Wendy Lill

[Canadian Ports, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I and other members of the NDP continue to raise concerns about the disastrous effect of Bill C-9 on Canadian ports.

One of the most damaging sections of Bill C-9 is section 25. Section 25 bans any federal government from giving any money to any ports to improve their infrastructure.

How dare the government make decisions for future governments. By closing the door to federal investment in ports, this government is on a collision course with Canadians who depend on ports for their livelihood.

Yesterday NDP MPs lobbied members of the Senate transport committee before they rubber stamped the minister's bill but some refused to listen to common sense.

Common sense tells us if we want to remain competitive, we must look at our competition. The Americans understand the importance of investing in their ports and that is what they are doing.

New Democrats call on the minister to suspend approval of Bill C-9 until the disastrous provisions prohibiting federal investment in Canadian ports are removed.

[Holidays Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-369, which would establish Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day, November 20, as a national holiday to be observed throughout Canada.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier was born in Saint-Lin, Quebec, in 1841. He was the son of a farmer. He studied at McGill. In the 1896 election Laurier became our first francophone prime minister.

National unity was of supreme importance to Laurier. He saw how divisive the Riel and the Manitoba school issues were and he sought to reconcile the interests of French and English Canadians with his policies.

In 1885 Laurier supported Louis Riel as a French national martyr. He vigorously supported the cause of the Metis leader and the need to unite the French and English in Canada.

It is interesting and important to me that in 1917 he opposed the process of conscription. Instead he proposed a referendum and a continuous voluntary enlistment.

Sir Wilfrid Laurier believed in human rights. He believed in protecting people's democratic rights. As the hon. member opposite said, he was a nation builder. He was an interesting and valuable voice in our country, of that there is no doubt.

However, do we need a day to commemorate him? I think not. I appreciate that the hon. member opposite finds Laurier an instructive and inspiring leader and I respect that fact, but I do not feel the need at this point in time to name a day after him.

I agree with the member that Canadians should recognize their roots. It is very important for us to draw strength from our roots. We need to find inspiration and guidance from the people who came before us, but each one of us looks to different people for inspiration.

I have found inspiration in an early suffragette named Francis Beynon. She was an early journalist in Winnipeg in the 1910s. She worked for the Women Grain Growers . She worked for many years spreading information and communicating with isolated women on the prairies who lived on mile-wide farms and had no contact with anyone.

She taught them a lot about their rights. She was very involved in the struggle to get the first vote for women. When the first world war came along she fought very hard to get the vote for immigrant women. That was not an easy battle because, unfortunately, there were a lot of women even in this country who were unwilling to allow foreign women to vote during the war.

She took this important democratic stand. I respect her for that. It was not a popular stand. She also fought against conscription. I believe that she passed out of history because she did not take a popular stand.

I respect and find inspiration in people like Francis Beynon. I do not know whether I should suggest that we also have a Francis Beynon day, but I want to make the point that the inspiration in my life would not come from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it would come from one of the early suffragettes who worked long and hard for some of the rights which I now enjoy in the House of Commons.

Other people might find inspiration in other places. Another inspirational person might be Agnes MacPhail. She was a political reformer, born in Ontario in the 1880s. MacPhail was the only woman elected to the Canadian Parliament in 1921. That was the first federal election in which women had the vote. She served until she was defeated in 1940.

In 1943 she was one of the first two women to be elected to the Ontario legislature. She lost her seat, but was again elected in 1948. She was also the first woman appointed to the Canadian delegation of the League of Nations where she insisted on serving on the disarmament committee.

Again, this was a very important woman in Canadian history. She was a peacemaker and an inspiration to many women. Perhaps some people would like to see an Agnes MacPhail day.

Very recently I had the privilege of being part of an unveiling of a plaque for Portia White in Preston, Nova Scotia. She was a very famous and inspirational black Canadian woman from my community.

