1988-03-15

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-286, an Act respecting a Day of Mourning for Persons Killed or Injured in the Workplace.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a Private Member's Bill asking that April 28 of every year be designated as a day of mourning in remembrance of persons killed or injured in the workplace.
If this Bill passes, every April 28 will become a day on which Canadians will give recognition to those workers who have been killed, disabled or injured in the workplace or inflicted with an industrial disease. In this way we will set an example of commitment to the issue of health and safety in the workplace.
Our most recent work injury statistics available from Labour Canada indicate that there were 23,213 accident claims made between April 1, 1986 and March 31, 1987. Of these, 12,711 required the worker to take injury leave. This is a staggering number of injuries and demonstrates a clear need for greater emphasis on health and safety in the workplace. It is my sincere hope that the passage of this Bill will assist, through a national day of mourning, to increase action on this matter of life and reduce the danger of death and illness at the workplace.


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

Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today signed by many people from various centres across the country.
They state that whereas the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States, and whereas the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the U.S., wherefore the undersigned, your 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.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by many Canadians indicating that the Conservative Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade arrangement with the United States.
Whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised and whereas-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It appears as if some government Members would like to hear more about this matter, and I will comply. The trade agreement negotiated by the Government threatens-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has the floor, and I would ask Hon. Members to respect his right to make his presentation.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been very difficult to present petitions in the House lately with the Government's continuous interference.


Mr. Speaker:: Brevity is the soul of wit.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We will not make any remarks about the halfwits on the other side.
The proposed trade arrangement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and

March 15, 1988
Order Paper Questions
would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade arrangement during a national General Election.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour and the duty to table the attached petition which has been certified correct as to form and content. The petition is signed by a number of Canadians who reside in a number of different communities in the Province of British Columbia.
They are concerned about the agreement between Canada and the United States and they feel that the agreement as negotiated threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership and develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between the regions.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief and, as usual, not very witty.


Mr. Boudria:: Non-provocative.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, non-provocative. I have a simple petition here from the City of Kingston where part of the Canadian nation was founded.
The petitioners worry about the trade deal, the inability to control foreign ownership, the inability to develop Canadian energy resources as a result of the deal and the inability to equalize opportunities between the regions, all the foundations of Canada, and these people are worried, as are I and my Party, about the trade deal and they petition against it. They demand, as do I, that the Government have an election very soon so that we can go to the people and discuss all the details of the trade deal. It is an honour to table the petition.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to table a petition today from a number of Canadians who say that the Conservative Government has no mandate to negotiate the free trade deal and that Canadian sovereignty is being affected. These honourable Canadians who should not be criticized also say that the Government now threatens the very fabric of Canadian cultural and political life and above all, they say, and I really concur, that the House should now be dissolved and there should be a general election campaign.
I am sure that members of the Liberal Party agree that if that happens, it will be the end of the Conservative Party of Canada because it will finish third.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and the honour to present a petition from constituents of Thunder Bay-Nipigon who also express themselves on the trade deal with the United States which my colleagues have been presenting petitions on in the last minutes.
These petitioners too say that the Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude this agreement. They note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, but they noted very early that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future. Events in the last days have confirmed that as business leaders call for Canada's policies to be harmonized with the U.S.
With the proposed trade agreement not only denying Canadians secure access to the U.S. market but threatening the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, these petitioners call on Parliament to dissolve to give them the opportunity in a General Election to reject the deal and the Government that negotiated it.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 246, 247 and 262.


Mr. Howie: Did the government undertake, or initiate, in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987, any studies relating to the effect of, or measures to combat computer crime and, if so (a) were the studies carried out by outside consultants and (b) in what time frame were the studies to be conducted (c) what amount was allocated to the studies?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: No
studies were undertaken or initiated by the Ministry of the Solicitor General in the 1986/87 fiscal year. However, in April, 1987, the Ministry shared in the sponsorship of a conference for the police and prosecutorial communities to consider strategies to combat enterprise crime, including computer crime.
The RCMP has an ongoing program to combat computer crime, and in this connection works closely with other police agencies and industry.


Mr. Howie: From January 1, 1986, were studies regarding child abuse and neglect done for the Department of the Solicitor General by (a) departmental personnel (b)
March 15, 1988

outside consultants and, if so, in each case, what were the names and dates of publications or completion of such studies?


James Francis Kelleher: Since January 1, 1986, the Ministry of the Solicitor General has not undertaken or initiated any studies dealing specifically with the issue of child abuse and neglect. However, it has supported the development of the Community Services Council for the Working Group on Child Sexual Abuse. The purpose of the project was to form a community-based multi-organizational committee to deal with the problem of child sexual abuse. The Ministry's contribution funded the initial work to be undertaken.


Mr. Henderson: Has the Department of Fisheries and Oceans completed an assessment of the fisheries resources on the Georges Bank and surrounding area and, if not (a) when will the department complete a resource assessment (ft) will the study include an assessment of the impact or potential risks associated with offshore exploration and development?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: (a) The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is involved in an active, ongoing program to monitor resources and conduct analyses of the status of major fisheries resources on Georges Bank. The work includes an annual groundfish survey in the spring, exploratory surveys of adult cod and haddock distributions during the commercial fishery season, exploratory surveys to monitor the resurgence of herring, experimental surveys to study the early life history of juvenile cod and haddock, and larval surveys of herring along the Maine-New Brunswick coast. Analysis includes formal assessments of cod and haddock, which are reviewed by the Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory committee (CAFSAC), as well as the production of various other documents and publications, e.g. on the early life history of cod, haddock and herring, and the resurgence of the Georges Bank herring and its expected effect on the New Brunswick sardine industry.
(b) The Department has recently completed an assessment of the environmental impacts associated with offshore hydrocarbon development. This was in response to a 1987 request from the Gulf of Maine Advisory Committee (GOMAC) for a technical presentation on the impact of oil exploration activity on Georges Bank. The assessment of the possible environmental impacts of exploratory drilling on Georges Bank fisheries resources provides a general scientific evaluation of the likely environmental impacts of exploratory drilling on Georges Bank as perceived by the Science Sector of DFO's Scotia-Fundy Region at the present time. The assessment was considered by GOMAC at their meeting on February 11, 1988.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Privilege-Mr. Blenkarn


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wrote you earlier today in connection with articles appearing in The Toronto Star, in the Toronto Globe and Mail and, as I now find, in the Financial Post purporting to deal explicitly with confidential and private research material alleged to be a report of the House of Commons Finance Committee and very seriously making allegations about the contents of that report or draft work being done by the committee.
It is exceptionally difficult for committees to operate, and I have checked to make sure that the members of the committee have been most discreet in keeping issues within the committee and making sure that none of it was released. Nonetheless, it is clear from the articles in the press that somewhere in the course of events, Canadian Press reporters Eric Beauchesne and Gordon McIntosh have obtained a copy or what appears to be a copy of some of the preliminary work for report to the House of Commons.
The problem is that the release of the material in the form in which it was released seriously damages the work of the committee and brings disrepute to the members of the committee who must, if they are to act responsibly as Members of Parliament and work with the respect of the financial community and the financial service industry of Canada, responsibly handle matters with discretion. The banking industry has been very co-operative with the committee by supplying the committee material for its investigation. The headlines covering these articles clearly indicate that somehow the banks have refused to co-operate with the committee.
The unfairness of the matter is such that I believe it ought to be a matter of the privileges of the House. Surely we cannot allow the preliminary work of a committee, when the matter has not been resolved by the committee, to be spread around the countryside as if the committee had come to a decision when it clearly had not. This leaves an impression with the public that somewhere along the line, the members of the committee have made a decision that they have not made. That attacks the very ability of the committee to make a contribution to the people of Canada and to this House.
Sir, if somewhere along the line that practice is not discouraged, then our parliamentary committees will be severely

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
damaged and the reputation of Members will be hurt. Therefore, I ask that if you find there is a prima facie case of privilege, that I be allowed to move the appropriate motion.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to support the point raised by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and express my great distress at what has happened and its implications for the working of committees of this Fiouse.
We have seen in the last couple of years some very far-reaching changes in the committee structure and these have depended to a large extent on the ability of Members on all sides of the Fiouse to put aside the possibility of partisan or individual gains and work together constructively for the common good. In that spirit the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs has usually managed to come up with unanimous reports. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which I have the honour of chairing, also operates in the very same way with a remarkable degree of trust.
As you know, in times past committee members were not allowed to take research material or preliminary drafts away from the committee room. Because of the fear of preliminary leaks, all work had to be done right there in the committee room. We all know how this weakened the quality of the input. The Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs has made a practice of doing what I do in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, that is, giving members research and confidential background materials as soon as they are available and relying on the discretion of the members and their staffs to handle these materials responsibly and not leak them piecemeal, and not interfere with the integrity of the committee coming to a decision.
I feel there are important principles here that go right to the heart of how Parliament works, how the committee reforms work, and I sincerely hope we will be able to find a solution that guarantees that this will not happen again.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to support the comments made by my friend, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, and state the obvious. We have had a chance to check with the offices of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) who are members of that committee. They assure me that they did not leak the reports or the information. They have checked with their staffs, and their staffs have not done it either. It is a very serious issue which has been raised by the committee chairman. I do not think anyone suspects any Member of Parliament or their staff, and we wish to do whatever we can to make sure it does not happen again.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), who is also the distinguished chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, has raised a matter which the chair takes very seriously.
It should be noted by Hon. Members, and also by the public who is watching and listening, that the complaint brought by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South has been supported by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) on behalf of the Official Opposition, and by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), on behalf of the NDP. All three Members are Members of long standing in this place and very well respected. The point simply is that if there cannot be some kind of trust and security in matters which ought to be confidential before they are made public, then the workings of this place become extremely difficult indeed.
I had occasion to comment on this matter only some days ago. However, I will take it under advisement, look very carefully at the interventions, and report to the House as soon as it is appropriate to do so.
I thank the Hon. Member for Mississauga South for raising the matter, and I thank the Hon. Member for Trinity and the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville for putting this on a completely non-partisan basis.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada) moved: that Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I am pleased to lead off the debate on second reading of this Bill. I might say that I am also very pleased that, since the introduction of this Bill on December 1, 1987, we have had throughout the country a very impressive response. I think it is fair to say there are very few Bills that come before this House, which are complex and sometimes contentious, that have had such a strong and positive response. The Bill has been well received indeed.
If I can indulge in a little immodesty to make a point, I would quote from the Montreal Gazette'.
... Mr. Crombie is right to aim high. It is easy to be cynical about such ideals as equality, bilingualism and multiculturalism, which are too often betrayed in everyday life. But without the ideals-and the urge to make them real-everyday life would be unlivable.
The Toronto Sun says:
Crombie has a good solution. Instead of entrenching heritage language programs in the most radical way and enshrining divisions in other ways, he'd like to see our histories reflect the reality of how our country was built.
The Toronto Star says:
It's precisely by avoiding the temptation to create a centralized multiculturalism department with huge powers that David Crombie does all Canadians a big favour. Rather than shove ethnic groups into permanent multicultural
March 15, 1988

ghettos, he's content to have all Canadians treated the same when it comes to protecting their basic rights and freedoms.
Johnny Lombardi, Canadian Association of Ethnic Radio Broadcasters, says:
The proposed Act pleases me beyond measure ... I look forward... with deep pleasure to shaking your hand in our mutual and personal celebration of the fruition of a dream which has finally come to pass.
Courier Canadienne says:
At long last a Government is making the effort to recognize the realities of an evolving Canada.
Lou Meloski, National Chairman of the Canadian Multicultural Council says:
It is my belief that Canadians across our country will welcome positively the benefits that accrue from this Act. It is an Act for all Canadians, it is an Act that will bring us social peace and harmony that Canadians strongly believe in.
Lucille Blanchette of the Societe franco-manitobains says:
I support the proposed Bill, which will help the country's multicultural groups as the official languages policy helped anglophone and francophone minorities.
Art Miki, President of the National Association of Japanese Canadians says:
The NAJC greets with enthusiasm the new Canadian Multiculturalism Act... which attempts to recognize minority rights and to protect individuals of all ethnic backgrounds from the injustices experienced by (the Japanese) community in the past.
The Canadian Ukrainian Committee welcomes the Act as a long overdue attempt to recognize the contributions that different groups have made to the Canadian mosaic.
Edith Habzmanski of the Vancouver Multicultural Society says:
It's important for the multicultural community to be officially recognized in legislation in Canada; that there is an official piece of legislation that they can refer to.
George Corn of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council said:
We feel it will be a really good and workable act. We offer to work together with the government and both opposition parties to still improve the act.
Javed Hamid, President of the Canadian Federation of Multicultural Councils said:
We are pleased with the introduction of an Act and are committed to working with you through the stages of debate.
Khaki Aziz from the Committee for Racial Justice says:
The act is a welcome step and I am pleased it mentions the country's racial diversity and promotes racial understanding and tolerance.
I picked the best responses, Madam Speaker, because it is, of course, not a perfect Bill but it is a first-class first step. When this Bill goes to committee, as it will, committee members will have the opportunity to recommend those changes which they think are important. I hope they do their work well and quickly, because the Government and the people who have sent telegrams and letters and made public pronouncements want this Bill passed into law. Whatever
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
differences parliamentarians may have among them should not stand in the way of ensuring that Canada's first multicultural Act is passed in the very near future after it gets out of committee.
I read all of those nice comments about the multicultural Bill because I was impressed with the range and depth of the positive response. Even though people have some differences with specific parts of the Bill, they overwhelmingly support the principles of the Bill. There is a good reason for that, Madam Speaker. It is that this Bill is based on the oldest and strongest ideas that the country has to offer. They may have a new application in a multicultural Bill, but they are very old and important ideas.
These are not ideas about Canada which come from an academic pen. They are ideas about Canada which come from the experience of this country, the experience of the people who live and have lived in this country. It is experience that comes from the history of this country. It is experience that comes from the geography of this country. It is experience that comes from immigration patterns in this country and, sure enough, it is experience that comes from the peculiar, particular, and unique approach to nation-building which Canadians have always been able to forge.
That can be seen when we look at how our leaders, over time, have tried to come to grips with a county diverse in its culture, diverse in its language, diverse in its history, and diverse in its life experiences. Some of the most elegant prose written in either English or French in this country been written by political leaders throughout the ages in this country to describe what they understood to be the basic and fundamental reality of Canada's diversity. Let me cite as an example what I think is one of the most beautiful and often repeated statements by then Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier 85 years ago. He said:
I have visited in England one of those models of Gothic architecture which the hand of genius, guided by an unerring faith, has molded into a harmonious whole. This cathedral is made of marble, oak and granite.
It is the image of the nation I would like to see Canada become. For here, I want the marble to remain the marble; the granite to remain the granite; and the oak to remain the oak; and out of all of these elements I would build a nation great among the nations of the world.

Madam Speaker, more than 25 years ago, John Diefenbaker, who was Prime Minister at the time, used equally striking images when he said that Canada is not "a melting pot where a number of ingredients are amalgamated, thus destroying their individuality, to produce a new and totally different product. This country is more like a flower garden to which the hardiest and most radiant blossoms from a host of different countries have been transplanted, each maintaining in its new environment the best qualities for which it was loved and cherished in its native country".

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act

Indeed, most recently in a long line of Prime Ministers who have tried to define what Canadian diversity means, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said a year ago in Toronto:
Multiculturalism is an affirmation of our commitment that Canadians of all ethnic and racial backgrounds have the right to equal recognition and equal opportunity in this country. Thus multiculturalism lies at the very heart of the idea of Canada, of our sense of country. As with our commitment to official languages, it reflects where we have come from and where we are going.
We also saw that sense of the importance of diversity coming from our own experience during the unity debates of the 1960s and 1970s. Some of us in this Chamber are old enough to remember those. I remember in particular a comment made by Dr. Charles Hobart who at that time was a professor of sociology at the University of Alberta, and an American. He said at that time something which cut through to a lot of us. He said that Canadians are almost "the" multicultural society of the world. He said to us in 1963:
-this is your identity. It is the contribution you as Canadians have to make to the world. The system of multiculturalism has now worked for almost 100 years and you should be missionaries in this ... cause.
I remember as well a speech to which I referred on one other occasion by Senator Paul Yuzyk. That Senator from Manitoba was probably the first parliamentarian to put on record the call for the understanding and declaration of a multicultural Canada. In his maiden speech 23 years ago in the Senate he said:
The Indians and Eskimos have been with us throughout our history; the British group is mutlicultural-English, Scots, Irish, Welsh; and with the setting up of other ethnic groups, which now make up almost a third of the population, Canada has become mutlicultural in fact... In keeping with the ideals of democracy and the spirit of Confederation, Canada should accept and guarantee the principle of the partnership of all peoples who have contributed to her development and progress.
It continued, of course, in the early 1970s. In 1971, Prime Minister Trudeau proclaimed Canada to be officially multicultural with a policy directed toward, he said:
Preserving human rights, developing Canadian identity, strengthening citizenship participation, reinforcing Canadian unity and encouraging cultural diversification within a bilingual framework.
Shortly after he made that speech in the House in 1971, he was joined by the then Leader of the Opposition, Robert Stanfield, who said:
What we want is justice for all Canadians and recognition of the cultural diversity of this country.
It did not stop there. In 1972, the government of the day appointed for the first time a minister responsible for multiculturalism. A year later, in 1973, there was appointed an advisory body to the Minister for Multiculturalism.
In 1977, after a very heated debate with respect to multiculturalism, this country adopted the Canadian Human Rights legislation. In 1982, with the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms not only the equality clause, Section 15(1), but
Section 27 in particular terms were put in the Charter. Section 27 reads:
This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the
preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
In early 1984, the Liberal government of the day, through the parliamentary committee, brought forward the report Equality Now. It was supported by all three political parties and called for urgent action to fulfil the promise of multiculturalism in the Charter. Later in 1984, the Liberal government of the day introduced Bill C-48 but, because of the impending election, the Bill was not concluded. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that people on all sides felt more work was needed to be done.
When the new Government assumed office in 1984, the Prime Minister made a commitment through the Speech from the Throne to review the matter and bring forward a multicultural act. We began that process with the establishment of a parliamentary committee on multiculturalism.
In June, 1987 that Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, chaired by my hon. friend, the Member for Grey- Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), brought forward its report entitled Building the Canadian Mosaic. It also made specific recommendations on the content of Canada's first multiculturalism Bill.
Finally, on December 1, 1987, Bill C-93 was introduced into the House.
I have gone through that long history because Canadians sometimes forget that ideas and events do not happen simply in one morning. They have a background to their development, and I want to ensure that it is clear that this Bill fulfils the promise of that long historic march toward a multicultural Canada. This Bill is true to the spirit and intent of Section 27 of the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It provides a legislative base for the multicultural policies of the Government of Canada. It recognizes and declares that multiculturalism is a central feature of Canadian citizenship and of being Canadian. This Bill reinforces the historic right of every Canadian to choose to enjoy, enhance and share his or her heritage.
Finally, this Bill commits the federal Government to promote multiculturalism throughout its departments and agencies and in Canadian society as a whole.
If I asked Members of the House or average Canadians across Canada, indeed people outside Canada, what words they would use to describe Canada, they would have varying views about what Canada means to them. Certainly most of us who participate in public life and attend meetings where people concern themselves with these matters would respond with three words: freedom, stability and opportunity. Indeed, that would be the response of most people who know the reality behind those words.
That is what Canada means to Canadians, once the rhetoric is removed. That is what it means to people around the world
March 15, 1988

who want to live in this country. The combination of freedom, stability and opportunity in a society is very rare in this world. Canada has been able to depend upon freedom, stability and opportunity for generations. While we have not always practised it well, and I have occasionally talked about periods when we have had a shortened sense of the values and traditions of this country, I think we can agree with the Canadian writer who said: "When you visit Canada you visit the peaceable kingdom, the peaceable kingdom of freedom and stability and opportunity".
Canada, certainly more than most other countries, has been able to practise a way of life that gives tangible opportunities to Canadians and those who come here to live. Why? How? 1 believe it is because we have always tried to practise three fundamental principles. Those principles are at the heart of this Bill and at the heart of Canadian citizenship. They are equality, diversity and community.
Some people are cynical about those principles. There are some people-perhaps it is the comfortable and secure-who take it for granted that those principles will produce the freedom, stability and opportunity that we enjoy.
As Secretary of State, I have the opportunity to judge Canada Day posters made by kids across Canada. When I read a cynical editorial or hear people express the view that these principles are silly, I look at those Canada Day posters in which eight, ten and twelve-year old kids describe what they think it means to be Canadian. In their primitive way they describe the principles of equality, diversity and community. We must never stop recognizing those principles because they give us that freedom, stability and opportunity.
Equality is not simply an idea. It is and always has been a burning struggle for people and communities in the desire to make sure that one is not diminished as a person or held back because of colour, race, creed or religion. Those qualities that add up to human dignity are daily struggles. Some of us forget that.
Those of us who have the opportunity to visit groups, either newly arrived or those who have historical traumas with which they have to deal, recognize that at the root, equality is an individual and group struggle which must be dealt with each and every generation. Equality is also a social glue. It keeps us together. It is an integrating force. It allows people in this country to say, "I will make a commitment to social harmony and to the stability of this country because it gives me equality of opportunity". Equality of opportunity gives people the willingness to ensure we keep it together.
One notices most, I suppose, in Citizenship Court ceremonies, that equality comes from Canadian citizenship. People who receive their citizenship understand that they now will have equality of opportunity. They know they have to struggle for it but their citizenship is their passport to do so. That is why equality is something we should not underestimate. It is a
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
powerful principle, not only ideologically but it is clearly practical on the street.
People come to this country and stay to live here because they want to be Canadians. First and foremost they want to be Canadians. I might say that that is one of the reasons I rejected a recommendation of the standing committee with respect to a separate department for multiculturalism and a commissioner.
Some people have said I did not go far enough. They are wrong. I think a separate department and a commissioner is absolutely wrong and against the traditions of this country. I might say, Madam Speaker, that I am not alone. If you look at some of the testimony which has been given you will see that others agree.
The Toronto Star, I think, probably does more in the multicultural field, reaching a larger number of people, than any other news media in the country. I will quote it again:
It's precisely by avoiding the temptation to create a centralized multiculturalism department that David Crombie does all Canadians a big favour. Rather than shove ethnic groups into permanent multicultural ghettos, he's content to have all Canadians the same when it comes to protecting their basic rights and freedoms.
It is not because I did not want to go far enough, it is because I reject the view that we should ghettoize people in this country, bureaucratically. Their rights are the same as Canadians. I rejected the commissioner for the same reason. Multiculturalism in this country, historically, and multiculturalism in this Act, is not the language of command control. It is the language of choice and opportunity. People's rights are going to be guaranteed in this Act not by some special commissioner for multiculturalism but by the commissioner who guarantees the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.
Some people regard diversity as a curse, as a problem with which we have to deal. I do not. Diversity, to me, has always been a blessing, an opportunity, and I would like to try to put some emphasis on that, not on how we have to cope with diversity, nor on how we have to solve a problem. I want to give an excellent example of this. The other night I was reading The Law Society Gazette. In it was an essay on The Scottish Enlightenment of the middle and latter part of the 18th Century. What attracted my eye is that it was written by the Hon. Bertha Wilson, eminent Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. She was asked to speak in Saskatoon on things which influenced her with respect to her thinking about literature and the law, and how her cultural upbringing affected her particular perspective. I will not read it all. It is a delightful essay on its own for those who have an interest in the relationship between literature and the law. What impressed me was the last paragraph. In preparation for her talk at the University of Saskatchewan she went back to Scotland to refresh her mind.
I have amassed quite a small library as I attempted to update a Scottish education of some forty years ago and it has been a privilege to share this experience with you upon my return home again to Canada.

