by the federal government. Quebec and Ontario do not contribute a cent to those services. Therefore it is a false argument.
Another principle that was established is that if you have a national police force like the RCMP it is an efficiency factor. It is better to have one police force than to have three or four. The cost is lower. This is what is happening in those provinces where the RCMP provides services. So it is extremely important that you maintain efficiency and cut the costs, and one of the ways of cutting costs is by having a national police force.

May 24, 1991
Supply
The third principle that was established in 1981 when those negotiations were taking place is that the RCMP was a symbol of national unity. This government talks continuously about national unity, of the symbolism of our institutions, but it is trying to destroy the most important symbol of Canada that everybody around the world knows, namely, the RCMP. Canadians all over the world are known as having a national police force that is extremely efficient.
Why does this Solicitor General, who has just recently been appointed, not follow the advice of the eight provinces and two territories and accept the principle that was so well established after so many negotiations in 1981? I hope that he listens to Canadians and he accepts the 30-70 ratio. I think this is the way to go. I hope he has the courage to override the decision of the former solicitor general who said: "Take it or leave it". At the present time there is no contract between the eight provinces and two territories and the federal Solicitor General's department.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with me that this government has not given due respect to the feelings of western Canadians as far as the RCMP is concerned?


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Calgaiy summarized, in a succinct, intelligent, clear-sighted way, the problems of the way a national symbol is being downgraded.
There is a commitment to federal policing responsibilities in areas with very high native or Indian population. The RCMP do an awful lot of work in those communities that relate to federal responsibilities. The hon. member was very clear and insightful. I would recommend that some of the members review his comments.
I do not know, in reality, the way the question sits, but I know how westerners respond to what is going on. Westerners believe that they have been slapped in the face by this government. When I went through Alert Bay and Port Hardy I witnessed the economic disasters one after another that they have experienced. The government will not even talk to them or even come to the Johnson Strait Fishing Community group. They could never get the minister in there. He said: "Oh sure, I will come along and do it", but he never did and he let those communities go down the drain. They are going down the drain even further on policing and the post office and everything else.
What the hon. member for Calgary says is not about whether the government has paid attention or contributed enough to the west, but maybe the government should ask if what it is doing is good for the people. The Prime Minister says he knows what is good for them. How do people interpret it, because the government sure does not interpret it that way.
I came to this House of Commons 12 years ago with the hon. member who is the new Solicitor General. I wish him well in a very difficult portfolio. I have nothing but respect for him. I have seen him work in this House for 12 years. I know he will do a good job. I know he is a committed, hard-working member of Parliament, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and so are many of the other people who sit on those benches. They are strong, well-intentioned Canadians, but something has gone amok. I do not know what it is. What they are doing is turning people against them in droves in this country and I have never seen or experienced that before. The only thing I can say is, for God's sake, not only are you wrong in what you are doing, but you are creating absolute havoc in the countryside.
I have three questions: Will the Solicitor General take a look at the recommendations of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission Annual Report? It is a chance to give people an opportunity to express their grievances and have them properly adjudicated. It is absolutely critical. It will make one of the best police forces in the world better by giving people more confidence in it.
Will the Solicitor General look, in these serious times, at the level of policing in the communities? Harmful reactions are occurring because of it. The confidence in the police force is eroding and we are moving toward private operations and private security.
May 24, 1991

The last thing is that the communities in the riding I represent cannot afford to pay these increases at these times. Please, go to the table and get some alternate arrangement.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I find it significant that the motion before this House today should encourage the government to conclude contract policing agreements which do not "unfairly transfer policing costs" to the contracting jurisdictions. The motion is, in my view, an indication of the general lack of understanding and appreciation which exists within the NDP for the size and importance of the role of the RCMP in providing federal, protective policing and law enforcement services to all Canadians.
In view of the present circumstances surrounding the ongoing contract negotiations, it is understandable that much of the public's attention has been focused on the contract policing role of the RCMP. While contract policing is a major part of the RCMP's function, it should be emphasized that a large percentage of RCMP personnel and resources are engaged in non-contract activities paid for in their entirety by the federal government. You would never know that after listening to the NDP here today.
These activities such as federal law enforcement, protective policing, and law enforcement services, provide substantial benefits to communities across Canada regardless of whether or not they are served by RCMP contract policing detachments.
It is important that during these ongoing federal-provincial negotiations for renewal of the policing contracts the parties directly involved and, indeed, all Canadians should remind themselves of the important services provided by the RCMP to all levels of government and to all citizens.
When considering the motion which is before the House it is important that hon. members be fully informed of the extent to which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provides law enforcement and police services to all Canadians and of the extent to which those services are provided without cost to the provinces and municipalities.
Supply
Most Canadians, especially those outside Ontario and Quebec, are aware that the RCMP provides contract policing to a number of provincial and territorial jurisdictions. This fact is perhaps one of the most evident aspects of RCMP activities because it is probably the force's most visible program. The presence of the Mounties in eight of the 10 provinces, the two territories, and close to 200 municipalities in a contract policing role is as visible and apparent as that of city or provincial police in Ontario and Quebec. Citizens recognize the force and rightly so as a symbol of trust, authority, law and order. Members from both political parties referred to the RCMP as one of the best police forces in the world. I wish they could give me their list of who they think is better or who tops this list if the RCMP is only one of the best.
Notwithstanding the importance of this role, the RCMP performs a number of other vital functions to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.
Members will appreciate that the RCMP maintains a federal policing complement in each of the 10 provinces and two territories. The RCMP federal policing complements attend to such federal responsibilities as policing at international and domestic airports, commercial crime investigations, protective policing of visiting dignitaries and other VIPs, as well as providing support to customs operations and drug law enforcement, something that is of particular importance coming as I do from the Niagara peninsula which is a border area.
Since federal policing units are dedicated solely to the enforcement of federal legislation and executive orders, the costs associated with these activities are paid for entirely by the federal government. You may have missed that if you followed, as I am sure you have, Madam Speaker, the debate here this morning. You would not be able to guess by listening to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that these services are paid for in total by the federal government-


An hon. member:: He was referring to the NDP.


Rob Nicholson: Oh, he was referring to the NDP. Then I withdraw that comment about him and direct it to where it should properly go which is of course the socialists at the end of the Chamber.
In addition to its specific federal law enforcement function, the RCMP provides law enforcement support services to all Canadian law enforcement agencies.

May 24, 1991
Supply
These services provide technical and operational support to provincial and municipal police forces and ensure that the latest police technology and techniques are available to provincial and municipal police forces across Canada.
Law enforcement services are provided to local police forces regardless of their size or ability to pay and help to assist in maintaining a high national standard of criminal investigations. These services are funded by the federal government in the interest of maintaining the safety and security of all Canadians.
The combination of federal law enforcement activities and the provision of law enforcement services to Canadian police forces constitutes an important part of RCMP program activities. They are important not only to the federal government and to the RCMP but of course to the communities and local police forces that benefit from these services.
Federal expenditures on RCMP activities constitute a significant portion of RCMP resource levels. Indeed, revenues from all services rendered, including contract policing services, amount to only 30 per cent of the cost of the RCMP's law enforcement program.
For instance, in the 1988-89 fiscal year, the RCMP spent over $400 million on the enforcement of federal statutes and executive orders and over $125 million on the provision of law enforcement services. Expenditures on these program activities have increased in the last two years, to a combined total of $546 million in 1989-90 and $639 million in 1990-91. These combined activities thus represent program expenditures which are over three-quarters of the size of contract policing expenditures over the same period.
I would like to take this opportunity to give hon. members a wider appreciation of the variety and quality of services which are provided to Canadians by the RCMP and which are funded by the federal government. I do that, of course, because as I indicated earlier we might wait a long time before we hear the NDP mention some of these things.
I am confident that once this information is before the House, members' concerns about the transfer of policing costs from the federal government to provincial and municipal governments will be allayed.
The RCMP acts within its mandate to prevent, detect and investigate offences against federal statutes and to provide investigational assistance and security advice to other federal departments and agencies as required.
This responsibility involves the force's participation in the enforcement of over 40 major federal statutes from the Aeronautics Act to the Young Offenders Act. The force's Customs and Excise Program investigates smuggling and offences involving the illicit manufacturing of spirits or tobacco products, offences under the Excise Act. It is also responsible for investigating illegal trans-border shipping of strategic goods, high technology and cultural property.
The Mounties also enforce Canada's fight against the problem of illegal trafficking in endangered wildlife species. The Immigration and Passport Program assists in the enforcement of the Immigration and Citizenship Acts as well as the investigations of Canadian passport regulations under the Criminal Code.
Special Services provides support to investigators in technical and physical surveillance, polygraph examination, audio and video analysis and personality profiles of violent criminals. The force also maintains a special emergency response team which is trained to resolve terrorist hostage-taking incidents and related crises which may be beyond the normal capabilities of regular RCMP personnel and other police forces.
The War Crimes Investigation Unit works to bring to justice persons suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Two areas of federal enforcement, drug enforcement and economic crimes, are areas of particular emphasis by the RCMP. The relatively large number of resources assigned to these initiatives reflects their priority for the federal government.
Currently, over 1,000 persons and approximately $84 million are committed to the investigation of offences relating to the importation, exportation, trafficking and possession of narcotics and other prohibited drugs in Canada. Federal drug sections co-operate with local police in drug enforcement activities and the operation of drug prevention and awareness programs.
May 24, 1991

The RCMP federal drug sections in connection with the contracting policing resources provide street level drug enforcement services across Canada.
Approximately 600 persons and $41 million are devoted to the specialized investigation of economic crime. This includes the investigation of fraudulent bankruptcies, violations of the Income Tax Act and the UI Act, counterfeiting, computer crime, and other forms of business-oriented crime.
In 1989, the economic crime program provided assistance in over 4,000 investigations which resulted in recoveries of almost $42 million by affected parties.
In addition to federal law enforcement, the RCMP is also responsible for discharging the government's protective policing obligations and providing security services to a range of federal properties, office-holders, and dignitaries.
Security services are provided to the Governor General, the Prime Minister and their families, as well as to foreign missions and visiting dignitaries. Federal properties such as Parliament Hill, Government House and the Supreme Court are also provided with security arrangements by the RCMP.
I am certain that in the course of most members' travels to and from their constituencies they have had occasion to see a member of the RCMP patrolling Canada's airports. Their uniformed presence at these facilities is the most visible part of the force's airport protective policing program which provides security services at 10 international and eight major domestic airports. Specially trained and armed personnel patrol critical access points inside terminals and aircraft operating areas to prevent and detect security incidents.
Resources devoted to the airport policing program in the current year total 895 person-years and approximately $75 million.
The RCMP maintains a small core of personnel which provides advice and expertise to ensure that security procedures at special events are in place to ensure the safety of participants. In this way the force contributes invaluable security advice and guidance to the planning of major events across Canada.
In 1990 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police co-ordinated 28 special events and was consulted on preparations for a further 52. Depending on annual
Supply
requirements these events can range from state visits to major economic summits and major sporting events such as the Winter Olympics held recently in Calgary.
Protective policing services are estimated to account for 12.8 per cent of total RCMP expenditures and 9.7 per cent of person-years for 1991-92.
The Law Enforcement Services Program provides specialized services to the RCMP as well as to other law enforcement agencies, corrections agencies, government departments, and criminal courts. These services support participating agencies in exercising their responsibilities for maintaining peace, order, and security.
The Canadian Police Information Centre provides and maintains an automated national information system for the storage, retrieval and exchange of operational police information on behalf of all accredited Canadian police agencies. This program, along with the management of information, resources, and services required to support other RCMP programs, will account for over 1,700 person-years and about $155 million in RCMP expenditures for the current fiscal year.
The $31 million Forensic Laboratory Service Program provides scientific and technical assistance for the benefit of the Canadian criminal justice system. The program provides analysis of physical evidence acquired during the course of investigations and expert opinions based on scientific examinations to aid investigations and for use as court evidence.
In addition to court and investigative assistance, forensic scientific support is provided to participating agencies in the areas of developmental and technical training. Consulting services and training assistance may also be provided to other government departments and foreign countries.
Roughly $59 million of the RCMP's current resource allocation is allocated to the provision of identification services. This program maintains a centralized criminal records function supported by fingerprints for use by police agencies and other aspects of the criminal justice system.
Identification Services provides photographic processing and printing services, maintains records of restricted firearms, and examines fraudulent cheques and hold-up notes for similarities with other documents on file.

