1988-09-13

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that 1 have received a communication notifying me that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation,

-namely, Chris Speyer, Esquire, Member of the electoral district of Cambridge, by resignation. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table, under Standing Order 67(2), a report from the Minister responsible for Regulatory Affairs entitled Regulatory Reform: Making it Work. This report outlines the progress made by the Government in improving the federal regulatory procedures and programs. I think it will be of interest to all parliamentarians.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition 332-5294.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventieth report of the Striking Committee.



NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['Perhaps there could be consultations among the parties in order to reach agreement on how the Bill is to be dealt with, possibly later on?']
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare. These preliminary findings reflect the results of the committee's intensive investigation into the health care system of Canada and its funding.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a very important petition today from quite a number of families who are very concerned about child care. They state that whereas families throughout Canada need high quality, available, affordable child care services, and repeated recommendations have been made that these services must be available for families, and that the Government of Canada must introduce legislation containing

September 13, 1988
Petitions
national objectives and appropriate mechanisms for the development of a comprehensive non-profit child care system accessible to all families throughout Canada, and whereas the child care Act proposed by the Government contains neither national objectives nor the necessary funding arrangements and will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care, therefore, in the best interests of young children, women and families, the petitioners request very strongly that Parliament withdraw the child care Act forthwith.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, 1 too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 106 to present a petition similar to the one just presented.
It is signed by several persons from southwestern Ontario who find the Government's Bill on child care to be woefully lacking in national standards. Finally, they state that since the proposed child care Act is not in the best interests of young children, women or families in Canada they call upon the Government to withdraw the Bill immediately.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have a petition concerning the issue of child care. People who have signed the petition indicate their concern that families throughout Canada need high quality, available, affordable child care services. They believe that the legislation which is before the House of Commons at the present time does not provide that.
They state that the legislation contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements, that it will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care, and therefore the interests of young children, women and families of Canada will not be met. The petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to withdraw the child care legislation forthwith.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions. The first is signed by residents of the City of Winnipeg, and the Towns of Fort Whyte, Oak Bluff and Sanford, towns in Manitoba. The second one is signed by residents of Winnipeg and the Town of Kamerno. The third is signed by residents of Medicine Hat, Alberta.
The three petitions state that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that in the course of his bilateral trade negotiations Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised and that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the U.S.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by residents of Ontario who live in Sault Ste. Marie, Gravenhurst, Huntsville and Dundas. They state that whereas it has been repeatedly recommended that to make child care services available for families the Government of Canada must introduce legislation containing national objectives and appropriate mechanisms for the development of comprehensive non-profit child care system accessible to all families throughout Canada, therefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to withdraw the child care Act forthwith.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents pursuant to Standing Order 106.
The petitioners feel that the child care Act proposed by the Government contains neither national objectives nor the necessary funding arrangements and will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care. Since they believe that the child care Act is not in the best interests of young children, women or families, they are asking that the Government withdraw the child care Act immediately from further consideration.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have the opportunity and privilege to present a further petition on behalf of a number of other constituents who are concerned that the existing procedures regarding the processing of refugees has broken down. Basically, they are asking Parliament to move quickly to ensure that refugee applicants have their applications processed efficiently and effectively.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure and privilege to present a petition signed by 47 Canadians, residents mainly of the Olds area and of Calgary, Alberta.
The petitioners oppose the initiatives of child care. They point out that a considerable number of Canadians believe that the state and their tax dollars have no place in the area of child care which is a parental responsibility, except in cases of demonstrated financial need.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to act upon the problem of this limitation in choice of child care and restore to the system fairness and justice by opposing any form of national child care policy which does not provide equality of choice, therefore leaving the child care decision-making process with the parent, where it rightly belongs.
September 13, 1988


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of southern Ontario, specifically from the Cities of Stratford, Toronto and Ottawa.
The petitioners protest and state that families throughout Canada need high quality, available and affordable child care services. It has been repeatedly recommended, they say, that to make these services available to families the Government of Canada must introduce legislation containing national objectives and appropriate mechanisms for the development of a comprehensive non-profit child care system accessible to all families throughout Canada.
The Bill proposed by the Government, they note, does not contain either national objectives or necessary funding arrangements. It will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care. Consequently, it is not in the best interests of young children, women or families in Canada.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to withdraw the child care Act forthwith.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Immediately before Your Honour puts the motion I wonder if I might make an inquiry of the House. There was an understanding among the Parties that this Bill would go to Committee of the Whole House and be dealt with in all stages this morning. I wonder if I can inquire as to whether or not it is possible to get unanimous consent to have the motion read that the Bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not really know where the Minister of State gets the impression that there have been some understandings regarding moving this legislation into Committee of the Whole. I would not want to rule that out as
Human Rights
a possibility. However, I think that it would be appropriate that further discussions take place now.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that we should proceed as per today's Order Paper. If there are any changes later in the day or later this morning we can interrupt those proceedings and perhaps make some changes. However, at the moment I think we should proceed as per today's Order Paper.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition was consulted, and it is true the critic for the Bill gave his consent to proceeding with consideration in Committee of the Whole immediately after second reading. However, I have no idea how many speakers there will be on all sides of the House, so I really cannot say whether we will finish the proceedings on the Bill this morning, and I cannot agree with the Minister's suggestion that the House be asked to deal with all stages of the Bill before 1 p.m. I would ask him to be patient with us, and with the Bill, and I think that by the end of the day he will be satisfied.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, I suggest that Your Honour should proceed to read the motion in its original form.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps there could be consultations among the parties in order to reach agreement on how the Bill is to be dealt with, possibly later on?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (for Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill C-147, an Act to establish the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Speaker:: On debate the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) has the floor.


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a singular honour to present this Bill before the House, because it is a distinctive and important way for this Parliament and this country to share in the world-wide recognition of the fortieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That achievement, so many years ago, was an historic turning point in the recognition that

September 13, 1988
Human Rights
the rights of men and women do not depend upon the good will, the charity, or the caprice of rulers and governments, but are inherent within being human.
It is true that since 1948 men and women throughout this world have suffered tragic, tortuous abuses of their rights. That should not blind us to what has been achieved in the name of humanity. Among those achievements is the building up of a body of international law to which Governments can appeal and to which the critics of Governments can appeal. Although that body of law does not have the enforcement power that we could wish, it nonetheless provides a standard, a criterion by which Governments, institutions, and individuals can be measured and judged.
This remarkable document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has provided the foundation for the development of various declarations by Governments, including the Parliament of Canada. It can be said with accuracy that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very much among the progeny of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Therefore, we can take heart from observing how, in 40 years, there has developed throughout the world a respect for the rights of people to be codified, articulated, and clarified in law, so that people can have some measure of civilized and rational defence against abuses. It is not enough to have only law; there must be power. Part of the power in any age, but particularly in this communication age, is knowledge, hence the importance of the proposal of Bill C-147, an Act to establish the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.
The intent of this Bill and of this international centre will be to gather knowledge, assemble it, and disseminate it; to assist people seeking to enlarge their understanding and expand their knowledge, both within this country and beyond, so that the rights of men and women can enjoy an increased respect over what they have today.
I am very glad to say that this initiative was first recommended in June, 1986, in the report of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations, whose eminent House of Commons Chairman, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin), I am glad to say, is present in the House.
I am grateful to have had the honour of participating in the work of that committee, and of seeing that an idea conceived and articulated in that committee's report is now gaining the possibility of legislative fruition today. Its practical value has since been underlined by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, the Parliamentary Group on Haiti, and the Special Committee on the Peace Process in Central America.
We can note that the Bill's provisions reflect the general philosophy and approach outlined in the June, 1987, report entitled International Co-operation for the Development of
Human Rights and Democratic Institutions. This report was the result of a consultation involving several hundred Canadian and international organizations and individuals which was undertaken on our behalf by two special rapporteurs, Professor Gisele Cote-Harper and Dr. John Courtney. As Chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Rights I am very glad to add my voice, as I trust there will be expression from other members of that committee in this debate, to support the general thrust and intent of this legislation and the centre to which it will give life.
The centre's mandate will be based on the International Bill of Human Rights. It will endeavour to conduct its affairs in a way characteristic of the country in which it will serve, and under whose authority and by whose support it will serve, namely, it will look out to the world. It will not be confined to this country alone. Its mandate will add a new and unique element to Canada's efforts to promote human rights internationally. It will offer Canadian experience and resources to groups and agencies in other countries to assist them to develop their own institutions in support of rights and freedoms.
The centre will be authorized to provide technical assistance, training, and resources for the development of electoral, legislative, judicial, and legal law enforcement and correctional systems. It may assist non-governmental groups such as churches, co-operatives, trade unions, professional associations, and other community-based associations in their effort to gain a stronger voice for citizens. It may also support organizations and programs which seek to secure an equality of rights for disadvantaged groups including women, native peoples, minorities, the disabled, and the aging. It will be enabled to do so within our own borders, for this centre will not be confined to the city in which it will have its headquarters, but it will be given the legislative authority and capability to conduct its work throughout this country, as it will be authorized to conduct its work in other countries within the law of those countries.
Given the need to respect the rights of men and women, given the need for knowledge to strengthen the efforts of legislative parliamentary committees, and the efforts of individuals, groups, and organizations within this country to do precisely that, it is absolutely imperative that there be such a centre which can provide the knowledge and the expertise required to make the protests, the initiatives, and the desires of such groups and persons effective.
An examination of this legislation will arouse in us a greater concern for carrying out the cause of human rights in this country. Recently we had put before the House a report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights entitled Human Rights and Aging in Canada. It is one example, and I refer to it simply as an illustration of the need to recognize, perhaps with a lack of consciousness on the part of many Canadians, how the rights of men and women can be abused, the right to seek employment with some expectation that the person will be judged only on his or her merits, the right to have the normal
September 13, 1988

personal freedoms of a human being in this country, regardless of what institution a person is in due to age and infirmity. Such rights-elementary, basic-are not being honoured throughout Canada at this time, as our report shows.
We have made a beginning through that report, as other committees have made a beginning on behalf of other rights and in protest against other abuses. But we need to have an ongoing concern expressed by people who will be fully and wholeheartedly devoted to this cause, and this we will find in this proposed centre.
I am glad to say that, especially in view of the mandate that it has and the responsibility that it must exercise, this centre will be an independent corporation, it will receive statutory funding, increasing from $1 million in its first year of operation to $5 million in its fifth year. In subsequent years, financing will be provided through parliamentary appropriations.
The Government believes that this should be done on a multi-year basis, following parliamentary reviews every five years of the centre's operations. This will give assurance to Canadian and international partners of the independence and the stability of the centre, but at the same time the parliamentary reviews will ensure that the operations of the centre are consistent with the broad lines of Canadian foreign policy and the objectives of our development co-operation program.
You will note from the legislation that the centre's 13-person board of directors will include at least nine Canadians and three nationals of developing countries. Ten members will be appointed by Governor in Council. These in turn will select and appoint the members from developing countries. A selection committee has been established to make recommendations on the composition of the board. It comprises Mr. Gordon Fairweather, Chairman, formerly the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and at one time a distinguished Member of this House, and as well, Mr. Marc Brault, Mrs. Margaret Catley-Carlson, Mrs. Francine Fournier, Mr. Rene Lacoste, Dr. William Saywell and Mr. Justice Walter Tarnopolsky. It is expected that the committee will provide its recommendations early this fall.
The centre's primary focus will be on activities of benefit to developing countries. We readily believe that this is not only in the tradition of Canada but that the need for it has never been greater. When one surveys the human rights records of various countries throughout the world using for reference, for example, the human rights guide offered by the publication The Economist, it is clear that the human rights record in so many developing countries is a tragic and sorry sight. Part of the need of development is the development of a greater respect for human rights.
Notwithstanding, the centre may engage in co-operation with developed countries as well. Programs for developing countries will be funded by means of the parliamentary
Human Rights
appropriations provided in the Bill. Programs of co-operation with developed countries, however, will be financed from contributions received from public and private sources. The name of the centre is that recommended by the special parliamentary committee to which I referred earlier.
We believe that by basing the centre's mandate on the International Bill of Human Rights, this centre will ensure that its purpose is recognized throughout Canada and abroad, as a valid consequence of Canada's international responsibilities, and that it will be an important application of the report of that special committee, which laid such stress on Canada's foreign policy, having a place not only for recommendations and hopes, but also a much greater place for actions and achievements. We have here one of those achievements, the achievement of this international centre for the study of human rights, which will at least have the potential to bring into being in Canada an expanded knowledge of and a concern for human rights here and throughout the world.
I am very proud to present this legislation as an eloquent and practical reaffirmation of the commitment of Canada's Government and of the Parliament of Canada to constructive international action for the advancement of human rights and democratic institutions.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) on his presentation on the purposes and objectives of this institute, and Bill C-147, which is the Bill to effectuate that institution, the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.
This concept is not something that has suddenly been brought forward in the last minute. Indeed, it is something that has been given a great deal of thought. In June, 1985, a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate was created, which involved members from all three Parties of the House of Commons and from the Parties in the Senate. In its report called Independence and Internationalism, which was the result of its studies, which came out in June, 1986, it made a specific recommendation on this very subject. In that recommendation, it called for the establishment of an international institute of human rights and democratic development with carefully prepared guidelines for supporting activities by non-governmental organizations. This recommendation, found on page 105 of that report, comes from the research and concerns that were a result of a year's study of the human rights situation throughout the world, in an overview of international development. It resulted in what is known as the Simard-Hockin report, from which 1 have just read.
Following this presentation, there was then a Standing Committee of the House of Commons on External Affairs and International Trade-the regular standing committee-which met during the years of 1986 and 1987, and it came out with a report. The Government replied to the Simard-Hockin report, first of all, favourably and said that it was going to try to look

September 13, 1988
Human Rights
into this matter and that it would be in a better position to consider this at a later time but that it was supportive of the idea. That idea was given further support by the External Affairs Committee in its report called For Whose Benefit. In that particular report, it said that it favoured the establishment of such a committee, such an institute.
This is not some new idea. It is something which emerges from two very extensive studies by two very reputable committees in their recommendation that such an institute be established. It is with great pleasure, therefore, that I would add the voice of our caucus to support the idea, in principle, of this institute.
We have to say that one of the main concerns that has emerged, however, from our studies in these committees is that the situation of Canada giving development assistance to countries abroad that are in clear violation of the human rights of the citizens of those countries, seems to be misunderstood, and if not, is at least causing confusion on the parts of the inhabitants of those nations. It seems to me, as if it were, in some people's minds, counterproductive for us to be helping Governments that are repressing people in the name of helping them. Because of the state of confusion, because of this apparent inconsistency and paradox, it has been necessary for us to examine and watch very carefully our relationship with those countries. How do we conduct our international assistance and how do we help those countries to foster human rights abroad are questions that must be asked. That is why this institute can be a cornerstone or one of the building blocks in this process of trying to help developing nations to establish better human rights situations.
We have to recognize that many of the developing countries, in fact many of the developed countries, carry out gruesome violations of human rights. Haiti, a country receiving development assistance, has a Government that is repressing freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and even the freedom to live of those who want to express any disagreement with the Government. In light of this kind of violation of human rights, we see confusion. There is confusion on the part of Canadians who ask how it is that we are giving assistance to a Government like that of Haiti when it is thoroughly repressing its people. Regrettably it is not only in Haiti but in other nations throughout the world that human rights are being brutally repressed. In some there is no such thing as human rights.
Look at the situation in Burundi. I tried to bring to the attention of the Standing Committee on Human Rights that we must look at what is happening in Burundi because of threatened genocide, not only threatened but, in fact, genocide of the Hutu tribe and majority of the people by a minority repressive regime. Here is a gruesome example of genocide. While it is correct to criticize the policies of the Soviet Union, Chile and so on in terms of their failure to live up to the idea of human rights, brutal genocide and the massacre of tens of
thousands of people is going on elsewhere. This is the decimation of human lives on a gross and massive basis. Something must be done urgently in our international relations about the way in which we deal with human rights in other countries and the way in which we deal with our international development assistance to those countries.
The same thing could be said about the aboriginal people in East Timor and in Irian Jaya. The oppression by Indonesia of those people and the genocide which has taken place over many years is again another example of brutal murder and slaughter on a wholesale scale. It is the purposeful and wilful starvation of masses of people. Yet Indonesia receives international development assistance from Canada. Real and gruesome situations such as this led our committee to say that Canada must look at the question of human rights and our relationship to development assistance programs in the Third World. The Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade raised these questions and asked what Canada's policy will be.
Tragically the list goes on and on of nations where repression is part of the ordinary way of life. Canadians cannot look away and act as if these problems did not exist and blindly go on simply dealing with those countries and providing them with assistance. Some kind of action must be taken. For that reason the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade made some strong recommendations about what must be done, at least in the area of international development aid. In order to be able to be objective and fair the report said that for the development assistance program on the whole the committee saw merit in developing a classification grid for recipient countries that would provide incentives for good behaviour as well as penalties for poor human rights performance. Without minimizing the difficulties of such a system of categorization, the report continued, the committee put forward as a basis for consideration a suggested category system.
Let there be, first of all, a category called "human rights negative". This would apply in extreme cases, to those judged by the international community to be guilty of persistent, gross and systematic violations. In other words, the kinds of violations to which I have been referring, gross slaughters and genocide. The committee, proposed a classification grid system which would define that kind of repression.
The second category was a "human rights watch" for cases of less or variable concern where serious allegations have been made, but with many grey areas and where development progress is still possible.
The third category we recommended was "human rights satisfactory", which has an obvious meaning. Finally, we had "human rights positive".
With a classification grid we would, as a country, be able to say that if a nation is in a category that is satisfactory or positive, a green light would be given for full speed ahead for providing assistance and for the way in which it is given. But if
September 13, 1988

a country were placed in a human rights category, watch or if a country were placed human rights in a negative category Canada would not be giving government to government aid but would work only on emergency relief for floods, fires and earthquakes or through non-governmental organizations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, church organizations and so on. That would be a comprehensive organized system of approach which the committee said needs to be put into place by Canada.
That was and is a sensible recommendation. The committee went on to recommend that we set up an evaluating system of nations as well. It is not enough merely to lay out the criteria. One also has to evaluate where the countries are falling in some category or other and to define under what category they fall under. This is no easy matter. It requires research, definitions and on the spot assessment. It requires the views of non-governmental organizations and of people throughout the world about what is happening in the various countries. It is not only a matter of stating criteria but also of observing what is happening in nations, assessing them in terms of this grid and classification, and then making a firm decision. It means an objective approach. It means not a willy-nilly approach of "Well, we will help this week but we will not help them that week", but a deep assessment based on criteria.
The Government replied to this report For Whose Benefit? In its reply it did not accept the committee's request that there be criteria laid down. It did not accept the recommendation that countries be categorized by this criteria. On March 3, 1988, in this House I expressed my concern. The Government said it would bring these problems before Cabinet and that countries would be judged by the Cabinet as to whether or not they would receive aid. I said that that simply was not good enough, that Cabinet is too busy to do this kind of thing. I asked in whose hands this would then be left and what kind of objective, satisfactory and comprehensive review would be made of the human rights situations in countries to which we are giving assistance. I have expressed my concern about this on many occasions, but I want to express my concern about it once again.
I hope that through the process of establishing this kind of an institute, there will be some possibility of establishing some guidelines or parameters that can be recommended to the Government so that the Government can take steps forward from its present position. Whichever Government may be in power will have to realize that objectivity and even-handedness is needed and that criteria must be set down so that we treat everyone the same. We should not treat one set of nations that may be friendly toward us in one way and those about which we are not too happy in another way. If we are to continue to be respected, we have to take an even-handed approach.
I think Canada has had a tremendously good record over the decades. The world respects Canada. The world respects our international development systems, precisely because we have
Human Rights
been able until now to maintain, perhaps through good luck as well as through good management, objectivity and fairness.
In establishing this new institute, perhaps the Government will ultimately see a role for it in establishing criteria. Perhaps the Government will not want to have this organization monitor these criteria, but hopefully it will at least encourage and invite this institute to establish criteria by which the Government, the Department of External Affairs and CIDA, the arm for international development, will be able to have guidelines and make decisions on what kind of aid and how much aid it will be giving.
We hope that this institute will develop into something that will be even greater than what has been proposed. We hope it will give advice to External Affairs and to Cabinet on situations throughout the world. Of course, as is true in every system of Government, we can anticipate that bureaucrats at External Affairs and CIDA may want all the assessing on human rights to be kept in their empires, but they would be well served if they opened up the process and invited such an institution as this to play its role.
There are a number of things about this institute that encourage me. Obviously it can do much to help nations to improve their police forces so that they would be less brutal and to provide insight, instruction, inter-relations and comparing of notes with nations throughout the world, especially those we are helping with international development.
By the way, helping a nation is a two-way street. When we help, we are also helped. As we try to learn things from Third World nations, they learn from us about ways to improve law and order, justice and equality rights. As we discuss ways to eliminate discrimination, and certainly above all to eliminate brutality and the gruesome violations of human rights, that educational process is of benefit to Canada as well as to the nations with which we are working. It is a positive program.
Education is desirable and important. Research and development will be extremely important. I do hope that this organization will refine its ability to verify human rights situations throughout the world. It is not sufficient to merely observe whether or not a nation is violating human rights. We must lay down the conditions whereby we are able to assess whether those violations have or have not taken place.
There is much research and study that this institute can do in establishing the very conditions, objectivity and criteria for us to assess whether we are helping a brutal regime or whether we are helping a regime that is truly struggling to move upward into the light of day for the betterment of its people. Therefore, this institute must receive our enthusiastic support.
It has received recommendations from two very notable committees. The Government has now placed before us Bill C-147 to implement the institution. While we are certainly favourably inclined toward such a positive step, I hope all Hon. Members will also be critical about some of the things involved in this Bill. There are some things that I think Members of the