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturism Act And this is the point:
1 have never quite been able to understand the emotional springs that give rise to the love and pride I hold for both the land of my birth and the country of my adoption, how easy it has been for me to become a Canadian and feel completely at home in both French and English Canada. Perhaps it is because there is a mysterious element of Scottishness in the Canadian psyche itself, as Lord Tweedsmuir...
A former Governor General.
... declared at Winnipeg on St. Andrew's Day 1936: "Canada in one sense is simply Scotland writ large". Certainly it has had a magnetic attraction for the Scot and over the years many have come to build a new life here; and could echo the "je me souviens" of their French compatriots. For like them they also cherished memories of the land they had left behind-in the haunting lines of an anonymous poet of this Golden Age of Scottish culture-
And one can find this sign, by the way, in Cape Breton.
From the lone sheiling of the misty island Mountains divide us, and the waste of seas-
Yet still the blood is strong, the heart is Highland,
And we in dreams behold the Hebrides.
I have a Scottish background so I am attracted to that poem. And 1 can tell you, Madam Speaker, that that sense is not unique to the Scottish community. You will find that sense with the Macedonian community that I was with on Saturday night. You will find that sense in the Chinese communities and in every multicultural community in the whole of this country. People have a need to be proud of their heritage. It tells them about themselves. They have a sense of belonging, a sense of roots that is important to them. They need to know that their background is as important as anyone elses, and equal to it, and brings with it a perspective on being Canadian that others may not have.
If you have a Chinese background, you have a different perspective on being Canadian. You share some things about being Canadian but you have a different perspective. I can well remember a poem by F.R. Scott with respect to E.J. Pratt's poem about the building of the CPR, extolling that great historic event. However, he forgot to mention the contribution of the Chinese community. F.R. Scott wrote in his opening lines: "Where are the Chinese in your poem, Ned? Where are the 30,000 who swung their picks at 40 below?" The same story with respect to the Chinese community could also be repeated about other communities.
It drives me nuts, Madam Speaker, when I hear people ask why they cannot just be Canadian. That shows two things. First, they are really saying, "Why can't they be like me?" Second, they would cut this country off from some of the richest cultural, linguistic and philosophical ore that we can mine.
That is why I would like to conclude by reminding us all that whatever our differences with respect to the Bill, and there will be some, we are involved in no small piece of work. Barbara Ward, a British economist, once said that Canada was the world's first international country. Indeed, this country has earned a reputation over the years through its participation in world affairs, the recently held Commonwealth Conference in
Vancouver, the Sommet de la francophonie de Quebec, the Economic Summit in Toronto this June, and the free trade agreement.
These items have been looked at by people around the world. They also watch us in terms of what we do with respect to human beings, in terms of what we do with respect to human rights and in terms of what we do with respect to multicultur-alism. They know we practise it better than anyone else in the world. They know that the world is multicultural. They know that the world is multilingual. They know that the world is multiracial. This gives us a golden opportunity.
For the last Canada Day celebrations held on July 1, 1987, a teacher from Etobicoke, Ontario, wrote an essay. I do not think anyone in the House can say it any better than she said it. She said:
All Canadians of whatever creed, background or colour have a destiny-a destiny to build a country ... If we can live here in harmony and in peace, if we can all benefit from being Canadian, if we can prove our country to be not only a land of freedom, but a land of justice and hope for those who follow, then the rest of the world will come to ask us our secret. Perhaps that can be a contribution we Canadians can make to civilization and to global survival.
I think she has it right. I hope that when we conclude our discussions with respect to this Bill that we will have it right, too.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that it is not customary, pursuant to our rules, to ask a question of the Minister at this time unless there is unanimous consent of the House to do so. However, because of a recent event which took place and because we have here the man whom I call the protector of multiculturalism, the spokesperson for that aspect of our country, I would like to ask a non-partisan question concerning a recent event dealing with the Sikhs, many of whom I had the honour to meet. I seek through you, Madam Speaker, the unanimous consent of the House to ask the Minister a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) to ask a question of the Minister?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: I thank you. Madam Speaker, and in particular I thank the Minister. I will be participating in this debate, although it will not be today, since its subject matter is something in which I passionately believe. It is something that keeps me here in Ottawa.
As Chairman of the National Liberal Caucus I had an opportunity recently to meet representatives of the World Sikh Organization. I arrived in Winnipeg and I met some people, including taxi drivers. I must say that I found recent comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) concerning Sikhs extremely disturbing. Maybe this is not political. Perhaps some of my colleagues may disagree with
March 15, 1988

my taking this opportunity to ask the Minister as the protector of multiculturalism in Canada a question concerning this matter. The Minister was very sincere in his speech. 1 listened with interest to it. I hope that he can make a comment today since there is a disturbance that is growing in Canada.
The Minister knows very well that there are 250,000 Canadians of Sikh origin in Canada. If the Minister would like to comment today or perhaps later I would appreciate it. However, I would like him to understand the seriousness of the feelings at the moment in the Sikh community in Canada.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be given this opportunity to reply to the Hon. Member. I understand the seriousness of the question and the seriousness of the matter.
First, I do not need to speak with respect to the actions taken by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). His intention was clearly to ensure that people in the conduct of their affairs did not create such a condition whereby they would be giving aid and comfort to those engaged in activities which we would consider not to be appropriate. I think that was his intention. He has dealt with that matter himself.
My responsibilities relate to ensuring that I do what I can within the federal limits and, indeed, even beyond, to help with respect to communities that are being hurt. When I first became Secretary of State, and this is true of my predecessor when he first became Secretary of State, the relationship with the Sikh community had not been going well in official circles. Therefore I embarked on a series of building little bridges, perhaps minor in their way, to see if we could ensure that the Sikh community did not feel isolated, alienated or put into a corner and put down.
I have had experience with those feelings myself. I understand what they do to people. As a result I met with a number of groups over a number of months looking for a way to send a message to the Sikh community that clearly we wanted to make sure that they were not alienated from either this Government or this Parliament. The most important aspect in this respect was the establishment of the Chair of Sikh and Punjabi studies at the University of British Columbia. As you know, Madam Speaker, and as the Hon. Member knows, those Chairs are very important to the community and, indeed, to our knowledge of that particular community.
When I went to the University of British Columbia I participated in a ceremony. There were some good people there. However, there were some people who boycotted the meeting. I found that unfortunate. While there were some who boycotted the meeting there were others who did not. Clearly within this community there are some not looking for a bridge, but that is the nature of our world.
I am sure that the Hon. Member knows that whatever this Secretary of State can do to ensure that the community is in good shape and not isolated from the rest of Canada, the Government and I will do it.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning on behalf of the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus in the House of Commons to respond to the statements made by the Minister with respect to second reading of Bill C-93. I also welcome the opportunity because I believe it offers Parliament the first opportunity, with some degree of detail, to venture into the policy area of multiculturalism.
At the outset I wish to commend the Minister, whom I consider to be a parliamentary friend, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), for expressing his thoughts with a significant degree of passion and sensitivity as he brought the House through the long journey that multiculturalism has taken in this country.
While it is valuable to understand how and why an official policy of multiculturalism came to be, and while it is a productive exercise to trace the evolution of different multicultural programs and initiatives through the years, as the Minister did moments ago, I believe that the centre-piece of our thoughts and deliberations must be clearly directed toward the future, to finding effective solutions to the fundamental questions posed by Canadians across the land, and to finding remedies to the undignified experiences faced by all too many Canadians.
I believe that multiculturalism has reached an important watershed in Canada. After having existed as an official policy statement of federal Governments for close to 20 years, and after having helped shaped this country unofficially long before that, it is in need of a thorough and refreshing review similar to the efforts now taking place with respect to our official languages legislation. Our policy of multiculturalism requires a rejuvenation of energy and thought, not merely for the sake of change, but for the sake of ensuring relevancy and effectiveness. If our multiculturalism programs are not adequately addressing the contemporary aspirations and dilemmas of citizens, they will rapidly become irrelevant, and irrelevance will only breed impotency.

If we want this policy to stand up to the test of time, and I know we all do, this Parliament must be the architect of the second phase of multiculturalism. It must provide a broader and more far-sighted vision that will draw its strength from the grass roots and be accepted by a new generation of Canadians, wherever they happen to be. It would be a demonstration of leadership that would reflect their conviction that a policy is never an end in itself but, by its very nature, a challenge that is constantly renewed and which demands unceasing effort and dedication.

For many the thought of reform can be threatening, while for others, change signals an admission that the ways of the past were wrong. However, for Liberals reform and change are

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
the life-blood which invigorate the body and soul of any enterprise. We believe that the future does not belong to those who are content with today, to those who are apathetic toward common every day problems, to those who are timid in the face of new and bold ideas, and to those who are unwilling to take the necessary risks toward bettering people's lives. After all, Plato reminded us all that a life without criticism is not a life worth living.
I recognize a sense of comradeship with respect to the development of our multicultural policy and heritage. This spirit was certainly reached in the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. I congratulate and commend the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), who is presently taking the chair, for striking that non-partisan atmosphere and developing that rapport. We must compare that attitude to the record of the present administration. Despite having made 46 specific promises in relation to the federal multicultural policy during the last election, to a certain degree the Government has opted for the status quo and for inaction as opposed to action. Not only has it failed to act on its electoral commitments given to Canadians, but to a certain degree it has also been unable to recognize or define that second phase to which I alluded earlier.
In fact, beyond inheriting an infrastructure created and nurtured by former Governments, basically the Mulroney Government has done very little in the area of multiculturalism policy. There have been no new major-and I underline the word "major"-programs initiated; budgets have dwindled miserably; and the Government's over-reactionary refugee legislation has only served to set back race relations for some time. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is fond of utilizing the theme of multiculturalism. It is a favourite subject during the summer picnic circuit in cities across the nation. But what happens to that rhetoric when the Prime Minister returns to the corridors of power in Ottawa? Where does multiculturalism fit into the Government's agenda of priorities for this country and for Canadians?
During the past three and a half years the Government has strived to find someone within its ranks who understands and appreciates the demands and the aspirations of that portfolio. This is evidenced by the rotating door part-time multiculturalism Ministers who have come and gone. Moreover, it was not until December that the present Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, by introducing this Bill that we are now debating, moved on a matter of any innovative significance. However, the Minister did so, I believe, grudgingly. When he initially assumed the portfolio for multiculturalism, he was opposed to the concept of a separate multiculturalism Bill and preferred to incorporate the sense of that initiative into a Citizenship Act.
From my point of view, I believe that the Minister and the Government altered their course and that thinking, following protests from communities across the country with respect to incorporating the sense of a multiculturalism Bill into a more global citizenship Bill, and also because they came to realize
that the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism was about to table a unanimous committee report predicated on a separate comprehensive multiculturalism Act.
Therefore, if one takes it at face value, the impetus for that Bill was not an original or voluntary initiative designed to meet a real need. Instead, it was a Government that, to a certain degree, was embarrassed into a reactionary and reluctant policy response.

Do not misunderstand me. Creating a legislative framework for a policy on multiculturalism is indeed a welcome initiative. Nevertheless, I say the Bill must also be judged in terms of the quality and substance of the provisions it contains and the extent to which it genuinely promotes multiculturalism across this country.
Unfortunately, the Bill is unlikely to live up to its promises. It has been strongly criticized by many organizations across Canada. In fact, after reading the Bill, one is left with the uncomfortable feeling that it only contains some very general principles and objectives.
The authors of Bill C-93 have refused to get into any detail. They have carefully avoided using specific, definite terms, preferring to hide behind words like: should, may, facilitate, encourage, and so forth.
This is not only my conclusion. While I appreciate the process and the initiative of introducing a Bill, we also need to judge the Bill, not by the mere introduction, because that would make every piece of legislation in this House extremely perfect legislation, but also by the substance and the contents of it. When I made those remarks they were not only remarks of an opposition critic but remarks rooted in the comments made by a number of organizations and individuals.
The Minister, in his opening address, made reference to a number of comments made legitimately, quite rightly as is their right, by groups and individuals. I believe to a certain degree we can stand up and perhaps read each other's quotes. To a certain degree that might be valuable and it might not.
I would like to provide for the House other quotations, the other side that Canadians are drawing from this Bill. Mr. Lewis Chan from the Canadian Ethnocultural Council described the Bill as "a symbol without substance".
The Ottawa Citizen wrote:
An empty promise on multiculturalism ... it's a mish-mash of circle squaring ambiguity and clumsy opportunism.
The Globe and Mail wrote:
-multiculturalism Bill gets cool welcome.
The Vancouver Sun wrote:
Ethnic Bill called symbol over substance.
March 15, 1988

Dr. Ubali, Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission said:
The proposed Multiculturalism Act changes nothing. It is not historic as the Minister calls it. It is purely symbolic. It is old wine in a new bottle.
Daniel Iannuzzi, President of Multilingual Television said:
What we need is the recognition that multiculturalism is an integral part of Canadian society ... the Bill does not allow for such an interpretation.
The Canadian Multiculturalism Press Federation said:
By implementing only one of the major recommendations of the report, the Government is offering Canadians virtually nothing new from the policy established by Trudeau in 1971.
The Hellenic-Canadian Federation of Ontario said:
We are profoundly disappointed by the Government's recent draft legislation on multiculturalism. We are displeased by this action of the federal Government, which undermined the work of the committee, and amounts to nothing more than window dressing. Indeed, it simply reiterates what exists in federal practices.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in the recent draft legislation on multiculturalism of substance for the people of this country.
Therefore, the Bill is primarily satisfied in talking and in dreaming about ideal principles rather than establishing an Act through an enforcement mechanism which would make an honest attempt to ensure that these principles become reality.
Finally, the Government drafted this Bill in complete isolation, and stubbornly refused to draw strength and vision from the recent unanimous standing committee report. It cowardly ignored the all-Party recommendations and, as such, the presentation of this Bill is a missed opportunity, a missed opportunity because the Government neglected to take full advantage of the political green light offered by all three federal political Parties and of the growing consensus within the Canadian community which had advocated significant and comprehensive reform. Thus while the process of introducing a multiculturalism Bill is in itself valuable, the actual Bill in its specific is a mediocre attempt at the very best. The Bill merely confirms the status quo and legislates in 1988 goals and values that were born in the 1960s and 1970s.
For the Conservative Party, the future of multiculturalism is clearly in the past. We as a Parliament, as a country, have a choice. We can either choose to embrace the Tory recipe for multiculturalism or we can build and update a policy that will meet present day circumstances and challenges, and articulate and inspire a vision of things to come.
For the Fiberal Party, the choice is clear and unmistakable. We believe that through such a Bill we, as a Parliament, should not have any hesitation in declaring the policy of multiculturalism is an important national building block, a cornerstone of our Canadian society. Therefore, we should pioneer programs and reforms that reflect their sincerity and the attitude of that belief. This Bill does not do that. This Bill does not accomplish or reflect the sincerity of that statement.
Why, Madam Speaker, why does the Bill tremble about confronting the issues? Why did it not address the matters of a
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
full-time senior Minister for multiculturalism and create a separate line ministry which would do justice to the dreams articulated in all of our speeches as we go across the country?
In rejecting the committee's recommendation for a separate department, the Minister used, as he did today, the statement that he does not want to ghettoize people, that he does not want to ghettoize multiculturalism. If that separate line department is ghettoized, how would the Minister describe and characterize the directorate as it stands today? Why a ghetto when we tried to bring all the structures and programs of the federal Government under one more effective roof? Why a ghetto when we took some of the moneys already existing, not necessarily all new money, but existing moneys from departments and fused them together under this new ministry? Why a ghetto when we would be adding political muscle to the Minister of the day and to the Deputy Minister that would allow them to compete for resources and attention on an even level rather than as a poor, more insignificant sister of government? Why a ghetto when the fusion of these new forces would enable a far superior, a farther reaching and more effective outreach program and delivery to Canadians? Why a ghetto when it would have brought the Canada Council under this separate line ministry so as to avoid the present situation as it stands today?
For instance, if you are an author and wish to write about your roots and your country's heritage and your name happens to be Atwood, you go to Canada Council, get your funding and write your book. But if you happen to have a last name that is Diciccio or Defrancesco and you go to Canada Council, Canada Council will reroute you to the multiculturalism directorate. There the directorate will tell you that they do not have enough funding. If we try to stop that practice, and it exists, why are we calling that a ghetto?
Why a ghetto when this significant change in bureaucratic alignment would signal the federal Government's higher priority for multiculturalism to the Canadian public? Why a ghetto when this new alignment would not preclude this Minister or any other Minister from advocating a multiculturalism policy with all departments and all colleagues in Cabinet? Why a ghetto when this separate line ministry can be seen as a transitional step toward having one day in this country one department of culture, not a department of communications and culture, while at the same time having a department of muliculturalism, but one department that would reflect Canadian culture which is clearly multiculturalism?
That step is not politically simply, nor easy. Rhetoric alone will not achieve it, nor will giant leaps of faith that land nowhere. For me and my Party, a separate-line Ministry represents one significant, positive, sure step toward achieving that ultimate goal.
When the Minister calls that proposal one that would create a ghetto, Canadians ask themselves who really is advocating

March! 5, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
that ghetto. They ask who ghettoizes multiculturalism, those who do not do very much and want to leave it where it is or those who say let us have a greater breadth of vision, let us be a little bolder and let us change.
Again, that is not something I am saying for my own satisfaction. It is rooted in the words of organizations and individuals who spoke passionately and at great length about this concept of a separate-line ministry.
The Canadian Hellenic Congress said:
We are disappointed however that the Honourable David Crombie has rejected the idea of a new Department of Multiculturalism... the current treatment of multiculturalism policies, within the Government of Canada is unfocused and underfunded.
We doubt that the passing of the proposed Act in its present form will do much to focus or strengthen such policies.
The Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship said:
The decision not to establish a Ministry of Multiculturalism as it was recommended by your committee is unacceptable and it only demonstrates the lack of leadership commitment for multiculturalism as a fundamental goal for Canada.
Professor Michael Lanphier of York University said:
It is recommended that a new department... become the lead ministry in negotiating an enhanced role for multiculturalism in every department.
Therefore, I must ask myself who is promoting the ghetto, who is actually pushing ideals that would build a higher wall around that ghetto, making it all the more difficult to tear it down.
The Bill was also silent about increasing the $ 1 per year per person budget. It did not talk about having a respectable and capable budget that would sustain the programs and contributions to organizations and activities across Canada. It was silent about increasing the personnel within the Ministry and about establishing a multiculturalism commissioner who would report to and monitor for Parliament the policy status within the Government, the federal civil service and Crown agencies.
Again, the Minister rejected a very key recommendation of the committee. As he mentioned only moments ago, he did this on the rationale that Canada already has a Canadian Human Rights Commission and a multiculturalism committee. The Minister himself said that we do not need a system that commands and controls. That is not what was advocated.
We were not asking for a second human rights commission which would be a reactionary body dealing one on one with individual cases of discrimination. We were after an office for a commissioner, very similar to the Official Languages Commissioner; an office that would in fact be free of political compromises and constraints. We wanted an office that would report on the status of the policies to Parliament, not to the Government and not to a Minister reporting to Parliament by saying that all is well. There are few Ministers of whatever political stripe who will fundamentally and productively criticize a colleague's department.
We should be able to have a report to Parliament that would give us an understanding of where the successes lie and where the warts lie and how we should go about eradicating them. We need an office that would promote the policy of multiculturalism across all Departments in the federal Government. We need an officer who would facilitate between the public and the federal bureaucracy the multiculturalism policy, one who would not be timid, if the Government is, about grappling with the issues.
We need an officer who would ask how the CBC is reflecting multiculturalism policy and if it is doing it well enough or if there is need for vast improvements. We need one who would ask if the Canada Council maintains those standards as well and if the Treasury Board's hiring practices are even and equal among all Canadians of whatever extraction.
That is the kind of commissioner we had envisioned, an instrument to effectively enforce and ensure, day in and day out, that the policies are being carried out, respected and lived up to. What is wrong with that? Surely that is not a kind of ghettoization. Surely that is a forward-looking, forwardthinking investment, not only in the words and principles we should all embrace but in the deeds and actions of the federal Government.
The Bill is silent about increasing the amount of government advertising from all departments in third-language media. It does not talk about recommendations for appointments to the Canadian Multiculturalism Council which advises the Government and the Minister of the day, recommendations which should be obtained from the community so that we would know that that council represents the real aspirations, needs and concerns of the people and percolates them throughout our elected and political institutions.
The Bill did not talk about approving a charitable tax number for national ethnocultural organizations to assist them in fund raising and to decrease their dependency on the Government's stick-and-carrot system. It did not talk about an appropriate number of appointees to boards and commissions or, more importantly, about the quality of appointments to these boards and commissions. The appointments must reflect the realistic composition of a Canada in 1988 and not a Canada in 1888.
These are some of the issues with which the committee grappled. The committee distilled that investment of time into this report. The Bill is deafening in its silence on these issues. It prefers to hide instead behind the generalities and noncommitted language we see throughout the Bill.
As Canada prepares to enter the 1990s, the challenge facing multiculturalism is similar to the challenge that confronted bilingualism in the 1960s. Back then, it was a Liberal Prime Minister and a Liberal Government who invested the necessary political capital into transforming the dreams of a truly bilingual Canada into a reality. Pierre Trudeau did not only talk about official bilingualism, he and his Government moved to make it happen. Pierre Trudeau did not craft a Bill which
March 15, 1988

was couched in colourful yet meaningless language. Instead, he and his Government provided the tools and the mechanisms needed to fulfil those policy objectives. They provided an Official Languages Act, a Commissioner for Official Languages, a permanent and joint official languages standing committee, a viable financial base for government-sponsored programs, a secure bureaucratic structure able to support the linguistic needs of our diverse regions and an understanding, above all, that the policy of official bilingualism was a national one for all Canadians in all regions of Canada.