May 24, 1991
Supply
This program is also responsible for maintaining the missing children's registry which holds records on children who have been reported missing across Canada. The registry shares information with other police agencies and the media to assist in locating these children.
The RCMP also operates the Canadian Police College program, which provides advanced police training in organizational and administrative personnel management and specialized investigative techniques to assist law enforcement agencies. The college operates on a budget of about $9 million and provides training to over
2,000	candidates annually.
Criminal Intelligence Services Canada is a national organization which is administered by the RCMP and which focuses on gathering and sharing information on organized crime and tactical intelligence. The service provides facilities for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of criminal intelligence and ensures that the relevant intelligence is submitted to provincial bureaus. In this way the flow of information between units provides all Canadian police agencies with access to organized crime intelligence.
As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, I have attempted to provide a brief overview of the many and varied services which are provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the benefit of all Canadians.
In addition to the important and high profile contract policing services, the force devotes a sizeable portion of its resources to federal law enforcement, protective policing, and law enforcement services. In many cases these non-contract services provide considerable investigative and professional support, both directly and indirectly, to the contracting jurisdictions.
The government is pleased to reaffirm its continuing commitment and support for the RCMP's important national role in providing non-contract policing services, at federal expense, to all Canadian communities.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the hon. member give a dissertation on the contents of the budget of the RCMP.
I am hoping he did not miss the point. The point is that many communities which have RCMP policing are going to be severely handicapped by these increases at a time
of rising crime and recession and they are having extreme problems. It is not just the increases which are causing them the problems. There are a whole host of activities the federal government has done.
We do not have to take a riding held by these evil folks, the socialists. Let us take one that is held by one of the Conservative members.


John V. Nunziata: Temporarily.


Raymond John Skelly: Temporarily is an understatement. At Cariboo-Chilcotin and Williams Lake, the budget is estimated to go up 36 per cent. It is substantial. How do the people of Williams Lake feel about the Conservative member for Cariboo-Chilcotin on this matter? I can tell you how they feel about it. They are outraged. It is not the only problem.
We have a minister across the floor from Prince George-Peace River. His communities feel the same way. They do not want him to represent those communities any more and it is not going to happen. The people there feel they have been seriously aggrieved by this government.
I would ask again if we could maybe deal with three things. The member who just spoke would not agree that these three items are critically important for policing by the RCMP in the areas where it works. It is understaffed.
There is no question in this House about the kind of job that police force does, short of resources, short of a statute that needs to be brought up to date, and short of remuneration and working conditions that have to be considered. We need to support that organization, not abuse it. The level of policing has to be brought up in those communities. We do not need price increases right now for the existing services so we can reallocate the burden of taxes. We need an increase in the level of policing in those communities. The Solicitor General should be at the table now asking how the federal government can assist the provinces to provide safety for Canadian citizens.
The second thing that has to happen is that these price increases have got to be staved; the Solicitor General has got to go to the table with the provinces and work out an acceptable agreement now. We desperately need those services. They are good and we need them.

May 24, 1991

I would ask the member-I know his interests in the area of justice-whether he has made any representations on the question of the annual report of the RCMP public complaints commission. There are about 40 recommendations in there that are absolutely critical to upgrading public confidence in the RCMP. It is a good police force but there are some serious grievances that people have. There is an effective agency to hear those grievances and it is being hamstrung by the fact that the legislation is not up to date. There are many things that were not contemplated when that legislation was put on the books and that legislation needs to be revamped.
Is the hon. member prepared-I know he has considered it already-to go through it one more time and make some representations to the Solicitor General? The Solicitor General has got to bring forward proposals for adopting these recommendations put forward by the agency itself and upgrading that service. We need better levels of policing; we need some help with those communities, not in the form of enormous cost increases but in developing those policing services over a rough economic time; and we need to do something to improve the public's confidence in this agency by establishing the complaints procedure. There are one or two items that really do need to be brought forward and dealt with in a public and fair way.
Would the member be prepared to talk about those with the Solicitor General to see if this House can begin to deal with those recommendations?


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I am always prepared to speak with the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General, I believe, indicated in his concluding remarks that he was prepared to look at the recommendations concerning the public complaints commission. All hon. members take him at his word that he is studying those very carefully and will certainly be making comments directly on that in the future.
If I understand the first two points that the hon. member made, he made a plea for increased services. There is no doubt that the federal, provincial, and municipal governments can provide increased services in policing services. There is probably no area of governmental endeavour in which I would not like to see in
Supply
some way a change or an increase in services. In the second part of his appeal he said among other things that we do not need-and I guess he was referring to municipal and provincial levels of government-an increase in costs.
I listened to the hon. member's comments about his analysis of the political situation in Canada. I am glad that he in a sense captured the NDP philosophy about government and taxation. I do not want the House to misunderstand. I always agree. I always want to increase services and I certainly do not want increased costs. Just in a nugget, the NDP philosophy is that the federal government should increase services but not increase any of the costs at the same time.
One of the finest things about the NDP being elected in Ontario, perhaps the only thing, is that people will finally get a look at that sort of theory in practice, the idea that you can just have more of everything. I remember people during the past provincial election, now that the member has raised this question of costs and services, who said to me: "I am from this particular profession. I would like to have some more money. The NDP is going to give me more money. There is going to be more money for hospitals, teachers, roads, and more money for all provincial services. The wonderful thing about it is despite you bad guys who like to tax us, we are going to be taxed less in Ontario".
I said: "Well, jeepers, you might as well have the perfect people running Queen's Park down there. I mean, if they could do all those wonderful things, let the perfect people do them. You know the Tories and the Liberals have a difficult time in providing the high level of services we have in this province and other provinces, and God bless the NDP if all of a sudden it can do that and everybody is going to get a tax holiday".
When people advocate and demand more services but want it to cost less for the taxpayer, they get into the mess the NDP is getting into at Queen's Park. The NDP government turned a surplus-and I give credit to the Liberals in Ontario for that, they had a surplus 18 months ago-into a $10 billion mess because the NDP live in a dream world where it can go on borrowing money.

May 24, 1991
Supply
The biggest threat to services in this country-all services, everything from policing to social services-is the level of debt in the country. The NDP is going to find that out at Queen's Park. Pretty soon we will have no chance to make the kinds of decisions about where we want to spend our money. If we continue with the way we have been going in this country for many years, the direction in which the government is apparently going at Queen's Park, all the money will go to the banks that the hon. member does not like. We will be paying it in interest whether he believes me or not. That is where the money is going to go. Pie will find that out in the long run.
Sure, we could run up a $60 billion debt in Canada this year. Our good friends at Queen's Park are probably just getting going. Next year they will be telling us: "It better be a $15 billion deficit". We can do that for a couple of years, but eventually we have to come to the conclusion that it is all over. We cannot do it anymore. We cannot shuffle the books. We cannot hide from the fact that difficult decisions have to be made.
It is at that point that we have to say: "We cannot give the increased level of services that we want, and we sure cannot do it at the same time without having anybody else share the cost with us."


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to hear the hon. member speaking about the deficit. I wish he had done so in 1984. Perhaps then the national debt would not have doubled in the years that the government he supports has been in office.
I am also delighted with the positive comments about the Liberals. I had the pleasure of seeing the former premier of Ontario last night. I am certainly well aware of the very competent job he did, and I know my hon. friend agrees that it was probably the best government the province of Ontario has ever had. Things have certainly gone downhill since. I know my hon. friend will agree with that.
In his long recitation of fact and fiction about the RCMP and the things it does-and I on this side of the House acknowledge the good job the RCMP does in our country-I wondered if he was perhaps going on a bit harshly about the member of the New Democratic Party who spoke before.
It seems to me that perhaps what the hon. member has confused in his mind-and I do not mean the hon. member for Niagara Falls, I mean the member for North Island-Powell River-is that perhaps the province of British Columbia was being assessed unfairly for the contract services provided by the federal government through the RCMP. I wonder if, in calculating the amount of fee to be charged to the province, the federal government has been adding in as expenses some of the activities carried on by the RCMP in its national mandate, not on a contractual basis.
I live in a municipality which recently had to contract services from the Ontario Provincial Police. It cost us an arm and a leg. The hon. member for North Island-Powell River talks about an increase in taxes. It is nothing compared to what residents of the township of Kingston recently had to endure, but I am not going to go into that.
I wonder if, in calculating the costs, the additional costs of running the RCMP have been added to the mix and charged out to the provinces. If so, I submit that this is the part that is unfair. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could address that particular question more directly.


Rob Nicholson: I am pleased to address that point. I wish I had time to address that first part about the debt, but we can save that for another day.
Something not mentioned in the debate is that the estimates and the basis upon which the contracts have been determined between British Columbia and other provinces actually underestimate the costs to the federal government.
However, certain things like pension and UIC benefits and indirect subsidies in terms of rental spaces in a number of western provinces, including British Columbia, actually underestimate the costs. Those costs are a contribution by the federal government to, what is in Quebec and Ontario, provincial policing services. They are an underestimation of the costs.
The Solicitor General, in the statistics he read to the House, actually pointed out that not only is there a contribution from the federal government to municipal and provincial services that does not take place in the two largest provinces, but, besides that, the cost is considerably less expensive.
May 24, 1991

Supply
Somebody referred to the RCMP as a frugal policing agency. It is frugal and effective. One of the things that can get lost in this debate is that the federal government has been very fair over the years in its negotiations. It obviously does not want something like this motion, which looks like an attempt to tie the hands of the government in its negotiations. The government just wants to have a reasonable agreement. That is all the federal government is looking for.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I want to ensure that I have the details of my sharing of time correct. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Western Arctic. I assume I have 10 minutes and 5 minutes of questions and she will have the same.
I am pleased to be able to stand in the House today and address this particular motion, the essence of which is really the budgetary reality of the provinces and municipalities involved with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police contract negotiations. That is the very essence of it. What is the budgetary reality out there for all of the provinces and municipalities using this particular service at this time?
I have heard a number of colleagues mention- [Translation]
-that we have a very proud and effective police force that is an extremely important symbol in the country and of course an extremely important symbol of national unity. I agree. This police force, the RCMP, is known throughout the world. I do not think we should underestimate the importance of this institution for Canada and for keeping Canada together.