September 13, 1988
Human Rights
House of Commons should think about. One is that the space devoted in the Bill to the objectives of this institute is very slight indeed. The description of its objectives and purposes amounts to a couple of paragraphs. The rest of the Bill deals with the institutional structure of the organization and the appointment process. Of course, those are important, but it is disappointing to see that so little is said in the short preamble about the specific objectives of this organization.
On the one hand, I am pleased that the objectives are not specifically set out, because that might provide room for us to move forward in the areas I have discussed. On the other hand, it seems to me that something of such great importance as this should at least set forth more fully and precisely the objectives of this institution. In any case, I bring this to the attention of Hon. Members. I would ask them to study the Bill and ask themselves if they would like to see anything more precise than that which is offered among some of the objectives included in the Bill.
I for one would like to see one of the duties of this institute being to develop criteria for human rights and criteria for monitoring human rights. Many things have already been done in this field through the Helsinki Accord. In terms of monitoring, many models have been put forward already. Still, it is at a crude level even at best, and this is an area in which Canada can give leadership in research and in recommending the way to monitor, understand and assess the criteria by which nations observe or violate human rights.
The second thing I would like to bring to the attention of the House is the matter of finance. We know that there is always a problem with money. All good things require money. This one is no exception.
The Bill proposes the assignment in the first year of $1 million for this institution and $2 million the next year, $3 million the next year, $4 million the next year and $5 million the next. Then Parliament would assess the situation and decide what further funds should be granted to it. It is a sensible approach to increase year by year the amount of money provided to the institute, but I am concerned about one thing, and I hope that the Hon. Member for Scarborough West and others who will deal with this Bill will consider it. That is, there are many people in non-governmental organizations in the field of human rights who feel, first, that $1 million may not be adequate to launch this institute, particularly if a large part of that amount goes for the basic infrastructure involved in setting up such an institute. They feel this is inadequate funding for the very first year, which is usually quite expensive for any organization or institution.
Second, and maybe even more important, non-governmental organizations are concerned that the Government expects the public and other institutions to support this institute. They are having a hard enough time maintaining their own work in a very competitive market. If the Government does not plan to
support this organization in its entirety and plans to call on revenues which are already supporting other organizations, it will put a great strain on their ability to maintain the good work they are doing. In that sense it would be self-defeating.
The solution to that problem, according to these organizations, and I share the view, is that the Government should support this institute and not look for support among those who contribute money to organizations like the Red Cross, Amnesty International and others. Those organizations are already under great financial strain and such competition is viewed by them and their leaders as a very real threat to their ability to provide very valuable services to the country and the world.
My third point deals with the proposed name of this institute. This is an Act to establish an International Centre For Human Rights and Democratic Development. I know what it means and you know, Sir, what it means, at least I hope we do, when we speak about human rights. However, with respect to the words "democratic development" there is some concern. Perhaps your view, Sir, of the meaning of "democratic development", or that of other Members of the House, might differ from mine. However, I think it should be pointed out that in the report made by rapporteurs studying the matter for the Government, Madam Gisele Cote-Harper and John Courtney, on pages 24 and 25, there is a concern expressed that this title may cause some difficulty for Third World nations when that organization is working with them.
We know, unfortunately, that the words "democratic republic" have been used by some of the most oppressive nations on earth. We know that the eastern bloc uses the words "democratic peoples republic" and so on and the word "democratic" can be misused. We know that the United States has often used the words "democratic government" as a euphemism for countries that will go along with American foreign policy. For that reason Third World nations, who see how the superpowers use these words to camouflage nationalistic intentions and the extension of their empires, are going to be suspicious when they see the words "democratic development".
What do those words mean? This is not some sort of savant's concern or dilettante's comments. It was expressed by those asked by the Government to study this matter. The recommendation is not to use those words but to use some others less prone to be misunderstood or misinterpreted as some kind of manipulative effort by Canada to establish our own way of life or values and interfere in the values and life systems of Third World nations. Therefore, I call on the Government to consider some revision in this area.
In conclusion, I hope the Government will proceed with this institute, widen its terms of reference, and that it will be more than merely an educational institution. Rather, I hope it will become involved in the pragmatic research that deals with criteria and monitoring of human rights violations, setting
September 13, 1988

down criteria and trying to be objective. I hope it will flourish and that its title and finances will be reviewed.
I also hope that it will pass this House in all stages today, obviously because of pressing concerns of time. In saying that, I do think there should be further discussion on an objective basis with people from the human rights field and all political Parties in order to make it the vehicle Canadians want it to be, an effective, objective and humane institution which all of us can support. I commend all those involved in its conception and now in its fulfilment.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in fundamental support of this Bill on behalf of my Party. It was introduced by my friend from Scarborough West and I congratulate him. I know he feels sincerely about the issues this legislation attempts to address. I am pleased to hear that the honourable Liberal Member has spoken in support of this Bill. That indicates fundamental support among all three Parties for the legislation.
Most Canadians, when they consider our contribution to international aid, believe we are attempting to contribute to something besides technical and economic development. I think there is a perception that Canada has certain other goals in mind when it provides aid, particularly to developing nations, with respect to the development of an environment in those countries which is respectful of human rights and pointing ultimately to the development of democratic institutions. Therefore, in a certain sense what we have here is kind of a motherhood thing, but all too often Canadians are confused by the fact that in certain nations there are crises precipitated due to infringements on the human rights of their citizens. There are any number of examples that could be cited.
Not too long ago a delegation made up of all three Parties went to Haiti to look at a situation in which democratic processes and human rights were being severely abused. The question arose as to how it is possible for Canada to provide bilateral aid or any aid that implies a relationship with a Government which would treat its citizens so badly.
My hon. colleague from the Official Opposition cited Burundi. In recent weeks Burundi has certainly raised that question once again in the minds of Canadians. We could cite Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, and Indonesia. All around the world there are developing nations which Canada tries to support in their progress, both on the economic and technological fronts, which nations call into question, such as whether Canada is in fact making any significant contribution to the development of democracy around the world.
This question has bothered parliamentarians. As my colleague indicated, a number of committees have addressed the issue. The Human Rights Committee of the House of Commons has studied, it as did the Standing Committee on
Human Rights
External Affairs and International Trade in 1987. The Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations also addressed the issue. As my colleague indicated, one of those committees indicated the necessity of having a set of criteria, a categorization of the countries to which Canada contributes aid which would relate the kind of aid and the delivery mechanisms of that aid to the human rights standards and practices of the various countries to which that aid would be distributed.
There is a great deal of concern that Canada, in providing overseas development aid, not be neutral in respect to the nature of the environment in which the people live, but rather that Canada's international aid have a purpose. One recognizes that meeting the elementary needs like food, clothing, housing, and so on are the key to the development of democracy, but you cannot have the development of democracy, even if all of those needs are met, if Governments suppress their own people, if human rights are abused, and if there is no progress toward the evolution of democracy.
This matter has been addressed in a number of ways. Two committees suggested the establishment of an international centre for human rights and democratic development. In 1986 the special joint committee recommended as follows:
-we recommend that the government consider establishing an International Institute of Human Rights and Democratic Development with carefully prepared guidelines for supporting activities by non-governmental organizations. To ensure that the Institute is sensitive to the varying national perspectives on democratic development, particularly in the Third World, we recommend that its board of directors include international representation, on the model of the International Development Research Centre.
For Whose Benefit also recommended essentially the same thing. It said:
The Committee therefore recommends that the International Institute for Human Rights and Democratic Development carry out its distinct mandate as an independent, free-standing body working closely with Canadian human rights groups and non-governmental organizations.
One of the problems which arises in considering the nature, structure, and terms of reference of this new centre is that, as I indicated earlier, it refers to itself as an International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. A number of non-governmental organizations have expressed concern that while the Bill attends, in respect to human rights, to a kind of definition by saying that for the purpose of this Act the International Bill of Rights will constitute the reference and source for adjudicating what constitutes human rights, it fails to deal with what constitutes democracy and democratic development.
One of the concerns which all committees and very many parliamentarians have had is that Canada seeks to enhance human rights and democracy by a means which would not impose on other nations our own institutions and values. I would have to say that if we are unable at least to define democracy in terms of values then we have no goal in mind. We could not possibly know what it is we are trying to further by the establishment of this kind of institution.

September 13, 1988
Human Rights
One of the serious deficiencies of this piece of legislation is its failure to deal with that. As my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party recognized, this is a significant failure which might be addressed, I suppose, by omitting, as was suggested by the report prepared by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) by quoting Harper and Courtney. However, it seems to me that the merit of that proposition might make it difficult to deal with that question in a productive way because I am not so sure that we want to eliminate the prospect that this centre may in fact further the development of democratic institutions. Therefore, perhaps the omission of that reference is not in order.
One of the means that have been recommended to ensure that there would be an objective consideration of that aspect of this centre's function, that is, the furthering of democratic institutions, was to ensure that there be broad representation and broad linkages drawn between the centre and those organizations and institutions which could contribute to the delineation of those values and criteria that would permit us to evaluate the extent to which progress is being made toward the development of democratic institutions.
As you will recall, For Whose Benefit says that this would be a free-standing body working closely with human rights groups and non-governmental organizations. The Cote-Harper report suggested that there be significant lines drawn between CIDA and the Centre for Human Rights Research and Education at the University of Ottawa. Neither of these linkages are drawn in this legislation, yet it is this kind of linkage which would permit this centre to begin to address this issue of the furthering of democratic institutions.
If we look at the structure of the board of directors we are left with another problem. If we are going to address the issue of democratic institutions there is a great danger that a too narrowly appointed board might impose an ideological set of criteria. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are those, particularly to the south of us, who consider that the only form of democracy which has any merit is that which ensures that there will be a totally free enterprise system with no state intervention, with none of the co-operation which occurs between private industry and Government in this country.
I hesitate to say this, but there may be those who could be appointed by a Government, without consultation of the sort which is called for in these various reports, to a board of directors which, from that ideological point of view, would in fact impede the kind of democratic development that we seek to have. What we want, I think, is to be able to communicate the ideal of democratic values which are common to the Canadian people. I quite frankly confess that I think Canada must reflect internationally-not by imposing its institutions or rigid definitions on other nations-a kind of Canadian consensus of the values underlying democracy and to apply criteria developed from those values in distributing aid.
We are very much concerned about this issue. We are trying to find some meaningful way of addressing it which will not impede the passage of this Bill today. Therefore, we suggest we do as this House did with respect to the Centre for International Peace and Security and the board for CSIS and have the appointees appointed with consultation among all Parties in this House. This seems to me to be a very simple means of addressing a number of those concerns which I and my colleague from the Liberal Party have addressed.
What we are saying is that we consider this legislation has merit, as the centre has merit. It is an institution that all Parties agree should be established. There may be some disagreement with respect to exactly how it will proceed to do its work, but I think that can be addressed by ensuring that all Parties in the House are involved in the appointment of the board, that the board will not be established on the basis of patronage or a too narrow ideological test.
Let me indicate that the concerns we have raised are concerns expressed to us by a number of non-governmental organizations such as OXFAM, the Canadian Coalition for International Co-operation, the Parliamentary Centre for International Studies, the North-South Institute, the Canadian Network of NGOs, Amnesty International, the Task Force on Churches and Corporate Responsibility and so on. All of these organizations had concern about the inclusion of the reference to democratic development without there being in the legislation any sense of what that means, and with the failure of any kind of connection or representation upon the board of directors of this centre from CIDA or the University of Ottawa Centre. We need some means of ensuring that the centralizing tendency of the Department of External Affairs, and the prospect of potential ideological thrust being imposed upon this board, is dealt with through a simple amendment which I will propose during the consideration of Committee of the Whole.
While this Bill has a kind of centralizing tendency in the sense that all members of the board except three are appointed by the Government, we have a decentralizing counterforce to this by moving the institution to Montreal. This does not really accomplish the kind of dispersal of involvement we would prefer. We think it would be much better to consider the structure of the board as a more reasonable way in which to ensure that there is a decentralizing aspect to the character of the board and, therefore, addressing the issue of human rights and the development of democratic institutions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions and comments. We are now entering debate under Standing Order 55(2), 20 minutes plus questions and comments.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-147, An Act to establish the International Centre for Human Rights and
September 13, 1988

Democratic Development. For personal and other reasons, I have always been greatly interested in this subject. The University of Ottawa, in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier, has had a centre to research and promote human rights since 1981.
This centre was founded in 1981 by the Senate of the University of Ottawa, at the initiative of Walter F. Tar-nopolsky, who is now a judge. This centre works very well with an annual budget of around $750,000, part of which comes from the University, part from the federal and provincial Governments, and a large part from research contracts awarded to the Institute.
Since the Government has now tabled a Bill to establish the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, I wish to make some constructive comments on this Government initiative, Mr. Speaker.
I noticed that in their speeches, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) and the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) both referred to many countries that have serious problems with human rights, fundamental rights, democratic rights. They listed a series of countries. I recall some that they named, like Haiti, Burundi, Chile, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, etc. We all know that, we see it every day in the world, and we have troubling examples of abuses of all kinds, distressing examples of the inhuman treatment inflicted by Governments that show very little concern for human rights.
So I am very glad to support this Government initiative and, for the benefit of the House, I would like to read the mission that the Government has assumed by establishing this institute or International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. I quote clause 4:
The objects of the Centre are to initiate, encourage and support cooperation between Canada and other countries in the promotion, development and strengthening of institutions and programs that give effect to the rights and freedoms enshrined in the International Bill of Human Rights, and, in carrying out those objects,
(a)	to support developmental programs and activities for the benefit of developing countries; and
(b)	to foster research and education, discourse, the exchange of information and collaboration among people and institutions in Canada, developing countries and elsewhere.
So this is a statement of the Centre's mission. And I think that if some were to criticize the mandate, or mission, it would be a good start, Mr. Speaker. It may be difficult for some Canadians to reconcile themselves with the Centre's name, to know how this concept of democratic development, for example, will be defined. We in our country understand it since democracy is part of our system; it is a constantly evolving way of life that we know well.
But one democratic right to promote-and I hope that we will exercise it soon-is the right to vote. Not everyone has freedom of expression and free speech. Not all countries on earth enjoy this right. Neither does everyone have the right to be represented.
Human Rights
When we are talking about human rights, we must not forget that these democratic rights are very important. However, the Bill gives no indication what the Government wants to do or how we define democratic rights.
The Bill fails to provide any specific plan for improving the situation with respect to human rights in the Third World. I hope that the Centre through its Board of Directors will take steps to establish a program and define areas of activity, thereby perhaps expanding its mandate somewhat to try and cover democratic rights as well and promote those rights.
I was thinking that to promote American or Canadian-style democracy in developing countries is not necessarily a good thing right away. We may have to start by offering some encouragement and promoting programs that would help these people understand that our individual freedoms, our fundamental rights are important to the development of a nation, and that they would do well to make some changes in the way they live. They could perhaps be persuaded to take steps that would make these countries more democratic and more respectful of human rights.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want us to be accused of imperialism, and I don't want us to export our way of life to these countries. I think that when we talk about co-operation and foreign aid, we are talking about a desire to help these people reach goals that we, at least many of us, have already attained here in Canada today.
Mr. Speaker, another concern is the appointment of the Board of Directors. In the Bill at Clause 7, it says:
7. There shall be a Board of Directors of the Centre consisting of a Chairman of the Board, a President of the Centre and eleven other directors to be appointed as provided in sections 8 to 10.
Mr. Speaker, with my colleague I considered presenting an amendment whose effect would be to have the Board appointed after consultation with the Leaders of the Opposition and the other Parties in the House, but especially with the NGOs, the non-government organizations.

I thought that we would like to have these specialists, these active groups of NGOs consulted. After all, who can better carry the mission to fruition? Who can better express what Canadians feel without that nuance, that possibility of government Order in Council appointments exclusively done by the political process? I thought that that would be something the Government would accept, that is, that the NGOs, the specialists in the field of human rights and, of course, the other political Parties, would be consulted prior to the naming of the 13 members of the board.
I hope that we will proceed with such a course of action and that at committee stage such an amendment will be possible.
The other point-

September 13, 1988
Human Rights

I am referring to financing. Of course the Bill contains a pretty clear financial schedule covering six years, starting in 1988:
28. There shall be paid to the Centre out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of supporting developmental programs and activities for the benefit of developing countries...
.. . one million dollars in 1988, two million in 1989, three million in 1990, and so forth, so that by 1992, we have the amount of five million dollars in the fiscal year commencing on April 1, 1992.
Clause 28 goes on as follows:
(0 in each fiscal year thereafter, such amount as may be appropriated by Parliament.
The only thing I want to say about this, Mr. Speaker, is that I hope the Government does not intend to fund this institution by reducing the budget of CIDA or of any other government organization involved in rights. I certainly hope so and, in committee of the whole, I will ask the Minister whether he intends to confirm that indeed new money will be allocated to the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.
This I consider to be a very important point because I would not want such organizations as CIDA to be forced to curtail their activities. I do not think it would be appropriate to raise a smokescreen and make people believe a new centre is to be established when in fact the funds come from another agency which will have to reduce its workload.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, and this may be somewhat more personal, it has been decided that the centre will be located in the Montreal Urban Community. As a matter of fact, clause 19 of the Bill stipulates:
19. The head office of the Centre shall be in the Montreal Urban Community.
Mr. Speaker, this political decision on the part of the Government flies in the face of the recommendation made by the committee which had been appointed to consider this objective or this idea.

I know that my colleague who spoke before me referred to this. However, I would like to refer again to section 78 of the report to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) entitled International Co-operation for the Development of Human Rights and Democratic Institutions, dated June 30, 1987. The special rapporteurs Gisele Cote-Harper and John Courtney explained how they feel that the international centre should not be called anything else but the "International Centre for Human Rights and Institutional Development", which is a modification, a clearer definition of what we meant.
At recommendation 89 they propose the creation by Act of Parliament of a Crown corporation, type C, to be known as the International Centre for Human Rights and Institutional Development, Centre internationale pour le development des
droits humains et des institutions, composed of a board of directors and a secretariat. It will be located in the National Capital Region. Evidently, the Government does not feel that the National Capital Region is going to be getting this centre since in the Bill it states Montreal. I do not object to its being located in Montreal. However, I point to the experience acquired at the University of Ottawa in my riding over the last seven years with the library that is in place and the reputation that has been built up by this centre. It is consulted regularly by international groups. It has a window on this great problem of human rights. Over the years it has developed an expertise which to me is a proud acquisition at the initiative of the university. I hope that there would not be a duplication, for example. I hope that the centre in Montreal will use the library, the research facilities and the expertise available at the University of Ottawa to pursue the objectives set out in this Bill.
I know that in the Bill it states that the centre may have activities anywhere in Canada. I hope that there will be active use and support of the Ottawa University centre.
I wish to make it clear that I am not objecting to the centre being located in Montreal. I will deplore it if we are duplicating services. I hope that we will not be doing that. I say to the Government and the board that it will be more than welcome at Ottawa University to co-operate and work fully with the new centre for international human rights and democratic development.
Having said those few words, and knowing there are Members who would also like to speak, I shall resume my seat and speak again at report stage.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in my place and, once again on behalf of the New Democratic Party, indicate our support for the establishment of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.
I wish to pay tribute to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), who has worked tirelessly for the establishment of this centre in committees and in working with non-governmental organizations for a number of years now. My colleague has noted some concerns that we have with respect to the appointments process, and indeed we will be moving an amendment that would ensure that there be consultation with leaders of the opposition Parties in the House of Commons before appointments are made to the board of directors of this centre. I hope that that amendment will be supported by Members of the House.
I would have thought it desirable that, just as there is consultation with non-governmental organizations involved in the field of peace, development, and disarmament, before appointments are made to the board of the Centre for International Peace and Security, so too should there be such consultation before appointing members of this particular board. I
September 13, 1988

hope that that particular proposal will also meet with the support of the Government.
Among other things, the objects of the centre include strengthening institutions and programs that give effect to the rights and freedoms enshrined in the International Bill of Human Rights. It is fundamentally important to underline the fact that the International Bill of Human Rights includes not only the question of the international covenant of civil and political rights but also the international covenant of economic, social, and cultural rights, and the optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights. As the great Canadian poet and political thinker, Francis Scott, wrote: "The trappings of democracy hang loosely on an emaciated body politic". I am very pleased that an important part of the mandate of this centre will be to encourage economic development to assist those who are poor and powerless in other parts of the world. In particular, I welcome that part of the mandate.
With respect to the other part of the mandate, the promotion and strengthening of democracy in other parts of the world, I wish to highlight two or three areas on which I believe it to be particularly important that the centre focus its work in the very near future.
Two days ago in Toronto I spoke at a rally of some 2,000 people commemorating the fifteenth anniversary of the bloody overthrow of the Allende Government in Chile. Since that time, 15 years ago on September 11, 1973, we have seen a reign of terror in Chile where over 30,000 people have been brutally murdered, have disappeared, have been forced into exile, or have been injured or tortured. For example, I think of Carmen Gloria Quintana, who was terribly burned and who has now returned to fight for democracy in her country.
I would hope that the international centre, which is proposed to be established in this Bill, would, as an early priority, turn its attention to the importance of restoring democracy in Chile. I also hope that it would look at a number of concrete recommendations in that regard, for example, the fact that Canada should not be voting in favour of World Bank loans to Chile. In December, 1987, Canada was the only country, together with Britain, to vote in favour of a World Bank loan to Chile. It is important that we express our opposition clearly in the international forum. It is important that we stop any trade in military or paramilitary equipment with Chile. It is important that we urge the junta to hold free and open elections without any exclusions. The fraudulent constitution that provides for a so-called protected democracy is obviously profoundly undemocratic.
Finally, in the context of Chile, it is essential that the Government issue visas and call for the release of the 15 political prisoners in that country who face the death penalty. I was in Chile a little over one year ago and I met with one of those prisoners. Certainly, we have to recognize the fundamental injustice that faces those people. There has been reference to terrorism by Pinochet. Surely the greatest terrorist in Chile
Human Rights
today, the man with the blood of thousands of innocent Chileans on his hands, is Augusto Pinochet himself. I met with the mothers of the disappeared. I met with the families of victims of torture. I met with women in Valparaiso who work with an organization called CODEPU that has been doing a courageous job of assisting political prisoners, and assisting the families of the victims of torture and of the disappeared. I hope that the international centre will do what it can in areas such as Chile to help seek the restoration of democracy.
I hope that the centre will turn its attention to a part of the world that for too long has been ignored, which is the tragic situation of the people of East Timor and the brutality and violence to which they have been subjected by the Government of Indonesia.
Finally, I want to turn to one other area that I believe is an important area for this international centre to look at a very early date, which is the whole question of the rights of the Palestinians in the Middle East. The Palestinian nation has a generation of young people who have grown up under occupation in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. In that area we have seen a situation in which the Government of Israel has subjected the Palestinians to brutality, violence, beatings, gassings, shootings, to deportations which are clearly in breach of international law, to the sealing of houses and the bulldozing of others. I would hope that the international centre would look at this whole question on an urgent basis. I would hope that the international centre would recognize the importance of looking at the whole question of the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, to an independent state which would obviously be subject to international safeguards to ensure that it posed no military threat whatsoever to Israel, but an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza.
I also believe that it is essential that we call for an international conference of all those parties that are affected by this tragic situation, at which the Palestinians and their chosen representatives, the Palestine Liberation Organization, should be represented. It is essential that this great historic wrongdoing finally be undone, that this occupation be ended, and that the Palestinians be entitled to treatment with justice and democracy in their own land.
These are some of the issues that I believe it is essential that the international centre deal with in the early days of its existence. I am pleased to support the establishment of this centre. It is long overdue. I know that it was a recommendation of an all-Party parliamentary committee. I want to pay tribute to all Members of the House, including the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) who chairs the Standing Committee on Human Rights, the Hon. Member for Eglinton Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille), and in particular, my colleague and our spokesperson in this area, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, who has brought this important international centre to fruition.