Without the political will and determination that resulted in the creation of these structures, bilingualism today would be no more than an abstract concept. I agree, there was a political price to pay for this political investment. In the final analysis, however, the risk was worth taking.
The controversy aroused by bilingualism should remind us that success will not come easily. It takes hard work and dedication to succeed. Similarly, if we want multiculturalism to have a vital impact on the character and the affairs of this country, we will need the same political will and similar structures. Madam Speaker, if we want multiculturalism to provide an appropriate and dynamic response to the aspirations of future generations, our Party and this Parliament must be prepared to make the necessary political investment.
We should also find the courage to remind all Canadians that a more vibrant multiculturalism policy will in no way undermine our policy of official bilingualism. A stronger multiculturalism policy will not and should not result in a request for official language status for some third language. While Canada has two official languages, its cultural heritage derives from the multitude of cultures living within our borders. Therefore, we should be advocating a stronger multiculturalism policy which will serve to reinforce and strengthen official bilingualism and breathe new life into the concept that we call Canadianism.
For those reasons the Liberal Party will be demanding, through appropriate amendments in committee, that this Bill be reinforced with meaningful substance. It should not stop at symbolism. It should go beyond that to enhance the status of multiculturalism, not for the benefit of those in this Chamber but for the benefit of people on the streets of this country, whoever they are, from whatever background, regardless of when they came to this country. There is no reason, particularly when we consider the recent all-Party report, why this cannot be done. There is no excuse for missing the opportunity which presents itself to this Parliament and the Government.
For those reasons I am hopeful that the Conservative Government, and particularly the Minister responsible for multiculturalism, will rise to the occasion and join in the consensus in the community to boldly usher in this second
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
phase of multiculturalism, rather than struggling desperately to embrace the past and expecting to be congratulated and commended for doing so.
Canadians deserve better. Those fighting in the multicultural constituencies of our country deserve better. Those young second and third generation Canadians who are of neither English nor French heritage deserve better. Their expectations and definitions of multiculturalism may be radically different from those of their parents. They expect this policy to answer new dilemmas, new questions which were not faced by previous generations in the struggle to build this great nation. Multiculturalism deserves more than simply window-dressing. We are talking about national pride, national sentiment, and the forces which came to be fused together in the building of Canada. We are talking about our national fabric, not necessarily about a policy only but a way of life which distinguishes us from any other country in the world.
To borrow an Olympic analogy, the Bill is merely content with the bronze when many Canadians are encouraging their Government to go for the gold. It is with that thought that I end my contribution at second reading of this Bill. The Minister and Government should not be willing to accept the bronze. They should go beyond that. To borrow a phrase from the Minister, the Bill should not allow this policy to be ghettoized into obscurity. That is the challenge at this stage in our evolution.
Multiculturalism, while it has been a general success story up until now, must change with the times. It must focus on and address new challenges and new problems which are surfacing. Many people, while living in a country of opportunity, do not see that opportunity as readily as some others. Some do not enjoy that level of stability. While we all rejoice in being Canadian, while we can compare ourselves with pride to other parts of the world, that should not prevent us from trying to improve our society so that all Canadians can enjoy the opportunity and stability that the Minister talked about moments ago.
While the Government did not embrace the political green light offered to it by the committee and adopt its recommendations, and it could have adopted many of them because they were the guts of a report which represented the sentiments of Canadians across the country, I am hopeful that at committee stage the Minister and Government will try to come at least half way. 1 hope they will realize that the definition of this Bill is that the future for multiculturalism is in the past, and we must reverse that. We must change the language and the intent. We must make sure there is a way to enforce the eloquent words of the Minister when we have to face the problems which come from a growing country. Canada will continue to need the passion of immigrants to build it bigger and stronger.
We must judge this legislation by its substance, and it is our intention to enhance that substance so that when it returns to this House, Members on all sides can take some pleasure in this

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Parliament having boldly and progressively moved multiculturalism into its second phase. I am hopeful that those sentiments will be shared by the Minister and the Government.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak for my colleagues in the NDP caucus on Bill C-93, a Bill to preserve and enhance multiculturalism in Canada. This is a historic day for Canada. We are for the first time debating a Bill which speaks of preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada. In many ways it is rather a late point in our history to be doing that, since the policy of multiculturalism enunciated in 1971 has been in effect for 16 years. All Parties in Parliament committed themselves to that policy and gave firm support to the recognition of the diversity of peoples in this country. They supported the desire of the Government to change our policy in recognition of that fact. One need only look at the Estimates which successive governments have tabled to appreciate how very little was done about the policy statement of 1971. Only very gradually were funds set aside for various purposes of cultural enhancement, community integration, and development of institutions respecting mainstream institutions for the diversity of our country. Even more slowly were the institutional means found to support these efforts.
Even now we have a Minister for Multiculturalism (Mr. Crombie) who carries those responsibilities as well as being Secretary of State. If he has to consult with the powerful Minister he can, presumably, do so within the quietness of his own mind and, as Minister of Multiculturalism, question the Secretary of State as to the advisability of action on multiculturalism.
It has been recognized by others that we spend even now about $25 million a year-less than $1 per Canadian man, woman, and child-in support of a policy which was designed to recognize fundamental realities of this country and change the way in which the federal Government operated and, in time, influence provinces, municipalities, non-governmental organizations and voluntary organizations across the country to respond to the diversity which exists in this country.
Why has there been such slow action? Why do we have in Bill C-93 such limited legislation? Why do we have what can, in the most damning of all phrases, be regarded as an institutionalization of the status qtiol We have taken what was in existence and given it a legislative basis, and that is supposed to be adequate recognition.
My colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), has suggested that this is multiculturalism dealing with the past rather than the future. I think that in a certain sense he is right in making that particular observation.
The reason we have so little is because the policy of multiculturalism has still not taken true root in the minds of the Ministers, in the thinking of governments, and in the reality of the Canadian Government. The reason that has not occurred is
that it is still not appreciated how powerful are the forces in this country which militate against the fulfilment of the policy of multiculturalism stated in 1971.
Those who have spoken before me, the Secretary of State in presenting the Bill as vigorously as he is always capable of doing, and my colleague, the Liberal critic and member of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, have spoken of various aspects of Canadian history. I think there is good reason, on this topic, to look back with discernment and to speak the truth about the history of this country. It is only when we do those things that we will appreciate how much needs to be done, and understand perhaps with some measure of charity why there has been such limited action toward the policy of multiculturalism.
I think back 100 years and more in Canadian history. I find myself thinking of that notable politician of Quebec, George Cartier. I say "George" advisedly because, of course, he was not "George" as is often thought by those who do not know the man in Canadian history. He was George, named after King George III. He was named after a British monarch because his parents thought that the protection of the French-speaking British subjects in Canada was best found in monarchy. They feared the pressures that might be imposed on them by their neighbours, by the Government of Lower Canada, the Province of Canada later and, of course, when he was himself active in politics he might have feared what could happen within the Dominion of Canada. They thought that to be a good subject of the King was possible. If one were Catholic, if one spoke French, if one led a good and useful life in the St. Lawrence Valley in Canada one was a good subject of the King, one could be distinctive and yet serve well.
We are all, of course, subjects still of the monarch. That view of things, carried over to our day, is what we attempt to encapsulate in the concept of citizenship which we all know is very important to the Secretary of State as his fundamental view of the country.
What happened in the 19th century? What was the reality of which George Cartier's parents were keenly aware? There were powerful forces in this country to Anglicize it. There were powerful forces to create one people which would speak English. One hundred years ago in this Chamber, and out of this Chamber an Ontario Member of Parliament named D'Alton McCarthy set forth to make this country English. In the province in which I was born and grew up, the Province of Manitoba, he had some of his greatest successes. He set out there to end the bilingualism which was constitutionally rooted, as the Supreme Court of Canada has told us not long ago.
In his first success he succeeded in persuading a Manitoba Government to betray promises given to a minority and to destroy a denominational educational system, to create a public school system with no respect for the minority, and to move toward making an English-speaking province. It was in fact in the midst of the Great War, a war still of empires at
March 15, 1988

that point, which was only gradually becoming a war in defence of democracy and individual rights, that the Province of Manitoba chose to end bilingual education, which had continued not only English and French but English and German, English and Ukrainian, and so on, in 1916, and insist that education in Manitoba would be carried on only in the English language.
I expect that I, of Mennonite stock, am one of very few peoples which had members of their community leave this country as cultural and political exiles because they found themselves suppressed here. I have distant relatives living in Chihuahua State in Mexico who left Canada in protest because they had come here thinking they could live as conscientious objectors, practise their religion, and use the German language as well as English. When that was taken from them in 1916 many of them left, and I think that that particular aspect of Manitoban and Canadian history deserves to be remembered.
One of the cultural instruments which Canada used in the late 19th century against the aboriginal peoples was the Indian Act with its prohibition of the sun-dance and the potlatch. That Indian Act was designed to destroy a people. It was designed to tear out of the Canadian nation, to remove from Canadian soil, distinctive cultures. We lived with that for three-quarters of a century. Only in the 1950s and 1960s did we begin to turn around. It is that kind of heritage which we have. It is that from which, in the 1960s, we began to turn about.
I see that it is one o'clock. I shall break off at that point to continue the historical exploration and the political consequences of that after three o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise with much enthusiasm to welcome the Montreal Daily News which today published its inaugural edition. I would like foremost, on this special occasion, to commend the initiative and courage of Pierre Peladeau and the Quebecor family.
Also, I would like to extend my best wishes to George MacLaren, the publisher, and to Don Foley, the Executive Editor, and Jim Duff, Managing Editor. I am certain that they will provide Montrealers and Canadians with responsible and insightful journalism.
In fact, as today's edition of the Montreal Daily News illustrates, it is quite capable of reporting concisely on matters pertaining to local, provincial, national and international events. It is quite constructive in our pluralistic society to have an additional vehicle, such as this tabloid, to reflect the vitality of Montrealers, Quebecers, and, in particular, the Anglophone community of Quebec.
Congratulations to the staff of this promising tabloid which should stimulate news reporting competitiveness to satiate our society's strong appetite for accurate and informative reporting and promote further public debate. Welcome to the Montreal Daily News'.



PORNOGRAPHY


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, pornography is clearly something that most Canadians believe should not have any place in our society. The Government's pornography Bill, Bill C-54, has resulted in the most popular support that the Department of Justice has received since this government came to office.
The Opposition's continuing filibuster of Government Bills is eating up valuable legislative time that could be used in bringing forward progressive legislation such as Bill C-54. I ask the Opposition to exhibit more responsibility in their debates, and also urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) to bring Bill C-54 to second reading and committee.
The Government should not be deterred by the vocal minority in the country. Clearly an overwhelming majority of Canadians applaud the Minister for this Bill.



APARTHEID


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, only days before the anniversary of the Sharpeville riot, the South African Government has announced that "the Sharpeville Six" will be executed by hanging on Friday, March 18.

March 15, 1988
Despite questionable evidence as to their guilt, it appears these six individuals will pay the supreme penalty for the mass violence which has gripped South Africa in the past few years.
I call on the Canadian Government again to urge clemency for "the Sharpeville Six" and to use its good offices to rally international support to that effect. Prime Minister Botha should grant clemency not simply in the interest of the six accused but in the interest of his country as a whole. Why should he push it toward increased violence and bloodshed? These actions show that the South African Government has rejected all standards of international jurisprudence and has clearly turned its back on world opinion.
I call on the Canadian Government to review its policy in regard to South Africa, to consider new measures, including the total economic sanctions the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) referred to at the United Nations, to bring pressure on the Government of South Africa to institute meaningful changes in the society of that country.



MINING INDUSTRY


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, since the use of flow-through shares to finance exploration activity, the mining industry in Abitibi-Temiscamingue, Quebec and across Canada has shown unparalleled new vigour.
Risk financing of exploration activities by means of flowthrough shares has been an ideal mechanism for attracting investors to the natural resources sector, and as a result, the unemployed, prospectors, geologists, geophysicists and engineers have been able to work and contribute their many talents to building up our mining industry. In fact, there is some astonishment about the fact that so many people here are making a success of mining exploration. The answer is that people need a challenge. If you don't have a job, it's hard to show people what you can do.
Mr. Speaker, the mining industry is vital to the well-being of all Canadians, and we want some action by Canada and Quebec's Minister of Finance by the end of April 1988.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, what is the cause of present delays in contract
negotiations between the Public Service Alliance and the Government of Canada? Why is it so hard to negotiate new contracts before present contracts expire?
Many public servants are now working under contracts that expired almost a year ago. Many of my constituents are asking themselves these questions.
Since the Government came to power public servants have lost jobs, lost security, lost salaries, parking privileges, collective bargaining rights and more. It is high time the Tory Members of Parliament from the National Capital Region spoke up on behalf of their constituents. It is time to tell the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski) to approach the negotiating table with responsible offers so that we can deal with collective bargaining in a prompt and appropriate manner.
The people of the National Capital area working for the federal Government do a very good job by and large. They have a right to work and to be treated decently by the Government.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to update the House on the continuing progress, and a couple of problems, at the Hamilton Civic Airport. In recent days I have talked individually with Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Chairman Bill Sears, Glanbrook Mayor Helen Bell, Ancaster Mayor Bob Wade, Hamilton Mayor Bob Morrow, along with Regional Councillor Ann Sloat, and a delegation of concerned constituents on the Mountain.
We all agreed on two things. First, we want to see the greatest possible development of Hamilton's airport. Indeed, Pan Am Express makes its official debut at Mount Hope on Thursday. Second, we agreed that we should be doing everything we can to minimize the disruption of the lifestyles of the people I have the honour to represent.
I, therefore, urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to institute a 24-hour monitoring surveillance, or a much higher security profile, because we need to know who and what is flying into Hamilton, when, and how low. We need an improved flight path to lessen the noise impact.
I want publicly to thank the Minister of Transport for his continuing interest and co-operation in promoting the viability of Hamilton's growing international airport.
March 15, 1988



ABORTION


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, since the Supreme Court ruling struck down the abortion law on January 28, 1988, there has been no protection under the law for the future citizens of Canada, the defenceless unborn. I have received letters from an overwhelming number of my constituents, as well as other Canadians, who are calling for full protection of the rights of the foetus.
My belief in the sanctity of human life compels me to share this same view. The protection of the unborn must be the basis for any just society. Without a law governing abortion in this country, lives are at stake. I urge the Government to introduce legislation that will protect the unborn without further delay. There can be no compromise on the protection of human life.
* *
*



S. O. 21 TRADE CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-AUTO DUTY REMISSION SYSTEMS

Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government keeps telling us it has won major gains in its U.S. trade deal. Unfortunately, reality keeps getting in the way. In the trade deal, Chapter 10 deals with the auto industry. It was supposed to have worked out all the problems between our two countries on auto issues, such as duty remission systems and the timetable for dealing with them.
Despite this chapter and despite the fact that the United States is supposed to follow what is in the deal, the Governor of Michigan, James Blanchard, is launching an unfair trade practices case against Canada. He is trying to cut out these duty remissions much faster than the agreement states. The result could be the loss of thousands of jobs in the Canadian auto industry.
Again the United States is trying to have its cake and eat it too. It has pushed Canada into an unfair deal and it is still going after us under unfair trade laws.
* *
*



TRIBUTE TO PIROUETTES DE LAVAL

Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multicultur-alism):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to pay tribute to a figure skating team in my riding, and I am referring to the Canadian champions, now better known as the "Pirouettes de Laval", a team that was unfairly left out as a result of some very biased and personal choices made by a simple person who was responsible for the closing ceremonies committee in Calgary, a Mr. Brian Pockard, who insulted the Quebec figure skating community and amateur sport across this country, a dinosaur who does not understand our Canadian duality, and more specifically, Quebec.
Quebec has suffered more than its fair share of discrimination, Mr. Speaker. I told the skaters, their coaches, the volunteers and their families . . . and speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) and all my colleagues on both sides of the House, I want to express our admiration for their excellent work and urge them to keep on representing our youth and our country the way they have been doing.
Mr. Speaker, a salute to our Canadian champions, the "Pirouettes de Laval," who are with us in the House today. Bravo!



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in the House about Canada's excellent performance as a result of policies introduced by this Government.
According to the latest figures released by Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate in this country has dropped to 7.8 per cent, its lowest level in six years. Canada's excellent record for job creation compares more than favourably with West Germany, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, France, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands, all members of the OECD.
Since September 1984, 1,213,000 jobs were created, and 653,000 went to women. Women's unemployment dropped from 12 per cent to 8.4 per cent, illustrating our Government's determination to achieve employment equity. Youth unemployment dropped from 18.3 per cent to 12 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, the difference between this Government and the previous one is significant. Under the Conservatives, Canadians are working instead of drawing unemployment insurance benefits!

March 15, 1988



S. O. 21 YOUTH OPPOSITION TO CUT-BACKS IN SERVICES FOR POSTSECONDARY STUDENTS

Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, the Director General, Operations, of Canada Employment Centres wrote the following in a memorandum: "Considering the resources allocated for 1988-89, I think it is inevitable that CEC management will question the continued presence of resources on-campus.
The message is clear. Two years ago, we saw a 30 per cent cut in on-campus resources, which severely affected the level of service offered to post-secondary students. Today it has been decided the service will be practically eliminated. Students are getting a raw deal, Mr. Speaker!
No consideration is being given to the needs of the student population, characterized by its homogeneous make-up, the age group to which it belongs and its lack of job experience. College graduates belong to the age group most affected by unemployment. However, instead of dealing with the problem, the Government now wants to eliminate the last vestiges of its placement service. This must be construed as a failure on the part of the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) and this Government to show any concern about the problems of our youth.
During the past four years, nothing was done for this group, but that was not enough for the Government. It now wants to make severe cuts in the resources of on-campus Canada Employment Centres.
Protests have been heard from the Federation des CEGEP. I support their protests, and all Canadian students will do the same when they realize the extent of these cut-backs.



WAR MEASURES ACT


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, this government is amending legislation that applies in times of crisis. Over 15 years ago, because of the War Measures Act, Quebecers were victimized by the Liberal Government in power at that time. It is now clear to everyone that the Liberals' extreme intolerance in the form of war measures was unfounded. That fear was visceral and emotional. Quebecers were happily sending other Quebecers to jail.
Because he was involved in that mass imprisonment, the present Liberal Leader (Mr. Turner) should share with this House his knowledge of the issue. The Liberals and their Leader now have the opportunity to apologize to Quebecers. Apologize!



BANKS AND BANKING


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian chartered banks have been systematically evading a provision of the Bank Act which requires the express agreement of their customers to the service fees they charge. The chartered banks obtain a blanket acceptance of these from their customers and then charge whatever they think is necessary for their purposes.
For example, the Royal Bank charges $6 for a bank draft in U.S. funds and $8.50 for a cheque in the same U.S. funds. The Civil Service Co-operative Credit Society, in contrast, charges $1 for the bank draft-no charge at all if one is 55 or older- and 35 cents for a cheque.
[ Translation]
The Caisses populaires in Quebec and in French Canada and credit unions all over Canada meet their clients' needs. They use their resources to lend to their community and offer that service without charging outrageous fees.

I would urge Canadians to consider a credit union when they become dissatisfied with their banks.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, last week the City of Toronto Council passed a motion calling for changes in the federal criminal justice system so that violent criminals receive more severe sentences and pay for their crimes in full without parole for early release to half-way houses.
During the debate a moderate Councillor with a reputation for common sense, June Rowlands, said:
The Criminal Code has failed society. The pendulum has gone too far; too much concern for the criminal and not enough for the victims or the potential victims.
Councillor Kay Gardner, known for her social conscience, said:
People feel betrayed by officials who allow offenders into our community with little or no supervision.
Them's my feelings exactly, Mr. Speaker. The Government has done great things, but it should take another look at the criminal justice system, and it should do it fast.
March 15, 1988



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Official Languages Bill is now in committee. I hope discussion there will reflect a true sense of language justice. As an Anglophone from Quebec I appreciate and support the need to encourage the French language, but should this happen at the expense of other linguistic and cultural expression? Presently we do not have full linguistic expression when bilingual signs are not permitted in Quebec.
Culturally, Quebec's revised Cinema Act is moving to curtail access to English films. Does being a French-speaking province mean that we cannot appreciate other languages? Is this what is meant by achieving social peace at the expense of minority language rights?
If all this makes sense, then opera, theatre, and literature should also be translated for Quebec audiences. While the world revels in the works of Shakespeare, Margaret Laurence, Andrew-Lloyd Webber, or Steven Sondheim, Quebecers are left to bask in our "distinct society".
Quebec will only earn its place in the cultural and democratic world by promoting all films, theatre, literature, and languages; then the French language in this so-called distinct society will be a respected distinction instead of a handicap, and we will demonstrate our respect for rights and freedoms fit for our democratic society, thus promoting social peace.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Government of South Africa continued its barbaric policies by announcing the execution, this Friday, of "the Sharpeville Six", one black woman, and five black South African men, despite the pleas from all over the world that the sentence be commuted and despite the fact that none of those six participated directly in any murder.
Yesterday the lawyer for those six condemned individuals said that the only hope for them was a plea from Prime Minister Thatcher, from President Reagan, and from Chancellor Kohl.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, who places a very high priority on the problems in South Africa, if he will contact those three allies and ask them to make this "last
Oral Questions
hope", to send an appeal to the South African Government to save those six lives.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I share the deep outrage and profound dismay of my honourable friend in regard to the announced actions in South Africa. The Canadian Government has already conveyed its very strong views in this regard. We have spoken with allies as well, and would be happy to again.
On behalf of the Government, the Parliament, and the people of Canada, I have sent a personal message to the President of South Africa asking him to suspend the action contemplated by the Government of South Africa, and to reflect very humanely and seriously on the enormity of the action contemplated.
We deeply disapprove of this, and have conveyed our views in this regard directly to the President of South Africa.