As I indicated in previous remarks this morning, the attorney general of Manitoba, Mr. McCrae, made the point that the RCMP was a unifying force in Canada.
Let us not delude ourselves. We are talking about $79 million fewer that will have to be replaced by the provinces and municipalities. We are talking about roughly 10 million Canadians, western and northern Canadians and people from the Atlantic provinces. Approximately 80 per cent of those come from western and northern Canada. Therefore, roughly 80 per cent of that $79 million will be taken out of the pocketbooks of
western and northern Canadians. We must not ever forget that.
This is another excellent example of off-loading which the government continues to do. It is not unlike me saying to my spouse: "I want to cut down on my expenditures. Of the $700 mortgage, I am only paying $500 now. You are spending $500 on food but I am only giving you $400 now". All of a sudden, I stand up and brag to everyone and say that I am controlling my expenditures. What nonsense. It is just totally illogical.
This is what is happening. This is a continuation of the withdrawal of the federal presence in certain parts of Canada. Of course, it fits the Conservative ideological framework-the trend to complete decentralization.
Here are the facts with respect to this particular issue. Not only will $79 million have to be found by the provinces and municipalities involved, but it is this continued attack on the Atlantic provinces and western and northern Canadians that is most unfortunate.
This agreement, as many members will know- [Translation]
-expired at the end of March, 1991 and, if I understood correctly, the provinces were paying 70 per cent and the federal government 30 per cent, and in the case of the municipalities, they were paying 90 per cent and the federal government 10 per cent.
The government now wants a 5 per cent increase in the share paid by the provinces and the municipalities. This is a tremendous financial burden when we consider what has happened in these regions.

This is a good example of looking at a problem in isolation. By itself it is not particularly pleasant, having costs increase by 5 per cent. But if we look at the total situation, the economic reality out there, it is another blow to western and northern Canadians and to people from the Atlantic provinces.
That is in addition to everything else that has happened. What about Portage la Prairie? Do you remember that closing? Do you remember the base closing in Prince Edward Island? We are talking about others. We are talking about Shilo. We are talking about Chilliwack. Just imagine the number of jobs lost, the damage to the economy.

May 24, 1991
Supply
What about the reductions to the agricultural community, particularly in western Canada, my own province of Manitoba? That was devastated, particularly in Portage la Prairie. It was not only the base closing but the farm community around that base suffered as well.
What about the reductions to health and education? I have said it again and again: from 1986 to 1995, because of the cut of 2 per cent in 1986, another one in 1989-1990 and the freeze that has been extended, there will be $30 billion less for health and education being transferred to provinces. A lot of that, a little more than a quarter, will be to western and northern Canadians.
What about the cap on CAP? It will affect Ontario of course but also the western provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Do you know that that will take from those three provinces about $865 million over two years? Because British Columbia and Alberta together have almost six million people as opposed to Ontario's ten million, a substantial amount of that $865 million will come from British Columbia and Alberta.
We have not talked about the closing of the rural post offices and the devastation that that has wreaked. In one of today's newspapers, another headline read: "Another series of closings of rural post offices". When will it ever stop? The people of western Canada are obviously being affected in a significant way.
What about the high interest rate-the high dollar policy that we have heard so much about? Most of us know that another point in interest rates costs Canadians roughly $2 billion. This has been going on and on. We tried to control inflation in this country by virtue of the economic activity that was happening in Ontario. We have applied a policy to cool it here that has affected a number of regions-western and northern Canada and the Atlantic provinces-in a very regressive kind of way.
We have not even talked about the losses that have been suffered by western Canadians in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. I will not quibble about the figures because I know we all have our own figures, but we are talking about nearly 300,000 manufacturing jobs that have been lost. Have they all been lost as a result of that agreement? I do not know, but certainly many have and a
large proportion, well over a quarter, have been lost to western and northern Canadians.
I have not talked about the devastation that was wreaked on western Canadians, and particularly Manitobans, because the CF-18 contract we had won fairly was taken away from us.
I have not talked about the cuts to the CBC in Calgary, Saskatoon, and the reductions in service in Winnipeg.
What about VIA Rail? Twenty-nine hundred Canadians lost their jobs, many of them in Manitoba, many of them in the other western provinces.
What about the closing of passenger lines-the line from Victoria to Courtenay, The Canadian? What about Montreal, Ottawa, Sudbury, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver? What about the line from Winnipeg to Capreol? What about the 85 closing, Calgary to South Edmonton?
The point that has to be made is that we cannot look at this in isolation. It is another attack on what has been happening to Canada generally and today, more specifically, to western and northern Canadians and Canadians from the Atlantic provinces.
Let us look at those particular regions. I am going to concentrate on western Canada and on the bankruptcies of farms, one of the basic elements in a number of those western provinces, from January 1, 1991, to March 31, three months.
For example, in Manitoba it has increased by 7 per cent. In Saskatchewan, it has increased by 68 per cent and in Alberta, by 19 per cent. In British Columbia, it has increased by 80 per cent. It is a massive increase in bankruptcies and in the destruction of one of our major basic principles.
What about bankruptcies year after year: Manitoba, 53 per cent; Saskatchewan, 42 per cent; Alberta, 40 per cent; and B.C., 55 per cent. Those are part of the reality of the economic situation of our western provinces.
If you check, unemployment in every single province has increased massively from a year ago. In fact, in Manitoba it used to be at 6.5 per cent. It is now at 8.9 per cent.
May 24, 1991

Supply
For example in Calgary we did not close Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation which was in fact an organization that was put into place for developing nations to reduce their dependence upon foreign oil.

Madam Speaker, I don't want to be nasty but it seems to me there is something rather contradictory in all this. I don't want to mention the word hypocrisy, but it's pretty close, when we see this persistent attack on the western provinces, the North, and the Atlantic provinces.
I would have a lot more to say, but I see my time has expired.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, today we are talking about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I have a question for the hon. member. Could he tell me whether in his riding and, in fact, in his province, he hears the same kind of thing from his constituents as I do in connection with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which allows Canadians of Sikh origin to wear a turban in the RCMP? I would appreciate hearing how the hon. member's constituents reacted to this decision which was based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Ron J. Duhamel: I want to thank the hon. member for her question. I would also be interested to hear what yours said. As you know, a member on your side of the House sent the government a petition signed by several thousand constituents which, if I am not mistaken, indicated that they were against this decision.
In my own riding I got calls for and against the decision, and quite honestly I have to say the numbers were about equal. If I remember correctly-and I think I am pretty close to the exact figure-it was about a dozen for and against. I think that having someone who had just finished his training and had now graduated was helpful in toning down some of these strong reactions. However, I realize we have not seen the end of it. People often find it hard to accept radical change, especially in the case of long-held traditions such as the RCMP, the churches we go to, and other institutions.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the question of cuts to the federal contribution to existing services that are already inadequate is the issue.
This is placing the burden on an inappropriate tax area, the municipality, which is already hanging on by its fingernails. I would not want to leave the hon. member for Niagara with that open-ended situation. The federal government is proposing to load on enormous costs to already existing services that are inadequate. The point that was made-it was supported by the previous speaker-is that the level of service is inadequate. The federal government must assist.
If the costs for existing services are jacked up, the proposed amount is unfair to the taxing bodies that are going to have to pick up the cost. Again, more inadequate services.
I want to give one single example, and I hope you can respond to it. In Port Hardy, the customs officer was removed. It is no longer a port of entry. The municipality said: "We will pick it up. If you want to privatize, we will do it. We will put in $15,000 a year. We have a qualified, experienced customs officer who will do that job for $15,000 a year. He will work with you on it".
The government said: "No, no. You have to pay for a full-time one, $60,000-plus a year". The municipality said it did not have the tax base to do it. They said: "Tough. You are not a port of entry".
This is what the government is proposing for RCMP services because those communities have got to have some kind of security. I do not want to see somebody roaming around their community with a German shepherd or a Doberman, paid $4.50 an hour, without training, dealing with citizens and creating a dangerous situation. I see that as the end result. I want that customs officer back in that community and so does every other person. The feds have a responsibility to give them port of entry status. There is also a need to provide fair and safe levels of policing, not drive them out.


Ron J. Duhamel: Thank you for the question. You actually raise a number of important issues.

May 24, 1991
Supply
Of course, one can remove any service and replace it with a more economical one, but one always has to ask, will the quality of the service be better. In many instances it is not. So it is a false saving. That is one issue.
Let us not delude ourselves. The service will be paid for by you and me and all other Canadians. The point I am making is that it is being transferred over. What offends me and what offends a lot of Canadians, is that in the action of transfer, the federal government is trying to claim that it is controlling expenditures in a responsible way.
I give an analogy. If I were to tell my spouse that the $700 mortgage to which I contribute $700, as an example, I now only contribute $500,1 have reduced my expenditures. But is it fair? It is going to have to be picked up. That is the same kind of scenario that is happening here.
If there was not at the same time a claim that it is whiter than snow, in terms of controlling expenditures, I guess I could more easily forgive.
The issue you raise about the quality of services is a particularly important one which must never, ever be forgotten. We can always do things more cheaply, but will it be good enough. In many instances, it is not.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by expanding the motion from my NDP colleague to include the jurisdiction of the two territories in addition to the provinces, with respect to the transfer of police costs.
The government of the Northwest Territories is currently paying for 70 per cent of the cost of the RCMP in the north. The federal government expects, unrealistically, that the territorial government can now absorb 75 per cent of the cost. That is a big jump in the proportion contributed by the territorial government.
There are extraordinary needs in the north that cannot be equated with southern needs. One such is the fact that there is a heavy reliance on the RCMP in the north to travel to various communities because members are not stationed in each of the communities in the north.
There is a heavy reliance on capital refurbishment because of the use of ski-doos and trucks which do not have the luxury of travelling on paved highways, but gravel roads and winter roads where they are available. There is also the use of Twin Otters, one of which, unfortunately, crashed in a community. There was much
debate as to whether that would be replaced. Much capital infrastructure is needed in the communities where they travel only by air and they do not have highways and roads.
The territorial government would rather invest its money in providing more and better service. For instance, the Yellowknife detachment of the RCMP is seriously understaffed. We have a high transient population and this is the feeder community for all of the outlying communities. We have a high incidence of people coming from out of town, a high transient population that needs to be served.
As well, there are communities that do not even have resident RCMP. Some communities in the Keewatin region are served only once a month. There are communities that should have full-time service and others that should have more frequent visits. The federal government cannot ignore the unique situation which the two territories present to the role of the RCMP.
The Yukon and Northwest Territories encompass an area of some 3.9 million square miles, covering 40 per cent of Canada, spanning more than 4,000 kilometres from west to east, and 3,500 kilometres from north to south. As I have said time and again in this House, the north is an immense region which is of strategic importance to all Canadians.
Let me explain what the challenges are in providing policing service in an area of this size. Although two-thirds of the Yukon's 25,800 live in and around Whitehorse, less than one-quarter of the Northwest Territories' population of 54,000 live in Yellowknife. The rest live in some 100 smaller communities scattered across the north. The federal government, rather than expecting the territorial governments to put up more money to cover the cost of policing, should be looking at how the north can receive support for better policing services for those residents living in northern communities.
As well, the government should be investing in methods for the RCMP to take steps to strengthen its relationship with the aboriginal people who are the majority in the north, as well as the other people who live in the remote regions. The government has to continue to develop community policing concepts and special recruitment drives for attracting aboriginal people into that particular profession.
May 24, 1991