Portia White was the first African Canadian woman to win international acclaim as an opera singer. She was a famous musician in our country. She was born in a musical family and taught choir in a church. She was a teacher and a community person who is remembered by thousands of people now scattered all over the country. She has become well known as an inspiration for thousands of young black Nova Scotians.

I too believe we should be celebrating our roots and our ancestors. We should be helping young Canadians to find inspiration wherever they can. I think it may be more appropriate, instead of having a day that represents one inspiration, such as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to have an ancestor day. We accept the fact that we all have ancestors who we gain strength from and we should try to recognize them in a public way. I believe that would go a long way in encouraging us to gain strength from our roots and in helping us to understand our roots better.

I do not agree that a Sir Wilfrid Laurier day is a wise option at this point in time. I would instead suggest that we make it an ancestor day.

[Canada Evidence Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the third reading of Bill S-5. I am pleased to say that the New Democratic Party supports this bill in its third reading.

Bill S-5 is an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities and other matters and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

As the critic for persons with disabilities for the New Democrats I am committed to a legislative process to extend equal treatment for the disabled and I see Bill S-5 as a step in the right direction.

Under Bill S-5 the amendments recommended to the Canada Evidence Act will allow persons with disabilities to participate more fully in the justice process. For example, in a case where a person with a mental disability has the capacity to give evidence in court but has difficulty communicating by reason of a disability, under Bill S-5 the court may order that the witness be permitted to give evidence by a means that enables the evidence to be intelligible. This is an important gain for the disabled.

The court would also be compelled to provide whatever resources necessary to assist the person to give evidence, whether it be a speech therapist, interpreter or mechanical devices for communications purposes.

Under the amendments for a witness who is sight impaired there will be also the opportunity to identify the accused by methods other than sight. For example, when asked in court whether the witness can identify the accused in the court room, a sight impaired witness would be able to use methods other than sight such as voice recognition and scent, and I think these are positive additions to the Canada Evidence Act.

In terms of the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code I endorse the changes which will extend the protection afforded to young people in the courts to persons with disabilities. Although I concur with my colleague from the Bloc, I have concerns about the lesser penalties for sexual assault for persons with disabilities as opposed to non-disabled and this is obviously a concern which remains to be dealt with.

I endorse the amendment which provides support for jurors with physical disabilities and I support the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act under Bill S-5 which will work to prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities within the federal sphere.

A key amendment adds a provision that requires employers and service providers to accommodate the needs of persons who are protected under the act.

The duty to accommodate is a concept viewed by persons with disabilities as being essential to their integration and inclusion in society. The concept has been recognized and adapted legislatively through all provincial human rights jurisdictions.

Duty to accommodate affects how we work, travel and communicate. It affects basically all of the fundamental aspects of social, political and economic life for persons with disabilities.

For the past 12 years disabled people have been fighting for a law that provides duty to accommodate in our federal human rights act. It has taken a long time because government agendas have taken precedence over the quality of life of persons with disabilities.

The present bill represents the perspective of the disabled. It provides for a positive duty to accommodate those with disabilities subject to a standard of undue hardship.

Undue hardship is defined with respect to health, safety and cost. It is important that undue hardship be defined. It is important to have a human rights policy base for limitations of undue hardship that will ensure a meaningful duty to accommodate people with disabilities.

This bill is, however, by no means perfect. The bill needs to include the assurance that the human rights system at the federal level is effectively working by ensuring that the training of investigators at the commission level happens.

A further review of the human rights act and the human rights commission system is also needed. The process at the present time is driven by an individual complaint system and that is problematic. Accessibility complaints usually take two years for resolution. Usually resolution comes in the form of one person's complaint being answered. It does not, however, address the same complaint that many others may have across the country. In other words, the bill does not deal with systemic problems. It is a complaint driven process.

In conclusion, Bill S-5 and its gains for persons with disabilities has been a long time coming. There is still a great distance to go in closing the equality gap for the disabled in this country. Bill S-5 is a start and I urge that we move quickly to pass the bill into legislation.