REQUEST THAT THE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT CERTAIN RELIGIOUS LEADERS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, considering that another 38 people are on death row in South Africa, all having been condemned in similar circumstances to capital punishment for their participation in a demonstration during which somebody was killed, is the Government prepared to support the request made by a number of religious leaders to the effect that the United Nations take immediate action to settle that terrible situation?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we want to explore every possible means at our disposal that would bring about a change of attitude in the South African government. As the Hon. Member knows full well, the United Nations' Security Council considered taking action against the most recent legislation in South Africa. Unfortunately, the Security Council was unable to reach an agreement on that action. However, other means do exist. We are maintaining contact with church leaders in South Africa. We also keep in touch with South African civil opposition activists. Indeed, I just received a letter from Alan Boesak, expressing his thanks for the leadership role that Canada has played. We want to have direct talks with Mr. Boesak and other opposition leaders to the apartheid regime in South Africa. We intend to pursue all other available means to express Canada's attitude and to encourage the South African government in taking a humanitarian approach in cases such as "Sharpeville Six" and others.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE MANDATORY COMPREHENSIVE SANCTIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had this decision by the
[Stage Direction]
March 15, 1988
Oral Questions
South African Government to proceed with the six executions. On the weekend the South African Government banned antiapartheid protests by the church, and in February, very recently, it banned all black led opposition groups in South Africa. This South African Government is thumbing its nose at the whole world, continuing to suppress human rights and getting away with it.
This past weekend the Prime Minister stated, while addressing over 1,000 members of the black community:
We shall not hesitate to take all action which is appropriate to send an
unmistakable message to Pretoria, that the regime is unacceptable; must
change and must go.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Isn't it now time for the Government to take action to introduce mandatory comprehensive sanctions and, at the very least, close the South African consulates in Toronto and Montreal?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated to my hon. friend and to other Members of the House that we are actively considering the appropriateness of more steps, more action, pursuant to the leadership which this House and this Government have provided on this explosive issue in South Africa.
As I indicated at the Harry Jerome Awards dinner on Saturday night in Toronto, the Government is actively exploring new possibilities in this regard and we will not hesitate to take further action to be helpful to the emergence of a democratic Government in South Africa.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He has yet to demonstrate to the Canadian people that he is attempting to champion the cause of Canadian consumers across the country.
The Minister said recently with regard to bank services charges:
When banks raise the charges for certain services and debit your account
and you don't know about it, that's wrong.
The Minister went on to say:
I've changed banks personally because of that.
Will the Minister do something on behalf of and for Canadian consumers with regard to this particular situation, other than take personal measures to protect himself? Is he now going to stand in his place and do something for Canadian consumers?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have also indicated, I believe in this House, that discussions are under way with the Canadian Bankers' Association to see if it will not correct these practices.
There is a committee of this House looking at this issue right now and will be reporting with recommendations in that regard. I have no hesitation in repeating my personal feelings that if, in fact, the banks would correct this behaviour on their own, that is the preferable route rather than to bring in legislation.


Ms. Copps:: That is what you said about the drug companies.


Mr. Andre:: Certainly legislation or other measures are there, but not as a first resort. The first resort is to see if these practices cannot be corrected through voluntary measures.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, Canadian consumers have one word for this Minister. He is a wimp when it comes to Canadian consumers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member can put his
question.


David Charles Dingwall: I am glad you concur, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER IMPOSE FREEZE ON BANK CHARGES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has stated:
I've changed banks personally.
Does the Minister not realize that there are hundreds of communities with only one financial institution where Canadians do not have the opportunity to change banks?
I ask the Minister, on behalf of those Canadians, will he not impose a freeze on bank charges until this standing committee makes a full report to the House of Commons?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have been called a lot of things-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: That is one of the milder ones. Frankly, I think a freeze at this point in time would likely keep certain charges at a level higher than might be necessary. In fact, what the Hon. Member is suggesting might not benefit consumers because the pressure that is being brought to bear as a result of the good work of the committee of this House and other statements is having a salutary effect. I predict those charges will come down. In any event, for sure consumers need to have the
March 15, 1988

ability to make choices based on a full disclosure of the facts, and that I am certain will occur.


INCREASE IN BANKS' SERVICE CHARGES
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Four months ago I asked the Minister to put a freeze on skyrocketing bank charges. The Minister fiddled while consumers paid. We now know that the five banks collected $4 billion in service charges in 1987 and they stand to collect a bonanza in 1988.
Why is the Minister allowing the banks to jack up service charges? Is it to pay off the Third World debt of Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and the Liberal Party?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will have to ask someone else that question.
Four billion dollars sounds like a gross exaggeration, to put it mildly. The fact is that the question of service charges has been under active consideration by a committee of the House. The fact is that officials in my Department have been discussing the matter with the Canadian Bankers' Association. They are aware that some changes will have to be made. They are in the process of considering those changes.
There is no evidence to suggest that a freeze would not have done anything but to keep service charges at a high level. In fact, the ability of consumers to know what the charges are and to use their rights as consumers to use the services or not, is likely to have a more beneficial effect in lowering the cost than any action by the Government to freeze the charges currently in place.


HIGH CHARGES FOR BANKING SERVICES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. According to the Toronto Star, the minister said that competition does exist, but that it did not bring about any reduction in the cost of thoses services. For example, it costs $6.50 to freeze the payment of a cheque and $1.50 to withdraw money from the bank. These fees have doubled in five years. Is the Minister prepared to freeze the cost of bank services until an inquiry is made?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to answer the supplementary question because in essence the Hon. Member is ignorant of the Government's plans in the Blue Paper announced in December of 1986. As a result, we will have trust companies and insurance companies competing with the banks for consumer credit and for small business loans. That is the kind of competition that will not only drive down rates but will also drive down service charges.
Oral Questions
That is the answer that awaits the Hon. Member, not just regulations.


PROVISIONS OF BANK ACT-PROTECTION OF BANK CUSTOMERS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Under Section 201 of the Bank Act, banks are not allowed to levy any charges without the "express agreement" of the consumer. In fact, a member of my staff opened an account at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce here this morning and this is the document he received. It in no way asks for a specific agreement to pay certain charges.
Is the Minister going just to stand there or is he at least prepared to enforce the Bank Act as it relates to bank charges to consumers?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, of course the Government is going to enforce the Bank Act.


John R. Rodriguez: You are not enforcing it!


Thomas Hockin: The Bank Act is perfectly clear. The Hon. Member shows us a document that one person picked up. If the banks do not get permission from the customer to charge certain rates, they cannot charge them. That has always been the case and it still is.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Post told Canadians on March 10 that replacing supermailboxes with door-to-door delivery would cost $1.3 billion. However, the government liaison manager with Canada Post says it would cost about $360 million, or about one-quarter of what the Minister claims.
Can he explain this rather large discrepancy in the figures?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the Hon. Member got that from an editorial in The Toronto Star.


Mr. Rossi:: It is in Hansard.


Harvie Andre: There is no explaining The Toronto Star.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They like Joe.

March 15, 1988
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: The estimate of the cost of extending door-to-door delivery to every home in Canada which does not now get it is not precisely $1.3 billion over the next four years. It is $1,269,786,868 according to the estimate I have here. If the Hon. Member would like to look at the figures he is welcome to do so.


EQUALITY OF SERVICE
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to have a penchant for exaggeration because on March 11, the next day, he described his front lawn and said:
-in front of my house is a mailbox, an electric utility box and telephone
poles.
What a front lawn. He has no mailbox, though. It is just wishful thinking. He wants his property taxes reduced.
Does the Minister not read his mail and listen to what ordinary Canadians are saying? They do not expect door-to-door delivery to every single home in Canada. They want equality of service in our cities and towns.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: The Minister is quoting Cadillac figures when the people want a reliable Chevy.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering who that was skulking around our front yard last night.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I can only imagine the terrible damage if he ever cuts his front lawn.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not have time for that. I am too busy answering mail complaining about the postal service.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, the management of the Post Office is well aware of the aspirations of Canadians, as is this Government. A sincere effort is being undertaken to improve the quality of the service, while at the same time keeping prices reasonable.
The point I was trying to make with respect to superboxes or any other service is that exaggeration by Members of Parliament, claims that it is just a matter of snapping fingers and one can institute door-to-door delivery everywhere in the country, even though that has never existed in the 120 years of this country, have to be balanced against the fact that this costs money. We can do what the Liberal and NDP Parties have asked for if we are prepared to ask Canadians to pay 60 cents to have a letter delivered. You cannot separate cost from service. It is irresponsible to try to do so.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I have given him notice of it.
He will recall that on January 1 of last year the House passed legislation to increase disability benefits for recipients of the Canada Pension Plan. He also knows that many provincial Governments and employers deducted an equal amount of the increase from benefits they pay. Members on all sides of the House were outraged when that happened.
Is the Minister aware that the federal Government is doing exactly the same thing to those pensioners who are disabled and are superannuates and who rely on that increase to sustain a decent standard of living?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for giving me and my officials notice of the question. The issue revolves around the Superannuation Act and whether or not recipients of the CPP who are disabled and superannuates are subject to a reduction. I have asked the Department to examine the question of whether there is a pass-through. 1 think Parliament was very clear that it wanted to see the pass-through take place.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the Minister that the federal Government has reduced the pension of a constituent of mine in this situation by some $200 a month, and by a further $100 a month because it claims he was over-paid.
This is a very serious question. Members on all sides of the House have shown interest in it. The Government should act as speedily as possible to show this individual and others like him that there is a sense of fairness at play in this House.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as the Member was notified earlier today, I believe by my departmental officials, I am not in a position to comment on a particular case. I think he understands that. I am aware of the case, it has been brought to my attention. Obviously I have to check the matter with Treasury Board and the agreements with the superannuants, as well as the superannuation regulations. We started doing that this morning. I cannot give an answer, obviously, until that work is done.
March 15, 1988


EMPLOYMENT
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Recent unemployment figures show that unemployment in London is 4.2 per cent, the third lowest in the country. Yet we hear from the Leader of the Socialist-Liberal coalition, the Lion. Member for Oshawa, that job creation has affected only those areas within 100 kilometres of Toronto. Can the Minister say whether there is any substance to this allegation or not?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister can, but it better be short.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to be as short as I am sure you would like but I can say that during the past three and a half years job creation has been spread right across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have seen a drop in the unemployment rate in Newfoundland of 5.9 per cent; in Nova Scotia, 2.9 per cent; in New Brunswick, 4.3 per cent; and 3.8 per cent in Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I very much regret that although all of that is very interesting there is an item in Routine Proceedings for that kind of a statement.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns the Air Canada corporate plan, in particular its fleet replacement plan.
The oldest fleet in the Air Canada system is the DC-9. On average that aircraft is 19 years old. The third youngest system in the Air Canada fleet is the 727. On average that aircraft is nine years old.
Will the Minister explain to the House today why Air Canada's corporate plan contemplates replacing the 727, which is a relatively new aircraft in the fleet, and keeping for an additional 10 years the DC-9, which is already 19 years old? Can the Minister explain that to the people of Canada?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada is a Crown corporation which has had very capable management since it originally started. I am sure that any analysis it makes of which planes in its fleet need to be replaced will be a well-based analysis.
With regard to whether Air Canada should replace the 727 or the DC-9, I have seen an analysis which indicates that the fuel costs of the 727 are very high. I could go on with other reasons.
I can only say that Air Canada's board of directors and management will make a recommendation to the Government on what it should do. We will not be interfering to change that unless there are very grave reasons why that should be done. I would be very surprised if that were the case. We have faith in the management and board of directors of Air Canada.


CONTEMPLATED RETENTION OF DC-9 AIRCRAFT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians should know that the oldest single aircraft by far in the Air Canada fleet is the DC-9 which is, on average, 19 years old, with some in their mid-twenties. That aircraft is passing its usable life. The youngest aircraft in the fleet is the 727 which is nine years old. Up until last July the President of Air Canada was talking about replacing that 19-year-old DC-9.
What has happened between last July and today to create a situation in which Air Canada is contemplating keeping an aircraft until it is well beyond 30 years old, which I suggest is unsafe, and replacing an aircraft which is only half way through its useful life? What kind of machinations are going on behind the scenes?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the Hon. Member is making a charge against Air Canada's management with respect to its competency, honesty, or whatever.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am asking you the question. You're the Minister responsible.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member is insinuating, he is trying to set an innuendo as he did yesterday. He has been thoroughly unscrupulous in his approach to the whole question.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is undoubtedly aware that a rally in Vancouver on Sunday called for the compensation of individual Japanese Canadians for the enormous losses they suffered during World War II.

March 15, 1988
Oral Questions
The question is a very simple one. When does the Prime Minister expect to keep the promise that he made before the last election to compensate individual Japanese Canadians?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could help the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member is probably aware that I communicated last fall with the National Association of Japanese Canadians outlining the Government's position with regard to this matter which fully responds to the commitment made by the Prime Minister.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is again very simple. Is the Prime Minister ready to go down in the history books as someone who can preach to other countries but refuses to practise at home? Is he prepared to leave this blot on the Canadian record and not do the justice that he promised four years ago?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may be aware that that letter contains an apology and a recommendation to the National Association of Japanese Canadians that there be a recognition of the injustice. It also calls for the elimination of that fact with regard to the War Measures Act, which is currently being done.
Where we differ with the National Association of Japanese Canadians is that they want over $400 million for losses not sustained. That is the problem.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard this afternoon from two cabinet Ministers on the issue of bank charges. My question is directed to the Chairman of the Finance Committee.
Various news reports indicate that the report which was done for the Finance Committee states that banks are not telling customers of specific charges but are getting consumers to sign a blanket statement. Is this report accurate?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. As I said earlier today on a question of privilege, some of the matters of the Finance Committee report and the work being done by the committee have improperly been allowed to get into the public hand.
Unfortunately, the work that is out is not accurate and not complete, nor does it properly reflect the views of members of the committee. The committee is working very hard on this whole issue to try to be fair, both to the banking and credit institutions, including trust companies, caisses populaires, and
so on, and to the consumer, in coming to grips with an issue which is very difficult.
It is very wrong to have partial leaks of material which leave a wrong impression. This is a serious matter and I am glad the Member brought it to the attention of the House. That is the reason I stood this morning on a question of privilege.


LOBBYISTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the European Airbus issue and the registration of lobbyists.
The Prime Minister will know that a year ago a parliamentary committee recommended the following to this House:
We recommend that lobbyists be prohibited from receiving compensation from clients which is contingent in any manner upon the outcome of the lobbying activity.
Will the Prime Minister commit here and now that the Government will entertain amendments to the new Bill which has been introduced to ensure that contingent fees are not permitted? Why can we not have a clause in that Bill to disallow pinball lobbying with a bonus for hitting the jackpot?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that Bill has just this week been referred to committee where questions like this can properly be raised in the proper format. It is in fact contrary to Beau-chesne's to raise this kind of question in Question Period.


PARLIAMENTARY LOBBYISTS-LIMITATIONS OF BILL C-82- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
It is obvious that the Minister does not know what his bill is all about. I want him to tell me now why does Bill C-82 not prevent lobbyists from demanding fees that are contingent upon them being successful in their lobbying activity? Why allow such a situation to exist? Is it not a source of abuses?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, at committee officials will provide the legal opinion that it is difficult, if not impossible, to implement that which the Hon. Member is suggesting. That was in fact disclosed at the press conference which the Hon. Member attended when this Bill was put forward. It will be discussed in detail when the Bill goes to committee. Why is the Hon.
March 15, 1988

Member wasting the time of Question Period with these silly questions?


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General has had in his hands for over a week now the Pepino Report in connection with half-way houses in Toronto. Will the Solicitor General advise the House if he intends to make changes as a result of that report? If he does, will he share that information with the House now rather than waiting till the press conference which is set for later this afternoon?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite correct, I do in fact have in my hands the Pepino Report on half-way houses. It is an excellent report, it is very frank and hard-hitting. I certainly want to commend the chairperson of that committee and the other members for an excellent job. I will be releasing the report at four o'clock today with a plan of action.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. On March 3, 1988, the Coalition against the proposed establishment of a shooting range for F-18s in the Lac-Saint-Jean area has requested financial aid for the people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean to prepare public hearings.
When will the Government provide the necessary funds for such important hearings?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hearings are held pursuant to the authority of the Government of the Province of Quebec. We are willing to participate in the hearings and assist with any information they may want. However, those hearings are not under our authority whatsoever.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR HELP FOR POPULATION OF SAGUENAY-LAC-SAINT-JEAN
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. The Minister knows full well, for example, that the populations affected by the Goose Bay military project in Labrador have received $350,000 from the federal Government for their public hearings.
Considering there are vital questions at stake, such as environmental matters, security and demilitarization of the economy, why the double standard? How is it that the Minister is unable to confirm today that he will help the population of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean as he has already helped the population of Labrador?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly have hoped the Hon. Member had done his homework and realized that the environmental study taking place in the case of Labrador happens to be going on under the jurisdiction of the federal Government, which is absolutely different from the case in Quebec.


FINANCE
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Finance. I want to return to the issue of tax benefits for residents in northern and isolated communities.
An otherwise very excellent tax measure is creating havoc across the country because of some very wacky and irrelevant regulations that govern the benefit. Yesterday, the Minister signalled once more his intention of appointing a commission to study all aspects of this northern benefit's issue, but he did not answer a very specific question, that is, should the commission rule that some of the excluded communities do indeed qualify for the benefit, would the taxpayers in those communities be able to receive that benefit retroactively?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the commission will also be mandated to make a recommendation with regard to that. There are a number of recipients receiving benefits under the new scheme who never received them before. These include pensioners and the selfemployed employees who are provided housing. It includes travel for native Canadians. There are many examples of how this program has been broadened and strengthened.

March 15, 1988
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR CHANGES TO REGULATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to my hon. friend, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. Will he carefully consider looking at this tax benefit package and making some quick recommendations to the Minister of Finance, particularly with respect to changes in the regulations so that all of the anxiety that taxpayers now have may be put at ease? I would ask him at the same time to consider having representatives appear before this committee from these excluded communities who want to speak on behalf of residents and who feel they are now left out in the cold from an otherwise very good tax measure.
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which the Member alludes was in the Income Tax Act of 1986. It is a matter that has caused a number of members of the committee some distress. However, it is a matter that is under consideration by the Ministry. The Ministry has promised to report to the committee on this issue, as it does from time to time on regular economic matters.
I understand the Member's concern and will take the matter up with the committee as we analyse the further work that the committee might do under Standing Order 96(2).


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. As the Minister knows, the National Association of Friendship Centres, which represents 99 centres and about 1,300 employees, is not funded on a permanent basis but during a five-year period. That funding will run out March 31, 1988. I understand that there has been stopgap measure funding to fund the centres until September, but this does not allow for adequate planning.
Will the Minister respond to this and assure us that the National Association of Friendship Centres will receive permanent as opposed to limited funding?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Hon. Member that I think we have the situation reasonably well in hand. I met with the Association a couple of times. They are trying to work within our needs and we are trying to work within theirs.
We have a permanent program in mind and I am hoping that will come out of the process in which we are now engaged.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: That is heartening news and I am sure the National Friendship Centres would like to hear it.


LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that there is a request to increase the present $17.5 million funding to $19.8 million. This really represents the bare bones bottom line for these groups that employ so many people and create many jobs.
Does the Minister support this increased level of funding to maintain this important service?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, of course I can assure the Hon. Member that I appreciate the budget they submitted. I also appreciate the resources I have available. They understand that. We are trying to reach an accommodation, one which I believe will commend itself to the Hon. Member.


LEGIONNAIRE'S DISEASE BACTERIA ON COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He will know that three years ago he became aware that on certain commercial aircraft flying in Canada Legionnaire's disease bacteria was found which, in certain cases, can lead to illness and death. At that time regulations were ready to be implemented to ensure that the water systems in aircraft were flushed, yet the Minister chose not to go ahead with recommendations with respect to these regulations. Will the Minister explain why he put the health of Canadians at risk in this way?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that that was at all the case. In fact, if the details were examined, there was a case that dates back a number of years. Obviously I cannot nor would I want to release the name of the person, but that case was taken as the initial work of the LCDC within Health and Welfare. Studies were conducted.
I think the Hon. Member and all Members should keep in mind that there was not a sample found in respect of the water that the individual had consumed on the aircraft. The other point that should be kept in mind from a medical point of view is that, as a bacteria that is airborne, it would have to be ingested through the air rather than by drinking water.


FLUSHING OF AIRCRAFT WATER SYSTEMS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that in hospitals in Halifax, Prince Edward Island and Ontario, Legionnaire's disease has been isolated to showers and water pipes in the facilities. The Minister received
March 15, 1988

the report three years ago and will also know that similar bacteria was found in the water pipes of commercial aircraft.
I am not asking the Minister to say whether or not an individual died as a result of this particular bacteria. I am asking him why, when he received information three years ago that Legionnaire's bacteria was present in water pipes in commercial aircraft, he did not move with regulations to ensure the flushing of the water systems to prevent any kind of bacteria from getting airborne and in fact leading to potential sickness or death of Canadian air passengers?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that Member is so irresponsible she plays with words in this House just to make political points. She uses the word "death". There was no death involved whatsoever. I simply say to her, if you want to be health critic then start getting some of your facts straight-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-AUTO DUTY REMISSION SYSTEMS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Earlier today I noted that the Wall Street Journal had reported-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: We do read it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know what it reported but it does not sound unparliamentary. Would the Hon. Member put his question?


Steven W. Langdon: The Wall Street Journal reported that Governor Blanchard of Michigan had launched an unfair trade practices attack on our automotive policy despite the fact that that policy is treated with respect to duty remissions within the trade agreement.
In view of this seeming contradiction of what is committed in the agreement, will the Minister tell us what he has done to communicate with the United States with respect to trying to overcome this particular attempt to bring our auto industry down?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I note the Hon. Member no longer reads Saturday Night and now has turned to the Wall Street Journal.
Privilege-Mr. Tobin
I can say to the Hon. Member that, first, it is interesting to listen to the New Democratic Party talk about the trade pact and that the Americans say that Canadians got the better deal. Now its members are standing up and defending it. Is it a new policy of the New Democratic Party to support the trade agreement? If so, we welcome it and thank the Hon. Member very much for saying so.
Second, there has been no 301 filed by anyone in the United States. We expect the spirit of the agreement to be carried out both here and in the United States as it was negotiated. The duty remissions schemes are in place as per our commitments to the foreign auto makers and will be there until 1996.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that in view of the time, that is the last question.
I have a point of order from the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards), followed by a point of privilege from the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


PRIVILEGE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention a very serious and urgent matter that I regard as going right to the fundamental privileges of any Member of Parliament.
Today's edition of The Toronto Star clearly carries what is obviously, I submit, a conspiracy between The Toronto Star and the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) to target the Newfoundland vote amongst the Star's readership in an unscrupulous manner. I will tell you what happened, Mr. Speaker.
Today's edition of The Toronto Star carries a very serene and calm photograph of myself incorrectly identified as the Hon. Member for Simcoe North. The same edition carries a brooding and angry photograph of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North, incorrectly identified as being myself.
I suggest this is a conspiracy, a deliberate mix up, designed to alter my reputation as a calm and dispassionate politician, and, of course, to apply the attributes of calmness and lack of emotion I possess to the Member for Simcoe North who is known as an angry and brooding politician.
This is also a further obvious attempt by The Toronto Star and the Hon. Member for Simcoe North to try to appeal to resettled Newfoundlanders to vote for the Member for Simcoe North in his own riding. I ask that the Chair give this very serious question of privilege all the attention it deserves.

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act


Mr. Speaker:: 1 notice the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) made reference to Newfoundlanders living in the other Hon. Member's riding where they would vote. Perhaps where the Hon. Member for Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe comes from, people who are not living in the Hon. Member's riding will vote for him in any event. I am not quite sure what point is being made. However, the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) might want to reply.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I also saw the same article and I have to tell you that I am keeping track of the comments. The best comment made was by the individual who said "I look a lot better in person than I do in The Toronto Star".
If my hon. friend thinks he is maligned, how does he think I feel? This has been a bad seven or eight days for me. First, I was left off the CUPW list and I have to fight the election without the benefit of being maligned by CUPW. Now I am suffering the slings and arrows of The Toronto Star, which is very unusual for a Conservative, of course, especially when I used to deliver the darned paper.
In any event, I think the matter has now been sufficiently aired and I will be pleased to reintroduce myself to my constituents as the Hon. Member for Simcoe North. They will be pleased to know that I do not have that kind of moustache.