On May 16 I met with the representatives from the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council regarding the funding concerns for policing services. The DOTCPD receives joint funding from both the federal government and the province of Manitoba. Despite the fact that operating costs continue to increase, neither of these governments will increase or commit to long-term funding before the national native policing review has been submitted. Although the initial report for the national native policing review was completed in January last year, an additional round of consultations pushed the date of this review that would be submitted to the cabinet back to January of this year. It would not be submitted to Treasury Board until the spring.
The DOTCPD handles about 95 per cent of the workload in eight reservations in Manitoba and has received requests for services from non-native communities, thus reducing the workload for the RCMP in these areas.
Without adequate support, this police department cannot perform its duties as effectively as possible. Native policing is an important and valuable program. It is beneficial for native communities to work with a police force which can speak and understand their own aboriginal language and which possesses a cultural understanding of the residents.
The history of the RCMP in the north has been a long and honourable one. The relationships that have been forged over the years are ones that are based on mutual respect and concern for the people who have lived there.
What has happened over the years is that as we have had recruitment, which is basically federally driven, we are being asked to pay for services to the tune of 75 per cent. Yet the policies all come from a federally driven process.
If we are going to have accountability and credibility of the work that is undertaken by the members of the forces and if the moneys are going to be paid by the territorial government, clearly there should be a greater input by the Minister of Justice in this case, who has responsibility for policing matters in the Northwest Territories. Clearly there has to be more of an input in terms of policy and the kind of mandate that they have and the kind of relationships that they build.
Supply
Even with regard to recruitment there has to be a greater effort to promote the idea of having suitable individuals come into remote communities. There is no orientation or familiarization process that meets and accommodates the needs of these people who are expected to go into communities where they have never been outside of looking at pictures and doing their own particular inquiries.
It is rather difficult at this time to look at the long history of the RCMP in the north and the relationships they have built and to forfeit that because we have additional financial pressures put on the territorial government. Yet they are distanced from the policy mandate that is given to that particular force to carry out.
The relationship in the past has been one that is based on mutual respect. The RCMP in the old days travelled by dog team. Their first commitment upon coming to a community was to meet with the leaders of that community, to make contacts, and to have an established communication strategy in terms of who they communicate with and just exactly what the people could expect. The expectations were varied. In many cases the RCMP provided services that were not within their mandate. They were expected to be there when someone died; they were expected to be there when someone was bom; they were expected to be there when there were emergencies; and to provide an extensive array of services.
These people cannot go unnoticed. I am proud to say that there is some progress. I am not one to sabotage the good work of the members who are there. What I would like to do is recognize that there are individuals who have come to the north and have contributed greatly. They have built very strong relationships with the people of the north and they should be recognized for that. In fact, it has been a great inspiration for many northerners to look at the whole profession of policing.
Just of late, we have sworn in a number of aboriginal people to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force. These young people look forward to a career they feel will be challenging and will contribute to the betterment of life in the north.

May 24, 1991
Supply
The long-standing relationship with the aboriginal people is one based on a lot of creativity and ingenuity. We have, with the RCMP in the north, something worth preserving. Members of the RCMP have endured a lot of things that other members in other places do not necessarily realize until they come to the remote regions of our country. These include the fact that they are there for long periods of isolation. There are many expectations. They are sometimes on call 24 hours a day when they are alone. They are expected to provide a whole array of services.
There must be a way, within the recruitment process, to outline the variety of different services. There is a great deal of counselling, for instance, that goes on with regard to RCMP work.
The RCMP is much admired and it is a noble profession in my part of the world. It is a relationship that has grown through adversity at times, and a relationship that is well worth preserving and working for. There does not need to be the additional pressure of additional costs to serving in the north in a number of capacities.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would just like to ask the hon. member if she concurs with the concerns expressed by a number of her colleagues in this House?
The member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt has expressed serious concerns about the added policing costs for the community of Penticton, Merritt, and the Grand Forks area. The member for Okanagan-Shu-swap has expressed severe concerns about the increasing police costs and the level of policing in communities such as Vernon. The hon. member for Kamloops has expressed serious concerns about the impact on the quality of life in that community because of policing costs. Concerns were also raised by the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, the member for Skeena, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, and it goes on and on and on.
In Williams Lake, for example, 37 per cent of the municipal budget will be for policing. In Abbotsford there is a $500,000 increase, a 10 per cent increase in taxes. In Prince George there is a $719,000 increase, in Richmond there was a 66 per cent increase in policing costs over the last five years. These costs are going to mean that other areas of life suffer. The services provided are going to be inadequate because of the growing population, the nature of the economy, and a
growing crime rate. These are very important issues the member mentioned about policing and its impact in the north.
These cutbacks will devastate the north and cause serious problems in its communities. I am absolutely certain about this. Maybe the member could tell us more about it.
In addition to those serious cuts on policing, one of the things I would also like to ask concerns the RCMP public complaints commission annual report which outlines about 40 recommendations. Has the member had an opportunity to read those recommendations? Many of the complaints were from aboriginal people concerning participation in policing, consultation with policing, and a number of areas which this report contemplated to make recommendations that would be helpful in improving a good police force, making it better and more responsive. Is the hon. member in a position to take a look at the recommendations of this annual report and recommend them to the Solicitor General for inclusion in legislation in the House?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful questions, very difficult ones at that.
I do not envy the Solicitor General in his endeavour. There have been a number of very formalized and informal reports that have been put forward. I had the opportunity during the Oka hearings to question the Solicitor General as well as the Commissioner of the RCMP on a number of areas.
I have to agree that communities south of the 60th parallel have their own unique problems regarding policing that we may not share in the north, but they are no less important. I agree that there is a greater degree of service required in the communities that my hon. colleague refers to.
I have just been notified of one particular report done with a retiring member of the RCMP, Bob Head, which made similar recommendations. He recommends better training for aboriginal constables, conversion of aboriginal constables from special status to regular status, more contact and communications between aboriginal chiefs, people, and police, more community involvement, more reaction to community concerns, and more cross-cultural awareness, especially for transfer members. He is recommending that RCMP special constables should achieve more credibility with regular training.
May 24, 1991

In relation to the report referred to by the Solicitor General, I strongly recommend that he also have a look at these particular reports. I would also recommend that the Solicitor General and the Commissioner of the RCMP come to these areas. I made reference to the Twin Otter that crashed. To my knowledge, it has not been replaced and the capital budget for equipment is not adequate. There are clearly problems all across the board.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the motion of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi and I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to it.
The federal government has been and remains strongly committed to the RCMP and to the contract policing program. We made a reasonable offer to the provinces and territories on September 29, 1989, to renew the contracts. We are more than willing to do just that.
The federal government believes that everyone is well served by having the RCMP provide provincial, territorial, and municipal policing services under contract. These arrangements give Canadians the highest possible professional standards on a national scale. Canadians in the contract provinces are getting some of the best and most economical policing services in the world.
The RCMP is one of the largest and most sophisticated law enforcement agencies in the world. It has grown from a small group of people who many years ago marched 800 miles across the prairies, often short of water and provisions, to establish authority throughout the west.
It is important that we understand some of the history surrounding this uniquely Canadian institution. The idea of a mounted police force originated in response to a need to establish law and order in the northwest in advance of settlement. The solution of Sir John A. Macdonald was the creation of a paramilitary police trained for plains warfare but with primarily civil responsibilities. Its model was the Royal Irish Constabulary.
Accordingly, in 1873 the Dominion Parliament passed legislation for the establishment of a mounted police
Supply
force for the Northwest Territories to be known as the North-West Mounted Police.
Three divisions of 50 men each were mobilized at Fort Garry, Manitoba where training and organization proceeded throughout the winter of 1873. Authority was subsequently granted to recruit up to the authorized strength of 300 members and another 150 men were recruited.
Once established in the northwest, demands on the force increased. Members supervised trading practices, provided some relief and medical services to Indians, and carried out patrols throughout the area.
In addition to having an economic effect, the arrival of the force and the collective social and cultural values of its members had an impact on the development of western Canada. On leaving the force, many members settled in the west and continued to have a permanent influence on their communities.
In 1883 the government increased the force's strength from 300 to 500 men in order to respond to growing responsibilities. Detachments and divisions were soon established in new urban centres and in railway settlements.
On account of the North-West Rebellion of 1885 the authorized strength of the force rose to 1,000. The Depot Division was created in November, 1885, to train recruits in Regina, which had become the headquarters of the force in 1882.
By the turn of the century new responsibilities had been assigned to the RCMP in the Canadian north. The gold rush in the Yukon became potentially troublesome as thousands upon thousands of prospectors came to the territory and converged on the tiny settlement of Dawson. The North-West Mounted Police was sent to impose order, and violence was kept to a minimum.
From the start, the mounted police carried out almost all the administrative functions of government. Its members acted as land agents, magistrates, police, mail carriers and so on. By 1899, after the peak of the rush had subsided, civil servants had relieved the force of many of its administrative duties.

May 24, 1991
Supply
Reports of abuse of natives and threats by European nations to Canadian sovereignty in the far north led to the opening of detachments in the eastern and western Arctic.
In 1904, in recognition of its many services to Canada, King Edward VII renamed the force The Royal NorthWest Mounted Police.
When the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were created in 1905 the first contracts were negotiated for the force to act under the direction of the provincial authorities to enforce criminal law and local statutes. The agreements required the dominion government to maintain and control 500 Royal North-West Mounted Police in the two provinces in return for annual payments of $75,000 each.
On all provincial matters of justice administration, the force was responsible, through the commissioner, to the provincial attorneys general. This arrangement gave the provinces a bargain as full police services to the new provinces had been costing two or three times as much as the amount set out in the agreement.
During the First World War the North-West Mounted Police was forced to withdraw policing services from Alberta and Saskatchewan, causing these provinces to organize their own police forces. After the armistice, however, the force absorbed the dominion police which had performed federal policing duties in eastern Canada and on February 1, 1920, became the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I have a very soft spot for the riding that the member represents. It is my former riding.
It seems to me the hon. member is simply reading a speech that is probably a copy of The Canadian Encyclopaedia. If he is going to read to us from the Encyclopaedia we can go out and read it ourselves.
For one thing, he is not permitted to read his speech.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will please resume his seat for a moment.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. As I understand it, the member was giving among other things some very interesting and pertinent points about-


David Kilgour: You were not even here.


Rob Nicholson: I can tell the hon. member and the hon. member will be aware that there are five television cameras right in behind-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Rob Nicholson: I believe I have the floor, Madam Speaker. I was watching and I was listening to what the hon. member had to say. He was talking about the development of the RCMP. I think that was interesting. I thought it was important to put that on the record. I think the member should be allowed to do so. He certainly is giving a better speech than I have heard from the hon. member in a long time.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Madam Speaker, I have a well researched speech which outlines not only the history of the RCMP, but the contractual arrangements of the financing between the federal government, the provinces and municipalities. It is very much relevant to this debate. I am sorry if the member feels offended, but it is relevant and has a large bearing on the debate and I would like to continue, as I will.
For more than a decade after 1917 the RCMP policed only the Northwest and the Yukon Territories as well as being responsible for federal statutes. The matter of provincial policing was raised again in a letter dated November 20, 1926, from Saskatchewan Premier James Gardiner to federal Justice Minister Ernest Lapointe. It reads:
The policing of this force is rapidly developing into a condition which is likely to bring the whole matter into the field of political controversy. The main reason for this, to my mind, is that we are very much over-policed. We have a condition which developed during the war, which leaves us with virtually three police forces: the RCMP, the provincial police and the municipal police. The result is that there is overlapping, local friction, disagreement between different organizations, the appearance of too many uniformed men at every public gathering, (giving the appearance of a military occupation), and cost which, if continued, will develop into a first-class political issue.
That was the federal justice minister, Ernest Lapointe.
By 1932 the RCMP had assumed contracts to provide a provincial police force to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. The provincial contracts all expired at the end of May, 1935, and by May, 1937, all had been renewed to a variety of expiry dates. Though contracts for the provincial policing of British Columbia and Newfoundland were both signed in 1950, the idea was considered much earlier in British Columbia.
May 24, 1991