It is our duty to accommodate the dreams and the plans of our disabled citizens. They have as much, if not more, to contribute to this country as anyone. For that reason, I am in support of this first step.

[Cancer, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, every year 60,000 Canadians die of cancer. This month the Canadian Cancer Society hopes to raise $21 million in its fight against the disease.

We can support the society's efforts through donations of time and money but the government can go one step further. It can adopt the Canadian Cancer Society's recommendations to prevent future cases of lung cancer by abandoning its plan to water down the sponsorship provisions of the Tobacco Act, investing in medical research to levels comparable with other industrialized countries and restore its $3.5 billion cut to the health care system.

The government must also investigate environmental links to cancer. The CAW for example has made cancer the number one concern of the workplace environment, a model for the future.

The New Democratic Party congratulates the Canadian Cancer Society for its important work. We will continue our commitment to fight for medical research, quality care and prevention strategies for all Canadians.

[Access To Information Act, April 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak today to Bill C-216, an act to amend the Access to Information Act. The amendment aims at changing the definition of government institutions in the Access to Information Act to include any department or ministry of the Government of Canada, any body or office listed or any crown corporation as defined in the Administration Act.

I support the spirit of the bill if the spirit is indeed to provide Canadians with greater access and knowledge about the operations of government. As a New Democrat I support greater access to information and greater accountability of government for spending decisions. I hope that everyone in the House feels the same.

However, I would like to see an amendment to the bill which would exclude the CBC from its jurisdiction. The reasons which make this exclusion necessary are obvious. If the CBC were to be subject to the Access to Information Act it would no longer be able to operate as a public broadcaster at arm's length from the government. This would undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the CBC which is mandated by parliament to provide a public broadcasting system pursuant to the Broadcasting Act.

If Bill C-216 defines the CBC as a government institution then any information the CBC has in its possession would be accessible to everyone. This could seriously hurt journalistic credibility and it would seriously hurt the public's access to important information which we depend on our public broadcaster to provide.

Let me make a case in point. Last month the CBC did an excellent series of radio documentaries on the growing influence of the Hells Angels in Canadian society. This program would not have seen the light of day if dozens of individuals had not been guaranteed anonymity. Their safety, their lives and the lives of their families depended on the anonymity provided by the corporation.

Current affairs and news programming depend on an intricate system of secure information, guaranteeing sources, building up contacts and guaranteeing confidentiality. All of these processes would be made impossible if the CBC became open to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.

Under the bill in its present form, the CBC would no longer be able to protect its sources. All past, present and future records under all CBC departments would be subject to access applications. A public broadcaster cannot operate in this fashion.

This is not to say that the operations of the CBC should remain outside of public scrutiny. The CBC is fully accountable in terms of providing information to parliament and to the Canadian public. There are ways of holding the CBC accountable which do not undermine the very mandate with which it has been charged.

If adopted in its present form, Bill C-216 would substantially impede the CBC's journalistic and programming capabilities. I will therefore not be able to support it.

[Health, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, over 30 years ago our government set up independent drug testing in the wake of the thalidomide disaster, a disaster which made Canadians realize we needed control over drug safety and that health outranked cost considerations.

Today, rather than protect public safety, the government is interested in the controlling of costs at all costs. To save a few bucks the Liberals threaten to put many more Canadian lives in jeopardy by giving effective control over drug approval to the drug manufacturers themselves. How does the health minister justify substituting commercial and corporate interests for the public interest?

[National Parks Act, April 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the member Churchill River and the NDP parks critic, I am very glad to speak on Bill C-38, an act to amend the National Parks Act.

The purpose of this bill is to establish the boundaries for a new national park in Canada's western Arctic called Tuktut Nogait. New Democrats support Bill C-38. Tuktut Nogait national park is an important step toward the completion of the Parks Canada objective for national parks, to protect for all time representative natural areas of Canadian significance in a system of national parks and to encourage public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of this natural heritage so as to leave it unimpaired for future generations.