September 13, 1988
Human Rights


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In view of the fact that there is going to be an amendment and probably further debate on one of the sections, shall I call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Since there is only a single amendment, we are prepared to let it go through second reading and deal with the amendment before one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All right.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Richard Grisé: Mr. Chairman, we are starting the Committee of the Whole stage and it is getting close to one o'clock. I think that you will see, if you seek unanimous consent, that there is agreement to not seeing the clock at one o'clock and going on for a few minutes just past one o'clock.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On that same point, Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On the same point, Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is unanimous consent to extend debate. We have about nine minutes left. Why not wait until one o'clock to see what happens? If the Hon. Member decided to co-operate with us, our questions might be shorter than if he pushed us in a corner and, in the process, made us work longer than necessary.


Richard Grisé: I don't want to start a debate with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), but I think we will certainly co-operate with the Opposition Parties.


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-147, an Act to establish the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: Shall Clause 6 carry?

On Clause 6-Capacity in Canada


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Centre may carry on its activities throughout Canada.
I don't want to amend the Bill, but I would like to know if the Hon. Member responsible for the Bill could give me the
assurance that the Centre will exercize its activities, including annual meetings and research projects, consultations with communities or consultations with various countries here in the National Capital, and I am thinking of our embassies here in Ottawa and of all the Government expertise we have in Parliament, could the Hon. Member give me the assurance that at least one of the Centre's annual meetings will be held in the National Capital so that these embassies, these experts on human rights and the University of Ottawa's Centre, which, I imagine, he knows is an extremely valuable Centre with a very extensive library recognized as one of the best in the world, could the Hon. Member give me the assurance or inform the House that the Centre intends to have meetings here in the National Capital at least once a year?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I share with the Hon. Member his respect for the University of Ottawa's library and Centre on the Study of Human Rights, which is renowned throughout Canada and beyond, and from which many of us have learned in the past. I cannot conceive of this centre ignoring that institution, nor of the proposed centre ignoring the resources that are available through other institutions in this city.
It is clear that the legislation does not require the proposed centre to work in Ottawa, but I think that we can believe that reason will drive it in this direction and that we can confidently expect that the centre will make full use of the rich resources of the Ottawa-Hull capital region.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I cited some concerns with respect to this legislation, concerns that I suggested may be addressed by an amendment to the Bill. It is an amendment that I have reason to believe the proponents will accept, because it recognizes the essentially non-partisan nature of our approach to foreign aid and-


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: I do not wish to cut the Member off, but we are on Clause 6 and I believe his comment is on Clause 7. Shall I carry on with Clause 6 first?
Clause 6 agreed to.


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: Shall Clause 7 carry?
On Clause 7-Board of Directors


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Chairman, my hunger expedited my intervention. We did arrive at the appropriate place. I would hope that what I said earlier would still apply. I would move an amendment as follows:
That Clause 7 of Bill C-147 be amended
(a) by deleting line 38 on page 3 and substituting the following:
"7. (1) There shall be a Board of Directors of' (b) by adding the following after line 42.
"(2) All appointments pursuant to this section shall be made after consultation by the Minister with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of every other recognized Party in the House of Commons."
September 13, 1988


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am speaking in support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment. Indeed, it is one that would allow for a more nonpolitical, non-partisan assurance that the nominations will be made to this board, to this centre, in a manner which would possibly make it more transparent to Canadians, that indeed, it is not a patronage appointment, it is not a nomination to the centre done by the Governor in Council, that is the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, but rather it is done through the consultation process with the Leader of the Opposition and Leaders from other recognized Parties in the House.
I would have liked to see the NGOs also involved in this process of consultation, but I understand the difficulties with that. I would have liked some experts in the field to have also been consulted. I take it that that will be part of this whole process, and I would recommend strongly to the Government that it keep in mind the non-governmental organizations. If we keep the amendment, these organizations will be important to the Government and to us.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Chairman, the Government is willing to accept the amendment. I should point out to the House that already the process of consultation of interested and informed parties has begun. So far hundreds of letters have been sent to interested persons and groups in this field to ask for recommendations of prospective nominations for the proposed board and already many and useful suggestions have been received. Such consultations will obviously continue. We are certainly happy to expand that consultative process to include the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of any other recognized Party in the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Before I put the amendment, under "Organization", it should read "by adding the following after line 42." Is that so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hon. Members have heard the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 7, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 27 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 28-Payments to Centre


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure it is clear. Do I understand correctly that, according to the schedule, the amount of funds available will be immediately $1
Human Rights
million-if this Bill passes, of course-and that another $2 million will be available on April 1, 1989, so by April, 1989, S3 million will be available? Is that correct?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Chairman, that will be correct except for any moneys expended.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member heard my speech at second reading. Can he assure me that this is new money, that this is not money coming from existing budgets of, say, CIDA or other organizations of the Government in similar work? Is it a request for new money that the Government is making, and can we have an assurance that those other budgets will not be diminished by the amounts allowed in this Bill?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge, this represents money to be received from an expanding developmental program.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 32 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Hon. Member for his comments on the problem relating to the definition of "democratic development". I thought at this stage I would bring this matter forward again.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Chairman, we are satisfied that the proposed title in the Bill adequately and clearly states the nature of the proposed centre.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be
read the third time? By leave now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the record 1 would like to congratulate the Hon. Member who presided over the deliberations today. I think he did a very good job and deserves our recognition and thanks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.06 p.m. the House took recess.

September 13, 1988


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The Elouse resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the income disparity between those at the top and those at the bottom has increased sharply since the Conservative Government took office, with only those at the top keeping pace with or in some cases substantially outstripping inflation, says a report which was published recently by the Ottawa based Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
The cost of living has increased by 13 per cent since September, 1984. Over that period, the incomes of salaried workers have risen by 12.7 per cent, while managers' incomes rose by 22.6 per cent and senior executives' salaries rose by 43.7 per cent, the report went on to say. Thus, for every category of worker in Canada except management and senior executives, wages and salary increases trailed inflation.
The researchers found this to be a worrisome development for most workers since wages usually rise during a period of expansion. It is not hard to conclude that little of the over-all growth during the past four years is attributable to the Conservative Government's policy, as the report argues.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that last Sunday while I was participating in the Partnership Walk for Third World Development in Toronto, you were taking part in a similar walk in Vancouver. As you know, these walks to increase awareness of international development among Canadians are sponsored by the Aga Khan Foundation of Canada and the proceeds raised are matched by CIDA.
The Foundation was established by His Highness the Aga Khan, spiritual leader of the Ismaili Muslims. There are about 40,000 Canadian Ismailis, and since coming to Canada a few short years ago they have made an enormous contribution to our country.
In my community, Ismaili Canadians sponsor Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, Citizenship Courts, and blood donor clinics. Sunday's Partnership Walk for Third World Development is a further demonstration of the full participation by Ismaili Canadians in the wider Canadian community and it is a great example for all of us to follow.



DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Government of British Columbia appears determined to proceed with a four-company consortium's proposal to construct a toxic waste plant, including an incinerator, treatment plant and dump, within the Thompson-Fraser watershed near Cache Creek, British Columbia. This plant will attract between 12,000 and 250,000 tonnes of toxic waste from all parts of the Province of British Columbia as well as from beyond the provincial boundaries.
The British Columbia Medical Association has called for a full public inquiry into hazardous waste management before rushing to build this plant. The Thompson Watershed coalition has fought the proposal from its inception because of a host of unanswered questions and an inadequate referendum process, and has the support of thousands, including cattlemen and fishing camp operators in the immediate area.
Since the provincial Government refuses to guarantee public participation in the decision-making process regarding this toxic waste facility, I call upon the federal Government, through the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), to apply all influence possible to have a judicial inquiry initiated with intervener funding so the public can have full confidence that the future of this toxic waste facility will be in their longterm best interests.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a Supreme Court of Ontario jury rejected Mr. Rene Vaillan-court's application for parole after serving 15 years of his 25-year sentence for the murder of Toronto Police Constable Leslie Maitland. In so doing, the jury reflected the growing concern of Canadians at large that our judicial system in general and our parole system in particular must do everything possible to protect public safety and to ensure that those responsible for society's most reprehensible crimes are held fully accountable for their actions.
Similar sentiments were expressed by Members of this House last year during the capital punishment debate. Indeed, many of those Members on opposite sides of the death penalty issue were united in their insistence that prison terms needed to correspond more fully to the severity of the crimes committed.
Therefore, in order that Canadians may have respect for and confidence in our laws, let me urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to amend the Criminal Code by removing
September 13, 1988

the 15-year review to ensure that a life sentence for premeditated, first-degree murder is precisely that, a prison term of not less than 25 years' duration.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my dismay and frustration with the Government of Canada's refusal to implement an older workers adjustment program. Some 30 months ago this Government promised the Canadian Parliament and Canadian people that it would implement a specific program for older workers. To date we have had nothing but broken promises from the Government of Canada.
In fact, the Government has gone one step further. It has now blamed this on its provincial colleagues. This is the typical Tory way.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) knows that Canadians between the ages of 55 and 65 are facing unemployment rates higher than those faced during the 1981 recession. Two Commons committees dominated by Conservative Members have called for this program to be implemented immediately.
I call upon the Government of Canada to honour its commitments and promises to the Canadian people. However, it is too late. The Canadian people will no longer buy false promises from Tory Members of Parliament, and we will face them on the hustings with that issue first and foremost in the next federal election.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, this past Labour Day weekend, frustrations harboured by the Temagami area workers, their wives and their children, frustrations caused by over two and a half years of inaction by the Premier of Ontario, were vented in a mass demonstration.
The residents of the Temagami area have seen a provincial Government stalling and waffling, a provincial Government which is not serious about arriving at a solution to the controversial situation in Temagami and not concerned about the livelihoods of the people involved.
We are not talking about the workers in one sawmill. We are talking about families, a community, and the disastrous effects felt by those living in the entire Timiskaming region. For the residents of Timiskaming to have to go to the extent of creating a roadblock, breaking the law, just to get the attention of their Government at Queen's Park, is shameful and disastrous.
For years, hunters, anglers, miners, loggers and tourism operators shared this renewable resource. We shared the Temagami forests. The local residents and northern Ontarians can tell the Premier and the Liberal Government in Toronto that they have co-operated over the years.
A multiple-use land policy is desired for the Temagami area's continued stability and growth. It is about time that the Premier and his Cabinet started to listen to this responsible message from the residents of northern Ontario.



AIR CANADA


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have two examples of how Air Canada's privatization is changing the operation of this outstanding corporation for the worse. Every Air Canada's employee is now receiving a glossy folder offering applications for Air Canada shares. These are being distributed special delivery at a cost of $4.48 per envelope. Imagine having more than 20,000 envelopes delivered at a cost of about $90,000. No wonder investment dealers across Canada are complaining about this expensive sales pitch for shares that will pay no dividends.
Contrast this sales campaign with the lay-offs which are taking effect at Mirabel where half the cargo personnel will lose their jobs. For the 48 workers at Mirabel who will be unemployed as of October 29, share applications will be cold comfort indeed. No wonder the major unions which represent Air Canada employees remain implacably opposed to privatization.
The unions can see a future of lay-offs, contracting out, and contraction of Air Canada services along with the shares which will pay no dividends. The people of Canada will receive no dividends either from the sale of the corporation which they already own. Should the Government opposite not consider whether the privatization which it so mindlessly promotes does something other than give Air Canada management a free hand to turn this company into another U.S.-style badly performing airline?

September 13, 1988



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the reign of error brings to mind a wheather vane. Where does the Liberal Party stand with respect to free trade? On October 26 last year the leader stated in the House that he would tear up the agreement. On July 26 this year the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) proposed a series of bilateral amendments with the United States and other countries.
Last Friday the Quebec Liberal lieutenant said that his leader would not tear up the agreement. When the Liberal leader says: Let the People Decide, I am sure he means: Let each of my caucus members decide because I do not know which way to turn and my wife has not yet given me an order concerning free trade.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the unemployment figures released last Friday indicate that unemployment has gone up for two successive months, with an August rate of 8 per cent and more than one million Canadians out of work. It is now five years since the recession of 1982-83, and the rate of unemployment has never been lowered to the pre-recession rate of 7.5 per cent in 1981.
Once again part-time employment increased while full-time jobs decreased. Unemployment was over 10 per cent in five provinces and the rate for youth was 12.2 per cent. The most troubling figures relate to older workers for whom the unemployment rate is now worse than it was during the recession of 1982.
Despite this, after two and a half years of promises, the Government has not delivered on its program for older worker adjustment. On the contrary, it has cut unemployment programs by 32 per cent since 1984. So much for the Government's rhetoric on jobs, jobs, jobs.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, last week two historic agreements were signed by the Prime Minister in the Northwest Territories.
The first, signed in Fort Rae on September 5, was the Agreement in Principle respecting the Dene-Metis land claims. Nearly two decades of negotiations went into its making.
The second, signed in Yellowknife on September 6, was the Northern Accord, modelled on similar hydrocarbon agreements in other provinces. The Territories will now receive their own oil and gas royalties. Their own revenues will grant real independence of action in matters within their own domain.
These two agreements demonstrate the commitment of this Government to the constitutional and economic development of the North.



RAILWAYS


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, residents of Thunder Bay are pleased to know that Transport Canada has requested the National Transportation Agency to review the regional impact of the subsidies paid to the railways under the Western Grain Transportation Act.
My constituents and I are profoundly concerned that these subsidies could so reduce the cost to the shipper of having southern Manitoba grain hauled to the West Coast that the shippers would be encouraged to ignore the higher total cost and send the grain west rather than to Thunder Bay and down the St. Lawrence Seaway.
We expect the review requested of the NT A to be thorough and fair. We require the NTA to establish that the higher cost of hauling grain over the mountains is not averaged out in a manner that produces discrimination against the St. Lawrence Seaway.
I have urged the head of the NTA to hold public hearings on the Western Grain Transportation Act in Thunder Bay and other centres of Canada's grain trade. I urge him to provide us with the information we need to assess the fairness of the subsidies paid to the railways.
The Western Grain Transportation Act requires an open and honest review. Only such a review will ensure that operations under the Act are fair to all the ports.
September 13, 1988


and apply the ten-week eligibility period. The problem has been studied to death. It is now time for action.



BENEFITS OF FREE TRADE

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, here are some of the assessments made by well-known economist Bernard Landry, former Quebec External Trade Minister in the Levesque administration. Speaking in support of free trade, M. Landry said that " .. . the agreement is the envy of all western countries... The United States is the major client of most countries throughout the world . . . Everybody else must be satisfied with multilateral negotiations (GATT)."
The interesting aspect, Mr. Landry said, " ... is the issue of social measures. . . Had my many progressive friends in Canada convinced me that Canada's social measures would have been threatened, right then and there I would have disregarded all my convictions as a free trader and my whole experience based on economic problems.
Past experience and personal backgroud make me very much aware of social issues, and I have yet to see the least indication that a free trade agreement would spell trouble for Canada's social security fabric.
Take Sweden as an example. What is the development strategy of Sweden, probably the leading western nation when it comes to social measures? Free trade, as it has always been. Sweden happens to be a founding member of the European free trade alliance which signed such an agreement with the European Economic Community."
Free trade for Canada, Mr. Speaker, we will soon be voting on that issue!



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, recent spills from the pulp and paper mills in Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean will not longer be ignored by the various socioeconomic interest groups and the people in our region. Whether we are talking about Cascade, Donohue, Abitibi Price or any other companies, we will no longer tolerate spills in our waterways.
Today, the environment comes first, and the time has come for company management to change their attitudes and their approach.
A word of caution: The people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean don't want a Greenpeace solution. We don't want to close our factories and put our workers on welfare. We reject an approach that is tantamount to suicide.
The time has come for us to get together and find solutions that will respect the environment and at the same time protect our jobs. The two cannot be separated. That is the challenge we must face, and the next major conference on the environment in our region will be a unique opportunity to report on the present situation and identify solutions.
*
* *
* *
*



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise once more to express my displeasure at the Minister's inaction on the issue of unemployment insurance eligibility in the whole southern part of New Brunswick.
Why does the Minister refuse working men and women of New Brunswick the same eligibility conditions she grants those of Quebec?
Why does she refuse to make the necessary changes to do justice to the rural population of New Brunswick?
Statistics Canada tells us that the sixteen-week unemployment insurance eligibility period will remain unchanged for yet another month!

Why does the Minister drag her feet? Why is she being so unfair to the people of New Brunswick? She should act now



ELECTIONS


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is here because he can hear publicly that in this cat and mouse game he is playing with the federal election he is showing contempt for the people of Ontario, in particular because the municipal elections, which have been scheduled for some time now, are almost on a collision course with the federal election.
I understand why the Prime Minister takes that view because he knows he is going to be blown out of the water in the Province of Ontario. There is not going to be a Tory left in Toronto after we have finished with them, but we want to urge him: don't delay, call the election today, because the people of Ontario want to have a little respite after they blow the Tories away before the civic elections are held in every community across the province. Don't show contempt for the people of Ontario, please, Mr. Prime Minister.

September 13, 1988
Oral Questions HOUSING



METROPOLITAN TORONTO-EFFECT OF MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM

Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough when the shortage of serviced land in Metropolitan Toronto causes the price of housing to skyrocket, but it is absolutely outrageous when the municipal property tax system can actually encourage land owners to keep residential land off the market. In Scarborough, for example, one construction company has 14.5 acres of residential land which is used and taxed as farm land. Although the property has an estimated market value of $10 million, its assessment is an unbelievable $1,506 and the taxes are therefore only $491 a year.
Let us be clear, the owners are not acting illegally. The fault is with the Governments of the municipality and the province and I urge them to remove the possibility of this kind of scandal and help us expand the availability of housing land.



WELCOME TO NEW PAGES

Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members would want to join with me in welcoming to the House 42 new parliamentary pages who begin their duties in the current session.

More than 500 young Canadians from coast to coast submitted applications for these positions, and the young people who are with us today were selected as a result of a very rigorous selection process.

I know that all Hon. Members join me in welcoming these young Canadians to the House of Commons and wish them the very best throughout the year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and deals with the record of his Government on the environment. The truth is that when the Prime Minister came to power he inherited a whole range of ongoing Liberal programs including
renewable energy, lead reduction in gasoline, toxic chemical research, water conservation, and domestic acid rain reduction.
For four years the Prime Minister has cut and cut and cut. He slashed the Atmospheric Environment Service. He cut the Inland Water Conservation Service and eliminated the Environmental Secretariat of the National Research Council. He cancelled the Guelph-Toronto Toxicology Centre and cut research in Niagara River pollution.
Why, on the eve of an election, has the Government announced a series of new programs, including a program for renewable energy research, when the Prime Minister eliminated that very program only two months after he assumed power in the last election?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Why has the Government discovered only today that lead in the environment poses a serious threat to human health, particularly the health of children?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend refers to cuts in the environmental budget. In fact, the amounts expended by the Government of Canada on the environment today are increased by 13 per cent over and above what they were in 1985. There has been a very substantial increase in expenditures, not only by the Department of the Environment but by Departments such as the Department of Energy which plays an important role in environment programs as well.


Mr. Broadbent:: It hasn't even met inflation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I see that the Leader of the NDP is back. I welcome him back from his tour. I will try to respond to NDP questions in just a moment. I am trying to answer the Leader of the Opposition.
With regard to the environment the Government passed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is the first major piece of environmental legislation since 1971.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We completely reformed the National Parks Act which was the first time it was overhauled in almost 50 years. We established four national parks and have set the stage for the creation of two other national parks. I believe that that is the largest number of national parks created in such a short period of time. We proceeded with the St. Lawrence River clean-up. We introduced the Halifax Harbour clean-up program. We built South Moresby.
This is a record on the protection of the environment which any Government, particularly any Liberal Government, would envy.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I believe the record will show that the environmental services of the country
September 13, 1988

have been gutted under this Government and that increases in expenditure have not met the yearly rise of inflation. Canadians will wonder whether all these death repentance programs will be slashed after the next election if the Prime Minister were ever to get back in power.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


ELIMINATION OF PCBS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, for most Canadians the environment is a national priority, but for the Prime Minister, the environment is a priority only around election time. Will the Prime Minister admit that our country would have been much further ahead in eliminating PCBs if he had not cut the National Research Council's research programs on PCBs and on the recycling and incineration of toxic chemical products? Will he admit that our country would have been much further ahead in the fight against PCBs if he had not fired 336 employees at Environment Canada since his Government came to power?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition suggests that my Department and the Government of Canada are encumbered in our capacity to deal with urgent problems like the PCB situation by virtue of cuts to the Department of the Environment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact is that five months into the current fiscal year, well before all the figures are in, the budget of Environment Canada for this year is $796,235,000. That compares very favourably with the budget for the entire last year in which the Liberals were in office, when the budget was $777,564,000.
In other words, five months into the fiscal year, before all the figures are in, the budget for Environment Canada is already $20 million more than the budget for the entire year in which the Liberals were last in office.


DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, one of the serious cuts in the National Research Council was that of the special research group into PBCs which was cut early in the mandate of the Government. Had that cut not been made this country would be in a far better position today to deal with this serious problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I will direct my question to the Prime Minister again. Why did the Prime Minister this year eliminate the program to construct federal sewage treatment facilities? Why, for four years, has the Government consistently refused the requests of every city and town in the country to provide federal help in a co-operative fashion to
Oral Questions
eliminate the dumping of raw sewage into our lakes, rivers, and streams?
Why has he refused to enter the cost-sharing program proposed by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities to meet anti-pollution standards, to deal with raw sewage, and to eliminate the problem of pollution in our great metropolitan areas? Why has the Government not done what the Liberal Party did for three years, that is, committed itself to that program with the municipalities?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the Official Opposition has no boundaries. The fact is that when the Liberal Party was in office in the late 1970s and early 1980s it cancelled broadly-based national programs to fund provinces and, through provinces, municipalities for waste water treatment. That program was done away with by the Liberals.
In the absence of that program, when we took office, we resorted to very innovative ways to clean up the St. Lawrence River, for which purpose the federal Cabinet approved $110 million. Recently we announced, with the Province of Nova Scotia, a $197.5 million program to clean up the Halifax Harbour. The list goes on.
In fact, if you add to the budget of the Department of the Environment all the expenditures on the environment of DRIE, Energy, Mines and Resources, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and the Office of Western Diversification, not only have we kept up with inflation, we have also exceeded it in expenditures on the environment.


TRANSPORTABLE PCB INCINERATORS-PROPOSED LOCATIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of the Environment who last week, here in Ottawa, endorsed transportable incinerators for the destruction of PCBs.
Will the Minister confirm the statement by Tom Meredith, President of ENSCO, that such incinerators would only be set up at a single site in Ontario, in Quebec and in the Maritimes, so that PCBs would be brought to each incinerator site? Would the Minister confirm Mr. Meredith's statement?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman to whom the Hon. Member makes reference was expressing a point of view, albeit a very expert one. The details surrounding any leasing of a portable or transportable unit for the incineration of PCBs remain to be finalized. I am consulting with my cabinet colleagues on the question, in concert with the provinces.
There are very formidable obstacles facing all the provinces in connection with the establishment of even a transportable unit, not to mention a permanent one. But I can assure the Hon. Member for Davenport, and through him, all Members of the House, that the Government of Canada is treating the

September 13, 1988
Oral Questions
issue with utmost urgency, and any technical or other obstacles to doing the job will, we hope, be overcome.


GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in 1985, in an announcement made by the Department of the Environment, the following statement was made: "The federal Government announced in May 1985 that it will take the lead in arranging for mobile treatment facilities". What has happened to that commitment of the Minister's Government?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the commitment was pretty well honoured. We had a fairly broadly based strategy when the Ministers of the Environment met in 1985 to deal with many facets of PCB management in the country. For example, it was that very strategy which gave rise to the building in Swan Hills, Alberta, of a permanent facility for PCB incineration, which plant we hope to have on stream in October if all the relevant environmental tests are passed and the permit is granted by the province.
In connection with the same strategy, we brought on stream many units across the country for the incineration of low-level PCB contaminated material. We have encountered quite a bit of resistance in Quebec and Ontario to the building of permanent facilities for the same purpose, but we are trying to overcome those obstacles by pursuing with the United States the possible leasing of transportable units.


REQUEST THAT CRIMINAL CODE APPLY TO ENVIRONMENT LEGISLATION VIOLATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said just over a week ago that the nation needs what he described as a collective commitment to deal with the serious environmental problems. Given that the people of Canada are waiting for the Government of Canada to catch up to them in their concern about the environment, will this newly expressed concern lead to concrete action?
I think specifically of the following. A year before the Government brought in its Bill, allegedly to protect the environment, the Law Reform Commission made a report to the federal Government urging it to put crimes against the environment in the Criminal Code of Canada.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister why the Government of Canada rejected this advice when it drafted its legislation for June? And will it now change its position on this important issue, catch up to the people of Canada, and put environmental concerns in the Criminal Code?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, I think my hon. friend would agree that the actions of the Government in passing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, in developing with the provinces some five new national parks, and in concluding
some important international treaties on behalf of the protection of the environment, have been useful and important contributions to the national well-being with respect to the protection of the environment.
No one has a monopoly on virtue. No one has a monopoly on his or her desire to protect a heritage or the environment. I think all Members of the House of Commons feel very strongly about the protection of the environment, and it is in our interest to act wisely and collectively to ensure that it be done.
We have taken some important measures. We propose to take more. I listened with care and attention to my hon. friend as he made some important suggestions with respect to the protection of the environment.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the point is that these suggestions have been made by this Party not just in recent weeks but over the past number of years. More concretely, from the Government's point of view, it was the Law Reform Commission of Canada, which reports to the federal Government, that made the same suggestion.


INCLUSION OF CRIMES AGAINST ENVIRONMENT IN CRIMINAL CODE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Other countries in the world, including Japan, West Germany, Switzerland and Denmark, and more than 10 states in the United States have already made the decision to include crimes against the environment in the Criminal Code. My question for the Prime Minister is simple. Why does the Canadian Government not agree with this very constructive action?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party should know that the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act contains very severe sanctions. There are enshrined in the very fabric of the legislation sanctions that are akin to those he is calling for. Indeed, those sanctions include $1 million a day fines, and chief executive officers and presidents themselves are personally held liable in the eyes of the law for offences committed by their agents, their companies, or by themselves. There are six-month jail sentences and up to five-year jail sentences among the sanctions.
The Hon. Leader of the NDP asks why the sanctions were not included in the Criminal Code. We were advised that while that might have made good rhetoric and, in the case of the Hon. Leader of the NDP, good demagoguery, the fact is it would have been much more difficult for the Crown to establish onus of proof following the path he has suggested than the one we actually took.
In the Canadian Environmental Protection Act we have the first major overhaul in environmental law since 1971. Those sanctions, by any reasonable standards, are tough and will be stringently enforced.
September 13, 1988


LAW REFORM COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister has promised to swoop down at the appropriate time, but he also knows that these tough standards to which he is alluding do not exist. They have to be agreed to by the provinces. They have not had them agreed to yet. He knows that the one way of effectively dealing with the matter to ensure that the people of Saint-Basile-le-Grand and people in Vancouver, Charlottetown, or in Moose Jaw are equally protected by high standards, is to follow the Law Reform Commission's recommendation to put those standards in the Criminal Code.
Will the Minister deal with the substance of that matter now? Will he acknowledge he could have put this matter in the Criminal Code, like other countries in the world have done? He could have had those high standards. Why didn't he do it? And why won't he do it in the future?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, there is not even unanimity within the Law Reform Commission. It is very debatable within the legal community that the best way to go is through the Criminal Code. The best experts whose advice we could draw on indicated to us that we would be able to get convictions and we would be able to throw the polluters in jail more effectively and expeditiously if we followed a different course.
We have very tough sanctions. There are $1 million a day fines. In some categories there are no limits available to the judiciary for this purpose. There are stiff jail sentences as an option, six-month jail sentences for some offences and five-year sentences in other cases. We think we can get the convictions more effectively on the path we have taken than on the one the Hon. Leader of the NDP has suggested for purely partisan and political reasons.
*	* V



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for Regional Industrial Expansion, I shall direct my question to the Prime Minister.
In the last few days, we had an announcement from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion concerning a program to replace the IRDP. We note, Mr. Speaker, that all the regional economic development elements have now been removed from the new program, called the manufacturing productivity reinforcement program. Indeed, now, if you want
Oral Questions
to set up a plant in Montreal, Louiseville, the Eastern Townships, the Beauce or the St. Maurice Valley, you have exactly the same level of grants and therefore no incentive to set up outside the major centres. I want to ask the Prime Minister how he can justify this announcement, which will no longer provide any benefit for the regions outside the main urban centres.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, said the other day how pleased he was with what the federal Government was doing to create jobs in the outlying regions such as those my hon. friend just mentioned. The fact remains that since this Government was sworn in, 316,000 new jobs were created in Quebec, compared to 40,000 created under the Liberal Government. So I think that the Government of Quebec and Quebecers are very happy with what the federal and Quebec Governments have done together to create jobs in that province.



ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESSES- GOVERNMENT POSITION

Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, seldom have I heard such crass hypocrisy! I asked the Prime Minister to tell us something about the program for enhancing manufacturing productivity.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that what the Prime Minister refers to as Quebec's outlying regions are not the regions mentioned in the program. Beauce, Mauricie and the Eastern Townships are in the central region. Read your own program instead of generalizing and using Robert Bourassa's statements as a shield!
My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: What explanation does have for the fact that the kind of assistance provided to small businesses under the former IRDP will no longer be available because property costs, building costs and the cost of second-hand equipment are no longer eligible? How does the Prime Minister expect small businesses to get established in the regions, when his program is tailored to the needs of multinationals which can afford to buy new equipment? And what is a small businessperson supposed to do if he wants to get started and needs a building and equipment? Can he no longer depend on his Government?
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for
Science and Technology): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should counsel the Hon. Member to revisit the new Act. Once he gets his facts straightened out perhaps he can come into the House and ask intelligent questions.

September 13, 1988
Oral Questions TRANSPORT



TRUCKING INDUSTRY DEREGULATION-REQUEST FOR FREEZE ON SERVICES

Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who in his role with the Government brought us into the reality of deregulation, particularly in the trucking industry.
During discussions on the White Paper, Freedom to Move, and the subsequent legislation implementing deregulation of transportation, the Conservative Government was warned time and time again that it would be creating chaos out of stability, particularly in trucking. With the demise of Transport Route, which was formerly CN Route, and the loss of up to 2,400 jobs, we are seeing the inevitable results of deregulation.
Will the Government act immediately to freeze existing trucking routes and services and, as soon as possible, restore stability to the trucking industry by reintroducing the test of public convenience and necessity?


Hon. Gerry St. Germain (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the issue brought up by the Hon. Member, CN Route, the particular company of which he speaks, lost $71 million in 1986, well before regulatory reform was even on the scene. I think that the Hon. Member is being totally unfair in bringing up this question in this context.



PROTECTION OF INDUSTRY

Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of State for Transport. The Minister should be aware that the President of the Ontario Trucking Association, Raymond Cope, has warned that there will be more bankruptcies in the Canadian trucking industry, just as we saw in the United States where there was a wave of bankruptcies after deregulation.
If the Government is not prepared to institute a freeze and to reintroduce regulation, what action will be taken to protect the trucking industry and the thousands of men and women across the country who work in it?


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is being totally unfair when he brings regulatory reform into the picture. He knows that if we go back to the Maislin scenario and look at CN Route and the history of losses we will see that in 1984 it lost $32 million, in 1985 it lost $43 million. In 1986 it lost $71 million. We are concerned about the plight of the workers-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerry St. Germain: -and those who are involved. I have asked my colleagues, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister of Labour, and the Minister of State for Finance to assess the situation immediately in terms
of Transport Route Canada. This Government will make sure that the interests of workers are looked after.



PRIVATIZATION OF CN ROUTE

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister responsible for privatization.
Less than two years ago the Government privatized CN Route and received approximately $29 million. Not only did it give away the transportation arm but it also gave away land holdings valued at more than $80 million. Now the Government's friends in the private sector have closed down the trucking operation and put over 2,300 men out of work while creaming off the valuable land assets for themselves.
How could the Deputy Prime Minister possibly agree to an arrangement like that which gave millions of dollars to the private sector and which left the workers of this company without jobs or compensation?


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, here again I think we have to put this in the proper context.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A rip-off.


Gerry St. Germain: I do not know whether members of the Opposition want an answer.
There were two options. First, CN was going to shut it down or else sell the company as it was. What we have is total irresponsibility on the part of members of the Opposition. Here again they are saying that the figure is some $80 million. My officials inform me that the total amount of the real estate amounted to something in the order of $34 million. They are not even sure whether it was that much. I think that Members opposite should get their facts straight before they stand up.
Again, we will look after the workers, as we have in the past and as we will in the future, to make certain that their interests are well looked after.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister better get some new assistants because they certainly cannot value the land.



TREATMENT OF WORKERS

Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put my supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour agreed to abandon provisions of the Canada Labour Code that at least would have protected these workers somewhat. If the Government had kept the land it would have at least had the land to compensate the workers instead of its friends in big business.
Will the Government agree to the union's request for an investigation of this deal and this giveaway? Will the Government explain why it is allowing thousands of workers in the country to go without jobs or compensation while its friends are ripping off millions of dollars from the taxpayers?
September 13, 1988


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, since the question has been put to me, notwithstanding the fact that my colleague's facts seem to be confused somewhat, I can assure my hon. colleague that Labour Canada officials are already looking into the matter right now. They will make sure that all provisions of the Canada Labour Code are respected.



ASSETS OF CN ROUTE

Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why does the Government think it is good business to sell off Canada Route for a price which was less than the assets and which cost those people their jobs? Why must thousands of people lose their jobs to allow some speculators to rip off those assets?


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have answered this question before.
The question is whether or not the value of the assets has been clearly put. Information given to us by our officials-not by assistants but by officials of my Department-states that the value of the assets was $34 million. The bidding that was put forward was a fair process. The only bid that came forward was the one for $29 million. It was an effort to save jobs and to protect the interests of workers in Canada.



PROTECTION OF WORKERS

Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Even by the Government's estimation, if the assets were worth $5 million or $6 million more than they sold them for, why did the Government not at least ensure that those workers and their pensions were protected? If one is going to sell assets at less than market value why not make sure that the workers are protected?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make reference to the pension matter. I think that the Hon. Member will be pleased to hear that payment for pension arrears up to the end of July has been submitted by the employer. Payment for the month of August is not due until the end of this month. I have every reason to believe that it will be made.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. At the same time that some are questioning the Government's real commitment to clean up the environment, urban garbage disposal is fast reaching crisis proportions. Will the Minister commit the
Oral Questions
Government to clean up the environment by reducing the volume of garbage that is produced by requiring federally regulated companies to recycle their garbage, and at the same time impose packaging restrictions which would require packaging to be bio-degradable?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member's representation is a solid one. I welcome the qualification to his question because he will understand that most of the problem is within provincial jurisdiction. However, to the extent that the federal Government has authority in this area, recycling policies are practised throughout the Government of Canada, and have been for some 10 years.
To boot, the federal Government has a Demonstration of Resource and Energy Conservation Technology Program, DRECT as its called, and it has been in place for some 10 years too. This federal program has provided funding on a cost-shared basis with industry to support recycling technologies.
I am pursuing with my cabinet colleagues the possibility that, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we might broaden the total program, somewhat along the lines of some parts of the question the Hon. Member has put on the record today.



RAFFERTY-ALAMEDA DAM-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO FORMER OFFICIAL

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Miss Elizabeth May, a distinguished environmental expert in this country, recently a senior adviser on the environment in the Minister's office, has resigned her position on the grounds that the Minister of the Environment made a political deal to grant a licence for the Rafferty-Alameda dam project in Saskatchewan, which will have an enormous impact on the province of Manitoba, without undertaking any studies or any environmental impact assessments whatsoever, in return for which the federal Government would receive provincial agreement for a grasslands national park, and to use the statement of Miss May: "Manitoba's interests have . . . been shafted".
If this is true, it represents a serious violation of public trust in the Minister's responsibilities. Is the Prime Minister prepared to undertake an inquiry immediately into the charges made by Miss May, based upon the major credibility that she has as an environmental expert in this country, to determine why the Minister was prepared to make a deal that would grant federal approval for a licence for a project in the riding of the Premier of Saskatchewan in return for a provincial agreement on a park, and put at mercy the environment of Manitoba for the sake of a political deal? Does the Prime Minister not agree that that warrants a proper inquiry by the Government into the actions and behaviour of this Minister?

September 13, 1988
Oral Questions


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, there is no foundation whatever to the charge that the Hon. Member has just made. The premise of the question is that "Manitoba's interests were shafted" in connection with the permit issued by me under the authority of the International River Improvements Act.
I have an article in my hand from the Winnipeg Free Press that quotes the former Deputy Environment Minister, Tom Owen, who, I gather, was in office at the time. He stated: "Manitoba officials were not concerned because they viewed an agreement between Canada and the United States that governs the transborder flow of water as the province's best safeguard. That opposition to the licence was not a position we the Manitoba Government took".



REQUEST THAT PROJECT BE DELAYED

Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister can slough this one off. The fact of the matter is that a senior adviser in his own office, who gave him advice on environmental matters, has resigned her position on the grounds that the Minister deliberately betrayed the trust of his office by granting a licence without doing an environmental impact study on a project that will see interbasin transfers of waters, a position that all parties took when it affected the Garrison diversion, and this Minister has granted a licence without that type of study. Even the Government of the Province of Manitoba today states that it has written to the Minister asking that the project be delayed in return for proper studies.
Will the Minister undertake to halt any further agreement on this project, and state that agreement will not be granted until there is a proper impact study on the waters of Manitoba and what the project will do to them, or is the Minister already too deeply embedded in his political deal?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, when I made my decision to grant the permit for the Rafferty dam, I had in my office my Deputy Minister, my senior Assistant Deputy Minister for this area, and the top hydrologist in the Government of Canada in my own Department, and I asked them, after many meetings over many weeks, what was their best advice. They said: "Minister, our best advice is that you have no technical or other grounds on which to refuse the permit. We recommend that 13 environmental conditions, all of them stringent, be attached to the permit. Our advice to you is that if any one of them is not honoured by the relevant jurisdictions (a) you have the power to revoke the permit, and (b) you ought to do so".
I acquiesced in the advice of my top officials. I think it was the right decision, and I would do it again.



REQUEST THAT MINISTER COMMISSION STUDIES

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister knows that his issuing of this permit without adequate environmental study belies a lot of the
rhetoric that the Prime Minister and the Minister have been spouting this last week about a new commitment to the environment.
This was a serious breach of the Minister's responsibility to issue that permit. In the letter he quoted from Manitoba the Minister referred to the Canada-U.S. Boundaries Waters Treaty. It is precisely in the context of that treaty that he has been asked before in the House to refer the matter to the International Joint Commission for a study, which he has not been prepared to do.
I ask the Minister if he will commission the appropriate studies, and stop kidding us by saying that there are these 13 environmental conditions that have to be met. We all know that once a dam is built and water is polluted in Manitoba there is now way of revoking that. We want studies done now, not after the fact.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand, and I will share it with the Hon. Member or anybody else in the House, a history of the Rafferty dam going back to the 1930s. It has been studied to death ever since. Different Governments of different political Parties have sought the construction of this project.
I made my decision based on the advice of the best hydrologists in the country and of most senior officials. I note that these questions are based on an article that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press which contains a paragraph that the Opposition does not quote. It states: "Miss May said she hopes environmental groups don't take a knee-jerk anti-Tory stance because I do think they, the federal Tories, deserve credit for having done more in the federal environment area than any previous federal Government".



MINISTER'S POSITION

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it would not take much to supersede the record of the former Liberal Government, by anyone's admission. That is not what is at stake here.
What is at stake here is the Manitoba environment and the fact that the Minister has seriously compromised his credibility with respect to a serious environmental question by issuing that permit against the advice of his senior environmental expert.
The Minister talked about not having any good technical reasons to turn down the permit. There are a lot of good environmental reasons to turn down the project. That is what the Minister has failed to consider, and that is why he should no longer be the Minister of the Environment.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I have obligations under the International Rivers Improvements Act to ensure that any project that affects a river that is jointly managed by different jurisdictions,
September 13, 1988

including not only Canada but the United States, meets the most rigorous environmental standards.
I have satisfied myself on the basis of advice from the best experts that I could consult that those obligations are being met. The Province of Saskatchewan approved the dam. The Province of Manitoba approved the dam. The State of North Dakota approved the dam. The Government of the United States approved the dam, and now the Government of Canada has approved the dam.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT- CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On July 30 members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture wrote a letter to every Member of Parliament to express their concern about the Prime Minister's free trade deal with the United States. They asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister to seek assurances that marketing boards, the Canadian Wheat Board, and the horticultural industry would not be sacrificed in this deal.
Since the Prime Minister has not yet met with this group, and it is the largest farm umbrella group in the country, what action is being taken to reassure those producers that they will not be wiped out by this deal?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, this year, representatives of the Canadian agricultural industry have generally and consistently supported our policy of free trade with the United States. The same applies to the pork sector, the meat sector in general and the grains sector. We made a commitment to farmers to protect farm product marketing boards, and we did just that. We maintained our position on this issue, both in bilateral and multilateral talks.
I think Canadian farmers are satisfied with the position we have taken on behalf of Canadian agricultural producers. 1 don't think there is any question about that.



POULTRY INDUSTRY

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of State for Agriculture. He knows that the CFA is the largest group in Canada and he knows that it is not satisfied with the assurance the Government has been able to give regarding the trade deal.
Can the Minister explain why poultry products and broiler hatching eggs which have a national marketing board, have
Oral Questions
not been put on the import control list? Why has there been no arrangement established by the Minister for consultation as demanded by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture? Why has there been no action in this regard for the largest agricultural umbrella group in the country?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the Hon. Member that for the first time ever a Prime Minister met approximately 10 times with Canada's farm leaders, something which never happened before.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McDermid:: Trudeau would never meet with them.


Pierre Blais: Twenty-three or 25 consultation boards have been created with farm leaders around the country covering all sections of agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, all groups involved in the agricultural industry, including producers and processors, were consulted to an extent unheard of under the Liberals. We discussed our policies with Canadians, and today, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are satisfied with those policies. We dealt with every single issue raised by producers generally.



CHILD CARE


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last week witnesses from approximately 40 groups appeared before a committee. All opposed the Government's child care Bill. Unfortunately, people from poorer regions, such as the Atlantic provinces, Saskatchewan, and the North, were excluded from these hearings.
Since all witnesses severely criticized the Bill and, indeed, many asked for its withdrawal because it fails to establish national objectives, restricts funding, and terminates growth in child care after seven years, will the Minister reconsider this unacceptable legislation? Will he redraft the Bill? This time will he establish clear national objectives and adequate funding to develop comprehensive, affordable, quality child care across Canada which will go on, develop, and meet the needs of children beyond 1995?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the committee has listened to witnesses. Its clause by clause study was completed last Friday and I take it the committee will be reporting the Bill back to the House. This Bill will increase, almost double over seven years,

September 13, 1988
Oral Questions
subsidized child care spaces. That was reconfirmed in the committee and very clearly pointed out.
The Member persists in saying that the Bill will reduce growth rate. That has been proved wrong again and again and again, and she should not make statements which are inaccurate.
If the Hon. Member recalls, an amendment was accepted last Friday and, if approved by the House, it will focus the Bill even more to lower and middle-income families.
The Hon. Member might disagree philosophically but at least she should stay with the facts that the Bill will create
200.000	new spaces and it will, with the co-operation of the provincial Governments, have areas of standardization. She should keep in mind that after seven years there will also be $800 million per year program compared to a $160 million program this year. Every point the Hon. Member makes is simply wrong. What she disagrees with is a philosophical position. She believes the state should run everything.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, that shows how insensitive this Minister is. I was referring to the conclusions of 40 different organizations from many regions of Canada, unfortunately not from the poorer provinces because this Minister has refused funding.