In 1932, when many other provinces moved to RCMP policing because of financial pressures, a committee studying policing in B.C. concluded that so large a territory with so sparse a population-700,000 people at that time-should economize by having one police force instead of 39 separate ones at the various levels of government. The federal commission arrived at the same recommendation in 1939.
At the beginning of 1950 the attorney general of British Columbia introduced legislation to empower his government to conduct negotiations with the federal government to contract the RCMP. He estimated annual provincial savings of $1.5 million by using the RCMP, taking into account the pressure for improved services and capital costs of necessary equipment and buildings.
In August, 1950, British Columbia and the federal government signed an agreement for the provision of provincial policing services by the RCMP. This contract also had the effect of doubling the municipal responsibilities of the RCMP. The British Columbia provincial police had formerly conducted municipal policing under 46 contracts throughout the province. All of these were taken on by the RCMP.
The RCMP began policing Newfoundland as a result of the entry of that province into Canada in 1949. Although the Newfoundland Rangers and the Newfoundland constabulary also represented long, local tradition, it was recognized that the RCMP would offer superior effectiveness with financial savings over a combination of federal and provincial forces. In August, 1950, a contract was signed with Newfoundland for the provision of RCMP provincial policing for $196,000 a year in contrast with the previous annual cost to Newfoundland of $550,000 for the rangers and for the constabulary. The province arranged for the construction and location of new prefabricated housing and detachment buildings. The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary was to continue policing St. John's. Seventy-three rangers and 37 constabulary members joined the RCMP.
The RCMP became involved in municipal policing because municipalities in the depression years began applying for their services under contract. In January,
Supply
1932, the mayor of Calgary directed his city council to consider the merits of the RCMP policing that city. The suggestion did not go anywhere at that time. In any case, the RCMP Act of that time appeared to prohibit the enforcement of municipal by-laws.
Persistent requests culminated in an initial experiment in 1935 of a three-man municipal detachment at Flin Flon, Manitoba. In 1936 the RCMP Act was amended empowering the Governor General in Council to authorize the RCMP to enter into municipal contracts. The Flin Flon arrangement was confirmed retroactively in 1936.
Requests for RCMP participation in municipal policing continued to be numerous through the late 1930s. The federal polity was to entertain only those applications-


David Kilgour: Scott, they are leaving.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: If you would listen you might learn something.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do hope that the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast will be offered a better type of courtesy when he takes the floor. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The only town besides Flin Flon to receive RCMP policing by contract during this time was Melville, Saskatchewan. By the end of the decade it became clear that the two municipal contracts were appealing examples to an increasing number of applicants and procedures were generalized. In 1940 the commissioner of the RCMP was authorized to conclude municipal agreements on behalf of the federal government.
The third municipality to receive RCMP policing was Humboldt, Saskatchewan, and it was quickly followed by a succession of others. At first most of the communities were in Manitoba and Saskatchewan but the maritimes and Alberta soon had municipal contracts as well.
By March, 1946, 68 towns and cities in the contract provinces were being policed by the RCMP. Six were in the maritimes and the other 62 were in the prairies. By 1951 the addition of the British Columbia municipalities brought the number of RCMP municipal contracts to 119. Today the number stands at 191.

May 24, 1991
Supply
From early on the federal government recognized the limited federal benefit of municipal policing and in 1941 the commissioner of the day declared that the force was only interested in municipal policing where some locational or other advantage to the federal policing role could be achieved. Initially the cost sharing for municipal contracts was the same as that of the provincial contracts. Costs were rising and the force realized that municipal RCMP officers were devoting their full time to the towns while those doing provincial contract work usually carried out federal duties as well. The possibility of requiring municipalities to pay more than was demanded from the provinces was debated in the late 1940s.
As the latest contracts expired on March 31 of this year, provinces were paying 70 per cent and the federal government paid 30 per cent of the costs of municipal policing. The cost share with municipalities with a population under 15,000 people was 70 per cent municipal and 30 per cent federal. For municipalities with populations over 15,000, the split was 90 per cent municipal and 10 per cent federal.
The federal offer of renewal that is currently on the table proposes that within the next 10 years the provinces pay 75 per cent of the costs of policing their province. The offer proposes the costs to municipalities with a population of less than 5,000 increase from 70 per cent to 75 per cent. The cost to municipalities with a population between 5,000 and 15,000 increases from 70 per cent to 85 per cent.
Finally, the costs of policing services to municipalities with populations in excess of 15,000 increase from 90 per cent to 95 per cent.
An important fact to remember is that even at 100 per cent of the costs, the RCMP continues to present an economical and efficient police service. The RCMP has a clear cost advantage over independent police services.
In conclusion, the history of the RCMP is an integral part of the history of this country. I repeat what I said at the opening of my remarks: The federal government is strongly committed to the RCMP and to contract policing. We have made an offer and we look forward to the provinces coming to the table to negotiate an agreement
acceptable to all parties in order that these contracts can be renewed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is a supporter of a government that is extremely keen on privatization.
I wonder if he has discussed with the Solicitor General of Canada and with the Minister of State for Privatization, two of his caucus colleagues, any plans they might have to privatize the RCMP.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: In response to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, I have not discussed this matter and I would not discuss it because I do not think that police forces, as he would suggest, should be privatized in any respect.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I did not suggest it. I was just asking. I was clarifying.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if he could answer a couple of questions on affirmative action.
I know that there are under-represented groups that have to be accommodated in the recruitment of the force.
I would like to know his thoughts on the recruitment drives for women, specifically. They want to attract more women into the force and also to bring in aboriginal people and disabled people. I wonder if there are administrative capacities at which these people can operate at a higher level, the management level. What are his thoughts on that?
What are his thoughts on how to compel the forces that be or the government to refurbish, in fact, capital infrastructure that is depleted, such as the Twin Otter that crashed. That is the only means of travel for the force into some isolated areas. What are his thoughts on those two points?


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the question on affirmative action and what we are doing as a government to increase the number of aboriginal Canadians, females, and minorities, into the police force. We are doing the best we can. We have a long way to go. We have made strides. As you know, the first Sikh wearing a turban was inducted into the RCMP not too long ago.
May 24, 1991

Right now the number of women in the force stands at 8 per cent and the RCMP has a goal of increasing that to 21 per cent by the year 2001.1 would hope that they will achieve that goal.
I am very much in favour of increasing the number of visible minorities, women and others, into the RCMR
I believe the second point was capital acquisitions. Certainly the RCMP requires capital to pursue its mandate. If it does not have that capital, I certainly would support the acquisition of capital equipment in those cases.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman said he had not discussed the case of privatization with the Minister of State for Privatization and the Solicitor General. I can understand why he would be reluctant to raise it. I would be too, because I would be afraid they might say yes. We have noticed the government privatizing things like the post office and a whole list of Crown corporations. The CBC is being shut down and privatized. VIA Rail lines are being sold off, including the major line through the mountains in the province which the hon. member has the honour to represent in this House.
I was apprehensive in asking the question that the government in fact was going to start selling off the RCMP and perhaps turn it into a private protective agency, much like soldiers of fortune, as my hon. colleague suggests.
The parliamentary secretary in his remarks listed the long and distinguished career of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It was interesting to hear that recitation of historical fact. But I am concerned. Given the mind bent of the Minister of State for Privatization and the glee with which he latches on to Canadian government assets and sells them out, thinking he is doing a great service for our country when, in fact, he is dismantling the place, I would urge the hon. member to take this matter up with the Minister of State for Privatization and see if he could convince him that privatization is wrong.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Madam Speaker, I would like to again thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for his question and comment. I think it is a silly comment to suggest that anyone would ever want to privatize a police force. He has raised it twice, which shows us how foolish he is.
On the question generally of privatization, as you know, the government is very much pursuing the issue of
Supply
privatization when corporations and companies compete directly with the private sector. In those cases, such as Petro-Canada and Air Canada where they can be more efficiently and better run and are able to borrow on the capital markets to buy assets such as, in the case of Air Canada, the planes and so on, it is a good policy to privatize.
Once again, the question I would return to him is this. Does he really want the police force privatized? To me, that is a silly, foolish notion and I can only assume he raised it as a joke.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the motion, as everybody knows, is basically to the effect that in negotiating contracts with the provinces, the federal government not unfairly transfer policing costs from the federal government to provincial and municipal governments.
I salute the member for Comox-Albemi for introducing it.
I was quite sincere when I said that I have a soft spot for Edmonton-Strathcona because, as you probably do not remember, I represented Edmonton-Strathcona for nine years, and it goes beyond that because I used to work at the Justice department. I cannot guarantee it, but I-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Don Valley North.


Barbara Greene: Madam Speaker, you recognized the member and he was supposed to address the issue. Instead, he is giving us a diatribe about his previous experiences as a member of Parliament, and so on.
It seems to me that he should be speaking to the issue as the previous member did.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would imagine that on this beautiful Friday afternoon the hon. member will eventually get there.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I would like to put on the record that I have enormous respect for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. There are few people in this House whom I have more respect for than that member. I do not mean to give him the kiss of death by saying that. I did not hear his speech, but I am quite sure that it was nothing like what we just heard. If I am wrong, and it was not cribbed from the Encyclopaedia Canadiana, I will be the first to apologize to the member. But, I am sure it was taken from the archives of the Solicitor General's Department or from the archives of the RCMP.

May 24, 1991
Supply
I know, having worked for the justice department, it actually has things like that in its archives. Nobody reads them except when they need a speech for a Friday afternoon. One of the best reasons for parliamentary reform is to prevent us from having to listen to speeches like that.
With great respect for the parliamentary secretary, they have to try to find some warm-blooded westerner who will get up and defend the government on the RCMP. Again, I am just surmising because I used to be a parliamentary secretary, but this poor gentleman across from us had to go and find a warm, live, breathing member from western Canada who would read the kind of drivel we just heard. Even the students who seemed to be from grade seven or under left.
What did he tell us, buried among the pearls in his speech? Did he tell us that we were overpoliced in Canada? Was that the point he was trying to make? He can ask another question afterward if I misunderstood him.
Let me try to get to the issues that are at stake here. I confess that for over 12 years I worked with the members of the RCMP in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and here in Ottawa to a degree, so I have une faiblesse pour la Gendarmerie royale du Canada. I have also worked with municipal police and city police.
One of the things that they do not understand on the other side of the House is that a village policeman in a small municipality in Manitoba has difficulty giving a ticket to the son or daughter of the mayor of the village. This is one of the reasons why western Canadians, all 7.5 million of us, and Atlantic Canadians I am sure, like members of the RCMP. It is because carry out their job without fear or favour. They do not care if they are giving a ticket to-at least this is what I believe-the mayor's daughter, the Speaker's daughter or son, or even the Prime Minister's daughter or son, no offence to the sons and daughters. That is why the RCMP has been respected in western Canada, in northern Canada, and in Atlantic Canada.
I hope the hon. parliamentary secretary will tell us, if he gets up after this talk, about this canard that westerners, northerners, and Atlantic Canadians are subsidizing the people in Ontario and Quebec. Who does the parliamentary secretary think pays for the members who are outside guarding this building? Who does he think is paying for, I gather, 2,000 members of the RCMP in Ontario and Quebec if it is not taxpayers in Atlantic Canada, northern Canada, and western Canada? Do not tell me, please, that the provincial budgets of Ontario or Quebec are paying for that, because they are not. I understand all Canadians are paying for the 2,000 men and women in the RCMP in Quebec and about the same number in Ontario.
I understand that back in 1981 it was agreed that the provinces would pay 70 per cent because about 70 per cent of the police work was Criminal Code and provincial statutes. As you know, the enforcement of the law of the Criminal Code across Canada is a provincial responsibility. The provinces agreed to pay 70 per cent. The federal government agreed to pay 30 per cent because about 30 per cent of RCMP work is federal statutes such as the Narcotic Control Act. In municipalities the formula was 90 per cent-10 per cent. The ratio was different in municipalities like Edmonton where the member who just spoke is from and therefore there was a 90 per cent-10 per cent formula.
The other reason they agreed on the 70-30 split was the efficiency argument. It was far better to have one police force, where it was acceptable, than to have two. The third reason they agreed on the 70-30 formula was because of national unity. The RCMP is a symbol of our country and is very important. When has it been more important to have a symbol of national unity, such as the RCMP, than right now?
The same government which gave a throne speech last week telling us that it is trying to do something about national unity will try this week, or the next time it gets contracts with the provinces, as the member for York South-Weston mentioned, to increase the burden on municipalities.
May 24, 1991

Why was it that two weeks ago there was a budget speech stressing national unity and the government now wants to hold a financial gun to the heads of the provinces and the municipalities in outer Canada, meaning every place but Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa? It seems very odd to me.
The government has yet to give a substantive explanation for these contract demands, unless it thinks that what we heard today was a substantive explanation. Furthermore, due to the stalled federal transfer payments and limited taxation powers those two levels of government-


Barbara Greene: Are you reading your speech?