Our system of national parks and national historic sites is one of Canada's, indeed the world's, greatest treasures. This noble effort began a century ago with Banff National Park and continues with Tuktut Nogait today. This vision for the preservation of Canada's natural spaces rests on a fundamental principle to protect a representative sample of each of our special landscapes. Canada was divided into 39 distinct national park natural regions with physiology and vegetation as a basis for policy to achieve this goal.

To date just over 60% of this goal has been completed. A great deal of work and political leadership is required to complete the vision. Unfortunately it is not expected that the noble effort of the national park system will be completed by the Liberal government by the year 2000, another failed promise.

Tuktut Nogait national park is representative of the tundra hills, a unique region of the Canadian shield. This tundra landscape includes spectacular river canyons, areas of scientific interest, archeological sites and abundant wildlife. Elevated areas within the park's boundaries are designated as refugia. A refugium is an area with a population of organisms that can survive through periods of unfavourable conditions. Northern Yukon is the only other comparable area of the mainland Arctic with similar biota. Canadians will recall that this government abandoned a glacial refugium in Alberta.

In this park evidence of human use and occupation over the last millennium exists. Protection of the hundreds of archeological sites is imperative. The knowledge garnered from these sites will provide answers to questions on the development of Thule Inuit culture in the regions and the origins of Inuit society.

Visitors to the park will experience a pristine Arctic wilderness. The wilderness, birds and vegetation cover the spectrum of northern species. Abundant caribou, musk ox, wolves, birds and other northern wildlife will be protected by the national park designation.

It was a community idea to protect this area, a portion of the Melville Hills east of Inuvik in the Northwest Territories, which led to a community prepared conservation plan in 1989. The primary goals contained in the 1996 parks agreement were to protect the Bluenose caribou herd and its calving and post-calving habitat and to protect for all time a representative natural area of Canadian significance.

Paulatuk, the closest community to the park, recognized the importance of this area and acted upon the community wishes to preserve this integral part of its history, culture and livelihood. On behalf of the New Democrats I would like to commend Paulatuk for the initiative, dedication and perseverance to establish Tuktut Nogait.

Seven years of consultation and discussions led to the consensus decision of 1996. The boundaries are set out in Bill C-38 in accordance with the 1996 agreement signed by the Government of Canada, the Northwest Territories, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Paulatuk Community Corporation and the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee.

The boundaries for Tuktut Nogait are unique for several reasons. I ask my colleagues to pay attention to what I am about to say on this point. It is important that we understand the very complex origin of this national park to better appreciate the incredible levels of co-operation and consensus building which led to the bill before the House today.

Tuktut Nogait lies within three land claim agreement areas: the Inuvialuit Settlement Region or ISR, which encompasses approximately 58% of the park area; the Nunavut Settlement Region including about 36% of the area; and the Sahtu Dene and Metis claim area including about 6% of the park.

I call upon my colleagues to imagine the consultation, discussions and negotiations that evolved across the years between the different parties united in a common purpose to protect this significant natural area.

Tuktut Nogait national park includes over 16,000 square kilometres. The parties came together around the absolute necessity of protecting the core calving ground vital for the Bluenose herd's survival. The parks name, Tuktut Nogait, means caribou calves in the Siglik dialect, a direct reference to the park's purpose. I also note at this time that this area is important to the Bathurst herd in addition to the Bluenose herd.

The reason for explaining the significance of the consensus forming is relevant when one considers recent efforts to change the boundaries of the park. It is an issue that will arise during committee submissions and will contribute to the final decisions on the ratification of Bill C-38 boundaries as outlined today.

As my colleagues are no doubt aware, there is a magnetic anomaly that straddles the Tuktut Nogait's western boundary. This anomaly is said to rival the Voisey's Bay discovery and, if developed, could be a source of jobs and fiscal rewards to the region and of mineral extraction interests. Some 80% of the anomaly is located outside the park boundaries. In 1994 Darnley Bay Resources Limited of Toronto voluntarily relinquished exploration rights to the remaining 20%, the area within the park boundaries.