Mr. Speaker:: I will give this point of privilege exactly the consideration it deserves.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crombie that Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock p.m. the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) had the floor.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking just before we rose at one o'clock, I was commenting on the shortcomings of Bill C-93. It is a good first half to the whole Bill, but it is only half the Bill we should have. Even though the Government has given us the opportunity of historic debate on a Bill to enhance multiculturalism in Canada, which we are doing on second reading, we do not have the kind of Bill we want. I think the reason for that is to be found in Canadian history.
If we go back a quarter century to the events of the 1960s, we can see how Canadians began to grapple with the forces that had been at work for a century and more to create a nation of one language in which cultures were to be re-made and peoples were to be assimilated into one particular culture. It had taken more than half of this century before Canadians were brought to the position of recognizing that the diversity of this country makes such a policy impossible. It was only because of the explosive events of the 1960s, particularly the unrest that arose in the Province of Quebec, that Canadian Governments came to grips with that truth.
In the work of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism we had recognition of the fact that the Quebe-cois required a recognition which would force the Government of Canada to change its policies. In 1969 that came in the form of the Official Languages Act. However, it proved to be inadequate.
Even in the work of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism there was a representative in the form of Dr. J. B. Rudnyckyj who spoke for Ukrainian Canadians, and by extension for all of those in the third reality of Canadian history.
In terms of what was happening in those years we might speak almost of the fourth reality because, after all, there were aboriginal peoples first, then the French and the British, along with the diversity of British peoples, and then all the others who came to Canada. It was at Dr. Rudnyckyj's insistence that it was inadequate for the Government of Canada to establish two official languages and to settle for a policy of biculturalism.
We find in the fourth book of the work of the Royal Commission a transition from biculturalism toward multiculturalism. The result was that famous policy statement in 1971 in which then Prime Minister Trudeau declared:

A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework commends itself to the government as the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians.

This policy of multiculturalism in a bilingual framework became the position that the Government of Canada supposedly took. All four Parties responded to that in appropriate style. The then Leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. David Lewis, after indicating his support, declared that this statement of principles would be a mockery and a betrayal of high ideals and objectives unless collectively we provided the funds to make the principles meaningful in the lives of the minorities in Canada and unless we developed programs in consultation with the minorities giving them every opportunity to participate in the development of programs rather than imposing such programs on them.
March 15, 1988

As I said at the outset, the funds that were dedicated to this policy proved to be sadly inadequate. This indicated to what a limited extent the Government actually acted on the policy.
In terms of underscoring the extent to which the policy on multiculturalism brought about a change in the understanding of Canada, in those very same years-1969, the year of the Official Languages Act, through 1971, the year of the multiculturalism policy-the Government was forced to do an about face on its policies regarding aboriginal peoples.
Canadians will remember the White Paper of 1969 which was designed to do away with reserves, to end the collectivities of Indian bands and to offer aboriginal peoples the blessings of individual Canadian citizenship. The outcry that that aroused still reverberates through the halls in which Canadians do politics. The failure of Canadian Governments to respond fully to the assertion of the aboriginal peoples, that they have the right to govern themselves, underscores in still another area the fact that the Government of Canada did not really enthusiastically throw itself into developing a policy of multiculturalism.
Thus we have very limited responses. We can appreciate how limited those responses actually were and how limited the actions of the Government on the multiculturalism statement of 1971 were if we look at the one area of culture and the other area of justice for individuals, of human rights in short, and recognize the failings of the Canadian Government in advancing multiculturalism in these areas.
What happened in the cultural area proved to be very revealing. A department of multiculturalism, which recognized that there was no longer, if there ever had been, an official culture in Canada, was not created. The Government's support for cultural activity had become quite large. If we think of broadcasting, support for scholarship and all the activities which the Department of the Secretary of State would support in these years, we see that the Government did a great deal for culture.
But the significant thing about that was that it remained as diverse, as unco-ordinated and as unrelated to the policy of multiculturalism as one could imagine. In looking at what Governments did in those years one would think that the policy of multiculturalism had never been enunciated and had never been agreed to by all the Parties in Parliament.
What happened in these years culturally, in particular, was that the Department of Communications was created and the Minister of Communications became the culture Minister of the federal Government in all those areas dealing with electronic media, and far beyond that as the years passed. As we now well know from looking at the way in which broadcasting developed in Canada through the 1970s and on into the 1980s, the Minister of Communications behaved as if a policy of multiculturalism had never been expounded. The Minister behaved as if it had never been declared that there was not an official culture in either the English or the French language which the Government of Canada was to support.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
That is a failing on which the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) focused in terms of the Canada Council and the multiculturalism sector when it comes to support for writing, for example. The Canada Council will support those who appear to be working in certain mainstream traditions. These are presumably the official cultures of the country. However, when someone whose name is of another origin than British or French, someone who appears to be working in a different culture tradition, the Canada Council is not interested and fobs that person off on the multiculturalism directorate.
That is an indication of the kinds of ghettos of neglect which are the reality of Canada through 16 years and more of the multiculturalism policy. It is simply not acceptable for the Minister to speak of rejecting the recommendation from the committee, our unanimous recommendation from the members of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism of all three Parties. In fact, five out of seven members of that Committee from the Government caucus were in support of creating a department of multiculturalism. It is simply not acceptable for the Minister to declare that that would ghettoize multiculturalism.
What his comment reflects is all the inadequacy of the attitudes that continued through 1971 and beyond in which the Department of Communications would control within certain directions, and the CRTC would be forced, very slowly and grudgingly, toward recognizing the needs of ethnic broadcasting, and hardly act on them adequately in any kind of national sense, even 16 years after the policy was enunciated. The Canada Council would go about its way inadequately funded, barely able to support those it regards in its province, supporting high culture, supporting those companies which its funding has enabled to become professional but rejecting those it sees as practising the folk arts. It would reject those who are forced to be amateur because they have not been able to garner the support of national and provincial art councils. Those are left outside.
There we have a continuing situation of neglect in the cultural area. There we have the continuing reality of ghettos of neglect which the Minister is quite prepared on the face of the evidence of Bill C-93 to allow to continue. There, on the cultural side, is the refusal to create a department of multiculturalism which would ensure that all of the federal Government's cultural activities would be brought together into one area under one Minister and his deputy and co-ordinated in such a way that the Government was not handling cultures unfairly. There is one of the evidences of shortcomings still in this Bill and through years of policy.
On the other side we have the matter of human rights. As the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), the Minister responsible for multiculturalism, pointed out, it was half a dozen years after the multiculturalism policy was enunciated that the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada passed the Canadian Human Rights Act establishing a commission to deal with matters of discrimination of all sorts.

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Did the establishment of a commission to deal with discrimination on the basis of gender, of ethnic or racial origin produce genuine fairness for Canadians? The Standing Committee on Multiculturalism considered a report last spring which raised doubts about the affirmative answer to that question. The committee was told five years after the Canadian Human Rights Act had been passed that in the work of the Canadian Human Rights Commission there was a difference in the way in which different types of complaints were handled.
When complaints about discrimination on the basis of gender were brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commission there was a vigorous assault on the situation, if I may use as vigorous a verb as that. There was a careful consideration of the institution within which the person had been employed or against whom this person was complaining, paper was obtained, and systematic approaches were undertaken to decide what this person-presumably a woman, given what we usually expect in the way of gender discrimination- had suffered in relation to discrimination in the workplace or in other ways. The commission had a good deal of success in dealing with those matters.
However, if someone came forward with a complaint of discrimination on the basis of racial origin or ethnic background the commission did not use the same approach. There was not a systematic examination of the institution against which this person was complaining, or the superiors against whom the person was complaining. Instead, the investigators began looking for overt expressions of discrimination. The fact that people are usually sensible enough not to cast aspersions on individuals to their faces, or in the hearing of those who were prepared to testify, left those complainants without satisfaction.
I was compelled to ask the then Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission whether this difference did not represent, on the part of the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself, systemic discrimination against those who had complaints based on race or ethnic origin. Although the Chief Commissioner rejected that possibility, it was an indication of the extent to which the Canadian Human Rights Commission had failed Canadians on the basis of consideration of 100 and more files in the possession of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
In both of those areas there is evidence of grave shortcomings in the way in which federal Government institutions responded to the statement of 1971. We recognize that in the spring of 1984, in its last days in office, the Trudeau Government put forward a multiculturalism Bill. It was a very weak Bill. No one would say much for it except that it was an attempt to enunciate some of the principles.
Unfortunately, one cannot say much more than that in regard to the Bill presently before us, Bill C-93. It is the more or less good first half of the type of Bill that we really want. In
considering what is not included in this Bill, I wish to consider some of the important questions which are before us.
After we rose at one o'clock, I chatted for a moment with the Minister outside the Chamber. He stated that he was tempted to call across the floor when I was talking about the aboriginal peoples. Of course, they had their Department. The Minister wished to make the argument that Indian Affairs demonstrated the type of ghettoizing that is his argument for not having a full-fledged department of multiculturalism. That has some truth to it. If one wants to look at how the Canadian Government could seek to destroy cultures and what it could do in the way of perpetrating cultural genocide, one need only go and look at Indian Affairs. I would suggest that that is not the only model that we can have.
The Minister stated that he did not want a department that could command and control. Neither do I. I do not think that anyone would want that. I am anxious about the proposition of more staff and more animateurs in the field to carry out the work of organizing groups and urging them on. That has to be done with care. I think that there are better ways of doing that than enlarging the field staff in the Department of Secretary of State. What is needed is money for organizations, far more than staff.
But the question remains, how can one ensure that the institutions of the federal Government respect the policy? In considering how a department of multiculturalism could ensure that the policy becomes what it should be, the first line of the federal Government's interaction with the communities and with the diversity of cultures would be if such a department were responsible for all the cultural activities of the federal Government. The standing committee looked in that direction with its recommendation that the department and the Minister should become responsible for the Canada Council. That was only a partial solution. It will inevitably arouse debate if the Government takes it up.
What we want is not necessarily for all those institutions to be put into a department. The reality is that those agencies, whether it is the Canada Council, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio-Canada, or other agencies, are at arm's length from the Government. What is wanted is a mechanism by which they can be brought into an acceptance of a policy of multiculturalism, and forced to act upon it. I would suggest that the committee's report goes only part way towards that.
Last spring in considering a minority report forced on me by the refusal of the committee to deal with issues of racism explicitly in a historical section of the report, I was forced into considering those questions with my colleagues and thinking of different ways of doing that. I would suggest to the Minister that what is wanted is a full-fledged Minister of multiculturalism who, because he or she has at least partial supervisory responsibility for all the cultural activities and human rights activities of the Canadian Government, will be recognized as having some real clout in the Government. Given that he or she is a full-fledged Minister with a deputy minister, there is
March 15, 1988

the clout that Government requires in dealing with other departments and with agencies.
As the committee's own tentative suggestion does not, this would recognize, of course, that there are other departments involved. The Department of Communications in its general responsibility for electronic communications is sure to remain in the field. The New Democratic Party's response to multicul-turalism issued at the end of June suggests that there should be a dual reporting relationship in which the Minister of multicul-turalism has a joint responsibility with the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to receive reports and to pass suggestions on to the cultural agencies. In this manner it would ensure that in every area, whether it is support for native friendship centres, aboriginal programs, or in the areas of the English-speaking culture that CBC and the Canada Council support, or those supported by Radio-Canada and the Canada Council, all of those activities presently in the multiculturalism sector would be carried out in awareness of each other and under the direction of a Minister who has total responsibility. This would end a charade of political multiculturalism.
Because the Trudeau Government refused to follow through, in this holistic way, in changing the institutions of the federal Government, too many people still think in terms of ethnic politics; dinners, banquets, speeches, in which they crave some type of attention. In an election year they get quite a bit of it from the Government, but not much in between.
When the Canadian Ukrainian communities met in a triennial convention a couple of years ago in Winnipeg, and looked for the usual cabinet Minister to address them, they were forced to settle for a private Member. Unfortunately, they were not meeting during an election year, or they would certainly have had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) there, as he was at the Jerome dinner last Saturday night in Toronto.
In an election year, all kinds of attention is paid to communities. But the reality of the changing institutions, ensuring that the policy of multiculturalism has all cultural and human rights activities related to it, is that this does not happen. It does not happen in this Bill in which the second half dealing with means is practically missing. There is a ministry reestablished by a provision or two, the standard ones, and there is the advisory council which dates back to 1973 given a legislative framework. There is no substantial department, or a Minister with real influence, because of the voice that he or she would have, and responsibility for all of those activities.
We do not have a council that would have the kind of independence required in the matter of the status of women, for example. We have a council that does have independence with staff and research people who are producing reports that can be published and can advance the cause. What have we had for years under Liberal Governments and now for three and a half years under the Conservative Government and the
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
advisory council is bodies that meet occasionally, not frequently enough, large ones, small ones, that meet behind closed doors. They may have a reception occasionally and issue a statement, sometimes not all that well advised, but these bodies are really private bodies for the Minister and are closed to others as far as their deliberations are concerned. That is not the kind of body we want. We need a strong Minister with a good department and we need a council that is a public body. We need a council that is responsive to the communities because it is selected from the communities.
The model developed in Manitoba is the Manitoba Intercultural Council. A council that is largely a chosen body selected by the communities is able to deliberate with all the freedom that that gives it. It is a council with significant funding for the support of multiculturalism and is a far better model than anything that federal Governments since 1973 to the present have come up with. That is the kind of route we should take.
If we had research capacity and a significant budget for that body, we could have funding made available to organizations with much less concern about the politics of the whole thing. It would put support for multicultural organizations and ethnocultural organizations at the same arm's length relationship from Government that now characterize the cultural agencies of the Government and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That is the kind of model I suggest should be used.
The Minister has rejected a full-fledged department. He has been forced by the Government-he does not make these decisions by himself-to remain the kind of junior or part-time Minister he is now, being primarily occupied with his duties as Secretary of State. There has been debate among organizations and in the communities as to the best way to go. Not everyone is in support of a department. I think that has a good deal to do with the inadequacies of government action for almost a decade and a half now, in fact, back to the early 1970s. If we had had the proper policies, people would be much more prepared, I would suggest, for a department.
The refusal to create a commissionership represents a far more serious failing. There are people who are concerned about large departments and about what government can do. There are, among all of those concerned about advancing a policy, far fewer doubts about a commissioner. It is again one of those things that can arouse jealousies. God forbid that we should. It is the game of divide and conquer that has gone on for very long in this area and in other areas.
People look at the Commissioner of Official Languages, who has been at work since the Official Languages Act authorized the position back in 1969. They look at the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages and the way in which the committee and the commissioner can work together, if you will. I have been privileged as a member of that joint standing committee to see how it operates and how effective it can be in bringing pressure to bear on the Government. People see that the Commissioner of Official Languages can make a real

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
difference. In the refusal of a government to do the same thing for multiculturalism, they recognize the extent to which this is pre-Christmas tinsel. It is symbolism. A gift is supposed to be given, but there is nothing inside. There is no muscle, no power and no protection for people except what a Minister, who is obviously a Minister of the same Government, might actually be able to bring to bear.
If one has doubts about a department, surely one should be prepared to move in the area of the establishment of the position of commissioner who would be able to assist the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, the one real advance which this Parliament has made and for which this Government deserves thanks. In the establishment of that standing committee, we have some movement in the right direction. But we have the refusal to establish the position of commissioner who would have the means to review what is going on in government, who would have the means to receive complaints, who could comment on the failure of cultural agencies to respect multicultural policies, and who might have taken reports half a dozen years ago in the human rights area from people who thought they were not obtaining justice from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. A commissioner can do his work often behind the scenes, investigating, issuing reports that are confidential to departments initially. If one takes the procedures that are in the Official Languages Act which are now being proposed in Bill C-72, the commissioner could ensure that the Government really respected the words spoken in January, 1971 to which successive governments of Canada have given lip-service.
What is wanted, Madam Speaker, is real action, not just words. We have had a lot of rhetoric. We have in this Bill the first half of a good Bill. But we need much more than that. I see the failure of this Government to propose anything more. This morning's comments from the Secretary of State suggest that there is no readiness to take up the commissionership, which I know remains the key concern of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council which speaks for several dozen organizations across the country. A commissionership is required, and there is the real failure of the Government.
We are left then with the half loaf that we have had all too often from the Government. Maybe we expect it, but I think the Government in the politics of an election year, would not want to concede that anywhere in public. We have the same kind of half loaf we got with Bill C-62, the employment equity Bill, in the first session of this Parliament. The Government accepted some changes to that Bill. They were very minor. In fact, they were so minor that my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus were forced to vote against the Bill at third reading.
In the case of the multiculturalism Bill, that would be a sad fate for the principles that are there. Whatever rearrangements one might want to make in some cases, it is particularly necessary in Clause 3(2) where federal institutions, it is suggested, should do some things rather than following the shell that is common in legislation of this Parliament. There,
particularly, are reasons for suspicion. We look to the Government-presumably the legislative committee, unless the standing committee gets the responsibility, but wherever it is, I expect to be there-to have some sensitivity to the criticisms issued by many people. I have the privilege as a Member of Parliament to articulate them, while others are forced to do so in press conferences elsewhere or statements of one sort or another, but there are lots of criticisms.
The Minister attempted to lay on us the fine words of various correspondents, editorial writers and so forth, but he knows perfectly well that the Bill is regarded as a half measure, a half loaf. If there is any real sensitivity to what is wanted across the country and what is asked for from so many groups-we heard it again in Toronto in public hearings at the beginning of December-I look to the Government to be prepared to do something in addition to the Bill that is being put before us in Bill C-93.
The ethnocultural communities, the multicultural organizations of the country, want a lot more than this, given that they have had to wait sixteen and a half years since the policy was enunciated. It is almost 20 years since the Official Languages Act was passed. These people have waited for a long time to get something. For them to be forced to settle for half measures as they are in this Bill is a tragedy and is an indication of what little progress we have made toward recognizing what the policy of multiculturalism really requires of the federal Government.


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, I also have a few comments to make.
I heard what my two colleagues had to say about the Bill before the House today. Bill C-93, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, a piece of legislation that is a historic landmark. The purpose of this Bill is to reflect Canada's multicultural and multiracial reality in every aspect of our life as a nation. It requires the Government of Canada to enhance and strengthen the principles of multiculturalism, and it contains a firm government-wide commitment to implement those principles.
Madam Speaker, I was checking my notes just now. This Bill was introduced for first reading on December 1, 1987, and after the question put by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), I said that to me it was a great day when Canada tabled its legislation on multiculturalism. I believe Canada was the first country in the world to table this kind of Bill. It was not only a great day for Canada and Canadians of ethnic origin like myself, it was also an historic moment for Canada. As a Canadian of ethnic origin who had the privilege of being here in Canada and becoming a Canadian citizen, I was very proud indeed.
Madam Speaker, I was listening earlier to my two colleagues, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). I
March 15, 1988

must say that what I heard really takes the cake! Their telephone numbers should be changed to read: 992-blahblah-blahblah. Incredible, what I heard here in the House today! We are just starting second reading, and I made a few notes. Unfortunately, I was not in the House to hear the speech by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) from start to finish but I caught bits of it here and there.
So I heard his speech, and I think we should not forget it was his Party that tabled a parody of a Bill on multicultural-ism during the last days of the previous Government. Talk about meaningless promises! He criticized this Bill, but the Bill to which he was comparing it, Bill C-48, was vastly inferior. Why, Madam Speaker? First of all, they made a number of comments. In fact, I had the pleasure of sitting with them on the Multiculturalism Committee. The Bill referred to by the Hon. Member for York West, the official critic in the House, did not recognize multiculturalism as a characteristic of our society, while our Bill does. It did not reflect the essential link between multiculturalism and official languages, and ours does. It had no policy for federal institutions, and ours does. It did not provide for a government-wide commitment, and ours does. It is easy to talk but what we need is facts. Their Bill did not provide a mechanism for ministerial and parliamentary responsiblity but ours does. Madam Speaker, their Bill did not recommend creating a department or appointing a commissioner. So why should we bother comparing the two? No, Madam Speaker, Bill C-48 did not recommend creating a department or appointing a commissioner.
Why persist? Why rack one's brains with that, since, either it was no good then or it has been forgotten, and now it has become a priority. There would be a lot to say about that. Therefore, where was the previous Liberal commitment? Maybe the Hon. Member worked on Bill C-48, maybe he devised the whole system in Bill C-48, perhaps he gave some advice to his colleagues or former colleagues. It is a commitment to hollow promises made in the safety of opposition benches. Nothing more! It was quite simply rhetoric.
Earlier today, the Minister summed it up very well. He rose in this House, and I must congratulate my colleague, because he very well expressed what people, ethnic groups, those who built this country have suggested and what they want. They do not want to be ghettoized. They do not want to be caught up in a separate system.
Madam Speaker, we are not any better or worse for having immigrated to Canada. The Minister summed up what this country is all about when he said: This country of privilege . .. and I insist on that, Madam Speaker, because it was a privilege to be accepted in this country. And those who do not recognize that privilege are not good Canadian citizens.
People like myself, immigrants, chose this country for three reasons the Minister very aptly outlined this morning: freedom, stability and opportunity. We, more especially in my community, in my family, used those opportunities and those freedoms, and we are quite proud of that. We have been
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
accepted in this country, and we now realize that it is a very great privilege indeed, and I would urge all those who are new Canadians to enjoy and to appreciate what they have.
Everytime I meet a new Canadian, I remind him that he is not here to claim the rights of his native country, he is here to accept the laws of this country, to enjoy all those privileges- stability and opportunity. Because if people start to claim conditions in their own countries, we will have no time left to deal with this country, the stability in this country.
The multiculturalism policy of Canada will be the responsibility of cabinet Ministers. This should answer many of the questions of my dear colleagues across the way. I know that there has been some suggestion that a separate department of multiculturalism be established. I strongly believe that such an isolated, separate department of multiculturalism would not be in the best interests of the Canadian people.
Let me refer to an article from The Toronto Star, a newspaper which writes its own articles. I do not think the Government tells it what to write. The Toronto Star says:
It's precisely by avoiding the temptation to create a centralized multicultural department with huge power that David Crombie does all Canadians a big
favour.
I really stand behind this quote.
I know it is very important for my colleagues across the way to have this department separate, but it is not in the best interests of the Canadian people to do so. As I said at the beginning, and I do not want to repeat myself but it is very important that I say it in both official languages, as an immigrant, I do not feel that I am inferior or superior to anyone in Canada. I want to be equal.
I am so proud to have the privilege of staying in Canada that I do not ask for any special favours. Many, many people try to do that but I do not want any special favours. I want to be equal.
A separate department would, in my view, risk the development of a kind of a ghetto and would give encouragement to a view that multiculturalism is not an integral element of our whole society but rather some form of add-on or special program.