David Kilgour: Just skimming. The member for Don Valley North asked if I was reading. I will try not to do more than glance at my notes.
The outer eight provinces can ill afford to reduce their law enforcement services because of the havoc wreaked upon Canadians all over the country, particularly in outer Canada, by the government's high interest rate and high dollar policies.
To build unity it seems to me-I notice that some of the children have come back from the-I wanted to be light hearted, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member, who has been here so long, I am sure knows that only the Speaker can talk about people in the gallery.


David Kilgour: The federal government has to maintain a strong presence in all regions of Canada. The contract proposals seem to fly in the face of the government's rhetoric about national unity.
If I may say a word about Alberta. In my province 61 out of 291 municipalities contract services from the RCMP, and 44 per cent of Albertans, or about 1.1 million people, live under the jurisdiction of the RCMP detachments. The current cost-share ratio for contracted RCMP services was established in 1981. Both the municipalities and the federal government believed a 30 per cent federal share of RCMP cost was an adequate contribution.
The government is in effect saying to the municipalities across the country, outside of Ontario and Quebec, that they can either maintain existing RCMP services by cutting costs elsewhere or they can cut RCMP services at the risk of endangering public safety and emergency
Supply
responsiveness. What the member for Western Arctic said about the north and the traditional role of the RCMP applies just as much in western Canada and, I am sure, in Atlantic Canada. The person people call on when they have virtually any kind of problem, including the birth of a child, is the RCMP officer who is there in two minutes. I do not know how many babies the RCMP has delivered, but I am sure it is a lot.
If the contracts are going to force municipalities and provinces to pay 16 per cent more for the RCMP in unincorporated areas, that will cause the public safety to suffer in those areas.
The Nielsen task force and the federal law enforcement review talk a lot about these issues. I do not believe anybody on the other side has mentioned them today but I have not been here for all the speeches.
Gary Browning, on behalf of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, has not received any satisfactory response to the association's inquiries.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has requested a meeting on this matter on behalf of its members from the eight contracting provinces, and it has yet to receive a response.
What kind of government would turn down-it may have given up on Alberta-the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents three-quarters of the 26 million or 27 million of us in this country? What kind of government would turn down a meeting with that federation on a matter of such fundamental importance as this?
In closing, I would just like to stress some of the points that were made by the hon. member for York South- Weston. The government is talking about an amount of money. It always has money for its friends.
I do not know whether you read The Toronto Star today, Madam Speaker. The lead story in The Toronto Star is about a contract to a company for which a resigned Conservative member of Parliament from Quebec City, Michel Cote, works.
The government always has money for its friends. In Calgary the other day, I learned that the federal government has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for public relations and for lawyers to deny the Lubicon people in northern Alberta what they have been struggling to get for 55 years.

May 24, 1991
Supply
Our tax dollars have been funding government lawyers, private lawyers and public relations consultants in an attempt to deny the Lubicon band in northern Alberta nothing more than simple justice.
The government has money. For example, there was $14 million in the last budget for businessmen to learn Pacific Rim languages. That same budget cut every penny out of the Secretary of State office for the funding of heritage languages across Canada.
I can only try to be funny. What our Prime Minister has decided and is really trying to do-all the evidence points this way-is to get the nomination for the Republican Party in 1992.
How else can we explain what he is doing to the RCMP, VIA Rail and the CBC? He has turned Montreal into a border town for Burlington and for other cities in New York.
He has turned Toronto into a border town for Buffalo. Maybe there is some arrangement that if he can get enough people from Toronto to desert their own local stores, their own markets and supermarkets and shop in Buffalo it will improve his chances of getting Mr. Bush to allow him to stand on a ticket in 1992.
Madam Speaker, please do not tell the Prime Minister that-if my law is correct-you have to be a native-born and not a Canadian-born American to stand on the ticket.
Maybe if we stress to the other side that he is not eligible to be the vice-presidential nominee for the Republicans-


John V. Nunziata: They could annex Canada.


David Kilgour: I never thought of that, but I'll bet you they did.
We can be frivolous about this, but the people in northern Alberta, the western Arctic or in Atlantic Canada are not joking about it. It is just one more example of how the government is weakening the fibre of a country we all love very much.
What more can I say, but to salute the member for the motion.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for making a presentation and giving us some information on the funding arrangement between the province and the federal government regarding the RCMP and the 70-30 split.
I would just like to refer to last summer. The hon. member referred to the credibility of the RCMP being above and beyond compromise in certain areas.
I would like to refer to the Oka incident. I very adamantly put to the Solicitor General at the time the idea of having a force, an alliance of police forces, or maybe a small coalition or group. It could possibly go into a crisis situation and be somehow beyond any kind of bias or compromise. It could be beyond the realm of the immediate crisis and not have any serious problems or doubts about its credibility in that jurisdiction. It could be accepted in a way that would be legitimized through an amendment to the RCMP Act.
I referred specifically to the RCMP, whether it could have a force or could have moneys allocated to put together a force that would be respected by all of the provinces and the territories come in at a time when there is no movement, at a time when the provincial police force or other levels of police forces would have been rendered ineffective by the crisis that was created and the immediacy of their being close to that problem or that particular group.
What are the hon. member's thoughts on perhaps having an allocation of money for such a force? It may be needed in the future as tensions rise over a number of issues across this country.
I could point to the logging issue in B.C. I could look at Lubicon, which was referred to, and at James Bay. A number of places need a force that is above compromise and is unbiased as such. Could moneys be allocated for that? Would we would need an amendment to the act to accommodate that and to complement provincial jurisdiction?


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I think that is a very interesting idea. The member has obviously thought about it at length.
All I can add to what she said, which I think was in support of the idea of a special unit, is that Colonel Macleod, the second commissioner of the North-West Mounted Police, later became a judge. The city of Fort Macleod was named after him. He had empathy, as I am sure the member knows, with Cree and Blackfoot people who came before him in court. Many people feel that he preserved the peace and minimized violence throughout the area of his jurisdiction. The RCMP has a long tradition of doing that.
May 24, 1991

The member might wish to consider the fact, if my memory is correct, that only 500 out of 14,000 members of the RCMP are aboriginals, visible minorities, or basically other than from the larger Canadian community. Perhaps the answer would be that a unit such as she is proposing should have members recruited from aboriginal peoples across Canada.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, is the hon. member who spoke previously familiar with the RCMP public complaints commission and its recent annual report in which it laid out about 40 provisions it would like to see as amendments to the RCMP Act?
They are sort of fair and balanced things such as: if the RCMP takes action on the basis of a complaint, the complainant should have access to it; if there are costs for the complainant, the complainant should be entitled to suitable costs under guidelines; and certain confusions between the Privacy Act and the RCMP Act should be straightened out.
Is the hon. member familiar with that annual report and its recommendations? Would he be in a position to peruse it and act with other members to see if the Solicitor General would consider bringing forward some amendments?


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the member for Western Arctic has just handed me a copy of the report. It is 114 pages long. I am sorry to say I have not read it. I am sure, in light of what the member just said, that any Solicitor General on this side of the House-and I can assure him of that if it is the member for York South- Weston or, who knows, perhaps even myself in a future government-would give this every consideration. Perhaps it is going to be the member for Western Arctic since she has got the report and I do not.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker the NDP member is rather humorous this afternoon, suggesting for a moment that the NDP might occupy the seats across the way in few short years. One thing is certain: at the rate this particular government is going, the people of Canada have already decided what fate to bestow upon them.
I would like to compliment my friend and colleague from Edmonton Southeast on his comments with regard to this particular resolution. I am afraid that members
Supply
from Quebec and Ontario really do not fully understand-and I am a member from Ontario-or comprehend the importance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to western Canada, to the north and to Atlantic Canada.
When we hear comments from Conservative backbenchers from Toronto about having western Canadians pay their own way in terms of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, it really makes us wonder at the mindset of the Solicitor General who comes from Orillia, Ontario. It really makes us wonder whether these backbenchers understand what Canada is all about. A very integral, central part of Canada and being Canadian is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We now have the government trying to gut the RCMP by slashing funding to provinces in Atlantic Canada.
I know the member for Edmonton Southeast has always been an outspoken advocate concerning the problem of western alienation and has in his time in the Liberal caucus certainly spoken out very vigorously and continuously for the Liberal Party and for the Government of Canada to understand and to speak out for western interests.
I would like the member to expand on the importance of the RCMP to western Canada for those of us who do not live in western Canada. Exactly what does the RCMP mean to a western Canadian?


David Kilgour: I see the minister from the Carberry area is going to get up. Perhaps he will speak on the merits of this bill rather than give us a history lesson. I hope when he is giving his talk he will bear in mind the fact that Manitoba, according to the member for York South-Weston, is going to pay $90 million more over 10 years if the federal government has its way in terms of its contract with Manitoba.
On the question of the member, he might be interested that Colonel James Macleod went from Winnipeg to Alberta. He was a commissioner of the North-West Mounted Police. When he died as a judge in Alberta, or the Northwest Territories as it was then, there was not a single dime of a pension for his wife Mary. I think they had three or four children and she found it extremely difficult to get by in the years after that. Some ranchers from southern Alberta basically pitched in and helped her out.

May 24, 1991
Supply
Why do I cite that? It shows that things have not always been easy for the RCMP and that even some of the giants like Colonel Macleod, at least his wife and children afterwards, did not find it easy in the days before they had pensions for anybody in the RCMP.
It is a deeply ingrained part of our history. We take pride whether it is in southern Manitoba or northern Alberta or the western Arctic. The RCMP is a symbol of Canada and these morons on the opposite side are doing everything they can to try to make it more difficult to maintain that symbol. These days, symbols are extremely important to this country.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Madam Speaker, I wanted to make a comment and ask a short question of the member for Edmonton Southeast.
The member for Edmonton Southeast has railed against cuts in VIA Rail and against cuts to the CBC. Now he has risen today and talked about the adjustments we will be making in terms of contractual arrangements with the RCMP. On the other hand he is against the GST. He is also against an increase in the deficit.
I would like to ask the member how he would get this extra money. Would he raise taxes or would he reallocate it from other programs?
I do not want to hear his old standard answer that we are going to cut fat and waste in Ottawa because he knows, as his colleagues from the Ottawa area will attest, a lot of the fat and waste in the bureaucracy has been cut.
His other standard answer is: "Oh, we will remove some troops from Europe". Those are the only two answers I have ever heard the member from Edmonton Southeast give.
I would like to ask him: Where would he get the money and how would he get the money to pay for all of these services which he has railed against us cutting for the last few years?