Now the developers have changed their minds and Darnley Bay launched a recent effort to delete an approximate 415 square kilometres from the park boundaries.

This may not seem like such a big concern, especially when to most observers looking at a flat map the proposed area the developers wish to delete appears insignificant when compared to the overall scope of the park. Nothing could be further from the truth for several reasons. First and foremost, the thought that it is okay to shrink a national park boundary to permit mineral development is reprehensible.

It would be hypocritical for the government to chastise our American neighbours regarding development impacts upon the Porcupine herd calving grounds in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Reserve while allowing development to harm the Bluenose herd calving grounds.

The second reason is that the location of the proposed deletion is crucial to the overall biodiversity of the park. The deleted area includes a section of the Hornaday River, critical char spawning habitat and acknowledged in company reports as part of Paulatuk's summer and fall fishing areas.

The third reason is that it is the summer and fall caribou harvesting area. A founding principle for the degrees of co-operation exhibited by all participants during the consensus process was the need to ensure the continuing provision of traditional sustenance and subsistence for the Inuvialuit, the Sahtu Dene, the Gwich'in and Metis people.

Also the proposed deletion includes the most probable main entry point to the park. Does a mining interest wish to dictate access to the park or collect gate fees? The proposed deletion area is located in the Inuvialuit settlement area. They are in agreement with the developers and the territorial government for exclusion. The Sahtu Dene and the Gwich'in are opposed to the deletion. They fear the impact such development may have upon the core calving and post-calving grounds.

As parliamentarians it is our duty to question the abrupt change in direction, a switch from the preservation of lands and heritage to a wish for development and its impact upon future generations.

Why the sudden need for a deletion, an exemption by one participant that runs counter to the continuing process and perseverance of the other participants? Are extracted ores more valuable than the survival of the 100,000 strong Bluenose caribou herd?

For centuries this herd has helped support northern peoples across Canada's Arctic, spanning thousands of kilometres and dozens of communities. Does one mineral discovery merit the impact upon all native northern peoples?

Why the sudden need to change the boundaries after seven years of consensus building? Will the addition of an approximate 20% in development areas increase southern investment in the project for the benefit of those lucky shareholders involved?

I will take this moment to state clearly that the New Democratic Party is neither anti-mining nor anti-development. We believe, though, that the development can occur and support projects that are environmentally, socially and economically sustainable.

Contrary to recent decisions by the Liberal government such as the Cheviot decision where a federal minister okayed the destruction of fish habitat, the NDP fully support the sustainable development principles as described by the Brundtland commission in 1987:

Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

I believe the principle of sustainable development is the reason Paulatuk set out to protect this area in 1989 and led to the bill before us today.

I call to the attention of my colleagues that this is not a recent discovery or find. The first clue to the anomaly was identified in 1955, over 40 years ago. In 1969 the geological survey of Canada described the Paulatuk find, titled the Darnley Bay gravity anomaly, as the strongest gravity anomaly in North America.

The following year a magnetic anomaly was identified coincident with the gravity anomaly. I am not a geologist, obviously. However I can understand the excitement in the mining industry during the early 1990s when sampling of basic sills identified minor amounts of copper, nickel and platinum group elements. At that time things were looking pretty good for extraction and the environmental implications on the Bluenose core calving grounds.

After decades of speculation about a significant mineral find surrounding Paulatuk, exploration permits were awarded to Darnley Bay Resources. In 1994, after the sampling results were favourable to extraction, Darnley Bay voluntarily relinquished those permits within the park boundaries.

Why the change? Is it the depressed metals markets? What became of the founding principles for the co-operation to protect critical wildlife habitat and to preserve a representative example of the Tundra Hills natural region?

Those are the questions and answers we still have to discuss at committee. They are some of the questions and answers we will face as parliamentarians as we defend the 1996 boundaries.