Madam Speaker, I recently attended a seminar in Montreal, and I would like to share that experience with the House, knowing that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) is going to listen closely, as well as the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), because this involves my community. I attended a seminar and someone pointed out to me the need of developing special programs for the visible minorities. One visible minority put some kind of a proposal to me, suggesting: We want to have a special program for us

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
blacks as a visible minority, because we want to have a chance as Italians had in Canada.
For example, would the condition of multiculturalism with respect to health matters or employment strategies or small business be more valuable for Canada? Multiculturalism should not be put in a corner. It must be reflected in every way the federal Government works. This commitment is a lot more than words. It reflects this Government's record and demonstrates our resolve.
The record is clear. First, we must tell the House about our good record. Our hon. friends never mention that. I do not blame them. They are in the opposition, they are not interested in the truth. They are not interested in saying something good about this Government. No one is perfect, but at least we have something good. This Government established a Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. We promised it, we have it, and my two friends are on it. They can speak freely and put their views. It is good for all of us. No one did it before. We are the first.


Sergio Marchi: Thank you.


Vincent Della Noce: You are there. I know you are having a lot of fun. You work hard, but you must say that we did it. You did not do it.
We introduced the Employment Equity Act. We convened the first national conference on policy and urban municipalities. We increased significantly the number of appointments made to federal boards and commissions. I wish I could give all the names but I do not think we have the time.


Sergio Marchi: Table it.


Vincent Della Noce: We can table any names and we can say that we did a lot of things. I will give some names but I will not have time to give them all.
The other day we received a letter from the National Congress of Italian Canadians, an organization which I know well. The Congress congratulated the Government of Canada for introducing a Bill that will formally recognize the multicultural reality of Canada through the first national multiculturalism Act. I must say that I will not read the whole letter but there is another paragraph that criticizes something. It is not perfect. It looks as though my hon. friend from York West wrote the letter for them.


Sergio Marchi: No.


Vincent Della Noce: Yes. Let me read you another paragraph that you will like because it is negative. The Congress, while appreciating the value of the initiative, is concerned that some
of the key elements proposed by the various cultural communities and recommended by the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism have not been incorporated in the Bill.


Abram Ernest Epp: Right on.


Vincent Della Noce: Of course. They did not come to us, they listened to you. You are preaching these words. If I go on I will see some phrases which my friend used a few moments ago in his speech. Maybe they listen to you but maybe they should listen to us, too, because we have something positive to say. Well, maybe my hon. colleague does not agree with us.

Madam Speaker, the Minister quoted from many sources this morning to show that we had the support of all the newspapers, and rightly so. After the Bill on multiculturalism was tabled on December 1, the Toronto Star came out strongly in favour of the Bill. The Secretary of State has already told the House about the reasons given by the newspaper.
This newspaper was quoted many times this morning because, as you know, Madam Speaker, the Toronto Star is supposed to be the most neutral newspaper in Canada. To my knowledge, it is not a Conservative newspaper. Everyone says so, which means that no one can accuse us of partisanship.
I would like to quote another article published in the Toronto Star:
"It is precisely by avoiding the temptation to create a centralized multiculturalism department with huge powers that David Crombie does all Canadians a big favour. Rather than shove ethnic groups into permanent multicultural ghettos, he is content to have all Canadians treated the same when it comes to protecting their basic rights and freedoms".
I like this article, Madam Speaker, and I intend to keep it as it summarizes all the questions of the two Hon. Members opposite as well as the concerns of our national Congress, which I know quite well and for which I have a lot of respect, and of the Italian community throughout Canada. It is true that these people are concerned, but perhaps they should have consulted us more to know what we had in mind and why we did certain things. The Government always has reasons for acting as it does.
We are always willing to listen. We are always willing to hear what people have to say. When we travel around this country, Madam Speaker, it is surprising to find that every community has something to say. Every piece of the mosaic has its own views, and we have to respect them.
On several occasions, I heard people talking. We would never want to see a ghetto! We would never want to be separated from the others! We want to be together to build this country. That is what I always thought, Madam Speaker, even if when the committee started meeting some years ago, I was seriously considering this issue. But after having consulted and talked things over, although nobody told me to change my
March 15, 1988

mind, I learned that there are realities in this country which must be respected.
Madam Speaker, I can only agree and I am sure that most Hon. Members support the way multiculturalism operates in this country.
The commitment to preserve and enhance multiculturalism in Canada cannot remain only a vague promise. It requires an effort to educate people and make them aware of the intercultural reality. It requires that we put to effective use the talents, trade skills and cultural understanding of Canadian citizens who have roots in other countries of the world. This commitment requires also that we strenghen Canadian unity and that we seek to increase communication and exchanges with other parts of the world.
While addressing the Canadian association of the multilingual press last October, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was right when he made the following statement:
The Canadian Multiculturalism Act will help shape our country's vision and
steer our future development as a unique and dynamic country which knows
how to benefit from the experience and talents of Canadians who emigrated
from the four corners of the world.
When I hear "from the four corners of the world", Madam Speaker, I see myself in the picture.
I am sure I am not the only one who feels that we must take advantage of these resources. I refer to the talents and experience of our very diversified multilingual and multiracial population, as well as the ability of our institutional resources, to make of multiculturalism a dynamic new force in the so-called "global village".
Famous Quebec sociologist Raymond Breton noted that as long as a group sees that some of its members are not integrated in its own government machinery it cannot feel it fully belongs to its new country. The participation of representatives from all cultural groups to the policy planning and decision making process of the federal Government is of utmost importance at a time when we are seeking to promote multiculturalism in Canada as a whole.
I am proud to say the Progressive Conservative Government has made significant progress in this field. There has been a considerable increase in the number of ethnic group members appointed to federal councils, commissions and organizations. Earlier my colleague was urging me to name a few. I will single out just a few, Mr. Speaker, because I do not have time to read the whole impressive list.
Our Government sought faithfully to reflect Canada's multicultural reality through these appointments: Joseph Picinninni to the Citizenship Court; Berverley Oda to the CRTC; Emerson Mascoll to the CN board of directors; Wally Majesky to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation board of directors; Cesar de Morias to the Immigration Appeal Board; Roman Senkiw to the board of the Canadian Commercial Corporation; Irene Chu to the Immigration Appeal Board;
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
and Con Di Nino as President of the Harbourfront Corporation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat what I have been telling my fellow Canadians and my Multiculturalism Canada colleagues: Multiculturalism is not only for the Italians, it is not only for the Greeks, it is not only for the Chinese, multiculturalism is a sign of harmony, it holds this country together and united. This morning our Minister aptly summed it up in three words, and I want to conclude my remarks by repeating those three words: liberty, stability, and opportunity.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, although the Member who just spoke obviously brings passion and sincerity to the debate today as he did to his work before becoming a Member of Parliament, it is sad that in his capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism he has made, on a number of occasions, very loosey-goosey, offensive statements which I would like him to address.
However, before I ask him to do that, I would like to question him about his statements on the evolution of the mutliculturalism policy in this country. He asks why we had not done this and why we had not done that. One can follow that line of questioning to the ends of the earth. The Parliamentary Secretary fails to recognize that there has been an evolution of sorts in the Multiculturalism Directorate from 1971, when it was made an official policy of governments, to the present day.
The Member fails to see that when his Government assumed power in 1984, instead of propelling that policy into the future boldly and progressively it basically legislated in 1988 values and principles which were not new but were born and raised in the 1960s and 1970s. This indicates that the Conservative Party which forms the Government of today has failed miserably to be creative and define the second phase. In its failure to define the second phase it is left with an embracing of the principles and structures of the past. Therefore, for the Conservative Party the future of multiculturalism is in the past.
We say that, more important than debating what has happened until now, is to focus our energy, thoughts, and creativity on the present and the future. If the future policy lives in the past, it will become irrelevant. I am sure that no one in this House wants that to happen. I think the Parliamentary Secretary fails to grasp that. He prefers to dilly-dally in what happened in the sixties and seventies. Let us look at the nineties and beyond and ask ourselves as a collectivity in Parliament how to form a policy which will meet the aspirations of today and the future rather than simply deal with the past.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that people in this country do not recognize that it is a privilege to be here and that if they

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturism Act
do not do so they are not decent and good Canadians. He also made reference to people in this country who want special favours. I believe those are very suggestive terms, to say the least. To whom was the Member referring when he said that people in this country do not recognize the greatness of this country? Who in this country is looking for special favours? I have found no one who is.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with the very important question which the Member asked at the end of his remarks. My colleague misunderstood me. I am going to read the "blues" to see whether he is right or wrong, but I would like to clear up the error.
I said it was a privilege for me to be in this country as it is for many citizens who arrive here, and that I hope they recognize that. I did not make the suggestion which the Hon. Member says I did. I said that I hope they realize that and if they do not realize that it is time that they did. I said that if they do not realize that this country is the best country in the world, they are not good Canadians. However, I have never met anyone who has indicated to me that they do not realize that this is a beautiful country. That is what I meant, and I do not want the Member to change my words. I said as well that I thank Canada for giving me this privilege.
On December 1, when speaking on the multiculturalism Bill in this House, I said that it was a privilege, not only for ethnic groups, but for all Canadians. I still say that everyone should be involved in multiculturalism because when people look at their ancestry they realize that their ancestors all came from elsewhere. I am proud to be part of that.

Mr. Speaker, let me make this perfectly clear. Anyone who cares to do a modicum of research will discover that the origin of all Canadians goes much further back. Everyone should say: Multiculturalism is not only for Quebecers or for Canadians born in this country, it is for everybody, for where do our ancestors come from? Even Adam and Eve ...

My colleague says that he does not like me to speak about the past. I do not blame him because his Party did not do much in the past. I mentioned earlier that Bill C-48 did not recognize what this multiculturalism Bill recognizes. The Member says that I am in the sixties and seventies and that he wants to be in the nineties. This Bill goes to the year 2000 and 1 am proud of that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are two minutes left in the period for quesions and comments. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is always good to have a minute or two saved for one. I will be brief. The Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) is as energetic a Parliamentary Secretary as we have. He is doing a good job here today. He is also an honest man.
In bringing forward the letter fom the National Congress of Italian Canadians he has done us a service. He read a sentence and then, under a little urging from us, provided an additional sentence. He suggested that the National Congress of Italian Canadians is critical of this Bill because they listened to a certain person. I think he meant it was the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), and I see political partisan jealousies there, unless he meant that they were listening to me as well.
I would worry if he thinks that the opposition critics, one or both, are convincing these organizations of what they should say. I assume he had something to do with the development of the Bill into the form in which it is before us now, this half loaf that we have been given.
Why was the Government not more responsive to the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and these national organizations, the majority of which wanted some sort of institutional development beyond the status quo we now have? If they did not want a department, many of them saw the validity of a commissioner. Why rejection of both?


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a time factor problem which would be very interesting . . . but still 1 want to congratulate my honourable colleague because I know that he is interested in the cause, and we had the pleasure to sit together on the Committee on Multiculturalism. The letter, a little earlier ... Yes, he is right, I have it here. Quotations should always be avoided because as is often seen during Ora! Question Period we tend to quote anything that supports our point of view while ignoring anything else that goes against it.
I would be glad to give him a copy. He is right to commend us on principle. And I believe that on principle everybody should commend us, even the groups that speak up. Because it still is a premiere, not only in Canada, but a world premiere and we should be proud of it. Since I don't have the time to read the whole letter, if my honourable colleague wants me to send him a copy, I will be glad to do so.
I also want to say that there certainly were many requests. Eight or nine 1 believe were addressed to the Committee. But it must be understood that there are not always convincing reasons to support all sorts of arguments. It is certain that we could have given some to explain why not everything has been done. But when there are convincing arguments, should we give in every time to the request? I referred to what my colleague's party which formed the previous Government had done with Bill C-48, where there was no recognition . . .


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow another paesano to ask a question. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).
March 15, 1988



Mir. Rossi: Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the question put by my colleague from York West to my colleague from Duvernay, because I know the latter to be a sincere, exuberant and dazzling individual. . . However, my colleague from Duvernay said that some groups have apparently asked him for special favours. Since the member from York West spoke in English, I am repeating it in good French Canadian.
The question was directed to him following his statement where he said: Some groups asked me for special favours in this country . .. There is no special favour. It is true. However, I should like to know from the Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) what groups asked for special favours as you said in your speech.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I fully understood the question, and I said that one day we had invited ethnic groups to attend a Tory symposium and we dealt briefly with that Bill. Several made a report but unfortunately a group said: We want a special grant because we are a visible minority.


Carlo Rossi: Name that group!


Vincent Della Noce: It was not a group but the spokesman of a group. Just the same there were 200 persons.
I was startled when he added:" .. . just like the Italians". Then I said:"We have had no favour from this country. We did not enjoy any special opportunity. We worked to get that chance and you will do likewise. If you are given a special grant because you belong to a minority group, it will become pure racism and I am entirely against it."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is the end of
questions and comments.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer)- Finance-Goodyear Tire Company-Tax remission order; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Hazardous Substances-Presence of dioxin in paper products; the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)-Human Rights-El Salvador- Union workers fired upon by military / Bombing of Oscar Romero Committee Office.
Canadian Mulliculturalism Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crombie that Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Grazie, signore presidente. Mr. Speaker, the fact that the debate has been carried for the last half hour so vigorously and forcefully among three members of the Italo-Canadian community, and that they were able to underline the differences in the way they feel about the Bill, I think is very significant.
While the Parliamentary Secretary has vigorously defended the Bill, I think what we are really witnessing in the promotion of this Bill is a kind of check-mark politic by the Government. It is true that this is the first Bill on multiculturalism which may proceed through all stages. A Bill was introduced by the former Government, but it did not carry when the election was called. If passed, this will be the first Bill on multiculturalism in our country and, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, the first Bill on multiculturalism in the world. However, that is nothing more than a check-mark because when the Bill itself is examined one sees that it offers very little in the way of substance.
Symbolism is an important aspect of public life in Canada. I will not deny that this is a symbolic achievement. It is a statute that recognizes multiculturalism. It is more deeply entrenched than a policy statement, for example, which was the way in which the multiculturalism policy was launched in 1971, when it was first enunciated by Prime Minister Trudeau.
A Bill is more entrenched than a statement of policy, but I think the right way to judge the Government's commitment to multiculturalism is by the opportunities it has had and the way it has responded to them. I have stated in the House and throughout the country that multiculturalism has been betrayed by the Government. In the course of my remarks I intend to illustrate that and urge the Government to at least put some real substance into this Bill.
We are in a different situation than we were in 1971, when a new concept was put forward and Canadians were being tested about their openness of spirit, their willingness to recognize their diversity. It is a diversity which was not created by the statement in 1971, but recognized as a positive way to look at one of the facts of our national life.
I remember when I was growing up in Canada, that being a foreigner implied a kind of second-class status. Kids whose parents had accents or who had accents themselves in the public school I attended were the butts of jokes. They felt somewhat insecure.

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
The positive attitude toward multiculturalism that was taken by the policy in 1971 has completely turned that around. I watch for that when I visit schools in my riding and I can see that people are not ashamed of their heritage. They do not feel that it is better to be born in Canada or to have parents who were born in Canada, or that it is better not to have an accent or speak a foreign language at home. The reverse is now true.
I believe we have demonstrated that, by supporting wise policies and selling them to the Canadian people, government and Parliament have been able to make a very positive and strong contribution to the national richness out of that original ideal that existed when most people in the Elouse today were growing up. We have come a long way since 1971.
The multiculturalism Bill could have been an opportunity to move a step forward. It could have been an opportunity for the Government to enrich our policy. Now would have been the time to do so.
I cannot help but refer to the Meech Lake Accord during this debate, and remind the House that the Official Opposition and the Liberal Party of Canada wanted the Accord to recognize multiculturalism in exactly the same way and with the same weight as it recognizes the distinct society of Quebec, as it recognizes the contribution the aboriginal people have made to Canada, and as it recognizes a number of other important facts about our national identity. Putting that multiculturalism policy into the Constitution would have been an even stronger recognition than bringing forward a Bill.
During the Meech Lake Conference and the Langevin Conference the provinces talked about how they would like to see the Constitution reformed. I condemn the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for not saying: "Let us recognize these essential facts about the nature of Canada". Let us make it clear that multiculturalism is not for us a kind of transitional policy that we will use to romance politically the various communities in Canada while they are absorbed and integrated and lose their ties and contacts with their historic past and homeland. Putting it into the Constitution would have meant that it was a permanent fact of our life, as it is permanent that the country is officially bilingual, and as it is permanent that we recognize the distinct nature of the society in Quebec and the contributions of our aboriginal people. It is a terribly missed opportunity.
We in the Official Opposition have made a commitment that our agenda for reform will contain an addition to the Constitution of Canada that will entrench the recognition of multiculturalism as one of the fundamental characteristics of our nation, one which we hope will be permanent, and that there will be vigorous policies to enhance its permanence and impact on our country.
I turn to this wonderful Bill. I use that expression ironically because while it is a symbolic victory to have a multiculturalism Bill, how much better it would have been to have a Bill
with something in it. The Government engaged in a long period of consultation. The Government is very good at consultation. The trouble is that the consultation does not animate the policies that follow. A parliamentary committee made recommendations. It recommended not only that there be an Act, but that the Act should contain a number of important features. None of the important features, which were unanimously recommended by Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat members of that committee, appear in the Bill.
There is no commissioner of multiculturalism with an independent mandate, as the committee recommended, to police the Government of Canada and every one of its departments, every one of the agencies under its control, and possibly the contractors who might do business with the Government, to ensure that multicultural policies enunciated by the Government and supported by Parliament were carried out. There is no separate ministry of multiculturalism established. One has to be concerned to see multiculturalism so close under the wing of the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie). The Secretary of State has not been the spokesman for multiculturalism in the past. He has a lot of other duties which, while not inconsistent with multiculturalism, can mask over the multicultural fact in Canada. He can seek to subsume it under a number of other existing policies such as his responsibility for citizenship and for some other aspects of our culture.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that a separate ministry was a promise of the Conservatives in the last election campaign. Would you not have thought, Mr. Speaker, after promising that in the election campaign, after having the Conservative members of the committee unanimously recognize that this was something that was needed and something that would enhance multiculturalism, that this Bill would have contained the establishment of a separate ministry of multiculturalism? No, on the contrary. The fact that this Bill does not establish a ministry of multiculturalism means that as far as this Government is concerned, there will be no ministry of multiculturalism. It is not a matter of waiting to be considered.
It is not a matter of seeing if it can fit into our legislative agenda. It is not a matter of consultation, because the consultation recommended a Ministry. The answer is, no, and the multicultural communities, the millions of them in this country, have another broken promise from the Conservative Government.
A centre for multiculturalism was another of the unanimous recommendations of this all-Party committee. The centre itself is mostly important in the light of the additional recommendation that there should be a consistent financial base established for the centre and for the policy. That is also not contained in this Bill.
Whether the Bill and the policy will be animated by any funding at all, whether projects established by the Government will be sustained and continued, indeed, whether there will be
March 15, 1988

projects, is something the Government can decide on a daily basis or on a fiscal year basis, depending on other priorities. In other words, although there is a Bill, there is nothing entrenched that ensures that there will be multicultural programs funded on a consistent basis such as the centre for multiculturalism. I submit that there should have been, and that if it were to be any more than a check-mark on a list of promises not kept, but answers that the Conservative Members will have in the next election campaign, this is it.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the achievement of the Employment Equity Act. I feel justified in dealing with it in this debate because, although it is not the multiculturalism Bill, it could have been one of the main muscles which would have enforced an equitable policy in the area of employment. This was the device-and again there was an election promise made about this-by which the Government would enforce fairness and equality in the market outside of the federal Public Service and the agencies, which are paid for by taxpayers in the whole of the Canadian society for which the federal Government can legislate, that there would be standards to ensure that for those coming from a multicultural community-whether it be a woman, a member of a visible minority, a member of the audible minorities, those who have foreign accents-there would be a positive affirmative action program with teeth in it. That was the point. That was promised by the Conservatives in the last election campaign and denied in the Employment Equity Act, which is nothing more than another check-mark on a list on the way to the next election campaign.
I have a multicultural riding. I can tell you the multicultural communities in my riding are not walking around saying, as the Parliamentary Secretary would want them to do: "Oh, let us have a standing committee on multiculturalism or a multiculturalism Act". What they want is results. They would like to see effective machinery which would produce the equality in the job market about which we are talking, which would produce the sense of security about their community whether they are Sikhs or Armenians, to take two groups which have been the subject of a number of attacks and criticisms by this Government. This multiculturalism Bill does not give them the kind of security they hoped and were promised would be provided by the Government if it were elected.
The Parliamentary Secretary was able to read some comments on the Bill and draw some comfort from them. That is not the general tenor of the observations that have been made. He indicated that the National Congress of Italian Canadians approved of a multicultural Act, as indeed they do, but the National Congress of Italian Canadians also states:
The introduction of a multiculturalism Act in Parliament short-circuited the consultative process in which we thought we were engaged. This is unacceptable and to be deplored.
The Act is also disappointing in that it does not represent a strengthening of the Government's commitment to multiculturalism. It will merely recognize and promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians without mandating that equality "shall" and "must" be attained.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
The lack of specific implementation and enforcement provisions is a serious deficiency in the Act.
The Act does not represent any substantive move toward achieving equality which is the right of all Canadians.
We believe a Commissioner of Multiculturalism will bring the important elements of visibility and a greater accountability to the implementation of multiculturalism policies.
That is what the community is saying. It is happy that there is a Bill, but it is very disappointed in the contents of the Bill. It is very disappointed that there are more broken promises in the area of multiculturalism.
I also want to quote Dr. Bhausaheb Ubale who is a Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and who was until recently the Human Rights Commissioner in the Province of Ontario. He makes a similar observation:
The proposed Multiculturalism Act changes nothing. It is not historic as the Minister calls it. It is purely symbolic. It is old wine in a new bottle.
I know that if the Official Opposition delays or holds up this Bill, the Government will run across the country saying that we do not believe in multiculturalism. Well, we do. We would like to try, in the time that we have to deal with the Bill in committee, to make it into a real instrument to assist in the elimination of discrimination against members of the multicultural communities in Canada and in the promotion of their interests as individuals, as families and as communities. We want to do this in a way that will really mean something, so that people will know that there is a Bill that makes an honest effort to make a purely positive development out of the establishment of a multiculturalism Act in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments made by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) who was a member of previous Governments. In fact, he was a Minister in some of the Trudeau Governments. He has suggested that members of the Conservative Party in the last federal election promised a ministry. I do not think that that is true as far as a full-fledged department is concerned. They did start this Parliament off with a Minister of State for Multiculturalism, the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta). He had a good year of trying to do the things that, as critic in the Conservative opposition in the previous Parliament, he had pursued.
The next Minister, the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek), had the job, together with responsibilities for fitness and amateur sport. The two Ministries of State were combined, although they are in quite different areas. Being a critic for those areas I found that it was really rather terrifying to have all the multiplicity of amateur sports and all the ethnocultural communities and organizations. I can well imagine that he must have had a rough time of it in that one year.