GOVERNMENT POSITION

Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, surely if the Minister looked at this matter again over the weekend and took any of these representations seriously he would have concluded that without national guidelines and without adequate funding-and this funding is capped no matter what the Minister says-thousands of Canadian children will continue to be at risk-and I mean thousands. There are many children in informal, unlicensed baby sitting services, and many children have no care at all, and this kind of situation will continue under this Bill.
Is this the kind of child care legacy the Conservatives want to leave to Canada? This is no national child care program. It is a fraud.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, I must cut the Hon. Member off. The Hon. Minister.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand the Hon. Member says that she wants a universal program which is costed out in full bloom at $11 billion. Then her Leader went to Vancouver and said they were going to have 200,000 spaces, but then when we create
200.000	spaces he says that is not adequate. In every way they say one thing but do another thing. I say to the Hon. Member that she had her chance in committee. She put forward her amendments and in a majority situation those amendments were judged and found wanting. The Bill will come back, it will be passed and we will have a national child care program.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston.



APARTHEID


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns his Government's hypocritical position on economic sanctions in the fight against apartheid in South Africa.
In a document from the Minister's Department entitled "Canada Against Apartheid", it says:
The federal Government itself buys no South African goods and services at all for its own use and does not enter into contracts with any majority owned South African company.
Will the Minister admit today in the House that this statement is totally incorrect and that the Government, in fact, has surreptitiously provided loans, grants and contracts to South African controlled companies operating here in Canada?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has developed a reputation in this House. He is an expert at putting a twist on numbers. Indeed, he has become "Mr. Twist".


Sheila Maureen Copps: Rather that than "Joe Who".


Charles Joseph Clark: The other day in the House of Commons he was claiming that there had been $2 million involved in contracts. In fact, the figure involved is $41,939. Those are all provided for exclusively with regard-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I would ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton East to control herself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Do not be sexist, Joe! Maureen will not put up with it.


Charles Joseph Clark: All of those transactions had to do not with anything surreptitious, if I may use the word that describes the Hon. Member's conduct, but with a specific exclusion exemption that has been made for products, including spare parts, that can only be sole-sourced.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Minister check the record again because it is clear he continues to posture on the subject.
September 13, 1988



GOVERNMENT POLICY

John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has had two weeks now to investigate this particular dossier. Will he indicate to the House today how many South African controlled companies operating in Canada have received government loans, grants, and contracts? Can he give his undertaking in the House today that this practice will cease immediately? When will he stop the posturing and take some real action to fight apartheid in South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is taking advice, but this question is too important to leave to that Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What? That is sexist.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and I think you will find agreement for the Minister of the Environment to make a short statement, followed by the usual responses of the spokespersons for the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We were hoping for his resignation.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Minister of State. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier indicate agreement. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.



PRIVILEGE


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If I understood the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in his response to an Hon. Member, he suggested that an Hon. Member had no right to ask a question about apartheid.


An Hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I find that incredibly-


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.
Statements by Ministers


Mr. Boudria:: He may have said it too fast for you, Barry, but he said it any way.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not exactly sure what the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs did say, but I will look at it. It seems to me that that is probably not a question of privilege at this point.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I thank Hon. Members for their consent.
On March 25, 1986, I announced that effective December 31, 1992, the petroleum industry would be required to eliminate lead in gasoline across Canada.
My decision was based on a study conducted for Environment Canada by a blue ribbon panel of scientists under the direction of the Royal Society of Canada. Those experts recommended, among other things, that the Minister of the Environment consider even more stringent controls on leaded gasoline, should future research render such a course advisable.
Since that time new research in the United States and in Australia, and elsewhere has convinced me and the Government of Canada as a whole that lead in the environment poses an even more serious threat to human health, especially among children, than health experts previously thought.
Accordingly, I am announcing today, on behalf of the federal Cabinet, that lead in gasoline will be illegal at all retail outlets across Canada after December 1, 1990. Violators will be subject to very stiff sanctions under the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the Minister which we welcome fails to recognize that it was a Liberal Government that launched in December, 1983 the program of reducing and eventually eliminating lead in gasoline. This Government has now changed its position. Originally, probably yielding to pressures by industry, it decided to choose 1993 as the target year.
We in the Opposition have raised this matter in this House on a number of occasions. As recently as one month ago we called on the Government, on the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), and on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to advance to 1990 the deadline for further reduction of lead in gasoline. We are glad, therefore, to see once more that the Government is continuing the work started by preceding Liberal Governments. What strikes us, though, as a bit disturbing is the timing of this announcement. It is

September 13, 1988
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
almost cynical or, I should say, almost a desperate attempt by this Conservative Government to gain credibility, to appear to be concerned with environment and with health. It is an attempt, in a way, of a blue chameleon trying to change its colour into green.
In any event, to conclude, I am sure Canadians will not be fooled by this Government's sudden decision in its sudden conversion to the environment in a crass manner which evidently is intended to garner votes.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the announcement that the removal of lead from gasoline will be speeded up. It is something for which I have called for some time. Previous environment critics for the New Democratic Party caucus have called for it and, of course, environmentalists have called for it for a very long time.
I think that there is an easy, broader lesson to be learned. Reference has been made to the fact that experts have only recently found out that low levels of lead can be very harmful, particularly to the development of children. Yet, we have other environmental hazards which we are still seeing accumulate, on the basis that low levels are not harmful to health. I think that emissions of NOx, for example, are continuing to go up even with improved standards. There is still going to be an increase.
The Government has announced that low level radiation is not a health hazard. We wonder how many lives have to be lost and how much illness there has to be before the lesson is truly going to be learned that we have very serious environmental problems.
I welcome the announcement. It is high time that we move on leaded gasoline. It is particularly a problem in my area, an urban riding which has lead in the soil that is being removed. It has been a local problem as well as a national one. It is only one very small step, and it is an important lesson that we have to stop pollution. It is very, very significant in all areas of life, and it is still not being acted upon.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-152 and to open the debate on behalf of the Government. I am sure that it would be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, to let you and Members of the House know why I am standing in
this place this afternoon instead of the Hon. Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner). I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you and Members would appreciate that this is one of the holy days of the faith that the Hon. Minister observes. For that reason he has asked me to make a presentation on behalf of the Government, and I am honoured to do so. I know that Hon. Members opposite will understand why he is not here.
Some two months ago, this House gave its unanimous consent to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, and on July 21, Royal Assent passed this historic Act into law. I think all Members, and especially Government Members, are justifiably proud of the co-operation and consensus which turned this piece of Canadian legislation into the first law of its kind in the world.
This afternoon, in introducing for second reading Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, I believe it is a further demonstration of the viability and of the life that comes not only from the Multiculturalism Act but which is Canada.
Others Members of the House and I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that you have worked strenuously over the years in the field of multiculturalism, both as a Member of Parliament, as an active member of an ethnic group in Canada, and as a former Minister. I hope that you, as well as other Members of the House, feel that this is an important milestone in some of the work that you have done as well.
The Bill before us has its roots in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and in the multiculturalism policy of Canada. This Bill gives expression to Section 3, subsection 1 of the Act, which states that it is the policy of the Government of Canada to preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French. This Bill also gives specific recognition to sections of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act which commit the Government to facilitate the acquisition, retention, and use of all languages that contribute to Canada's multicultural identity.
This Bill is another concrete example of our Government's resolve to meet the challenges of our evolving multicultural society which we set out in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Last year, the former Secretary of State, the Hon. David Crombie, announced the Government's intention to establish a national heritage languages institute in Edmonton. He commissioned Dr. Henry Kreisel of the University of Alberta and Dr. Michael Batts of the University of British Columbia to conduct a study on the best way to meet this commitment. The Bill before us today results from that cross-country process of consultation and assessment.
Dr. Kreisel recommended that the federal Government establish an institute to foster and further the learning of heritage languages, an institute that was described as without walls, an institute that would serve the needs of all those active in this area. The report recommended that the institute reach
September 13, 1988

out to the educational and cultural communities of Canada, to the business communities of Canada, and to all levels of government to forge a strong national network, a network bringing together linguistic resources of Canada and the experts in the field. It would in fact fulfil a tremendous need for the co-ordination and exchange of information on Canada's heritage languages.
I would like to take just a moment to emphasize to the Elouse the extent to which our heritage languages enrich the Canadian way of life. There are over 70 languages spoken in this country, not including specific dialects. Some belong to the aboriginal peoples of Canada and were part of our heritage long before the arrival of Europeans. Other languages have been brought to this nation by those who came here from all parts of the world seeking a land of freedom, security and opportunity.
From my own perspective, heritage languages are a vital component of daily life in Canada. I have spent considerable time travelling across the country and meeting people from many different cultural and racial groups, groups which remain fiercely proud of their first languages. One does not have to venture far in any of our major metropolitan centres to encounter the variety and the vitality of Canada's spoken languages. They are all around us. They are a living culture which lifts the everyday life of this country beyond the ordinary.
Just last Saturday, I had the opportunity to speak at the annual meeting of the Canadian German Congress in Winnipeg about the establishment of a chair for German-Canadian studies at the University of Winnipeg. This further verifies the multicultural nature of Canada and the need to preserve and give understanding to other Canadians of that heritage.
This richness and diversity of languages is something to be proud of. It is something to be cherished. It gives us a sense of where we have come from, a sense of our roots, and of how many unique individual heritages contribute to our national character.
Language is the strong current of a culture. Language provides the means for passing on the heart and soul of a culture, its folklore, stories of the past, and, yes, dreams of the future. Languages bond people together, giving them a strong sense of community and of common values, but languages are more than just a social phenomenon. Languages are an important natural resource for Canadian people.
Language is an economic resource. It is a resource which boosts our trading profile. It is a resource to use in international diplomacy. It is a resource for tourism. Certainly our reputation for hospitality and friendliness is much enhanced as we welcome visitors in the languages of the world. Within Canada today, there is an increasing demand for people- teachers, translators, negotiators-with heritage language skills. This is why we made such strong commitments in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, commitments that we are backing up today with Bill C-152.
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
Let me take a moment to outline to the House the special features of this legislation. The Bill describes the establishment of a new and special kind of institute, an institute which from the outset is designed to be a co-operative venture. We want the institute to be a facilitator, to be a means for community groups, institutions, corporations, and all levels of government to work together to develop the rich linguistic versatility of our society. To that end, we have established measures for an endowment fund, a fund which will allow the institute to function independently and to set its own priorities.
The institute will be incorporated federally as a charitable organization so that it can seek a broad base of public and private support. We also expect it to encourage support from other levels of government. I think all Hon. Members would see this as being a co-operative era of partnership in multiculturalism. This is our idea of working in co-operation with all segments of Canadian society and further developing a major national resource, our heritage languages.
The institute's mandate is ambitious. It will undertake a variety of activities that will foster the teaching and learning of heritage languages across Canada and their ongoing use in our society. This mandate includes improving public understanding and appreciation of heritage languages, upgrading the quality of instruction and learning materials, developing Canadian oriented materials, and conducting research into all aspects of Canada's heritage languages. Of course, one major purpose of the institute is to provide a national focus, a focus which will bring together expertise from across the country to respond to the different priorities identified at the community level.
I will not take the time of the House now to go into specifics about the powers of the institute or the way it will be set up. There might be questions about that later. Each of us here has an opportunity to read and to consider the Bill, but I wish to make the point that it is important for all of us to consider, in a positive sense, our heritage languages.
We have attempted to provide the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute with the maximum degree of flexibility, the flexibility to ensure that it can meet its objectives and achieve excellence in its work. We have given the institute a structure and a set of objectives to accomplish this important task. Let me repeat just how important this task is.
Right now, the multiculturalism sector of the Department of the Secretary of State supports some 1,600 supplementary schools at which over 130,000 students have a chance to learn the languages of their ancestors. These are impressive figures and enrolments are continuing to rise. My point is that we are not dealing with a marginal social and cultural activity. We are in fact responding to the many Canadians who feel deeply concerned about preserving their heritage languages and using them in today's modern society. We have made a commitment to help these Canadians do exactly that.
Our commitment to this institute is part of the strong new directions for multiculturalism that were announced last May by the Minister. That commitment is being reinforced with

September 13, 1988
Message from the Senate
$62 million in new money over the next five years, including $14.5 million to preserve and enhance heritage languages and culture. Over the first five years of its existence the institute will receive $6.7 million. What is significant is the breakdown of this funding to ensure a sound base for the institute's development and long-term financial security.
In addition to $250,000 start up financing, $500,000 per year will be provided for operating costs and $800,000 per year will go to a special endowment fund. This fund is designed to help the institute become financially self-sufficient in keeping with our fiscal responsibilities to the Canadian taxpayers.
I should also take some time to address the question of the relationship between heritage languages and official languages. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act clearly states that it is the policy of the Government of Canada to preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada. I am proud to say that our Government's record speaks for itself in this regard. It is our Government that brought in the new Official Languages Act. It is my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard), who negotiated landmark agreements on official languages with a number of provinces. The Bill we are considering today complements those agreements. Most important, it complements our official languages policy by advancing multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with a national commitment to our official languages.
I think it should be noted that the Secretary of State, who has responsibility under the Financial Administration Act for official languages and for these programs, is of French Canadian background. The Minister who brought forward the Multiculturalism Act and the Heritage Languages Act has an ethnic background, if I can use that term. That is simply a demonstration of the fact that all of us here have different experiences and backgrounds. Whether our experiences are personal in the sense that our families came from other countries, or whether it is simply through our knowledge of history, those experiences are very much part of our lives today.
That fact also reminds me of the story my father told me, something which might be reflected in various ways by other Canadians. He came to this country in 1924 as a medical doctor, never to practise again, because of the history of Europe involving World War I and the Russian civil war and revolution. He arrived in Quebec City, speaking five languages and none of them was official. However, he was accepted into Canada. He was given freedom and the right to practise religion as we saw fit. We were given the right to speak our own languages. Above all, we were given the opportunity to develop not only our families and communities but hopefully also contribute to the development of Canada.
I have used that personal vignette simply to make the point that there are Canadians across our land who have had if not the same experience at least similar experiences and it indicates why Canada is so important to them.
Heritage languages are a vital element of communication and understanding in our multicultural society. They are fundamental to the way in which we deal with one another as Canadians. I truly believe that this country has an unlimited opportunity with its people, its cultural diversity, and many different languages, to take greater advantage of this modern world than any other country. To do so we must safeguard and develop what we have. We must look to the future with a sure sense of where we are going. This Bill is part of that progressive outlook. I hope the House will give it rapid passage in order that the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute can begin its work without further delay.
If I may be permitted, let me say in the other language that I speak: Vielen danke fur die gelegenheit, heute zu sprechen zu diese wichtige sache. I hope we get passage soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure the Hansard reporter got that, as did the translators.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills without amendment: Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act; Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists; Bill C-110, an Act to establish the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and to amend or repeal other Acts in consequence thereof; Bill C-123, an Act to amend the Indian Act (minors' funds and surviving spouse's preferential share); Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977 and certain related Acts; Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Indian Act (death rules); Bill C-153, an Act to amend the National Capital Act; and Bill C-143, an Act to establish the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
September 13, 1988

Rideau Hall
September 13, 1988 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard V. J. La Forest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 13th day of September, 1988, at 5.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth,
Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
after-school program. Finally, in the Atlantic region, no public school offers heritage language programs and the initiative is left with the various ethnocultural communities.
That is obviously a very quick analysis which certainly does not do justice to the status of heritage languages across the country, but it gives me an idea, and I am sure other Canadians, that there are different programs with different criteria depending on where one lives. Therefore, for that one very good reason, we in the Liberal Party believe there is a need, not only to co-ordinate these programs to give them a standard which would apply across the various jurisdictions but also eliminate duplication under one central body with a national vision. As well, there must be communication between the school boards in different provinces in order to exchange information.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean) that Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. E un pracere di ringraziere il Ministro, e di presentare la posizione Liberale. I would like to thank the Minister. I think the House appreciates his standing in for his colleague, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner), who is today, along with many other Canadians, observing a religious holiday. Let me say at the outset that the Official Opposition supports in principle and welcomes the creation and establishment of a national institute for heritage languages. It does so not only because it believes in it, but because it is very much needed. If one was to look across this country at the various heritage language programs and services provided by our schools through the provinces with the help of the ethnocultural communities, one would very quickly see a need for a national institute such as the one we are discussing today to co-ordinate and facilitate national standards and consistency in this area.
To a certain degree, through the fault of no one in particular, we have a chequer-board program nationally which grew from different initiatives in different time periods. Alberta, for example, the first province to pass enabling legislation, did it in 1971, with a combination of heritage language programs. In Saskatchewan the legislation was introduced in 1974. In Manitoba it was in 1980. British Columbia started in 1960 through several school boards to develop heritage languages. The first bilingual program, English and the second language, was offered in 1983 in the school district of Castlegar.
In Quebec the heritage language program instruction started in 1971 under the name of "d'enseignment des langues et des cultures d'origine", which teaches several languages for 30 minutes per day during a regular school day. In Ontario the program started in approximately 1971. Today it is largely an
The second reason for supporting the principle of the institute is, as the Minister well noted, that the question of heritage languages is very much alive and well in Canadian society. There are some 128,000 children enrolled in various language programs across the country spanning some 62 languages. The census figures of 1986 indicate that many Canadians of various generations are not speaking only English and French but are trying to maintain a third or fourth language, not only as an inherent part of their culture but also in an attempt to broaden their opportunities by possessing one or more languages.
My own riding of York West reflects that dynamism. The last census indicated that 37,000 individuals in York West alone spoke a mother tongue other than other English or French. These tongues include Italian, German, Chinese, Ukrainian, and Portuguese, as well as a number of other languages. In York West individuals are trying to keep these languages alive as a part of identifying their cultural roots and identity which give us all a sense of purpose and vision. There is a link between language preservation and cultural preservation. One without the other is certainly poorer for it.
The third reason we believe it is important to rally behind the principle of an institute is that we believe we should view heritage languages in a constructive sense and as a national resource and treasure. We should adopt a philosophy that in addition to our bilingualism policy of English and French, it is an advantage to be able to speak a third or fourth language. It is an advantage to utilize a third or fourth language to delve deeper into one's culture or to open locked doors which will remain locked without the knowledge of another language. As a country we should be adopting that as a positive tool.
In my travels as a Member of Parliament on various parliamentary committees I have always been pleasantly surprised by the different school systems in the different parts of the world where children are encouraged to learn three languages. More than a cultural attribute, they realize that a youngster graduating from school will possess an economic

September 13, 1988
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
attribute as well in terms of positioning himself or herself in the market-place.
That is why we are happy to support the principle of a heritage language institute. The promotion of heritage languages as a integral part of a multiculturalism policy in this country was always supported by this Party when it was in office. It was an integral part of the Government's multiculturalism policy in the 1970s and early 1980s.
In 1981, for instance, a Liberal administration convened the first national conference linking Canadians from all parts of the country in a heritages languages conference. Two years later that Government tripled the funding for heritage languages and introduced, for the first time, new moneys for the production of Canadian teaching materials. Later it also established a national heritage language resource centre for heritage languages at the Ontario Institute for Studies and Education in Toronto.
During our time in opposition during the last number of years we have rallied to the defence of heritage languages. In fact, in an effort to bring to the forefront and crystallize a new agenda for a multiculturalism policy in June of 1987 the committee, in a report entitled Building a Canadian Mosaic recognized the importance of heritage languages. In that report, page 3, it says that the standing committee recommends that the new multiculturalism policy embodied eight principles. One of those principles was the enhancement of heritage languages. On page 47 the committee recognizes that the policy should encourage the preservation and enhancement of the heritage languages of all Canadians, recognizing the cultural and economic benefits of multilingual resources.
It was heartening that the Government took at least this idea from the report, since it rejected virtually every other recommendation in the standing committee report which was a unanimous position of the members of that standing committee. Nonetheless, I have a number of concerns which I wish to table for discussion at committee stage in terms of fine tuning and upgrading various parts of the proposed legislation.
I must say at the outset that I am disappointed that the Government waited until the eve of a federal election campaign to introduce this legislation. The report by Professor Henry Kreisel and Professor Michael Batts was prepared and submitted to the Government more than a year ago. When it was submitted there was no urgency, no discussion, and very little communication with regard to proposing a response to that report. All of a sudden, on the eve of a federal election campaign, we have the crystallization of this legislation.
I am disappointed because for the four years of this administration's life Parliament and the country have had to endure a multicultural drought. All of a sudden it rains all sorts of gifts on the eve of a federal election. It took four years to get to a multiculturalism Bill, and even then many of the proposals submitted by the standing committee composed of members of all three Parties were left out.
For four years the communities and organizations were crying for redress. The individual budgets of the Departments were dwindling compared to their levels in 1984 and there were no answers. All of a sudden a few weeks ago increased funding was announced.
For four years the third language media was complaining that there was not enough government advertising in their various media compared to the media in the English and French worlds. A few weeks ago at a conference in Toronto, after some three years of such complaints, the Minister came through with additional dollars. We now also have the institute.
It is fine to come up with some initiatives, but it is somewhat of a shame that we have to wait to the very end of the administration's life to see some improvement in the situation found by a new Parliament and particularly by a new Government. If we were to look at this year's Estimates, before the gifts started to be showered around the country, we would see that in terms of transfer payments there was a decrease in this current fiscal year of funds to various voluntary groups, universities, and institutions of some $435,000. We would see there was a decrease of $500,000 in group development initiatives, a decrease of $223,000 in citizenship and community participation, a decrease of some $19,000 to the performing and visual arts, a decrease in intercultural communications, in performing and visual arts, and a decrease in Canadian ethnic studies of some $250,000. These are in this year's Estimates. That goes to show the intentions of the Government in the normal course of its administration, compared to the number of initiatives we have seen triggered by an election call.
I would suggest very sincerely that the Government of Canada stop advancing multiculturalism through the eyes of a general election. It should not attach the multiculturalism cart to an election roller-coaster. That does not engender confidence or pacify cynicism. Certainly in the aftermath of an election, there will be an accounting. The Government must look at its promises, its commitments, and at reality.
In a conference attended by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in 1984 before the last election, he made perfectly clear some 48 specific promises he would deliver once becoming Prime Minister. Looking at these promises now we see a litany of unfulfilled expectations and broken promises on behalf of the many organizations and volunteers which make multiculturalism on a day-to-day basis the force it is today. My message to the Government is to stop showering the country with gifts just because there is a pending election. Let us have a long-term, consistent and genuine policy we can be proud of year in and year out.
The second concern I have with respect to the principle of a Canadian Heritage Languages Institute has to do with our official policy of bilingualism. I believe we require greater and
September 13, 1988