I thank the government for displaying a rare instance of intestinal fortitude and moral conscience in an environmental matter. The minister of heritage has changed direction on park commercialization levels on occasion. The lack of Liberal foresight and planning and a lack of respect for Jasper National Park, a world heritage site, resulted in an international condemnation and a terse letter from UNESCO regarding the Cheviot decision.

Liberal ignorance in habitat protection through the Cheviot decision evolved into legal challenges and Canadians learning about another international embarrassment via their morning newspapers and televised news conferences. Canadians are continually learning about poor Liberal habitat policies and the repeated loss of our reputation as protectors of wilderness areas and stewards of a clean environment.

The decision to protect and to honour the 1996 agreement on the Tuktut Nogait national park boundaries is a rare occurrence for the government and a decision that the New Democratic Party will support.

As Bill C-38 is discussed at committee I urge my colleagues not to be swayed by submissions and witnesses that put forward a variety of arguments to promote boundary changes. As a submitter presents facts and data that suggest 5% of the core calving area can be removed, I ask them to question where that 5% is located and the significant effect that a small 5% slice could have upon the overall Bluenose caribou population; the loss of char spawning areas; where muskox will mate; the further loss of Canada's extremely limited refugium areas; and the impact upon fragile wild flowers and lichens where few footsteps have tread.

When jobs are discussed they should remember the capacity for sustainable development and the unforgiving limits the tundra environment allows for habitat and species recovery, and the centuries required to repair basic intrusion.

When socioeconomics are discussed they should remember the benefits that are presented through eco-tourism and the unique variety of enterprises available to the community: bird watching, hiking, camping, natural appreciation, natural and environmental sciences, archeology and photography. The list continues.

Ten years of studies of the Bluenose herd have identified the necessity for the preservation and the location of core calving and post-calving areas. They should not be swayed by pro-development arguments that more studies are required.

We must protect the current boundaries of Bill C-38, the designation of Tuktut Nogait national park in the National Parks Act for generations yet unborn. To shrink a national park boundary to permit mineral development is reprehensible and should not be tolerated.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address my comments today regarding Bill C-36 and my concerns regarding education in Nova Scotia and the country at large.

With this budget and with the policies and directions this Liberal government has implemented over the past five years, it has created an educational deficit in this country which threatens our ability and our children's ability to grow and prosper in the future.

In my home province of Nova Scotia funding for post-secondary education has been ravished since the federal Liberals imposed their severe cuts to education with the Canada health and social transfer in 1995. The provincial Liberals have matched the feds cut for cut. The results are rapidly rising tuition fees, spiralling student debt and a serious threat to accessibility.

Here are some sad, I would say outrageous, facts regarding public education in my province since the advent of Liberal cost cutting federally and subsequently provincially. Between 1993 and 1996 $50 million has been taken from provincial grants to school boards. That is nearly a 10% decrease. I have personally watched the tortured process by which school boards fight over whether to cut full day elementary classes, band, speech therapists or class sizes. In the late hours of these meetings we hear them bickering over elements of education, none of which are frills but are all essential to the growth of our students. Yet that is what they are being reduced to doing now.

Between 1994 and 1996 there have been 764 teaching positions cut across the province of Nova Scotia. That was a 7.5% reduction. Meantime enrolment has dropped by just 1.1%. Is it any wonder some classrooms are overcrowded and many teachers stressed out? Specialist teachers have been hit especially hard. By 1997 the education funding review work group identified a $33 million deficiency in special education funding. All these cuts are directly related to the severe cuts imposed by the Canada health and social transfer.

In Nova Scotia there is also a new twist to public education which has been brought about again by Liberal cuts. There is not enough money for textbooks, special needs students or the replacement of some of the overcrowded and substandard schools, yet the Liberals found the cash to indulge in a new scam which is called public-private partnerships to build new high tech schools. The government has gone into partnership with some companies such as IBM and Systemhouse and others of its corporate backers to build and run schools. They will not reveal the terms of the partnerships or the long term costs.