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
The third Minister has the job as a junior responsibility together with being Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie). I notice that the Bill he tabled in the House he tabled, not as Minister responsible for multiculturalism, but as Secretary of State.
The fact remains that Bill C-93 is stronger than Bill C-48, which the Liberals put forward in the last days of the last Trudeau Government. That contrast, that is to say 13 years of policy and no Bill, leads me to ask the Hon. Member for York Centre a couple of questions. I am not asking him to violate his ministerial oath by any means. As a member of the Liberal caucus and aware of discussions going on at times in the dozen years of Liberal Governments after the policy was enunciated in 1971,1 want to ask the Hon. Member this. Why did Liberal Governments through all those years never consider a legislative basis for the multiculturalism policy announced in 1971 and agreed to by all the Parties? Why did the Liberals never find a bottle into which to put the good wine of Canadian multiculturalism?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, why did the former Government not do it? Why did Sir John A. Macdonald not do it?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We can look at the past. We can look at the future. The distinctive thing about the present is that that is the only time frame in which we can act. The present is going by. The Conservatives have the responsibility of forming the Government today. Rather than review the kinds of discussions that took place in Cabinet, which I think the Hon. Member knows I am not at liberty to discuss, we should concentrate on our time in the present, on the time when the Conservatives have this great trust and responsibility of the Canadian people to do the right thing for the multicultural communities. This is far from it.


Mr. Witer:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). I noted that he had a great deal of criticism to levy at the Government and the Minister for introducing this Bill. What he failed to do is to bring forward the record of the Government of which he was a part, indeed, the Government in which he served as a Minister. References were made by the previous speaker to that record.
Might I remind the Hon. Member for York Centre that in 1984 when our Government took office members from various ethnocultural groups comprised and formed only 7.8 per cent of members on boards and commissions. Today, after three and a half years, that number has risen to 15 per cent. That is an increase in real terms of 100 per cent.
The Hon. Member did not make reference to the appointment of the special adviser on multiculturalism in the Prime Minister's Office. He did not make reference to the establishment of the historic House of Commons Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. He did make a brief reference to the Employment Equity Act. He did not make reference to the
first ever federal-provincial conference on multiculturalism in Winnipeg, and on and on.
My question to the Hon. Member is the following one. What in the world did he and his Government do for 13 years between 1971 and 1984 when the principle of multiculturalism was first announced? What did they do? What tangible evidence do we have that they did anything except pay lip-service to various groups? The Liberal Government only ghettoized multiculturalism into various groups across the country by paying lip-service to them and by completely ignoring concrete action and by cynically introducing a Bill in the last moments of the last Parliament only to allow it to die on the Order Paper.
I would be very interested to hear from the Hon. Member on precisely why it is that there is absolutely no evidence that for 13 years of the previous administration anything constructive was done to enhance multiculturalism in Canada.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that time does not permit me to give the long list of achievements in the area of multiculturalism of the former Government. I think that they are pretty considerable. I also think that when we formed the Government we were creating a policy. We were exposing it to members of the Conservative opposition who had very little interest in it and very little understanding of it.
What is happening now and what I am so critical of is that having taken the responsibility of government the Government is sitting and ideas are being thrown to it. It does not have any ideas. All of the achievements that the Hon. Member has referred to, and some of them are considerable, have been a result of representations to the Government, of having things thrown to it, of pushing it and of criticizing it.
How has the Government responded in this important area that we are here to talk about today, the multiculturalism Bill? It is putting the policy in the refrigerator. Instead of generating something, developing, nurturing, and explaining it to the Canadian people, the Government is putting the reins on and holding it back. In a policy, which admittedly moves ahead from where the matter was left when our Party left office because there wasn't a Bill then and now there is, what is missing is leadership. Now the Government wants to deal with it as little as possible, forget the promises, but do just enough to get the check-mark on that list. This Government is not providing leadership in the area of multiculturalism, however much I am prepared to recognize that the list put forward by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) contains some significant developments, such as the increased number of appointments. I do recognize that, but I am very critical of the Government's failure to provide leadership in this area.
There was a full-time Minister of Multiculturalism. It was his obsession and his livelihood in public life to develop a program of multiculturalism. Here not only is it not a full-time
March 15, 1988

responsibility, but it has been shuffled around through three Ministers, two of whom were replaced because of total inadequacy in dealing with this portfolio. I wonder if the Member for Parkdale-High Park would not agree with me on that matter. The present Minister who has taken over has achieved something through symbolism that the Government hopes to sell in the next election campaign, but the leadership is not there.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity of taking part in this important debate regarding Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada.
Before I get into my speech, I was intrigued by the debate that some Ministers in the past have had two portfolios, one for multiculturalism and the other for amateur sport. This gives the impression of how trying this position was. I have to say with honesty that back in 1979 we did have a very capable Minister who handled both portfolios in an excellent manner. I would like to refer to our present Speaker, the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), who in my opinion carried that responsibility very well indeed. Certainly, if we had lasted any longer he might have been a full Minister.
As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism in the House of Commons, I have been blessed with good Members from both sides of the House who have contributed very substantially to multiculturalism in Canada and who have worked hard and tirelessly in preparing reports, certainly in a very non-partisan manner. I would ask the public to forgive us for the way that we act here some of the time. We certainly do not act in that manner in committee. We are very nonpartisan, and there is not the partisan feeling that is present in the House of Commons. I have to say we have achieved a lot in the multicultural committee.
I certainly would like to give accolades to all the Hon. Members, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer), the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick), the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom), the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), and the Hon. Member for Chateau-guay (Mr. Lopez). They have all done yeoman's work. With the committee in force more yeoman's work will be done in that respect.
I fervently believe that when Bill C-93 is passed the Act will affirm in law the constitutional freedom of all Canadians of every origin, their opportunity to choose, to preserve, to enhance, and to share their multicultural heritage. I believe that the Act will recognize all Canadians as full and equal participants in Canadian society. The Act will contribute to the ever evolving Canadian identity of our society, and it will provide an excellent framework for dealing with today's issues and those of the next century.
_______________________________________13779
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
I feel that Bill C-93 is a good Act. It is an opportunity for everyone to work together, not only to make it work, but to improve upon it as time goes on. I believe that the new Canadian Multiculturalism Act, along with the Official Languages Act will form a trinity of legislative initiatives which together cannot help but strengthen our national identity and culture.
The British parliamentary system started off by granting rights to individuals on a person by person basis. When the parliamentary system was transferred to Canada, two important changes were necessary to make it work in our particular circumstances. On the one hand, it was necessary to adopt a federal arrangement with divided jurisdiction to accommodate the provinces. On the other hand, it was necessary to create group rights, in order that English and French, Catholic and Protestant could be assured due and equal respect. Because of this development, Canada has been the pioneer in the development of the legal framework for social rights in a parliamentary system.
So far, however, only the Charter groups, the English and the French, have received specified guarantees of their group rights in the Canadian Constitution. Two other sets of group rights still need to be elaborated on and entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. Native peoples form one of those groups. Their particular status is recognized, but adequate specification and protection still awaits action from the federal and provincial Governments. I believe that we will eventually see movement and settlement of the native peoples' claims.
The other set of group rights applies to those the B and B Commission called "the other ethnic groups". Those of nonBritish, non-French, and non-native heritage, similarly have needs and concerns which only an entrenched set of rights can fully accommodate. Precisely what those rights will amount to, and how they will operate, remains to be worked out by all Canadians. But here, too, I believe that there will eventually be accommodation and entrenchment.
There is no question that all of us here today are proud of our racial origin and proud of our ancestral traditions and cultures. I believe we are very proud to be citizens of our great country which offers us full opportunity to pursue freely our ambitions and self-fulfilment. I am certain that we all agree that Canada is a wonderful country to live in, a land of personal liberty and opportunity, and a land which is still the best hope for free people everywhere.
I think you will agree with me as well, Mr. Speaker, when I say that we are making progress in Canada, more progress than ever before in achieving our ultimate goal in which all faiths, and all creeds will not only exist harmoniously with their differences, but will also thrive on them and learn from them.
Hopeful as that may sound, we still have a long way to go towards a better understanding of one another, in caring for one another, and in fulfilling the great promise begun in ancient Greece of liberty and justice for all. It has often been

March 15, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
said that the finer qualities of a society are judged on the basis of what society upholds in its day to day practice.
With this in mind, there is no question that multiculturalism bequeaths a far-reaching responsibility on all our people. It is a responsibility for two closely woven aspirations, the cultivation of cultural diversity and the public acceptance of such a cultural diversity.
I have no hesitation in stating that a policy of multiculturalism is the most suitable way of assuring and guaranteeing cultural freedom and cultural diversity in our country. Lasting unity in Canada is contingent on an ever greater understanding and respect for each other, regardless of our ethnic backgrounds. A full recognition of multiculturalism in Canada assures that all ethnocultural groups, all Canadians, will be guaranteed their rights and desires to practice and keep their traditions, their languages, and their cultures. It will mean as well greater respect and understanding of each other, the disappearance of personal and institutional prejudices and the creation of a more friendly climate. Without the total eradication of the diseases of prejudice, discrimination and racism, no basic human rights will ever be a reality in Canada and we will never earn and live up to the title of a truly great nation.
I hope that the time is not far off when there will no longer be a need to have a multiculturalism policy in isolation, when there will no longer be a need for a department of multiculturalism, again in isolation, but that we will have, rather, a department of multiculturalism that will address itself to all Canadians and will benefit all Canadians equally. That will signify the time has at last come when Canadians will be treating other Canadians in the way that they would like to be treated themselves, with understanding, with compassion, with respect and tolerance and, above all, with equality. Bill C-93 is indeed one more positive step taken by the Government in furthering the cause of equality where every Canadian, regardless of his or her background, is to be treated with equality, understanding, compassion and tolerance.
Previous speakers on the whole did not delve into the policy itself. I would like to take this opportunity to explain just what is in the policy. The new multiculturalism policy will promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve and share their cultural heritage. It will promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a basic element of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada's future. It will further promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to such participation. It will recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society and enhance their development. It will ensure that
individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law while respecting and valuing their diversity. It will encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada's multicultural character. It will promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins. It will foster the recognition and appreciation of diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures. It will preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada, and it will advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the Official Languages Act.
I could go on and on but there are other areas I would like to cover. There are duties for which the Minister has responsibility as well. The Minister of Multiculturalism will have the responsibility to encourage and promote a co-ordinated approach to the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada. The Minister will provide advice and assistance in the development and implementation of programs and practices in support of the policy. It will be the duty of the Minister of multiculturalism to encourage and assist individuals, organizations and institutions to project the multicultural reality of Canada in their activities in Canada and abroad. The Minister will have the responsibility to undertake and assist research relating to Canadian multiculturalism and foster scholarships in the field. The Minister will also encourage and promote exchanges and co-operation among the diverse communities of Canada.
I could go on and on about the Minister's responsibilities but they are well tabulated in the Bill. I encourage people who would like to read more about that to have a look at the Bill.
I believe that the federal multiculturalism policy has indeed come a long way over the last 17 years since it was first implemented on October 8, 1971. With the new multiculturalism policy and the very first multiculturalism Act with Bill C-93, we have made a giant step forward, a giant step forward in a positive direction. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is the door opener for any future constructive changes and improvements that I am sure will evolve as time goes on for improving multiculturalism in Canada. The Bill seeks to provide a legislative base for what, until now, has simply been a discretionary commitment by successive federal governments. As it now stands, the multiculturalism program could be either drastically reduced or fundamentally redirected, a possibility which worries many ethnocultural Canadians.
A statute, on the other hand, would provide a specific vehicle for preserving and enhancing the multicultural heritage of Canadians as promised in the Constitution. By officially recognizing the historical and future contributions of multiculturalism to Canadian society, the Bill would strengthen the sense of national unity among all Canada's ethnocultural communities. I believe all of us would welcome this move.
March 15, 1988

The new multiculturalism Bill is the accumulation of three very important happenings that have taken place in a multicultural sphere that 1 believe played a major role in the ongoing progress of multiculturalism in Canada. I am referring to the committee report called Equality Now of 1984-a committee of which I was a member-and its 80 recommendations which, to a large degree, have been supported by the Government. I am referring as well to the creation of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Multiculturalism established by our Government on June 28, 1985. The committee's report Multiculturalism:Building the Canadian Mosaic was well received all across Canada. All of us on the committee worked long and hard on the report and it had great input from many multicultural groups and individuals throughout Canada. I believe we came out with a very good report and a lot of good recommendations. One of the main recommendations was to have established a multicultural policy, and this the Government has proceeded to do. As I said earlier, we have come a long way in recognizing Canada as a truly multicultural country and we are making continued progress.
1 have been in the House long enough to understand that it is hardly ever possible to receive or to obtain at one time or at one sweep the adoption of all items that one proposes in the form of a Bill or otherwise. Patience is a virtue around this place and it has its own rewards. I have had ample evidence of that in my 16 years as a Member. I am optimistic that if we continue as Members of this House and as members of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to pursue the betterment of multiculturalism in a non-partisan way, we will continue to make positive progress.
I am not so naive as to think that because we have a Bill spelling out glowingly what is necessary to ensure equality for all Canadians, by some stroke of a pen it will be accomplished. There also has to be ample evidence, the will and the determination of those responsible to make sure that the Bill will be carried out to the letter. Action, Mr. Speaker, is essential for the production of results, and actions speak louder than words.
In conclusion, as 1 am an optimist, it is my hope, and I believe the hope of all well minded Canadians from coast to coast, that we will continue to make progress until every Canadian, regardless of his or her background, will feel with every fibre of his or her body that Canada is, indeed, the wonderful country that we all keep repeating it is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think I better entertain questions. The Hon. Member will have 10 minutes left in his question and comment period when we commence this debate again.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Property Rights


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE PROPERTY RIGHTS The House resumed from February 1, 1988, consideration of the motion of Mr. Reimer:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982, should be amended in order to include property rights and, that the Governor General issue a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that it reads as follows:
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." and this House urges that the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces and the Senate pass similar resolutions.
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, the question now before the House is whether property rights should be entrenched in the Canadian Charter. I am here to join with my colleagues to say unequivocally, yes, they should be.
Very specifically in the words of the resolution put forward by our colleague, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), Section 7 as we want to amend it would thereafter read:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
This thirty-third Parliament is dealing with property rights on three different fronts. We have had before us the patent legislation which is seeking to end the ambiguous property status of those who have developed through medical research new drugs and technology in that field to ensure that their property rights are respected and to end the period of uncertainty which has been a detrimental period for Canada in that respect.
On another front, the House has been dealing with copyright legislation, long overdue since the present Act is dated 1924 and fails abysmally in many ways to respect the intellectual property developed by writers, artists, musicians, composers and others. On that front as well, we have an important opportunity in this Parliament to set to right a long-standing need for protection of property rights.
Third and finally, we have before us this opportunity to add property rights to the Charter itself. There are three reasons why I as a Conservative and a democrat feel fundamentally that this is the way to go and the only way to go. The first of those has to do with the concept of a property-owning democracy.
I believe it is, pretty simply and straightforwardly that when a man or a woman has some interest in property in Canada, he or she takes on a stronger interest in and awareness of what is going on that might affect the country. It is a basic proposition

March 15, 1988
Property Rights
that what one has, one cares for. That is reflected in turn in environmental questions, zoning questions and local, provincial, national and political questions that will affect the property. Therefore, a property-owning democracy is an important aspect of the health of Canada as a democratic society. Commensurate with that must be protection in the Constitution for property which is owned by Canadians.
Second, and again both as a Conservative and as a democrat, I believe that the best protection most Canadians have for their property rights will come from the Constitution. When I say "most Canadians", I am not saying that this is important because the wealthy and large corporations need it. Au contraire, Mr. Speaker. Those are the very ones which can afford the high-priced legal services and know where to speak, how to speak and when to speak to see that their property rights are not overridden. No, I am addressing this particularly to the interests of ordinary Canadians, the working people of Canada who own homes, cottages or other properties, and must see that large government does not arbitrarily deny them those property rights. That is the importance of constitutional protection.
The third and final reason I cite as a Conservative and as a democrat is that by entrenching and guaranteeing property rights, we thereby complete the circle that is necessary to give vigour, meaning and vitality to all the other rights that are in the Charter, the democratic rights, the freedom of assembly, the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression. All the other rights are made firmer and put on a stronger foundation when property rights of individuals are also entrenched.
I am not making a mistake here. I do not believe that property has rights, I believe that people have rights. However, a fundamental interdependence does exist between personal rights and liberties and the personal rights in property. Neither could have meaning without the other.
That the right to property is a basic civil right has long been recognized. After World War II, in 1948, Canada was a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I hardly need remind you, Mr. Speaker, that Article 17 of that declaration contains two simple propositions: first, that everyone has the right to own property as well as in association with others, and second, that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Not only in the international councils of the nations but here in Canada our own distinguished former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, recognized this. If ever there was a fighter for the underdog in society, if ever there was someone who knew the importance of legal protection for the basic liberties of the individual, it was our former Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, who saw to it in his Bill of Rights enacted through Parliament that provision was specifically made for property rights protection.
There have been many others who have addressed this subject. John Locke, for example, the philosopher and political theoretician, asserted that it is beyond the state's power to take
away a man's property without his consent. In Locke's view, indeed the end of government itself is the preservation of property.
I am not resting my arguments on pure theory and abstract principles. This is something that affects Canadians in real and specific terms. It affects a Quebec farmer who looks out across his fields one morning to find workmen digging. They are employees of a power authority and they are on his property to build a transmission pylon. Seven years after an Ontario man purchased a lot, it is rendered useless without compensation. A conservation authority zones it as part of a flood plain. In Alberta, your home province, Mr. Speaker, nine cottage owners go to their properties to discover that a public utility has cut a 15-foot swath of trees from their land.
These are actual cases. These are activities by government that are affecting Canadians who own property. These Canadians stand without protection. The Charter of Rights, to which we look for the protection of our freedom to speak, our political rights and our freedom of religion, is silent on the protection of the basic property rights of individual Canadians.
At one time I might not have spoken so strongly on this. However, I have come to see that big government, of which we have a lot in Canada these days, is capable of making big mistakes. In my own Province of Ontario, I think of the valuable farmland that had been owned by generations of farmers in the Pickering area, farmland that was expropriated for an airport that ultimately was never built.
There are many questions we face with the Charter. This morning on Parliament Hill I chaired a seminar organized by the Canadian Study of Parliament Group. One of the panelists, David Lepofsky, was speaking of the limitations of the Charter. Of the nine he identified, one had to do with express provisions that were absent from the Charter. This is one of those lacunae, one of those absences, one of those vacuums that exist.
The Charter lacks many provisions that we believe should exist. In my book Political Rights, I identified 10 fundamental freedoms and political rights that are the foundation of our free elections. An examination of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reveals that only five of those ten are actually contained in the Charter.
We must look at the work that was done by an earlier Parliament as an unfinished work. In 1981, a great deal was done to bring the Canadian Constitution, through an amending formula, to this country and to entrench in it a Charter of Rights. It now falls to those of us in the thirty-third Parliament to see that another step is taken to complete that work.
As a Conservative whose Party stands for this proposition and as a democrat who believes fundamentally that the strength of Canadian democracy will be enhanced by this provision, I stand in support of the entrenchment of property rights in the Canadian Constitution.
March 15, 1988


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Not in Private Members' Hour, I am sorry.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Not even with unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think you will get it in any event. I will ask for unanimous consent. If there is such unanimous consent, I will permit the question. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) has the floor.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is a very democratic Chamber when some people get gagged, but of course rules are the very essence of democracy.
We are involved this afternoon in considering a particular proposition. The Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) has proposed the recognition of property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This, of course, is a very political proposal put forward in this thoroughly political and very partisan Chamber. Nothing wrong with that, but it is also fair game for the political football we are involved in, particularly in Private Members' hour.
The Hon. Member for Kitchener spoke in support of this proposal for the first time in this session of Parliament on October 15. He made clear how very political this matter is. Fairly early in his comments he observed that there were two good reasons for putting a proposal of this sort forward. He alluded first to the National Energy Program, which allowed him to hang some things on the Liberal Party which formed the Government in the early 1980s. Then he went on to say that another obvious area of concern is the nationalization programs of the NDP which would allow the seizure of assets without necessarily providing full compensation. That makes quite clear how partisan this particular proposal is.
One of the things the Conservatives like to do, of course, is to suggest that New Democrats have no respect for property. When we speak critically of this particular proposal, as I intend to do this afternoon, it is open season on the socialists. Recognizing that particular penchant on the part of my Conservative friends, I always smile when I think of the observations of a young man who made a tremendous start in his political career in our caucus as finance critic before going to the provincial political scene. Bob Rae, now the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the Ontario legislature, said that of course New Democrats believe in private property. We believe in it so profoundly that we think everyone should have some. That quip very nicely underscores some of the realities of the situation that one should consider before one
Property Rights
really takes off on philosophizing about the value of the principle of private property in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Rae's observations provide a bridge for me to another situation which I think is worth citing. I am thinking of the late 19th century in the United States when the Supreme Court made a momentous decision. This was about the same time that state legislatures were involved in some of the nastiest activities the North American continent has ever witnessed. The Supreme Court was given the opportunity in one particular legal matter to consider whether corporations were persons in the eyes of the law. The court decided they were.
Corporations are large, impersonal organizations, very often controlled by a few. One thinks of the rise of the Standard Oil Company and Johnny Rockefeller who, between Sunday school lessons, carried out the vicious practices that drove competitors in the petroleum industry off the scene. This allowed him to put together a complex which was so powerful that the Supreme Court was forced to break it up in 1911 and create Standard Oil Companies in various states including New Jersey, Indiana, and California.
At about the same time a variety of states were influenced by what was 19th century progressivism in the U.S. This was to have its influence in Canada. In fact, in the 1920s the Progressive Party of Canada drew some inspiration from it, although thank God not particularly in the direction I want to talk about. Those state legislatures erected structures of discrimination that made segregation on the basis of race, discrimination in law against black people, a reality in state after state. This was particularly so in the south, but not just in the south.
When I arrived in Baltimore as a graduate student at Johns Hopkins in 1964 I was told that a restaurant where I occasionally ate had been desegregated very recently. The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra had, within a handful of years, been open to attendance by Baltimore's blacks. Previously, only white persons could go to hear the symphony orchestra perform. That was the structure of racism in the U.S. which triumphed at about the same time that American corporations began to run truly amok and become triumphant in what can only be described as a corporate society with all of its ramifications.
When one thinks of those realities, one recognizes the context within which the principle of the sacredness of private property rights should be put. There are good reasons for considering it critically. I am sure the Hon. Member for Kitchener gets a certain amount of political credit for carrying on this battle in the House. Every Conservative who chimes in is of course doing the same thing.
There is little enough regard, when those discussions are held, for the extent to which common law undergirds private property, and the extent to which the statute law which previous Parliaments have passed established property rights for the Canadian people and those who come into the country.