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the first place I would start would be by amputating half the members of the cabinet and half the parliamentary secretaries. India,
with 850 million people in a parliamentary system, has a cabinet of 15.
Pick up the Order Paper and read the 18 motions I have on it and you will see a number of ways of cutting expenses.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member has answered part of the question. The time for question and comment is now expired. Debate.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, despite the pain that the government's proposal in the RCMP contract negotiations is giving to a number of Canadians, I still welcome the opportunity to be able to make a few comments on behalf of not only my own constituents but a number of my colleagues and their constituencies from around the country, particularly in the province of British Columbia.
I should begin by briefly reading the motion that my New Democratic Party colleague from Comox-Albemi presented to the House today. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take into full account the budgetary reality of the provinces and municipalities involved in Royal Canadian Mounted Police contract negotiations and therefore be prepared to negotiate a contract for RCMP services which does not unfairly transfer policing costs from the federal government to provincial and municipal governments.
One of the members opposite noted earlier that we had phrased this motion in as civilized a way as possible in order to encourage the government to think again that when it is transferring burdens, as it seems to want to do time and time again, it seems to have a proclivity to transfer them to those Canadian taxpayers and those assemblies of Canadian taxpayers least able to pay. In this case, that is the smaller municipalities, the small villages and cities that spread right across this country, particularly Atlantic Canada, the west and the province of British Columbia.
The eight provinces unanimously rejected the federal proposition to raise the provincial share of Mountie policing costs by an additional $79 million. We have a lot of company in our protest.
Policing contracts between the RCMP and eight provinces expired at the beginning of April. The ten-year deal covers all provinces, except Quebec and Ontario, which have their own provincial police forces.
May 24, 1991

Under the proposed agreement the Mounties provide provincial policing and some municipal services in the eight provinces at a total annual cost of $761 million. The provinces pay 70 per cent and the federal government pays 30 per cent.
What Ottawa wants to do with the current proposal is change that formula to 75 per cent paid by the provinces and municipalities and 25 per cent by the federal government. That would cost an additional $79 million to those jurisdictions least able to pay.
At this point I would like to pay some tribute to a number of my colleagues who have fought very hard over the period of the last number of weeks to raise this issue with the government in as non-confrontational a way as possible, hoping that they would be able to appeal to the conscience of those on the other side of the House to recognize the severe difficulties which people in small town western Canada, in particular, are having.
The member for Okanagan-Shuswap, in particular, arranged a meeting two weeks ago, on May 8, in the city of Vernon, with all of my British Columbia New Democratic Party colleagues and a representative of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.
She did a tremendous job of outlining for us very clearly the issues that were at stake for them and the financial implications of this almost dogmatic pursuit of their unreasonable proposal by the federal government.
Others who have taken a major part in our campaign to get the government to change its mind have been the members for Kamloops, Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt, Kootenay East and Prince George-Bulkley Valley, as well as our party's federal critic, the member for Brant.
We have not met with any more success at this point than have the eight representatives of those provincial governments that are being seriously impacted by the government's very hard-nosed bargaining stance on this issue. One can hardly call it bargaining because while the federal government and the Solicitor General have been prepared to discuss estimates of the cost base, when it comes to cost share they said simply: "That is not negotiable; you have our position; take it or leave it; we will cancel the agreements."
Supply
At one point they were threatening that the police contracts would simply end at the beginning of April. Thankfully we have gone beyond that point and they have withdrawn to a more reasonable position. I would still hope that we can come up with some kind of interim agreement or at least a phasing-in proposal by the federal government. This has been suggested by a number of municipalities in order to provide some breathing space at least and as an indication of good faith to those municipalities and provincial governments, especially those smaller municipalities that need time if they are going to adjust to the kind of financial impacts the government's proposal will place on them if it does go ahead as it is proposing.
The proposal by the federal government of new contracts calls for municipalities to pay an extra 5 per cent to 27 per cent for policing costs. That is the impact. We say that move is an unfair burden on local ratepayers and particularly hard on very small communities. The cut amounts to an extra unfair tax for Canadians who choose to live in smaller towns.
Canadians in rural communities are already hurting from post office cuts, CBC cuts, and the downsizing of VIA Rail. They have the same right to police protection as do citizens in larger metropolitan areas.
We call on the government to negotiate a new contract which does not unfairly transfer policing costs from the federal level to provincial and municipal governments.
I would just like to mention a couple of examples. In my own constituency, the city of Castlegar will have to come up with about $25,000 more this year for policing services if Ottawa's proposal to decrease its share of RCMP costs goes through. The city paid $508,000 last year for 10 officers. Under the government's proposal, the city would pay $533,000 for nine officers. More money for less service.
The B.C. solicitor general, Mr. Ivan Mesmer, who has been negotiating this agreement with the federal government, has said quite clearly that these municipalities do not think it is fair. He explained that in communities such as Williams Lake, 40 per cent of the municipal budget will go toward policing if the municipality's share of policing costs is increased, as it will be if the federal government's proposal becomes fact.

May 24, 1991
Supply
This is veiy serious. In a letter which I received in late March from the city of Trail in my own constituency, the mayor, Sandor Santori, points out that the city's share of policing in the city of Trail in 1990 amounted to $705,000 from a total cost of $1,007,904. A 3 per cent increase to that cost base will bring the city's share to $726,699 from a total of $1,038,141.
With the proposal from the federal government to increase the cost base from 70 per cent to 85 per cent, the city's share of policing costs will increase by $176,888. This would represent a 5.25 per cent increase over the city's 1990 total taxation of $3.37 million to $3,543 million.
To the individual taxpayer, this represents an increase of $20 per residential property. In the case of the city's largest taxpayer, Cominco, it is an increase of $120,000.
I need hardly point out to cabinet ministers who come from western Canada, especially those who are somewhat familiar with the history of Cominco, that this is the time when it can ill afford any other large tax expenditure.
It has been hit very hard by astronomical increases in water charges from the province of British Columbia in the last few years, which have been totally unjustified. The federal government is a shareholder in Cominco's current modernization program. It should be aware as a shareholder that there are severe financial restrictions on that company at the moment.
Many people in the community of Trail and surrounding areas feel very threatened by a somewhat shaky future as a result of the difficulties they are having in adapting to the new technologies.
The past Solicitor General said in the House of Commons that there is one reality that has to be taken into consideration and that is the cost of the RCMP borne by the federal government.
He also stated in a press release that his offer of a 5 per cent increase was "designed to redistribute the net costs more fairly so that those who use the services assume an appropriate measure of the cost".
This is proof that in setting up his strategy, his office has completely disregarded the fiscal reality in which municipalities have been placed, thanks to a multitude of policies set up by his own government over the last six years.
This time, thanks to the structure of these agreements, the government has managed to download its responsibility on to the third level of government, especially small- and medium-sized municipalities.
We feel that this is one more indication-if we needed one-that this government and the Conservative Party are just totally out of touch. In its blind rush to deal with only the federal deficit, it has managed to undermine the very fabric of this country with cuts to VIA Rail, the CBC, the Forest Resource Development Agreement, postal services, and the sale of Petro-Canada.
This is now threatening the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its presence at the community level in much of this country. At a time when Canada's future is on the line, this government cannot afford to play high roller with one of this country's most respected institutions.
It worries me when I ask myself the question: What is this government's bottom line? What is our bottom line? Our bottom line is Canada, and I hope it is theirs, too. I am sure, in their hearts, it is.
Judging by what the government does, more and more Canadians are having a difficult time believing that.
A few months ago, I had an opportunity to spend some time with a gentleman from the Golden Horseshoe in central Canada who was a major manufacturer of pollution control equipment. He is a major real estate developer. He has agricultural estates in Central America and he moves in a circle in which I do not normally move.
He is not a person who puts much credence in conspiracy theories or anything like it, but in trying to determine what the economic policy of the government and the rationale for it was, he said that he and his associates were saying that they could not understand what the reason for the government's approach was to the Canadian economy, unless it was to attempt to force Canadians into becoming Americans.
May 24, 1991

That is the only one that seemed to make any sense if you followed all the courses of action that this government is following. I do not believe that, and they do not believe it. Nobody wants to believe it.
You see the artificially high price of the Canadian dollar. There is the emasculation of one Canadian institution after another and you hear the Prime Minister coming up with words to the effect that Canada is more than a few Crown corporations and a few national programs.
Yet we begin to ask if we continue to destroy all those national programs, all those national institutions and all those national services, how long it will be before some Canadians begin to say: "If we have this huge bureaucracy and this expensive government and all we have got left is an anthem and a flag, maybe we ought to wonder what the hell we are doing as Canadians"?
That is what they are going to ask if we start removing all of the symbols and all of the services that we have so carefully and thoughtfully built up over decades and decades since those first Canadians, as an article of faith, said to themselves: "Even though this nation called Canada is not an economic unit, by a political act of will we want it to be a separate, identifiable nation and community".
This country was not created because it made a lot of economic sense. A small ribbon of population stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific and to the Arctic is not a natural economic unit. This country was built because people wanted something different and something distinctive and the government is wrecking it. I do not believe it is consciously doing it. However, if it wants to leave these decisions up to the glories of the marketplace in some kind of doctrinaire, dogmatic belief that what is good for General Motors is good for the country, what is good for whomever it happens to be-Richardson in Winnipeg or the Bronfmans or whomever-then we are . in serious trouble in this country and we are not going to have a country left.
I just want to return briefly to the presentation that the Union of B.C. Municipalities made to us on May 8 in Vernon, B.C. The UBCM did an excellent job. I am sure many members of the government have read its submission, and I would ask them to look at it carefully again.
Supply
On the first page of that submission, the UBCM points out very clearly why those of us from British Columbia are perhaps more worked up and more concerned about the impact of this particular proposal than almost anyone else across the country. In fact, all three speakers from my party today in this debate have been from the province of British Columbia.
People from British Columbia, a province with only 10 per cent of the population, comprise 27 per cent of the RCMP force in Canada, 39 per cent of the RCMP contract force in Canada, and 63 per cent of the RCMP municipal contract force in Canada.
If members were wondering why we are acting and behaving as though this particular action of the federal government singles out British Columbia and its taxpayers and small and medium-sized communities for punishment, the reason is because 63 per cent of the RCMP municipal contract force in Canada comes from our province. I think we have a reason to be a little annoyed.
There are three issues to be resolved: the cost base, the cost shares, and accountability. The position of the UBCM, which is one that we share, is that on the cost base issue there is no disagreement that there are items which can be negotiated where there is a good business reason, for example UIC payments for federal civilian staff. With respect to cost shares, however, we remain firm in our view that there should be no increases.
Finally, there also must be improved accountability so that we are assured that we are getting the best value for the dollar spent.
Why should members on the government side support the position of B.C. municipalities on the cost issue?
First, the federal benefit has not diminished since the last contract. Second, federal costs would increase if the federal government did not enjoy the economies of scale of municipal policing. Third, federal costs to maintain a national force for internal and external emergencies would increase. Fourth, the contribution to national unity is beyond dollars and cents. We do not put a price on Canada.
Finally, what the UBCM and British Columbians from one end of the province to the other are asking for is initially an interim agreement.