parallel initiatives and resources to encourage more of our landed immigrants to learn better one of the two, if not the two official languages. This was recognized back on October 8, 1971 by the former Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was the architect of the official policy adopted by all Parties of the House in 1971. In introducing the concept of multiculturalism, he said: "the Government will continue to assist immigrants to acquire at least one of Canada's official languages in order to become full participants in Canadian society". He found the time, while making the multicultural announcement, to highlight and reinforce the importance of those Canadians participating in if not both, one of the two official languages, as a way of being completely integrated and mobile in the mainstream and lifestyle of this country.
I believe that in 1988 we have not done enough to encourage this mobility. Many individuals do not have access to proper language training, but this should not stop the Government from its first priority of welcoming as many landed immigrants and newcomers as possible and integrating them linguistically into either English or French. The person who is affected the most is the immigrant woman. Many times, because of our criteria, she is blocked from entering into English or French language training because she may be deemed not to be the head of a household. The husband may qualify. The children will learn either English or French by playing with their peers, but the woman becomes ghettoized. She becomes locked in her home with the resultant inability to master the English or French language. That will determine the type of job she gets. It will determine the amount of dollars she is paid per hour, and it will determine the vertical mobility of that woman in the workforce. Therefore, I believe greater emphasis, while saluting the value of heritage languages, must be placed with those same Canadians in order to have them become fluent in one of the two languages which will increase their confidence as citizens and their positioning in Canadian society. From an economic standpoint, it would certainly enhance their life much more rapidly.
If one were to look at the statistics of the Canadian Employment Immigration Commission, one would take some care in listening to the argument I have just put forward in terms of a percentage of total immigration for selected years. For instance, in 1968 the percentage of immigrants knowing English well was some 51.3 per cent. In 1984 that dropped to 44 per cent. In terms of knowledge of French, in 1968 the percentage was 6.3 per cent. That dropped a full percentage point to 5.1 per cent in 1984. Those landed immigrants knowing neither English or French in 1968 numbered 38.7 per cent. In 1984 that percentage rose quite dramatically to 47 per cent.
Therefore, while one can attach different factors to produce that sort of trend in terms of the sources of immigration and so on, it is nonetheless important for us as a Parliament to try to take the message from these numbers, and while we are reinforcing the value of heritage languages, at the same time put additional resources into the training our new immigrants
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
in English and French in terms of business, in terms of social, economic and political pursuits, being fluent in one of our two official languages is absolutely crucial.
My next concern is with the inherent risk in this legislation, and I underline the word "risk", that heritage languages to a certain degree will be ghettoized. I believe it is very important that no ghettoization be formulated through the body of a national institute. It is simply not good enough, in my judgment, simply to link up the Greek Canadian community in Alberta, for instance, with the Greek community in Toronto or Montreal through the institute. While that is valuable, it should not stop there. Instead, we must interlink those communities with different cultural communities. Crosscultural linkages are absolutely vital if we are to share and be united as a Canadian family. The networking within and among different communities is an important part of advancing the cause of change and reform in that very community.
More important, rather than simply stopping at utilizing heritage languages as an institute within Canada and among communities, the real challenge for this Government will be to utilize heritage languages as a national tool and resource. More Canadians capable of speaking in a variety of languages should find themselves in government circles as well. They should find themselves in increasing numbers in the Public Service of Governments federally and provincially. They should find themselves in greater numbers in the trade missions to which we send people in all parts of the globe. They should also find themselves in greater numbers in our foreign embassies, immigration posts, and trading posts abroad.
We need to recognize that it is important to co-ordinate the various heritage language programs. However, what more dynamic solution do we have to that situation than to utilize that natural resource-since that is what it is-to the advantage of our country on the international stage? Canada is indeed in a very unique position. Not every other country possesses the national treasures which we possess. We have over 62 languages in which Canadians are fluent.
We have to put that to good use, not only domestically but internationally, to open those cultural doors through the ability to converse and to communicate. I am sure that if we can harness that talent, that resource, Canada will not be poorer for it. Canada will obviously be richer. We will be sharper on the cutting line in terms of international competition with other countries of the world if we can also adopt Canadians who, in addition to being competent in their fields, can also naturally and efficiently communicate in the languages of the world. This is a global village, to quote the words of a famous Canadian.
It is important that an institute undertake this work at this time. If one were to conduct a survey in our high schools and universities, one would find that the number of people taking

September 13, 1988
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
various language courses is dwindling at an alarming rate. I have met with a number of high school professors and directors of various language programs. There has been an emphasis to take the three Rs, to do well in mathematics, sciences, and English. Of course, that is of fundamental importance to any student and of particular importance to any graduate from our educational institutions. While pushing the fundamental courses we should not underestimate the capabilities and the values of a young man or woman leaving university at the age of 22 or 23. In addition to being solid in a number of areas of his or her degree, he or she could also be capable and educated in a third or fourth language.
I believe that this institute can play a significant role to try to reverse the trend that is beginning to take place in our high schools, colleges, and universities. It can rekindle a certain value for languages among our students. It can try to impress upon them that it is not only a question of culture but that at the end of academic training the ability to converse in another language also takes on an economic dimension. Students emerging from various institutions need as many advantages today in the competing world as they can possibly afford.
I have a number of concerns with respect to the structure of the institute. For instance, the legislation would create a board of directors numbering 21. However, the staff, as articulated by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism at his press conference when he announced this measure a few weeks ago, suggested that the staff can be as small as three individuals. One question that I obviously have is: What kind of an organization are we going to put in place when there is a board of directors numbering 21 and a staff of three? It is obvious that not only is it top-heavy in terms of directors but also in terms of the responsibilities that the legislation is expecting the institute to carry on. On page 2 of the Bill it states:
4. The purpose of the Institute is to facilitate throughout Canada the acquisition, retention and use of languages, other than the official languages of Canada, that contribute to the country's multicultural heritage by
(a)	promoting, through public education and discussion, the learning of heritage languages;
(b)	providing the public with information about heritage language resources;
(c)	developing programs to improve the quality of heritage language instruction;
(d)	assisting in the production and dissemination of Canadian-oriented materials related to the study of heritage languages;
(e)	assisting in the development of standards for the learning of heritage languages;
(f)	conducting research into all aspects of heritage languages;
(g)	establishing scholarly and professional links between the Institute and universities, colleges and other organizations-
It then goes on to state that it should initiate, finance, and administer programs and activities created to this purpose; support, encourage, and organize conferences; publish and otherwise disseminate information related to this; and establish award scholarships and fellowships.
Those are all fine tasks. I think all Members of the House would agree with every one of them. The question is: Can three people as a staff undertake successfully the tasks that the legislation sets out? I believe that we need to take a very close look in committee at the ability of a staff of three to fulfil the expectations of this legislation.
I also have questions with respect to how the board of directors will be appointed. It states in the Bill that the Government will appoint 13 and the board will make another eight appointments. I think that it might be useful to list some of the qualifications which members of the board possess. I would also like to know where the community input is in terms of those appointments. Will we have the community proposing some names which the Government and the board will take under advisement? Or, will the appointments be made as we have seen in the Canadian Multiculturalism Council in a vacuum? Will there be members of various communities asking themselves who is that person on that board who purports to represent community A or community B when in fact that person is not an integral part of that community?
There are questions with respect to funding. Will the funding proposed by the Government in fact allow the institute to do the kind of job over the long term? The Bill suggests that it wishes the institute over the course of time to be its own fund raiser to keep the institute alive. That also raises a number of serious problems. Many organizations, in particular voluntary organizations and non-profit groups in our society, are always scrambling for funds.
Before I was elected to office I was associated with a number of non-profit organizations. Sometimes as an organization we spent more time fundraising than in fact fulfilling and delivering the programs on which the group was designed. I am somewhat concerned that the small staff of three will be too preoccupied with financial requirements of keeping the institute afloat as opposed to delivering on the expectations set out by Parliament in this legislation.
There is no mention in the Bill about native and aboriginal languages. It is unclear whether native or aboriginal languages will be included within the heritage language programs or whether they are outside it. I think clarification from the Minister would certainly be helpful in clarifying that question. It is an important question, and one that many communities, particularly those in the North, are asking vis-a-vis this legislation.
I also ask whether there has been any consultation with the provincial Governments. The question of education and schooling is clearly within provincial jurisdiction. It would be interesting to see if the federal Government has dovetailed or communicated with the provinces, and whether there will be co-operation or any financial assistance from the various provinces, because obviously an institute of this calibre, or potentially of this calibre, can be of extreme help to the various
September 13, 1988

Ministries of Education under the auspices of the provincial Governments.
In the actual legislation there is little input on the role that various community and ethnocultural organizations will be playing. I would like to see a greater role and assessment by various ethnocultural communities and national bodies in terms of interweaving their resources, talents, and aspirations with those of an institute. There must be a way in legislation of affording those community and group interests a role in this national institute.
Finally, in the legislation it states that the Minister will review the institute and its directions after a period of four years. That may be appropriate. However, others are asking if perhaps that is a little too long to wait in terms of a review. Perhaps that review should come earlier so that if there are a number of modifications to be made they are made well into the mandate of the institute rather than follow a direction that, after four years, proves not to have been as advantageous as a modification or a change.
The institute must report to the Minister in an annual report. I would suggest that we look at that situation and perhaps expand it. Perhaps that report should be made to Parliament, so that that report is shared by all Members of Parliament. Perhaps the report could be made to the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Members of Parliament from all three Parties could be apprised on an annual basis of the institute, rather than the report going directly to the Minister and perhaps never becoming public. Secrecy will not enhance a new launching of that institute. That report should be made public on the floor of the House of Commons or through the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism which would benefit the advancement of the institute and of the policy.
Another concern I would like to touch upon quickly is that a number of people and Members have been questioning the appropriateness of locating the institute in the City of Edmonton. I feel that that criticism is unfair and unwarranted. The location is not as important as whether the program will be delivered and whether the standards and expectations set by the legislation will be maintained. In my estimation, Edmonton is a fine city that is dynamic, enterprising, and cosmopolitan. It is perhaps advantageous to have the institute located in Edmonton as opposed to having it, and every other program that deals with multiculturalism, targeted to or located in the Montreal or Toronto area. It speaks highly of the policy if at times such as this we can move westward or farther east than Toronto or Montreal when we talk about multiculturalism. While those two cities and Vancouver certainly embody in numbers and in programs the very spirit of multiculturalism, to stop in those cities is to be incomplete.
The Province of Alberta is a leader in terms of heritage language instructions. After Ontario at 49, there are 42 languages taught in the Province of Alberta. Alberta has 116 schools where those languages are taught, the highest after
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
Ontario and B.C. Alberta has 899 classes of heritage languages, 10,900 hours of instruction, almost 11,000 students, and some $324,000 of federal moneys. In 1971 it was the first province to pass legislation to permit languages other than English or French in the teaching of heritage languages in the public school. In 1974, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, being a representative of that city, the program was instituted on a bilingual basis with one of the heritage languages for 25 per cent to 50 per cent of the school day for some subjects. Therefore, I believe that Edmonton is most appropriate, and in fact recognizes the spade work and the lead work that Edmonton and Alberta have done with respect to heritage languages.
In conclusion, I look forward to a discussion of this Bill at the legislative committee, or perhaps in the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. I have raised a number of concerns that I and my Party have with respect to the Bill. I am sure that my colleagues in the House will be amplifying on some of their thoughts and concerns and that those concerns will be best able to be addressed by that committee. Unlike the multiculturalism Bill that got a quick ride through committee and Parliament, the community organizations and the very many experts out there in the field will have the opportunity to give their input, have their say, and put forward their recommendations. By the conclusion of committee stage there will be a piece of legislation that will be stronger and not weaker. In principle we are in accord and we support this Bill on heritage languages. We also look forward to making it bigger and better for the benefit of our national fabric.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)- Environmental Affairs-Bill C-74-Size of Government funding/Reduction in person-years within departments; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Housing- Metropolitan Toronto-Vacant land at Downsview air base.


CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean) that Bill C-152, an Act to
[Stage Direction]
September 13, 1988
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to join in the second reading debate of Bill C-152, a Bill to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute. With my colleague, I readily accept the absence of the Minister for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner) this afternoon who I am sure is with his family celebrating the Jewish New Year, as are other persons across the country and around the world. That is only one manifestation of a multicultural Canada. I am sure the Minister would have liked the Bill to come forward in late August, a time when his office did consider the possibility that it might do so, because I am sure the Minister would have liked to speak to the Bill. I am sure no one will take it amiss if I observe that if he had been here, a Member of Parliament from Montreal, and a speaker of Hebrew, to some extent, taking part in the debate this afternoon on this heritage language institute, there would have been a completeness or a certain symmetry in terms of appropriate representation in the debate.
The debate on the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute this afternoon is a little heavy with Epps. When there are two people whose first language is German speaking to the Bill this afternoon, it leaves it a little incomplete. You, Mr. Speaker, may well represent one of those other Canadian realities, Ukrainian, or Polish, 1 am not quite certain of your capabilities, your presence in the Chair, and your membership in the House. If the Minister had been present there would have certainly been three of the leading heritage languages of western Canada represented, which are well practised and well taught in the Cities of Edmonton and Winnipeg, and particularly represented in a certain sense of the debate.
I would never wish to slight my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Marchi), who represents the Italian speaking realities of this country in this debate. At one point I spoke to some of the persons involved in heritage languages in this province, persons of Italian origin, and said to them quietly, and I trust this will not upset anyone, that what the Ukrainians have done in the West the Italians have done in Ontario in terms of establishing the importance of heritage languages. I say that quite readily because aside from the fact that my father and the father of the Minister would have understood and spoken Ukrainian, there is obviously no ancestral pride in my stating that particular recognition of the role of some of the communities in asserting the importance of heritage languages.
I did not look at that particular aspect of the topic in preparation for this afternoon, but I was interested in having my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West, scan heritage languages across the country and note some of the instances. In a few moments I want to explore more carefully what some of the situations are in various provinces of Canada, so that we will have a better sense of the situation into which this institute
will be injected, the situation which the institute will be required to work with, to transform, to develop.
He mentioned in British Columbia, a province which would surely exemplify, as its name might well suggest, as perfectly as any province has the desire to create a unilingual Englishspeaking Canada, a desire that prevailed for so long, to the detriment of French-speaking Canadians and the Quebeqois, and of course to the detriment of all of us and our ancestors who came to Canada with languages that we now call ancestral or heritage languages and who found themselves being discouraged from using the languages, encouraged to forget them and to merge into the Canadian English-speaking mainstream.
In recognizing that reality, the first program in British Columbia was brought to my attention, because having lived for nine years just down the road from Castlegar, British Columbia, when I was teaching at Notre Dame University in Nelson in the interior of B.C., I thought immediately, of course, that is a bilingual program. It is also in Russian, with the Doukhobors who live in the area.
That took me back 16 years to the misfortune of a broken knee suffered in the faculty-student football game. I was in the Trail Regional Hospital that fall of 1972, during the Canada-Soviet hockey game. I must say, I do not suppose that there were many places, many hospital wards in Canada, where the four patients in that ward were all persons who, if history had taken a different course, would have been happily cheering Tretiak and his team-mates on the Soviet team. As it happened, in that particular hospital ward the four of us-two Doukhobors, one of white Russian ancestry and myself of Mennonite stock; all of us from parts of the Soviet Union, now Canadians-were cheering the Canadian team on. This particular incident is just a reminder of the multicultural realities of Canada in which we have been involved in this Parliament over the years in trying to recognize, and to which we have, surely, in the multiculturalism Bill of these last months, given statutory statement, though not, I would assert, anything like adequate institutional roots.
We are now, certainly in this Bill to establish a Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, in this particular case, moving to establish one of the vital institutions of the federal Government, established by and supported by the federal Government, to ensure that all of our talk about multiculturalism, ever since the beginning of the last decade, is not simply talk.
That, of course, takes us back to the context that I have already alluded to, the long decades during which immigrants to this country, wherever they came from, were encouraged to become English-speaking Canadians. As a nation pressed its nationalism on all the citizens of Canada and urged them to merge, a pressure or a tendency developed which was only arrested in the 1960s, in the context of the quiet revolution in Quebec, the work of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which led to the Official Languages Act, the recognition of French as well as English, as fully the official
September 13, 1988

languages of the federal Government and the federal institutions and which led two years later to the enunciation of a policy not of bicuituralism but of multiculturalism.
In the midst of all of that development, it is surely more than just appropriate this afternoon to remember the work of one of the Royal Commissioners, Dr. J. B. Rudnyckyj, who is surely, among all the scholars and the public figures of Canada in all those years, the person who in his insistence on the importance of recognition of the languages other than English and French in Canada deserves to be remembered in this Chamber and thanked for his efforts.
I have been informed that he is disappointed time after time by the very, very limited recognition in the multiculturalism Bill, in the broadcasting Bill, and in the legislation brought forward of the multilingual realities of Canada as they were, as they might be, as they should be, if we were only prepared to see funds put in, if we were only prepared to put national support behind the efforts of communities to maintain their languages, to build up the culture to which language is so integral, in order to ensure that the multiculturalism of Canada, the mosaic that we have talked about, the diversity that is there and yet is so often still under challenge, is really fostered and built up.
What has happened, of course, in province after province, as communities recognized from the beginning of the 1970s, is that the Government of Canada was no longer hostile to culture and language-other than the English speaking and the French-but was prepared to encourage, and some funding was made available-a bit here and a bit there-enough to do it very impressively.
In Saturday schools and in various ways through continuing education programs, languages have been encouraged to some extent. I think that the reality remains, and that is what makes the Castlegar school development important.
We have the pioneering efforts in Edmonton and the achievements in Winnipeg, and wherever it is possible to move beyond the voluntary effort, the community effort, the Saturday school, into the establishment of schools in which it is possible not just to study another language, as I did to some extent as a high school student in Manitoba, where German was my foreign language, if you will, and on into the university. To do that goes some limited way toward what we are talking about. The real achievement in the use of heritage languages is the possibility of studying subjects in that language. We have the bilingual school, in which half the day is in English and the other half may be in Ukrainian or in Hebrew or in German, to take them in reverse alphabetical order. In those realities on the Prairies, we have the most important developments that we could imagine, in the way of ensuring that heritage languages are more than just something that we work at desperately on a limited or no-pay basis, doing our best to pass the language on to the next generation.
In that context, of course, the western achievements in the Provinces of Alberta and Manitoba certainly deserve to be
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
recognized first and foremost. It is saying something about the question of how the institute would be well established.
I say, without any hesitation at all, that Edmonton deserves to be the place to establish the centre. If one is going to have one institute with obviously one head office, the challenge would be in how the whole country could be served in this way.
In contrast to that, I want to refer to the sad experience still in this province of mine, my adopted province now, if you will, having had to practise as an Ontario MP for a couple of weeks in the Edmonton area. I still find that a bit ironic. It was not the context in which to make very much of my years of growing up in Manitoba and my years of teaching in the West, when people had me cast as an Ontario MP. I say, bluntly, that Ontario disappoints one so very often. In a few areas, I suppose it is more than in the area of heritage languages.
It is very much regretted that across this province languages are still being taught in Saturday schools and by voluntary efforts, and that that is all that we can achieve.
In the previous Legislature of Ontario a member of my Party, Mr. Tony Grande-and I say this with considerable pride-proposed a motion, which got support from all the Parties, to have the heritage languages incorporated in the curriculum of the public schools of Ontario. It was an initiative that got support at that point but which the Peterson Government has not really followed through on, although a study goes on to determine what kind of assistance the Province of Ontario will give to the heritage languages in this province.
That, of course, is the kind of contrast that I put forward with regret but may, in fact, provide the justification for concern about how the new institute will be able to develop the teaching and the study of heritage languages in Canada. A great deal of effort is required across the country and in our communities where persons want to study the language.
What we have had up to this point is really fairly halfhearted efforts. I say that from the perspective of government in terms of resources put in. I have no doubt about the determination and dedication Dr. Jim Cummins of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and his colleagues, to whom the Hon. Member for York West has already alluded, have brought to this subject.
This has been with very limited resources. There was a certain amount of funding from Employment Canada at one point, an application to the Government for assistance by the Department to provide additional funding and a proposal for $250,000, something which becomes relevant in further consideration of the funding to be provided. Those efforts have gone on far more by the determination of individuals matching that of efforts of the various ethnocultural communities. Those efforts and some efforts along the same line in the Province of Quebec to develop a unit, a centre or whatever at Laval, matched by the efforts of Professors Kreisel and Batts who