When Liberal friends and corporate backers who make up the consortium building the private schools could not find the private money to finance the construction, the government quietly loaned them more than $45 million interest free.

Here are some more facts about post-secondary education in my province since the budget cuts to education. In Nova Scotia funding for university and community colleges dropped from $270 million to $230 million this year. On average Canadian students who graduate now have over $24,000 debt in student loans. Declining government support means that universities must rely on tuition fees for an increasing share of their revenues. Nova Scotia students are paying more than 22% of the university revenue in their tuition, this versus a national average of 14.5%.

The average tuition for arts undergraduates in Nova Scotia is over $3,700. This is the highest in the country. On average Nova Scotia undergraduates paid $500 more than the next most expensive province, Ontario.

The cost of living for Canadian students in 1996 was over $12,000. Expenses for an undergraduate arts student for the 1997-98 academic year at Dalhousie totalled $9,000 in tuition, room and board and additional fees. Only the University of Toronto was higher among 10 universities surveyed by Statistics Canada.

It is not a surprise that Dalhousie, one of the proudest and oldest universities in the country, is now on strike. There are 117 professors at Dalhousie who have been laid off. This university is now in the throes of chaos and again it has to do with our lack of commitment to post-secondary education in this country.

I think it is no surprise that the people of Nova Scotia have voted very roundly against what they see as Liberal cost cutting to some of their essential services and that includes education. They have voted with their ballot against Liberal policies in Nova Scotia and continue to do so also federally because they are concerned about the future of their children. I think this budget is going nowhere to allay their fears on that score.

[Hobby Farmers, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on February 24, I asked the Minister of Finance on the eve of his balanced budget to address the serious concerns about funding for post-secondary deaf students in Ontario.

Beginning on April 1, 1998 funding for post-secondary education and disability related post-secondary school support will no longer be the responsibility of vocational rehabilitation services in the ministry of community and social services.

Currently students in the VRS program receive financial support to cover direct costs such as tuition and books as well as indirect costs such as a living allowance, interpreters and note takers.

Through VRS counsellors these students also receive advice and support in planning their educational and vocational careers.

As of April 1 these students will be required to seek assistance instead through the ministry of education and training's Ontario student assistance program and through special needs offices in colleges and universities.

The Ontario Association for the Deaf has identified a number of specific concerns around this new formula. First, eligibility for financial assistance will be based on a family's income as determined by a needs test. It is anticipated that many current VRS students will not be eligible for OSAP and that will impose immediate and significant financial burdens on families.

Second, special needs offices in colleges and universities are already overworked and understaffed. In addition, they do not have the experience or expertise to meet the unique communications needs of deaf and hard of hearing students. Although a total of $4.9 million is being transferred to meet these students' access needs, no details have been announced about how much is being allocated to each institution and how these funds will be used.

Third, the valuable consultation and support currently provided to students by VRS counsellors will cease on April 1. No provision has been made to replace this essential vocational planning support.

Finally, many deaf and hard of hearing students are not academically ready for post-secondary studies. No accommodation has been made for the funding of upgrading and retraining programs.

Parents and students are extremely upset, confused and angry with these new developments. The domino effect for deaf students and all disabled students continues as the government continues to balance its budget on the backs of the most vulnerable.

Disabled students are being short changed in their educational opportunities. This will seriously weaken their employability and this will perpetuate the cycle of unemployment and underemployment that has plagued people with disabilities historically.

I ask the government to seriously consider the additional cost of education facing deaf students and all students with disabilities. I ask the government to keep the promises it made to the disabled in its 1996 task force report “The Will to Act” and to start doing the right thing for the disabled in this country.

[Petitions, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present four petitions on behalf of citizens from across the country including my riding of Dartmouth. They are very concerned about the effect of the multilateral agreement on investment on labour, environment, arts and culture.

They would like to see parliament reject the current framework of the MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve a rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the environment and the ability of governments to act in the public interest.