May 24, 1991
Supply
B.C. has been without a policing contract since April 1. This situation cannot continue. We urge the government to immediately enter into an interim agreement with a retroactive provision as proposed by the province of British Columbia.
We support a new federal negotiating direction. We urge the government to support a resumption of negotiations in which federal negotiators have more latitude to negotiate cost-base issues, to approach phasing in a total cost framework, and to quantify the federal benefits that are reflected in the current cost shares.
In the 1984 election the Prime Minister defined Canada as a nation of small towns with big dreams. We hope that it is the intention of this government, as I am sure it is, and as it is of all of us, that small town Canadians should have more than dreams. They should have the right to the same standard of services as other Canadians whose circumstances have put in larger metropolitan areas and in the heartland of this continent.
We produce much of the wealth of this nation in small town Canada. As a result of that we often undergo much greater variations in our economies and much higher levels of unemployment more often than central Canada, even though central Canada is undergoing some tough times right now. We undergo really serious times every four or five years when 1,500 people are out of work in a town of only 6,000 people, sometimes permanently. We are used to that sort of thing. We in small town Canada in the west, in the east, and particularly in the province of British Columbia-because it is so seriously impacted by this government proposal-have a right to equality of treatment. We demand it. We ask the government to think again, to be more flexible in its approach and give us a deal that we can live with.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Madam Speaker, the member just spoke about the importance of symbols to Canada. I would agree with him. Symbols are very important, and the RCMP is a symbol.
There are other symbols. I wonder if he could comment on the move of the NDP government in Ontario to not require police in Ontario to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, who is also a symbol of Canada. Is that not destruction of a symbol?
Would he also comment on the Liberals' move a few years ago to remove the coat of arms from the RCMP and to change its name. Is that not also destruction of a Canadian symbol?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I know these are issues that arouse a great deal of sensitivity among many Canadians. There are a number of us, perhaps myself included, who wish that people with important agendas would sometimes not tamper with things that really do not have to be tampered with, that unduly upset people, perhaps for no positive reason that can be seen.
Again, there is a strong perception in many parts of Canada that we are changing, that our international relationships have changed, that our broader loyalties, at least outside of Canada, have been changing. The Government of Ontario obviously believed, and there is considerable evidence to support that belief from polling throughout the province, that people at this time have different loyalties and want those reflected in their institutions and in the types of oaths that they swear.
I have my own druthers but I also have tremendous respect for the people involved in making that decision and it is probably the one that reflects majority opinion even if I might personally wish that it were opposite.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. member. I have a couple of questions and a couple of comments.
With the cabinet shuffle and the new Solicitor General, certainly it is my hope that negotiations between the provinces and the RCMP for RCMP services will take a much more constructive and realistic tack. I think it is very important that the contract be signed. That contract, though, has to be fair and reasonable. I feel that the cost-sharing agreement of 70-30 should remain as it is.
In my province of Prince Edward Island, municipalities are financially strapped. They really have not got any more money to pay for RCMP services. What we have here is simply another example of government members passing on their budgetary problems to other levels of government. They have already shirked their financial obligations in the area of health. They have discarded their responsibilities in the area of education, diminished their commitments in the area of social services, and now they are looking to partially abandon their commitment to policing, safety and security.
May 24, 1991

I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask the hon. member. I wonder if he would agree that the direction the government is taking to date is a further shirking of its responsibilities to communities across the country who require the service.
Would the member not admit that the diminishing of the federal government's commitment to funding RCMP services is another example of this government passing its financial problems on to other levels of government?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: The answer to what I will call question number one is yes. The answer to question number two is also yes. The member and I obviously share a common concern. Hopefully we will work together with a more reasonably minded minister. Hope springs eternal. Sometimes people who move into new positions are able, without losing face, to show a little more flexibility and in this case what I would call common sense.
Hopefully, by working together and with a bit of a new look, we will be able to come to some resolution of the difficulties that currently prevail in this contract dispute and come up with a package all of us can live with. For the sake of Canada I hope so.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Madam Speaker, I have been in the House all day and I have had a chance to listen to the debate. I have a couple of comments before I start to address the topic specifically.
I find it rather lamentable that when we get into this kind of a debate about a very important issue, not only because of what the RCMP does but because of the esteem in which the RCMP is held across the country, we have not had a chance to have more genuine discussion of the actual issue itself.
I am not so sure that it adds anything to the demeanour of the House to have the member for Edmonton Southeast get up and complain about the way a member was delivering his speech. Some of us deliver speeches in various ways. Some of us take a lot of time and put a lot of thought into preparing speeches and doing homework and, as a result, like to refer more than others to a prepared text. I think that is something that should be left to the individual. I know what the House rules are, but I am not so sure that to get up and simply complain
Supply
about the way somebody is delivering a speech adds much to the tone and to the substance of the debate. I also do not think it does anything useful to call people names, which we witnessed this afternoon. We were called morons. I don't think that is very becoming as far as intelligent debate and discussion in this House.
We are talking about something that is very important. The RCMP, the policing of our country, and the way we govern the conduct between ourselves, is very fundamental to any country. I think it would help in terms of the way we think of ourselves and look at ourselves as a country if we could have more of the respect between people on either side of the aisle that we all hold for the RCMP. I find it unfortunate that we did not get a chance to discuss more of the issue.
I would like in the few minutes that are remaining to talk about the issue in some perspective. We are not, and there has never been any suggestion of, withdrawing services. This has been suggested by members and I do not know where it comes from. There has never been any suggestion by any member of the government that if there could not be a satisfactory conclusion to negotiation by a certain period of time there were going to be services withdrawn. That is simply not so. That is unacceptable I think to all sides of the House, unacceptable to Canadians generally, and something that this government has never ever talked about getting into.
Second, it has been suggested that what the Solicitor General is proposing is going to gut the RCMP by implication. Gut is a pretty strong word and it conjures up some pretty fatal images, if you will. We are not talking about that at all.
Let me give you some numbers, Madam Speaker, to back that up. If you use 1988-89 as the fiscal year just for comparison, the total cost of running the RCMP across the country was approximately $1.2 billion, a lot of money. Of that amount, approximately $500 million, and these are round numbers, was used for policing that was directly attributable to responsibilities that are solely that of the federal government. That leaves approximately $700 million that is work that is done on a cost shared arrangement with the provinces and with the municipalities. That number has not been used.

May 24, 1991
Supply
Let us talk about the $700 million which, and again these are round numbers, the provinces are being charged now at the rate of about 7 per cent, which in round numbers again is about $500 million. Let me talk a little bit about how that cost sharing is done.
There is no charge in that cost share for any of the capital improvements. Any of the barracks that are constructed, any of the buildings that are built, which amounts to approximately $35 million, are not charged to the provinces or the municipalities. That kind of funding is totally a federal expense.
In addition to that, when we sit down to work out a rental fee, a rental charge if you will for the use of those barracks, the rental charge that has been used has been $5 a square foot of which the provinces presently pay 70 per cent. That means that that is $3.50 a square foot that the provinces are being asked to pay.
If we compare what the provinces charge us when they rent us similar facilities in municipal situations for which the RCMP use, the provinces charge us $15 a square foot.
Let us talk about the over-all issue in terms of that kind of number. We again are not talking about withdrawing services. We are not talking about anything that is in any way going to destroy the RCMP. We are talking about what seems to me is something reasonable in terms of moving some of the costs from the federal government where we think it should be more appropriately and that is in the area of the provinces and the municipalities.
Additionally, there are many things that the federal government does with the RCMP that are totally a federal responsibility. That is not something that we are asking the provinces to cost share.
In many ways it is unfair to the RCMP, to the force itself, to have some of these suggestions that I have heard today put out. That is not in fact what the government is proposing to do.
I want to say a little bit about transfer payments. The hon. member from Strathcona who called us names and then left the House was asking if we were going to explain how Manitoba was going to find an additional $90 million over the next 10 years. I have checked with
people in the Department of Solicitor General and they have no idea where this number came from. As far as I can see, it is a fictitious number.
First of all, we are not talking about a one-shot deal if we can conclude a successful negotiation, and I say if. Whatever cost increases there are, whatever is done, it is going to be phased in, likely over a considerable number of years, maybe five years, maybe even ten years. To suggest again that the province of Manitoba is going to be asked to find an additional $90 million over 10 years has no foundation in any of the numbers that I have been able to check out. I do not think it is possible, because negotiations are under way, to give a precise number, but if you are asking me what the number would be, my guess is it would be, at most, less than half of what the member was talking about.
The member from Prince Edward Island talked about reducing transfer payments. I want to give her some numbers. In 1984-85 when we came to government, the province of Prince Edward Island received from the federal government in transfer payments, $207.1 million. In 1990-91, the fiscal year just concluded, it received $313.9 million, an increase of over 50 per cent. It needs to be put in that kind of a context because to listen to the opposition today, you would think that all the federal government had been doing was reducing our responsibilities. That belies the numbers. As I stated earlier, there was a 50 per cent increase for the province of Prince Edward Island.
In my own province of Manitoba, the number has gone from approximately $1.2 billion of transfers to the province from the federal government in 1984-85, to about $1.9 billion in 1990-91, which is an increase of $700 million. Again, these are transfers of additional money to help the provinces meet their responsibilities in various areas of health care, social assistance, and those kinds of programs.
I see the member from Kootenay West is here. Let us talk a little bit about his province of British Columbia. When we came to government in 1984, the province of British Columbia received from the federal government about $2.26 billion. The previous fiscal year, the one just concluded, the province received a little over $3.1 billion, again a substantial increase of about $800 million since we have been the government.

With some of the increased costs that we are asking the provinces to pay, we have also been transferring to the provinces additional money to meet some of those responsibilities.
If you look at some of the benefits we have from having a national police force, the estimates that I have seen-and they have been done basically by an arm of Statistics Canada-indicate that the policing costs we charge to the provinces for the services rendered by the RCMP and the kind of quality of service they get, the continuity right across the country, the ability to enforce different acts federally and provincially, if each little municipality or each province was going to do it separately it would probably cost something like two and a half times as much as it does by having the national police force.
The member for Kootenay West who just spoke talked about economies of scale. He is absolutely right, but it works both ways. It is better for us to work together, which we are suggesting we do in this cost-sharing arrangement, again bearing in mind that we are not asking the provinces to cost-share the full amount of operating the RCMP, just the portion that is attributable to some of these joint arrangements between provinces and the municipalities. We are much better off to do this together, because there is a cost saving. It varies, I am told, from about two times as much in the west to as much as three times or three and a half times as much in the maritimes. And in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories it is even larger because of the sparse population. The member spoke on that, and she is absolutely right.
If we could have had that kind of a discussion, it seems to me it would have been of a lot more service to the force, which we all respect. Again I want to say we are not trying to gut the force. What we are simply trying to do is arrive at some fiscal arrangements that make more
Supply
sense. After all, the provinces are sovereign within their own borders and when it comes to fiscal and taxation matters, they have full responsibility. I sometimes wonder, as a premier of a province and a leader of the province, what some of their responsibilities are, other than to complain about the federal government not doing enough for them.
Having said that, and just to conclude, and to set the member's mind at ease I hope, and I hope he would take me at face value, we are not talking about doing anything except what he suggested, and that is, phasing in over a period of time, adjustments if we can agree on them as to how these costs are going to be increased.
If we could have had some of that discussion today I think we could have done a better job of presenting the issue, having a rational discussion on where this federal government is going to find money to do all the things we are asked to do, to keep the deficit under control, to keep interest rates coming down, which they have been doing for the last period of time, and I think they are probably four or five percentage points less than they have been. That is all part of our fiscal management. If interest rates go up, the opposition screams at us because we are not doing things to get interest rates down. When we do what seems to me to be reasonable things, to ask people to share in a little more of the cost of doing some things that we all want to keep, then we are chastised for it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 4 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), proceedings on the motion have expired.

This House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 27, 1991