September 13, 1988
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
were invited to partake by the previous Secretary of State in July, 1987, pointed to having three institutes established.
We should not gloss over the fact that Professors Kreisel and Batts were looking at a national institute for heritage languages in western Canada. Although they carried their research beyond western Canada to Toronto and Montreal, the report is oriented in its organizational structure and surely in its funding, proposals and so on to the establishment of an institute which would provide for western needs. It would then be a co-ordinate, I would think, with the expansion of activities at OISE presumably given the work already built up there and quite likely at Laval University in Quebec City.
This would still leave Atlantic Canada having to look where? Toronto is a fair distance away. Laval might conceivably assist. Experience would show the possibilities, but we have in Bill C-152 the acceptance of the Kreisel-Batts report and a generalization of it for the entire country. That will point the way to certain questions that need to be asked.
In this one institute with limited human resources we will have the responsibility to support the training of teachers, the development of resource materials and texts-all the effort required to advance heritage language teaching in communities. As I was saying, talking to Dr. Cummins this morning, the existence of a centre is the merest beginning. The unit at OISE does not really amount to very much because the efforts are needed in Hamilton, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, and Windsor to single out only a few communities in Ontario. Teachers, after all, are doing this as volunteers. They are not being paid. There is no board with great resources to send them somewhere for instruction. They have no kind of reward, and one can hardly expect that taking some instruction will advance their credentials and give them more salary. That is not the nature of a system which is still outside the public school system of the Province of Ontario. Those are the brute realities that face us when we set out to do something as important and as admirable as establishing an institute to ensure heritage language teaching in this country and the study of it is as advanced as it should be.
The fact that education is a provincial responsibility poses questions which in the legislative committee we shall have to explore with care. I wonder to what extent Departments of Education will respond. I say that without any prejudice as far as any one place is concerned because I would imagine the Department of Education for the Province of Alberta would have limited interests in something coming out of OISE. I am concerned that the Department of Education for the Province of Ontario may need the persuasion of activities in the Province of Ontario to put the kinds of resources into the institute that will certainly be required.
That may well suggest that what the Bill proposes to do is to get a brain or a heart or whatever the right organ might be for the institute. Then we will have the limbs across the country. The Kreisel-Batts report envisions that almost half the moneys each year should be spent for program activities, namely,
$200,000 out of the $454,000, the suggested annual cost. It is in those programs that the institute would be a reality in its activities across the country.
Having said these things, let me say categorically again that the choice of Edmonton for the centre or the institute is certainly one place that is more than just appropriate.
What we have to be concerned about is the way in which this decision will work out, recognizing that others have been in the field and recognizing the costs incurred. I have already alluded to the proposals in the Kreisel-Batts report which suggest that the annual cost of a national institute for heritage languages in western Canada could well amount to $454,000. One rather odd thing about this Bill is that it is far more specific than is commonly the case. We are actually told in Clause 23 of the Bill how this institute will be endowed over the first several years of its operation. After providing for an initial establishment payment or investment of $250,000, Clause 23 goes on to provide for five fiscal years. The first $250,000 will be for the current fiscal year and then in the next fiscal year we will have $800,000 going toward the capital of an endowment fund and we shall have $500,000 to be expended for the purpose of the institute.
I want to raise one of the most important questions about this admirable initiative. That $500,000 annual cost operating allotment compares rather poorly-this is $500,000 for the country-with the $454,000 in the Kreisel-Batts report for a western Canada institute. Put that beside the proposal to the Department of the Secretary of State for $250,000 to support the efforts of the unit at OISE in Toronto. That amounts to $700,000 which is significantly more than the Bill envisions this particular institute having. Taking these applications and proposals at face value, that would still not provide for efforts in the Province of Quebec or in Atlantic Canada. There I feel very real concern about the limited resources, the straitened resources, the institute is actually being given through the Government's Bill.
It will be necessary to obtain the co-operation of all concerned with the matter across Canada and to do so very rapidly. It will be desirable to have the director and his or her program officers at work very quickly establishing connections with communities and with provincial Governments and other organizations to ensure that provincial assistance is also obtained so that the work of the institute is successfully carried out in the communities.
I should recognize that the Bill also provides, in Clause 22, for the new institute to be deemed a registered charity within the meaning of the Income Tax Act. For the new Canadian Heritage Languages Institute to be a charity in this sense means that the fund raising possibilities will be larger than those that are sometimes the case for multicultural organizations. We might expect to have resources increased from donors. The donors would probably like to build up the
September 13, 1988

endowment fund, and if that is done quickly, the additional resources that might be available could be used for the operations of its institute and the carrying out of its programs across Canada.
Although the funding in this Bill does not compare very well with that suggested by the Kreisel-Batts report, I find it ironic that when so much of the report has been taken up, one of the specific recommendations made about how an institute should be established was not, and that is it should not be done by a Bill of the Canadian Parliament. Elere we are this afternoon debating Bill C-152 which establishes this institute by legislation.
I have been assured by officials of the Department of the Secretary of State that this had to be done through a Bill in order to provide the proper context for federal funding to be provided. Without meaning to reflect in the least on their integrity, I find myself a little suspicious about that particular assertion. 1 am sure that a context could be provided in which federal funds might go to an institution that was not established by Act of Parliament. It is quite possible to do that to achieve this goal very quickly. I know that the Government, in these days, weeks or months, whichever it may happen to be, before the next federal election, is interested in moving very quickly. I am sure it is not only a Bill that can allow that to be done with the proper speed.
There is one additional aspect of the new institute on which I would like to comment, and this is the nature of its board of directors. I have already said a good deal about the challenges that will face the executive and obviously the board as well in ensuring that this institution is well grounded, established, and accepted across Canada. The Bill proposes a board of perhaps 21 appointees, 13 to be appointed by the Governor in Council, and another 8 to be drawn in by the members of the board. This would provide 21 board members. The Kreisel-Batts report recommended a detailed membership structure of the board. Of course, the report was talking about a western Canadian institution.
The Kreisel-Batts report recommended as many as 23 members of the board including the director. If the director were to be ex officio and would not vote, that would bring us down to 22 members on the board plus the chairperson. The recommendation was for a board of about 24 people drawn only from western Canada. They were looking to a couple of people from heritage language associations in each of the western provinces, a representative from a university in each of the western provinces, a couple of representatives from the community colleges which are concerned about heritage languages, and up to eight persons appointed from provincial Departments of Education and/or culture and multicultural-ism, depending on how the provincial Government is organized. That was clearly designed with representation from the provinces, from universities and colleges, and from heritage languages associations which would ensure that from the provincial level down through to the grass roots, the board would be aware of what was going on and would be able to
Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act
carry back to those organizations news of the activities of the institute.
There will be a very great challenge to the Governor in Council in constructing anything like a board as good as the one suggested by the report with only 13 persons from across Canada. It will clearly be necessary to make selections. As I know, with my slip of the tongue about Edmonton in my reaction to a place when I was thinking of an institute, these are invidious selections. The Cabinet will have to make many invidious selections in choosing which of the persons involved with heritage languages associations, universities, and provincial Departments of Education and/or culture will be selected. It will not be possible for there to be two persons from each provincial Department of Education and culture in the context of the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Bill. I do not envy the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) or the Minister for Multiculturalism the nice job of making these choices.
If the patronage barrel is rolled out one more time, a number of Tory hacks will be appointed. The word "hack" is not really fair to those who have been active in political Parties, as many of my friends have been. I would not necessarily call them hacks just because they chose to be active in a partisan context. However, this means that the expertise of those persons may be in Party work but that they are not necessarily equipped to direct an institute of this sort.
I will not go into the sorry history of patronage in this Government or previous Governments at this point. We all know what a sad thing it is, based on the greediness of individuals and leading to ineffective leadership. The Canadian Heritage Languages Institute deserves better than that.
That is why concerns were raised in the recommendations made by the report of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and even more strongly in my minority report of 16 months ago entitled A Living Diversity which emphasized the importance of a genuinely representative structure to the advisory council to Government and to a research centre for multiculturalism. I think the Heritage Languages Institute deserves to be representative in that way. It will be a very great challenge to have anything remotely resembling that in this particular institute through the structure the Government has given us.
There are a number of questions to be asked, and there are a number of serious concerns to be explored in the legislative committee as we consider Bill C-152 and move ahead what remains to be an important initiative. Because it is so important, this initiative deserves to be as well constructed and as well begun as it possibly can be. It is because of my concern that it be effective in the communities of every province that I have expressed the concerns I have felt in the past and do so again this afternoon.
)

September 13, 1988
Extradition
There remains only one point I would like to make since I do not suppose there will be any more debate on the Bill before it goes to the legislative committee. That concerns the question of aboriginal languages and how they are going to be supported by this institute. There was some discussion at the press conference, following on the Government giving first reading to this Bill last month, which suggested that this institute would not be constrained in its activities other than recognizing the official languages of Canada are English and French and they have abundant support. Therefore, the institute will be responsible for all the other languages. I was looking at the Bill again and it may be unfortunate that in Clause 2, as is customary in these Bills, heritage languages are not defined. There is then no recognition of the fact that aboriginal languages might well be treated as heritage languages of still another sort and this institute might do something to advance them.
It is to the credit of Professor Kreisel and Professor Batts that they looked at this matter. It is worth putting a paragraph of their report on the record. They say:
Finally, a word about a special problem, namely, the place of aboriginal languages in the plans for the Institute. Our view is that, while native groups have special needs and special programs designed to meet these needs, they should certainly be able to approach the Institute for helping in the teaching of aboriginal languages, the creation of teaching materials, et cetera.
Certain other, and no doubt pressing, issues, like the preservation of native languages that are in danger of extinction, will presumably fall outside the mandate of the Institute.
I find those last two sentences somewhat contradictory because any support given to ensuring aboriginal languages are taught and learned in Canada, one would expect that would happen in the native communities across the country. It could also apply to others, however, as was nicely demonstrated over the last few days by this German immigrant living in Manitoba. He has finally found the spiritual home he has been seeking all his life. He found it on an Indian reserve in Manitoba. That deserves to be taken quite seriously.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: My riding.


Abram Ernest Epp: Yes, in the riding of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) who introduced the Bill. A fascinating development.
However, if that is done, then surely those languages will continue to exist. Surely the aboriginal languages will not suffer extinction as quickly if the institute provides this help. I hope, although this is from the report and not the Bill, that the institute established in Edmonton where Professor Kreisel has his home will operate on the terms he suggests in his report.
I say that with particular concern for many of the aboriginal tongues. I live in northwestern Ontario where Ojibway and Cree are a dynamic reality. Yet I have no doubt that even there support for the teaching and learning of those languages would be useful and the institute could be helpful. I suppose what Professor Kreisel and Professor Batts were concerned
about was that they did not think the institute should become responsible for preventing the actual extinction of the aboriginal languages. The situation is of course very serious. The vast majority of native tongues are in danger of dying out. As one of my native constituents said the other day, "when any of our languages from Europe or Asia or whatever fall into disuse in Canada, there is no global loss suffered in the sense that the language remains alive somewhere, but if my language, Ojibway, dies out, it is gone forever". That underscores the urgency of the institute being attentive to the needs of every language other than English and French.
In conclusion, the Government has put forward a proposal with much potential. I trust that it will be successful. We may need to put more resources into it than what the Government has proposed, but that is a matter of working with an initiative which is worth fine tuning and improving to make sure it does the job we all want it to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being awfully close to five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   EXTRADITION

[Stage Direction]
PROCEEDINGS REGARDING LEONARD PELTIER Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) moved:
That this House deplores the extradition of Mr. Leonard Peltier to the United States from Canada on the basis of false information filed with a Canadian court by American authorities, and that this House calls upon the government to seek the return of Mr. Peltier to Canada and the annulment of all extradition proceedings in this regard.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again have an opportunity to bring the Leonard Peltier matter before the House. I think there are very clear parallels between this case and the case of a perhaps more well known Canadian, Donald Marshall, and the inquiry into what really went on when an innocent native Canadian was held for so many years when he was absolutely innocent of the charge of which he was convicted.
September 13, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Leonard Peltier is presently being held in Leavenworth Penitentiary, Kansas, and for those members of the public who are interested in looking at more of the precise legal arguments with respect to this case, they can find them beginning at page 5025 of Hansard of April 9, 1987, when a large number of Members of this House participated in the debate on what was then known as Motion M-28.
The treaty was broken by the United States in the Peltier matter. That treaty is a very old one, established between Canada and the U.S. on August 9, 1842. It was amended July 12, 1889. It is Article 9 that I am specifically addressing in relation to the motion presently before the House today. If one looks at Article 9 of the treaty, one sees that there is a requirement that the prima facie evidence put before the courts of another country be provided in an honest, factual, forthright manner by the foreign country party to the treaty. Otherwise serious damage is done to the treaty, obviously. In this case, serious damage is done to the highest courts of Canada, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Government and people of Canada, and most obviously to Leonard Peltier who is presently serving two concurrent life sentences for an offence which it is unlikely that he committed.
There is a basic legal argument that all the evidence, not just the Myrtle Poor Bear affidavits, had no validity. There was no evidence sufficient to warrant Peltier's extradition in 1976 to stand trial on charges of murder. Evidence advanced in support of extradition, apart from the fabricated affidavits, does no more than place Peltier with several others hours after the probable time of the shoot out. This counters the current Minister of Justice's position that "the evidence held against Mr. Peltier was considered sufficient to warrant committal for extradition on four of the five charges contained in the extradition request".
The extradition was successfully obtained by fraud committed by agents of the Government of the United States against the Government of Canada and the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The basic argument is that evidence obtained by fraud is no evidence. The legal argument and challenge to us as Members of this House and Canadians generally is that the "impugned extradition" should be declared null and void so the U.S. Government is not permitted to retain the benefit of its own fraud, which in this case is the damage done to Canada and the continued incarceration of Mr. Peltier.
There are certain basic facts which should be on the record, and then I intend to quote from a number of articles written by a large number of journalists on this matter in recent months. The facts are that on June 18, 1976, Mr. Justice Schultz of the Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an order to the Government of the United States of America for the extradition of Leonard Peltier on, inter alia, two counts of first degree murder.
Extradition
Second, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal without written reasons on October 27, 1976. The applicant was extradited on December 18 after an unsuccessful appeal to the Minister of Justice.
Third, the order put the applicant on trial for the murder of special agents Ronald Williams and Jack Coler of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, U.S.A., on June 26, 1975. The applicant was convicted on both counts at Fargo, North Dakota, on April 18, 1977.
In October, 1987, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an application for a new trial, exhausting all available domestic legal remedies. The applicant was also extradited by the State of Wisconsin on a charge of attempted murder and by the State of Oregon on a charge of burglary. He was acquitted on the charge of attempted murder and the charge of burglary was dismissed at the request of the prosecution.
The applicant was not ordered to be extradited on a count of attempted murder of an Oregon state policeman on November 14, 1975, on the ground that the details of the incident was scanty and the identification of the assailant weak, notwithstanding the deposition of Officer Kenneth T. Griffiths.
The extradition of Mr. Peltier was the result of a fraud perpetrated on the Government of Canada and the Supreme Court of British Columbia by agents of the Government of the United States in that it was based on affidavit evidence known by said agents to be false, and thus is void ab initio.
On October 1 of last year members of all three Parties joined together and held a press conference and released documents, those Members being the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), who is here and will, I imagine, participate in today's debate, myself, and the Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk). The three of us have obviously reviewed many thousands of pages of documents in relation to Mr. Peltier and truly believe that the way in which to remedy the matter is through Motion 115 which is before us today.
On April 9, 1987, The Gazette ran an article entitled "Indian leader extradited via false evidence: lawyer". Lou Gurwitz, who was here for the debate last year, has for many years been Mr. Peltier's counsel. He described the conviction as "the clearest case of frame-up I've ever seen." That is a lawyer who has practised criminal law in the United States for many, many years.
Last year representative Don Edwards of the U.S. Congress and Chair of the House Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights stated that the evidence clearly indicated "government abuse of the investigative process, suppression of evidence and falsehood".
[Stage Direction]
September 13, 1988
Extradition
The U.S. Government itself admitted that the affidavits used to extradite Leonard Peltier were entirely false. This prompted an article in the Yale Law Review, Volume II, number one in the fall of 1983 by J. J. Privitera in reference to Canada and the Peltier case. He said:
Implicit in any workable contract between nations in which they agree to submit evidence in support of probable cause to the courts of either state must be an understanding that the parties will not defraud one another.
There are many other articles, including several more recent ones from which I would like to quote. One was written by Kirk Makin for The Globe and Mail. He actually travelled to Kansas City where he interviewed Mr. Peltier at Leavenworth. The article reads:
Leonard Peltier is in the hole again, undergoing the worst punishment a prison can mete out.
But to the native Indian activist, it is almost like going home. For nine of his First 12 years in jail, Mr. Peltier languished in isolation in even worse conditions-23 hours a day in a two by 2.5-meter cell.
Yet Mr. Peltier's stature as a symbol of Indian oppression continues to grow. The next scene is due to unfold on a Canadian stage later this year. A team of lawyers is currently preparing several legal challenges.
In the main one, they will try to convince the Supreme Court of Canada that Mr. Peltier must be returned because the Federal Bureau of Investigation falsified evidence used to extradite him in 1976.
"It was not only Leonard Peltier's rights that were violated," Mr. Peltier said in a prison interview observed by two sour guards and a revolving camera. "It was the rights of all Canadian citizens.
"There was a fraud committed on the whole judicial system. The United States seems to have no respect for its allies."
Mr. Peltier's fame extends to Europe and Asia, and he has defence committees dotted all over. Thousands of Californians recently attended a benefit concert for his defence, and the Human Rights Commission of Spain recently awarded him the International Human Rights Prize.
Mr. Makins' article of June 3, 1988, continues:
The Canadian lawyers are also looking into a civil suit against the FBI, and into the possibility that Mr. Peltier has Canadian relatives might afford him Canadian Indian status, permitting him to be transferred to a Canadian prison.
"There is no question the legal focus has turned to Canada," Toronto lawyer Dianne Martin said. "And this is not some kind of show trial. It is the most time-consuming, exhausting project I have ever undertaken.
"We became party to a terrible injustice," she said. "Canada has an obligation to that man. We allowed ourselves to be used in the FBI's paranoid attack on American Indians.
June Callwood wrote an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail on October 21, 1987. She says:
In the fall 1976, Marlon Brando went to Ottawa to see Warren Allmand, who was then Minister of Indian affairs, to beg him to help obtain a new extradition hearing for an Ojibway-Dakota Indian, Leonard Peltier. The U.S. Government wanted the American Indian Movement leader to try him for the shoot-out deaths on June 26, 1975, of two FBI agents at the Harry Jumping Bull hall on the Pine Ridge reserve in South Dakota.
Leonard Peltier, a charismatic man who was leading a protest against the giveaway of Oglala Sioux reserve lands on which uranium had been discovered, was viewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a dangerous person.
The agency was so anxious to bring him to trial that it falsified the evidence it presented at the extradition hearing in Vancouver, a fact that emerged in examination of the 12,000 relevant documents since obtained under the U.S.
Freedom of Information Act. The FBI's deceit at the hearing is no longer in dispute.
The critical evidence was given in a affidavit by Myrtle Poor Bear, an addled woman who had been hospitalized more than 100 times for mental illness. The FBI obtained from her five separate accounts of the shootings and chose the most damaging of these, the one in which she declared she watched Leonard Peltier kill the men at pointblank range. On the basis of that affidavit, a federal court of Canada sent Leonard Peltier back to the United States. The truth is that Myrtle Poor Bear was not present at the shootings.
Warren Allmand did not act on Marlon Brando's personal plea that the evidence at the extradition hearings had been concocted, and now he's a sorry man. Last April, the Montreal Liberal spoke in the House of Commons in support of a private member's bill, Motion 28, brought by James Fulton, the New Democrat member for Skeena. It asked that the Canadian Government request Washington to return the Indian leader to Canada, on the grounds that the extradition was obtained by fraudulence. Warren Allmand now describes the extradition as "a travesty of justice."
Motion 28 was, of course, talked out. A government engaged in a dimpled dance of courtship with the United States is not likely to prejudice its hope of coitus by rushing to assist a native person going blind in a Kansan prison.
Leonard Peltier, 42, is serving two life sentences in Leavenworth. An arterial hemorrhage threatens his sight. All appeal recourses have been exhausted, the last one only two weeks ago, despite proof that the evidence at his trial was poisoned and much that was favourable to him was suppressed.
It has been more than 13 years since two FBI agents turned up at the hall occupied by Leonard Peltier, two other men, and some women and children. Although the agents had no warrant, they said they wanted to search the premises for used cowboy boots they believed Jimmy Eagle, a 12-year-old boy, had stolen. Leonard Peltier, mindful that more than 400 native people had been killed on the reserve in recent years, resisted. Within minutes the place was swarming with state troopers. The National Guard, SWAT teams, the 82nd Airborne Division in helicopters, armed personal carriers and Ml6s.
The two FBI men and a native person died as thousands of rounds of ammunition shredded the building.
Four AIM members, including Leonard Peltier, were charged. Two went to trial for murder but were acquitted unanimously by juries critical of the FBI's evidence. The man the FBI really wanted, however, was Leonard Peltier, who had fled to Canada. He was arrested in Hinton, Alta., in February of 1976, and extradited in December, despite strong suspicion that he had been railroaded.
The support for Leonard Peltier is unprecedented and resembles that given Nelson Mandela of South Africa, with whom his name is often linked.
The White House has received petitions bearing more than 20 million signatures, 18 million of them from the Soviet Union, which views the native leader as a martyr to U.S. racism. Congressman Donald Edwards, a Californian democrat and a former FBI agent himself, joined 55 other Republican and Democratic Congressmen this year to seek a new trial for Leonard Peltier. In Canada, 60 Members of Parliament support the cause and so do 74 international church groups, Amnesty International, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Desmond Tutu of South Africa, George Erasmus of the National Indian Brotherhood and four Nobel Prize winners.
I think that gives some idea of the research that journalists have undertaken with respect to Leonard Peltier's case. The Sunday Star on May 10, 1987, published a short editorial which is worthy of being placed on the record. It is entitled "A subversion of due process".
A little known case involving an American Indian extradited from Canada to face murder charges in the United States is testing Canada's willingness to protect its judicial process from abuse by foreign countries.
The case involves Leonard Peltier, an American Indian leader alleged to have killed two FBI agents in 1975. Peltier was extradited after a 1976 Vancouver hearing. It has since been learned that U.S. authorities submitted
September 13, 1988
[Stage Direction]
false evidence at the extradition hearing, but the Canadian Government has not demonstrated the will to protest.
However, Jim Fulton, a New Democratic Party MP from British Columbia has put forward a Private Member's Bill calling upon the Government to demand Peltier's return to Canada for a new hearing. Fulton points out that the key evidence at the 1976 hearing was an affidavit sworn by Myrtle Poor Bear, who said that she had observed Peltier shoot the FBI agents at point-blank range as they lay wounded behind a car. It has since been confirmed that the judge was not shown an earlier affidavit in which Poor Bear, a psychotic with a record of 105 hospital stays-admitted that she wasn't present when the agents were killed.
The Peltier case demonstrates how the authorities were able to take advantage of an extradition treaty in which the evidence consists of affidavits that must be accepted on blind faith and the accused person is not present at the hearing to offer a rebuttal.
Furthermore, under the terms of the treaty, the U.S. Government was represented at the Peltier hearing by a Canadian lawyer on the staff of the federal Department of Justice. This demonstrates the conflict of interest surrounding then Justice Minister Ron Basford's decision not to exercise his discretion to override the decision of the judge.
The Fulton Bill parallels an American effort to vindicate Peltier, now in his 11th year of imprisonment in the U.S. The Bill has the support of 60 MPs representing all three Parties. But it recently failed to come to a vote because of the limited time allotted for the debate of Private Members' Bills.
But the Government does not need the approval of Parliament before launching a protest over the use of false evidence to win Peltier's extradition. What is it waiting for?
I have another article with the headline "Evidence on Peltier was false, MP says", and other articles entitled "U.S. told lies in extradition case-lawyer", "MPs seek new hearing", "Indian leader extradited via false evidence: lawyer", "MP's Bill seeks return of Indian from U.S. jail". The articles go on and on. In October of 1986, The Ottawa Citizen published an article by Stephen Bindman entitled "Jailed Indian activist has new hope international clamour will set him free". The article is worthy of quoting as well:
Amnesty International, the human rights monitoring agency, has said "the interest of justice would best be served'' by giving Peltier a new trial because of "serious doubts'' about his first encounter with justice.
The National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers in the U.S. has gone to bat for the native leader and the Chairman of the House of Representatives sub-committee on civil rights has said the Peltier case clearly indicated "government abuse of the investigative process, suppression of evidence and falsehood".
In his latest unsuccessful appeal, three judges of 8th U.S. circuit court of appeal conceded last month that the prosecution had withheld ballistic evidence at the trial which was favourable to Peltier.
"There is a possibility that the jury would have acquitted Leonard Peltier had the records and data improperly withheld from the defence been available to him," the judges said.
They also said there was clear evidence in the case of "improper conduct on the part of some FBI agents".
But the judges said that under guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, a possibility is not enough to order a new trial, there must be a probability.
I think Members of this House need to understand what those guidelines of the U.S. Supreme Court mean to someone like Leonard Peltier.
Said Peltier's New York Lawyer William Kundstler: "Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse had the seventh Calgary and Leonard Peltier now has the 8th circuit.
Extradition
"There can be no rational explanation of this ruling other than that the court was unwilling to grant a new trial, no matter how justified, in a case involving the death of two FBI agents".
I have another article written by Michele Landsberg from New York. It was published in The Globe and Mail on June 14, 1986. Again, it is worthy of being placed on the record.
Looking back 10 years Vancouver Lawyer Don Rosenbloom called the extradition of Leonard Peltier "the most disgusting experience of my life".
Saul Terry, president of the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs, remembers the
case as "sleazy".
Right Rev. Robert Smith, moderator of the United Church of Canada, calls it "a shadow (across) the national conscience of Canada".
And I call it terrifying.
The more I plow through the documents in the case of Mr. Peltier, the more chillingly I am reminded that legislators and law enforcers are capable of every kind of treachery, and that Canada, the bland and the good, has been party to a fraud.
If that seems extreme, let me backtrack to June, 1975, to Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. The U.S. Government was virtually at war- complete with armed men and heavy weaponry-against American Indian movement dissidents camped on the reserve. AIM was there to protest against the tribal chief, who was busily selling one-eighth of the reserve lands, rich in oil and uranium, to the federal Government.
The FBI committed a fraud as the U.S. Government later admitted (but only after it had Mr. Peltier back in its grasp) and on the basis of that fraud, the Canadian judge ordered Mr. Peltier's extradition. Mr. Rosenbloom desperately flew to Ottawa to ask the then Minister of Justice, Ron Basford, to stay the extradition on the grounds that the affidavit was now known to be false. Mr. Basford refused.
It is at this point that one must wonder about the propriety of having one of Mr. Basford's staff representing the U.S. Government. Is there not even a ghost of a suspicion that there could be a conflict of interest here?
What makes it worse is that it's now clear that we Canadians sent Mr. Peltier off to South Dakota to a travesty of a trial. The FBI agents emerge as shabby and ruthless tricksters. Vital evidence was illegally suppressed. The judge has since had a decision overturned for biased, anti-Indian remarks.
Let me conclude by reading Michele Landsberg's conclusion:
Canadian Members of Parliament of all three Parties are petitioning Justice Minister John Crosbie to intervene with Washington.
Canada, a victim of a fraud by a U.S. agency, has a right-and a duty-to ask for Mr. Peltier back. We should not, as Mr. Rosenbloom said, "sleep on our rights", but we have to do more than that if we want to shake that shadow off our national conscience. We have to look at the terms of our extradition treaties that leave us wide open to official deceit by other governments. We have to ask ourselves, is that what we mean by justice?
I hope Bill M-l 15 carries today and that we see Mr. Peltier back in Canada for a fair, open, honest and factual extradition hearing.
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague from Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and I would also like to take this opportunity to thank him for presenting a motion to ask the Government of Canada to seek the annulment of the extradition of Leonard Peltier to the United States, which occurred in 1976, that is 12 years ago. Mr. Peltier was turned over to the American authorities in December 1976 after an extradition hearing was held in

September 13, 1988
Extradition
Canada. Ele was sent back to the United States where he faced charges relating to the death of two FBI officers in June 1975 and infractions he allegedly committed in other U.S. states.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, calls not only for annulment of the extradition proceedings but also for action to bring Mr. Peltier back to Canada. For that, he would have to be released, since he is now serving two life sentences for his part in murdering two FBI agents. Nowhere does it say what will happen if Mr. Peltier is allowed to return to Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before you this afternoon is extremely unusual: nowhere does the law provide for annulment of extradition proceedings once a fugitive is turned over to the appropriate authorities. In fact, the motion calls upon the Government of Canada to do something that is impossible.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that the American authorities will agree to release, and thus waive their jurisdiction over, someone who was given a fair trial, found guilty and sentenced for having committed the most serious criminal offence there is.
Mr. Speaker, this particular case has, over the years, taken on near-mythical proportions. Mr. Peltier is a hero to those people in Canada, in the United Stats and in the international community who believe he was extradited on false evidence and wrongly convicted as a result of the suppression of evidence and the fabrication of testimony to convict him of crimes he did not commit. No one doubts the sincerity of the people who support Mr. Peltier's side of the case. However, the facts do not support the claims of the people who proclaim his innocence.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that we must look at the facts if we are to understand this case. In my comments on the motion I would like to examine certain important facts, and hope that many of my colleagues will do the same.
Early in 1975, Mr. Peltier went to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota to take part in a political struggle that was taking place between the local Native government and younger members of the tribe who supported the more radical position taken by the American Indian Movement. The confrontation occurred at a time when relations between young reservation chiefs and the Indian Affairs Bureau in Washington were particularly strained. By the summer of 1975, the situation had become explosive.
On June 25, 1975, two special FBI agents, Ronald Williams and Jack Coler, came to the Pine Ridge Reservation to investigate a robbery allegedly committed by a person who was supposed to be living on the reservation.
Upon arriving in a part of the reservation called the Harry Jumping Bull Compound, the two agents were met with gun fire. The shooting came from a section of the reservation occupied by supporters of the American Indian Movement. Leonard Peltier himself did not deny his presence on the scene that day, and in January 1987, during an interview on Fifth Estate, on CBC television, he did not even challenge the
allegation that he participated in the first exchange of gun fire when the FBI agents arrived.
As soon as the first shots were fired, the two FBI agents took cover behind their vehicle. A subsequent examination of the vehicles revealed the presence of more than 125 bullet holes.
At Mr. Peltier's trial, it was proved that although the two FBI agents had been wounded during the initial exchange of gun fire, they were shot down at close range as in an execution-type shooting, with a small caliber weapon and high velocity ammunition. It was proven that Mr. Peltier was carrying a weapon of that kind that day and that he also happened to be in the area where the bodies of the FBI agents were subsequently found.
Mr. Speaker, this evidence alone is enough to justify the extradition of Mr. Peltier so that he could answer the murder charges. However, there was further evidence, a large body of evidence that implied that Mr. Peltier took an active part in the murder of the two FBI agents. It was also established that Mr. Peltier had in his possession the personal weapon of Jack Coler, one of the two FBI agents who were killed.
Although the evidence justifying the extradition of Leonard Peltier is overwhelming and conclusive, we must admit, Mr. Speaker, that we deplore the use of the two affidavits signed by Myrtle Poor Bear who claimed she saw the murder, since this flawed the proceedings. Subsequently, it was shown that Mrs. Poor Bear's testimony was entirely unreliable and that the FBI knew she had left the Pine Ridge Reservation the day before the shooting. It is unfortunate that the Canadian authorities were not informed of the problems connected with these affidavits before Judge Schultz of the British Columbia Supreme Court admitted them as evidence during the first extradition hearing early in 1976.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today is based mainly on the fact that Mr. Peltier's extradition was obtained on the basis of the affidavits of Myrtle Poor Bear. Quite simply, this is not true. Before Mr. Peltier was handed over to the American authorities we had been advised that the testimony given by Mrs. Poor Bear was unreliable. Mr. Peltier was extradited on the basis of other admissible evidence which did warrant this course of action.
Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government of Canada is that Mr. Peltier was legitimately extradited to the United States to face charges pending against him. Moreover, no point of law would allow us to annul the extradition proceedings or seek the return of an individual serving a sentence for crimes for which he was duly found guilty.
Were such recourses possible, Mr. Speaker, nothing indicates we would be justified to act on them in this case.
September 13, 1988

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for once more introducing this important resolution. I think I should read into the record this important resolution once more. It states:
That this House deplores the extradition of Mr. Leonard Peltier to the
United States from Canada in 1976 on the basis of false information filed with
a Canadian court by American authorities, and that this House calls upon the
Government to seek the return of Mr. Peltier to Canada and the annulment of
all extradition proceedings in this regard.
Leonard Peltier is an American Indian from North Dakota. In June of 1975 he was involved in a shoot out at the Pine Ridge Reserve in the State of North Dakota. This shoot out took place as a result of two FBI agents coming to the reserve in search of a suspect, at least that is what they said. They said that they were coming to look for a suspect by the name of Jim Eagle. However, they had no warrant to go on to the reserve or to approach the ranch on the reserve where a certain number of Indians were staying. In any case, in the process of these events gun-fire broke out between the FBI agents and the Indian people. As a result of that gun-fire the two FBI agents were killed and one Indian was killed.
Following these incidents there were warrants of arrest drawn out against three of the Indians who there were there that day, a Mr. Butler, a Mr. Robideau and Leonard Peltier. Peltier escaped into Canada and was finally arrested in Hinton, Alberta in February, 1976. He was sent to Oakalla Prison in Vancouver where the extradition proceedings took place.
The proceedings started in May of 1976 and concluded in December of 1976. He was extradited to the United States where he then stood trial and was convicted of the murder of these two FBI agents.
It is interesting to note that the other two accused, Robideau and Butler, were both acquitted on the grounds of self-defence. They were all involved in this shoot out. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in a shoot out like this no one knows where the gunfire is coming from or who started it. However, at the end of it all two FBI agents were dead and one Indian was dead and warrants for arrest were issued for three people. Two of the three were acquitted, having stood trial in the United States. However Peltier was extradited from Canada to the United States, then tried and found guilty.
It was only after the extradition that it was found that one of the principal sources of evidence used against Peltier was false. That was an affidavit signed by a Myrtle Poor Bear who was allegedly the girlfriend of Leonard Peltier. In the affidavit she swore that she was at the Pine Ridge Reserve that day and that she was with Peltier and she saw Peltier fire the gun.
Later, she repudiated that affidavit and said that she was coerced. The affidavit was so discredited that it was not even
Extradition
used in the trial of Leonard Peltier when he came to trial in the United States after his extradition. The Americans themselves admitted that the affidavit was false. They accepted that. After the trial the three main witnesses against Leonard Peltier had the charges against them dropped. Two of them then stated that they were coerced to testify in the trial, and the third person died and could not comment on what took place at the trial.
Still later, through the use of the freedom of information law in the United States, it was found that the American FBI had concealed certain evidence. There was evidence that the shell casings found at the scene of the event did not come from the gun of Leonard Peltier, but from another gun. It was sworn at the trial that the shells that had shot the two FBI agents had come from Peltier's gun. First, the affidavit of Myrtle Poor Bear was shown to be a false affidavit, then the witnesses who testified against Peltier in the trial claimed that they had been coerced. Then there was the fact that certain evidence was concealed or hidden and later found to be very critical with respect to the conviction of Leonard Peltier.
On that basis there was an appeal to the American Circuit Court of Appeal to have a new trial ordered on the basis of this new evidence. It is interesting to note that the Circuit Court of the United States concluded that Peltier's defence had been hampered by the misconduct of the FBI, and by possible perjury, but it did not order a new trial. It admitted that there had been possible perjury, and it admitted that these incidents to which I referred certainly hampered Peltier's defence, but it did not order a new trial. There was a petition presented to the United States Supreme Court to order a new trial, but it turned down that request.
I am particularly incensed about this case. In 1976 when the extradition proceedings commenced, I was the Solicitor General of Canada. When the extradition proceedings were concluded, I was the Minister for Indian Affairs. During that period of time I was approached by certain Indian leaders both from Canada and the United States to intervene to have the extradition cancelled or to stop it. At the time I made inquiries with respect to this matter, but I was told that it was before the courts and justice would take its course. Something took its course, but it was not justice. It was only after the extradition and after Peltier was sent back to the United States that we found out that the affidavit was false, the evidence of the witnesses were false, and that certain evidence was concealed.
I consider this to be a travesty on the system of justice and a breach of faith between two sovereign states. Here the FBI of the United States used false evidence before a Canadian court to have an individual extradited to the United States. I consider that to be a serious breach of trust. As a Minister of the Crown at that time, I consider myself to have been misled by the authorities of the American Government.

September 13, 1988
Royal Assent
I feel that the motion put forward by my hon. colleague, the Member for Skeena, is one that must be taken seriously. I was very disappointed to hear the response of the Parliamentary Secretary speaking on behalf of the Government. He almost seemed to be building a case to justify what the Americans had done in this matter. He stated that the affidavit of Myrtle Poor Bear was not the telling evidence in this case. How are we to know? It certainly was accepted that the affidavit was false. It also came out later that other evidence was false. Surely this extradition should be annulled and be declared null and void, as the motion requests, and Peltier' should be returned to Canada for a new extradition hearing, and then there should be a new trial. Perhaps there will be enough evidence to convict him. I do not know, and I am not going to make a judgment on that. What I do know is that the extradition proceeding was false, and it should not be accepted. It is totally wrong that we here in Canada should be submitted to this type of treatment and behaviour by American authorities. I cannot understand why the Government would not take a stronger position with respect to this matter.
The type of treatment of Leonard Peltier is not an isolated case. He is only one of many Indians who have been treated unfairly by our judicial system. In a way he has become a symbol, just as Donald Marshall has become a symbol, of what is wrong with respect to our justice system in the way it relates to Indians.
It is interesting to note that, in June, 1988, the Canadian Bar Association, a rather staid and conservative organization of which I was a member at one time, put out a report entitled: "Locking up Natives in Canada: A Report of the Committee of the Canadian Bar Association on Imprisonment and Release". This report was published by Professor Michael Jackson of the University of British Columbia. In the report it states that Indians in Canada receive a raw deal before our justice system, and some radical changes should be made.
In conclusion, let me say that this case represents a serious miscarriage of justice which must be corrected. The Peltier case is an important case because of its symbolism. If we believe at all in our sovereignty as a nation, we as Canadians should make it clear to the Americans that this type of thing is not acceptable, and we should cancel that extradition.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in connection with this motion of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). The motion states:
That this House deplores the extradition of Mr. Leonard Peltier to the United States from Canada in 1976 on the basis of false information filed with a Canadian court by American authorities, and that this House calls upon the Government to seek the return of Mr. Peltier to Canada and the annulment of all extradition proceedings in this regard.
The impact and effect of that motion is that of an application to Parliament, an application to the highest court of the land to review a proceeding that has been held and to take a fresh look at it and see if there should not be a different result. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Parliament is the highest court in the land. It means that this is the court of last resort in dealing
with problems of any nature, and problems of this type in particular.
The Hon. Member for Skeena and other Hon. Members have indicated that this particular case is one of a travesty of justice, and to quote the Hon. Member for Skeena in his quotes of others, that a fraud was committed on the judicial system. In dealing with the question of whether a fraud was perpetrated on the legal system, I suppose that we are looking at two legal systems, that of the United States and that of Canada, when we are discussing the issue. In particular, I think that Canadians generally, in viewing American courts and the American judicial system, have a tendency to feel that quite frequently American courts will go further than Canadian courts in striking down convictions of persons, whether they be native people, or otherwise, in the United States on grounds of tainted evidence.
Generally speaking, that is the impression that most Canadians have had over many years. It has only been in recent years with the Charter of Rights in this country that the Canadian courts have started to take a different attitude and a different look at the type of evidence presented and whether the evidence itself is tainted and therefore should not be allowed to be the foundation of a conviction in this country.
Having said that, as far as the Canadian courts are concerned, all Hon. Members, and particularly those who come from the legal profession, will have to agree that for a long time the American courts have been viewed much differently in this respect and have been considered as perhaps leaning a long way overboard from what Canadian courts would have done in the past with respect to dealing with evidence that was suspect in any way. That being the case, what we are being asked to do, and what apparently has been done in the United States-
[DOT]	(1740)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	(1750)
And being returned:
["The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), the order shall be dropped from the Order Paper."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
September 13, 1988

Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act-Chapter No. 51.
Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Indian Act (death rules)-Chapter 52.
Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists-Chapter 53.
Bill C-153, an Act to amend the National Capital Act-Chapter 54.
Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977 and certain related Acts-Chapter 55.
Bill C-110, an Act to establish the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and to amend or repeal other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter 56.
Bill C-123, an Act to amend the Indian Act (minors' funds and surviving spouse's preferential share)-Chapter 57.
Bill C-143, an Act to establish the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse- Chapter 58.
Bill C-210, an Act to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act- Chapter 59.
Bill C-264, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (instruments and literature for illicit drug use)-Chapter 60.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fuiton:
That this House deplores the extradition of Mr. Leonard Peltier to the United States from Canada on the basis of false information filed with a Canadian court by American authorities, and that this House calls upon the Government to seek the return of Mr. Peltier to Canada and the annulment of all extradition proceedings in this regard.
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, prior to the break I was commenting that under our system compared with the American system, we have had a tendency over the years to feel that the American courts are much more likely to accept the fact that tainted evidence should be used to overturn a decision or strike down a trial or, in fact, not be allowed to be introduced in evidence at all so that a conviction can be founded upon it.
It appears somewhat strange to those of us who are not entirely familiar with this case and all the facts and evidence surrounding it to hear that so many people have made statements that this is a fraud committed on the judicial system in a jurisdiction like the United States where the American courts traditionally have been quite fair and much more fair, if you will, in the sense of rejecting evidence and failing to found convictions on tainted evidence or overturning a trial based on that sort of evidence.
When we are dealing with a case like this, Mr. Speaker- and we are dealing with it in the context of a court application to the highest court of the land to review it as far as we are concerned in Canada-it is only fair and reasonable that both
Extradition
sides of the argument be heard, the side of the argument which says this is a fraud committed on the judicial system and that we should, in fact, overturn it. It is also fair, I would submit, and I am sure you and all our Members would agree, Mr. Speaker, that the other side of the story should be heard in order to determine which is right and which is wrong. As well the Department of Justice has its side of the story.
As has been said, we are deciding a question here of whether Leonard Peltier was improperly convicted for the murder of Ronald Williams and Jack Coler, two special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States.
This matter has been before the courts in the United States, at trial and before U.S. appeal courts. The trial court that heard the evidence against Mr. Peltier and the various appellant courts that have examined the case in the intervening years have commented adversely upon aspects of the investigation and some of the conduct associated with the extradition and the prosecution of the case against Mr. Peltier. At the same time, notwithstanding that, the conviction has survived all of these judicial scrutinies so far in the United States.
Following Mr. Peltier's trial, and conviction in the summer of 1977, an appeal was taken to the United States Court of Appeal for the Eighth Circuit. That court upheld the conviction and subsequent appeals were similarly unsuccessful. This included a hearing before the Supreme Court of the United States.
The difficulties encountered with the affidavits of Myrtle Poor Bear continued to be an issue before the United States courts even after Mr. Peltier's conviction, although for reasons of an obvious nature, I am told, Ms. Poor Bear was not called as a witness for the prosecution at the trial. Mr. Peltier raised the affidavit issue with the Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit Court to underline the concerns about the way the United States investigated and prosecuted the case. It was suggested that the U.S. authorities had, in effect, presented false evidence at the extradition hearing in Canada to secure Mr. Peltier's return to the United States. The FBI was condemned by Judge Ross of the Eighth Circuit Court, who was prepared to find that the FBI had abused the investigative process by submitting the affidavits of an individual whose credibility and reliability was entirely suspect.
The judgment of Justice Ross is of interest and significance in that it demonstrates that the Court of Appeal was able to comprehend that Mr. Peltier's extradition had been justified on the basis of evidence other than the unreliable evidence contained in the affidavits sworn by Myrtle Poor Bear. It is interesting to note that when the Peltier case was before the Court of Appeals, he or his counsel did not purport to claim that he had been extradited on the basis of insufficient evidence. Mr. Justice Ross characterized the distinction in the following way:
We do not find it necessary to decide what standard should be applied to the review of claims of government misconduct in international proceedings, since, under any standard, Peltier's claim is on its face lacking in substance. Peltier does not claim that he was extradited solely on the basis of Myrtle

September 13, 1988
Adjournment Debate
Poor Bear's affidavits or that the other evidence presented to the Canadian Tribunal was insufficient to warrant extradition. It is clear from a review ... of the transcript that other substantial evidence of Peltier's involvement in the murders was presented in the extradition proceedings ...
In 1979, after exhausting the first round of conventional appeals open to him, Mr. Peltier took his case before the Eluman Rights Committee of the United Nations. By this time he was claiming that he had been unlawfully extradited from Canada on the basis of false evidence fabricated either by U.S. law enforcement officials in collaboration with Canadian authorities or by Canadian officials who acted on behalf of the Government of the United States during the extradition proceedings. He further alleged that he had been poorly treated while he was in custody in Canada and this had resulted in prejudice to his ability to prepare an adequate defence to the extradition request. Because Canada is a signatory-I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you are giving me the high sign. I will close but I would like to close by indicating that there are apparently two sides to this story. I think in fairness we should hear both sides before the highest court in the land, Parliament, makes that final decision in this particular case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), the order shall be dropped from the Order Paper.