March 15, 1988
Property Rights
We should recognize that the laudable old principle that an Englishman's home is his castle was based on these very principles of common law which exist pre-eminently to protect property. The legislation established to provide for corporations, which allows stock to be sold, is the means by which the Parliament of Canada allows private individuals to band together in an organization or corporation and carry on business. That is reality. Anyone who knows the philosophy of English common law, which became Canadian law appreciates how it operates and knows that perfectly well.
One might of course remember that one of the statute laws in a related area, that which provides for labour organization, was designed to break up, if you will, one of the other common law understandings, which is that employment is based on a master-servant relationship. The servant has essentially no rights. That is another common law principle which the Parliament of Canada decided more than 100 years ago to begin modifying by allowing organizations of workers to be legal combinations instead of illegal organizations involved in restraint of trade.
Putting these realities in common and statute law to one side, it seems to me that what is particularly missed by those who speak so enthusiastically in support of this proposition is the fact that when the common law based right of private property, or the statute establishment of corporate property, which I have also been describing, is challenged, whether it happens to be in an expropriation proceeding of the sort the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) was just citing or some other proceeding, very often what is taking place is the assertion of another ancient principle in English government, that of the assertion of the right of eminent domain of the Crown or the rights of the community.
We New Democrats think particularly of the rights of the community and think that there is more than adequate protection for property rights now and that it is terribly shortsighted and incredibly partisan for people to want to provide even more safeguards in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms against the right of the community, the right of eminent domain of the Crown, to assert a community interest in one place or another and challenge private ownership.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in supporting the motion of my colleague, the Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), to include property rights by amending the Constitution Act of 1982. The right to own property should be the cornerstone of our Constitution. A man's or a woman's home is their castle and means security and freedom to be oneself free from the judgmental and intrusive eyes of strangers.
One of the factors which brought early settlers to Canada and which brings the immigrants of today is the desire to own their own home. This is fundamental to Canadians, past, present, and future, and it ranks with freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, and all the other freedoms which we as Canadians enjoy. The pioneers who settled in western Canada endured all kinds of privation and sacrifice to build their own homes on their own land and to enjoy, in security, the fruits of their own labour.
There are more than 30 countries in the world which have the right to own property included in their fundamental constitutional rights. While not attempting to have Canada take the lead from our southern neighbour, I would like to point out that the fifth amendment to the American Constitution states that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law", to which might have been added "nor shall private property be taken away for public use, without just compensation".
The French Charter of Human and Citizens' Rights of 1789 states that "the purpose of any political association is the conservation of natural and unwritten human rights. Those rights are freedom, ownership and resistance to oppression". The Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 states that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and property". Property in its broadest sense can include intellectual and commercial property such as patents, trademarks and copyrights. If one does not have the right to ownership or the right to possession of property, things, and your own belongings, in my view there are no freedoms.
Early in this century the railroads of Canada and the Government advertised extensively in Europe encouraging people to come to Canada to take up homesteads, lands of their own. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, many people immigrated to Canada attracted by their right to own homes or indeed farms. Our forefathers learned that rights were very often related to property. It is only people born wealthy who do not understand that to own something not only makes it better for you but ensures that you are protected.
Poorer people in this country know the importance of the enjoyment of property and worry very much that it is not presently protected under our Constitution. Any constitution is the general directing plan for the common life of its people. Regardless of Party or regional affiliation, we are deciding something very important for the people of Canada over the next 100 years and we should, therefore, know a great deal about the set of rules which has been set.
A Constitution should be comfortable and reassuring and should build on rights already enjoyed by Canadian citizens such as property rights as contained in the late John Diefen-baker's Bill of Rights of 1960. Whether this right was excluded deliberately or inadvertently from the Charter, now is the time to put it right.
Canada's right to property was first asserted in the Magna Carta and had steadily been reasserted in the courts and statute law. In addition to the 1960 Bill of Rights, the right to property is also contained in the United Nations Charter of Human Rights.
March 15, 1988

Our Charter of Rights should ensure Canadians the right to the enjoyment of property as this has been of great importance to the building of our country. Due to geographic expanse, by definition many of the component parts of Canada differ greatly with respect to climate, topography, resource allocation, and living standards. People in different parts of Canada have very real and different problems to face as a result of their location and heritage.
However, one right to which all Canadians cling is their right to own and enjoy the property which they have gained through sacrifice and desire. The future of Canada will remain secure only if we allow Canadians in various parts of our country to have their regional identities, to maintain their traditions, and to live up to their own values in Canada. The right of ownershp was not confirmed in our Charter of Rights and, therefore, leaves a gap or a question in the minds of Canadians that that right is no longer theirs.
The Fathers of Confederation set a monumental task for themselves. They structured a nation from the wilderness and established two levels of government which were to act as partners in the building of a new nation. Their task was to form the union and it is our task to preserve that union.
The omission of property rights from the Charter has caused anxiety among all segments of our population and people feel that their ownership can be jeopardized and taken away from them in any number of ways. I find it hard to believe that the Government responsible for drafting the Charter of Rights failed to include the right to hold and enjoy property. That Government, which professed to be that of a free and democratic country, failed to protect the right of its citizens to own a piece of land or a home. It refused to accept a Conservative opposition amendment for those rights to be included.
During debate on patriation of the Constitution in 1981 the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) sought to amend Section 7 of the resolution by substituting the following: "Everyone has the right of life, liberty, security of the person and the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with principles of natural justice", much along the lines of the current motion.
It is impossible to discount what the lack of protection of property has cost. Under the terms of the scurrilous National Energy Program, the Liberal Government reserved the right, at any time up to granting a production licence, to back in for up to 25 per cent interest in any Canada Lands development. Mr. Speaker, the Liberal offspring, Petro-Canada, benefited and the petroleum companies lost, not only money but trust in Government.
Based on history Canadians have believed that once they own property the Government will never attempt to confiscate that property. However, there is a provision within the Charter which makes all previous laws protecting property void. I have been given an opinion that property rights given under past laws which are not included in the Constitution would be overridden.
Property Rights
It may be that when the New Democratic Party stated its opposition to the entrenchment of property rights at the time of patriation it was because it feared it would stand in the way of its policy to nationalize everything in sight. The members of the NDP were saying at that time that it would be more difficult to nationalize resource industries if property rights were in the Charter. Conservatives were saying at that time that property rights should be in the Charter, and included the words, "In accordance with the principles of fundamental justice".
It has been said to me that the individual who does not have the right to own property becomes himself the property of the state. I reiterate my very strong support for this motion.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak in favour of the motion before us in the name of my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), which would entrench in our Charter of Rights the fundamental right to the enjoyment of property.
I thank my colleague for continuing to push this motion forward. Fortunately, as a result of parliamentary reform it certainly must come to a vote. Members will have to stand and be counted within the next couple of hours of debate.
I also want to thank the Canadian Real Estate Association for its dedicated support of the principle behind the entrenchment of property rights. I am aware of the number of people from my riding who, as part of the Canadian Real Estate Association, have been coming to Ottawa at their own time and expense to push this important principle. We should also acknowledge that British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario have already passed resolutions in favour of entrenching property rights. This House should soon do the same.
Why must we do it now? Why were property rights not entrenched in 1981? It is a sad story and speaks to the values of the three political Parties, at least in 1981.
We all recall that the 1981 Charter resolution contained only three of the four historic fundamental rights that our ancestors fought and died for many years ago. It included only the right to life, liberty and security of the person.
The fourth right, property, was left out. In fact, that is probably the greatest right of all, because when people have economic freedom, political freedom and social justice follow very quickly after.
In actual fact, Canadians had property rights in the resolution for some 48 hours. I shall never forget January 21, 1981, when my Party introduced an amendment which would entrench property rights. I will not forget January 23, 1981, when the Liberal Party accepted that amendment. It was a joyous moment, and I must say that I made several calls to people in my riding expressing how beneficial we had been as

March 15, 1988
Property Rights
Members in having the amendment accepted by the Liberal Party. Alas, the New Democratic Party was opposed.
The Liberal Party felt that it needed the NDP support, even though it had a solid majority in the Elouse at that time. I shall always remember with great sadness and, indeed, with anger, listening to the leader of the New Democratic Party speak against the entrenchment of property rights.
I shall never forget the next week when the Liberal and the NDP Parties together rescinded the amendment to the resolution that would entrench the right to property. It was the most gross attack on Canadians' rights that ever occurred in the history of this nation. It is up to this Parliament to remedy that error.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am an optimist. I am asking members of the Liberal Party today to stand in favour of their classic rights, as Liberals have since the beginning of time- the entrenchment of individual rights, particularly property.
I know that the NDP will not do so, and I can hardly wait for the next election when I can bound up the front doorsteps throughout my riding and the country to tell people that their very home will be in jeopardy if the NDP get their vote.
Why are entrenched property rights important? Such a right protects individuals from the abuse of governments and the abuse of power which governments, however well-intentioned, ultimately bring about. It is simply the fact that the concentration of power in government, with the bureaucracy and standardization in an attempt to put everything in writing, leads to abuses.
What are the remedies when one is oppressed by a government? In the case of property, the remedies are very few and very expensive. However, with the entrenchment in the Charter comes the right to go to one place, our judicial system. There, one can convince a dispassionate, independent and very powerful court that the individual has been oppressed by the Government. The court has the power to remedy that injustice. That is absolutely critical, particularly in this modern age when we are becoming more imbued with rules and regulations set by governments, sometimes far away.
Let us not forget that it is a problem that affects ordinary Canadians. Earlier, my colleague gave an example of a Quebec farmer seeing workmen digging in his field. Let me give other examples.
Seven years after an Ontario man purchased a lot, it is rendered useless without compensation due to a conservation authority zoning.
Nine cottage owners in Alberta go to their properties to discover that a public utility has cut a 15-foot swath of trees from their land.
Many other Alberta property owners feel the heavy hand of public authority exercised through the provincial Government's 13 restricted development areas. The Government may, among many other infringements against private
property, expropriate land in these areas without respecting the remedies that are available to individuals through the province's Expropriation Act.
In Montreal a delicatessen is fighting for its existence in an established location on land it has owned for 37 years. The city has a by-law that allows expropriation of land provided a developer owns two-thirds of a city block.
I could go on to give examples that have been sent to the Canadian Real Estate Association and which it documents for the House each year. It will not be long before the time in October, 1988, when they will be back to set out further examples of how our fellow citizens have lost their rights and privileges, not to mention financial compensation, because we have not entrenched the right to property in the Constitution. It was a gross oversight in 1981, and a tragedy for the nation. We have a chance in the next two hours of debate to remedy that wrong. I am convinced the House will do so. I certainly ask members of the Liberal Party to search their consciences deeply. If they oppose the entrenchment of property rights this time they will be gone forever as a Party in this country.


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to support this important motion moved by the Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer).
As I was preparing a few notes to enter this debate, it struck me that most Canadians already assume that they have the property rights that this motion is addressing. They assume that they have a constitutional right to the ownership and enjoyment of property in accordance with fundamental justice.
If we went out on the street now to ask the first 25 people we met if they have a constitutional right to own and enjoy property, their answer would be yes. It is so fundamental that they would not even think twice about it. Their answer would be yes, that they have that right as a Canadian.
They would assume that no government would have the right to take away the protection that they believe they have concerning their own property. Everyone in this country has the right to be protected from others and the right to be protected from the state, if necessary.
I well remember the speech of the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) in October when he reiterated once again the story of Mirabel and how the rights of those landowners had been trampled upon. I would like to quote from that speech because I think it is important how one person, the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls, became so convinced that this amendment was necessary. I quote from page 10021 of Hansard'.
The people whose farms and homes were expropriated fought the issue for years, indeed decades, to do something about it. I became a believer in this resolution just on that issue alone because I always thought that if property rights had been enshrined in the Constitution, people would have had a legal access and would have been able to take a legal route to show and demonstrate to a court of law that their rights had been unnecessarily deprived.
March 15, 1988

Those are words to which we should all listen. I am grateful to my colleague for putting them on the record.
I remember also on that same day, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kitchener talked about a Government that had confiscated lands from the oil companies. Those lands, presumably, did not count because they were north of the 60th parallel. Somehow Canadians forget all about that.
Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which protects property. We have our own 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights which recognizes property rights. Why, then, would we balk at including property rights in our Constitution? It is not as if we were really breaking new ground. We have heard today that many, many countries around the world have already recognized the necessity to enshrine property rights in their constitutions, countries such as Australia, the United States, West Germany, Italy, Finland and Sweden, to name just a few.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Kitchener would not be necessary if this House had accepted the resolution from the Progressive Conservative Party in 1981. The Prime Minister of the day did not follow through, presumably because the New Democratic Party withdrew its support, and it withdrew its support because then as now it is not really a Party devoted to the rights of the individual but rather to the rights of the community as opposed to the individual.
In the name of the public good-is that not a ringing phrase, Sir?-my colleagues in the New Democratic Party would happily take away from those individuals or corporations which have been successful. We are not supposed to be successful. But what that Party does not understand is that the successful can look after themselves. We need this amendment for the person of modest means, for the person of modest influence. Surely, it is the ordinary Canadian whom this amendment protects.
I listened today with great interest, as I always do, to my friend, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), who spent considerable time telling us that property rights were already protected by law, that all was well without any change, that common law was well established. It is true that common law precedents protect property to a significant extent, but the Constitution is supreme. If my colleague does not object to property being protected by common law, which he says is good enough, why would he object to those rights being written into the Constitution? "Curiouser and curiouser".
When this Bill was before this House in October of 1987, much was made of the fact that "property" would have to be defined. Of course it would have to be defined. On that same day in October when the Bill was debated, one of my colleagues to the left said he was really worried about corporations being included. A corporation is not allowed legal rights? Are corporations not to be protected from capricious actions taken by Governments? Because that is partly what this is about.
Property Rights
Let me finish this short intervention as I began. I believe that most Canadians already think they have these rights under the Constitution. They could not believe or they would not believe that we had not entrenched the right to own and enjoy property, a fundamental right in any democratic society. Let us correct a past mistake. Let us accept the motion of the Hon. Member for Kitchener. Let us show Canadians that what they believe is in fact true, that they have the rights they think they have only because this Parliament ensured that they have those rights. Let us get on with it. Let us move to this motion when this debate is over with a conviction that we can indeed have our property rights entrenched in our Constitution, and no one, no capricious action on the part of any government now or in the future, will be able to take those rights away from us. That is the kind of country I believe Canadians think they have.


Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate this afternoon on the motion to amend the Constitution Act of 1982. This amendment is an amendment to the supreme law of Canada. I have mailed a copy to my constituents, many of whom are students. In many cases people who took the document framed it. It is something that is very important to them. It is something that is very readable. It deals with our basic laws.
Being the supreme law of Canada I believe that it outlines these laws in plain, ordinary language which most people can read and understand. The legal significance of various words and various terms are dealt with by our courts and are open for interpretation. However, in most ways, this is a very readable document. It is very simple in its construction. It has 12 headings which are: Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms; Fundamental Freedoms; Democratic Rights; Mobility Rights; Legal Rights; Equality Rights; Official Languages of Canada; Minority Language Educational Rights; Enforcement; General; Application of Charter; and Citation. In these sections various aspects of our law are dealt with.
Under the heading Mobility Rights it states;
6(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
These are accepted as very basic rights and principles. People accept them without thought. It is something that they have known they have had for years. Most constitutions of other countries entrench these rights and freedoms.
This document also protects the aboriginal people so that treaties that have been entered into prior to the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be acknowledged and accepted.
I suppose the predecessors of this Charter go back to the Magna Carta of 1215 and, more recently, the Bill of Rights

March 15, 1988
Adjournment Debate
which Mr. Diefenbaker brought in in 1960. All of these documents have dealt with what people have felt were their basic rights and freedoms.
I know that when the settlers of Stormont-Dundas came over 200 years ago to establish themselves in that community as viable citizens they looked to the rights of property as being very definite and as being inherent with ownership. Today, there are people who have followed, farmers and business people who consider that they own property. They believe that they own property. They know that they own property. Yet here we are with our basic and supreme law which does not acknowledge the enjoyment of property as part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The portion that the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) is asking to be amended is one that reads:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment
of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with
the principles of fundamental justice.
As many previous speakers in this debate have indicated, the inclusion of "enjoyment of property" is very natural. It is something that most people believe should be part of this law. The exclusion of such makes this law very questionable since the ownership of property is inherent and as such a part of what Canadians have felt since the beginnings of our country. To buy, to sell, to retain and to hold for possession property is something that we all believe in. It is something with which we deal in our everyday lives. Not to include this in the Charter is to perhaps question if it is viable or not.
I recall a poster that the Canadian Real Estate Association sent to me a couple of years ago. It was a picture of a beautiful home in a beautiful setting on a hill. It was a very pretty scene, almost a dreamy type scene. I suppose it is something that many people hope they will be able to fulfil, that is, to own a beautiful dwelling such as that.
Earlier in debate there was some question of abuses which citizens have had to be subjected to in recent times. The concerns of Mirabel were discussed. In that case, quite obviously, more land was expropriated than was necessary for even the most grandiose of airports that could have been imagined in a development of many years. The rights of the citizens of that community have been acknowledged and land has been returned to them. Thus the proper enjoyment of property can be a part of their life as well.
Usage of property is very important. The privilege that Governments have to expropriate property has always been considered very seriously. It is something which I am sure provincial Governments and municipal Governments will acknowledge, especially as the provinces consider legislation such as the legislation which is before us. I assume that this Bill will be passed. Seven provinces and at least 50 per cent of the population are required to ratify a change to the Charter. I assume that all provinces will be giving this matter consideration and where there may be complications they will address
these complications and the federal Government will acknowledge changes that will be necessary to implement this amendment.
In the Cornwall and Stormont-Dundas area much of our waterfront has been acquired by the Government through different agencies, either through the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, which manages a great deal of property for the province, or the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, which is a federal Crown corporation. These lands were acquired at the time of the Seaway's construction. They have been managed in a responsible way since then. Although from time to time we may disagree with certain positions of the bodies that are involved, generally, development has been progressive.
However, recently, it has been acknowledged that this allCanadian seaway will not go forward for many years, and lands that are held now for some 30 years are being allowed to be developed. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is retaining ownership. Rights to develop the lands have been allowed to be extended to private developers. Long-term leases can now be negotiated. In fact, some very interesting residential development is now proceeding in the western part of Cornwall on lands that have been a virtual eyesore and which in any other community with waterfront property would have enjoyed beautiful development for many years. It has been one of the unfortunate complications the Seaway has presented for my community. Although the rights to the property remain with the federal Government in the City of Cornwall the lands are being more properly utilized and will continue to be more of a people place in the future, a place that will have mixed development such as commercial, residential and private property reserves for parks and other recreational uses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2) the Order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, on March 7 I asked a question of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) about a remission order that had been granted to Goodyear Tire Company worth $50 million over four years. I asked whether the Minister was prepared to rescind that order in light of the fact that company officials
March 15, 1988

had subsequently stated that they would have made some improvements that were carried out without the benefit of that remission order. If the Hon. Minister was not prepared to do that, I asked if he would at least tell us what guarantees were in place to assure the Canadian taxpayers that a benefit equal to the $50 million would be there for the Canadian people. Those two questions could have been answered either yes or no, with or without an explanation. In fact, the answer was that I was told that I was wrong. That to me, Mr. Speaker, was a non sequitur.
Was I wrong, Mr. Speaker, on March 4, 1987 when I went with the 1,574 Goodyear workers in my riding who lost their jobs at Goodyear and we demonstrated at the head office of Goodyear, and I made a commitment to them? I stated that if Goodyear would grant transfer rights to those workers to any new plant that would be built, then I would move heaven and earth to see that any form of federal financial assistance was there to ensure that that new world class tire plant was developed. On the other hand, if Goodyear would not grant those transfer rights I stated that I would equally move heaven and earth to ensure that not a single cent of federal tax money was ever spent on or for the benefit of Goodyear. Was I wrong to make that commitment? In the absence of Goodyear giving that, and it never did give that commitment for transfer rights, what we had was transition at taxpayers' cost and at the cost of those individual workers who lost their jobs and who were told that if anything ever happened again for Goodyear, they could go and line up like other workers for new jobs that might come along.
In that same year, on December 20, by Order in Council the Government that I seek to support made this benefit for Goodyear. At the time I called it a cruel joke. Was I wrong to call it that? An Order in Council is a secret approach to public business. In the course of things, it is not something that gets debated on the floor of the House of Commons. If it had not been for the assiduous work of Canadian Press reporter Gordon McIntosh, who went through a stack of Orders in Council and come out on January 8 with the evidence that, lo and behold, two days before Christmas the Government had given this undeserved Christmas present to Goodyear then, as the Member of Parliament most directly affected, I probably would not even have known about it.
The issue here is not the use of remission orders, it is the abuse of remission orders. If parliamentary reform is to mean anything, it must mean that Members of Parliament have an opportunity to be here in the House of Commons and bring to bear on the issues in this country their knowledge, experience, and the views of their constituents.
Before I entered this House on February 24, 1984, I wrote an article on Government and corporate bail-outs. I pointed out that corporate bail-outs were nothing new in Canada. Canadians had grown accustomed to private enterprise at public expense. I went on and talked about the need for a clear policy framework for this type of Government subvention to the private sector. I even concluded with the comment that
Adjournment Debate
failure to have a coherent bail-out policy can lead to some Alice in Wonderland like results. Little did I think that Alice in Wonderland would be visited on Etobicoke-Lakeshore, but most assuredly it was.
Was it wrong for me to write to the President of Goodyear about this remission order and point out unequivocally my views, and for him to respond on January 18 and state that he appreciated the frankness of my views? He added that the federal Government has recognized the need to revitalize Canada's tire industry by encouraging new investments. He said as he understands it, this is the purpose of duty remission. The letter was signed Scott H. Busby, President, Good Year Canada Inc.
If that was the purpose of the remission order, then why should it have applied to Goodyear? Goodyear has two tire plants left in this country, one at Medicine Hat, Alberta, with some 250 employees. There it makes bias ply tires. Goodyear has a little niche in the market that is shrinking. The success and the longevity will depend entirely upon market forces, and no amount of government bail-outs will add or subtract to the jobs or the production there. The second, and only other tire plant that Goodyear has in this country, is at Valleyfield, Quebec. It is a new and modern plant. It was built after General Motors put in its plant at Ste. Therese. It is tied selling. Goodyear has its market for radial tires at GM, Ste. Therese. Last year the Government gave a $210 million benefit to GM at Ste. Therese. There is little likelihood in my mind that there will be any jeopardy to the Goodyear production at Valleyfield. That is a given. That is secure.
What was the basis, what was the need for this benefit to be conferred on Goodyear? Bearing in mind that the Financial Administration Act provides for remission orders where there are anomalies and unjust results, corrective measures can be taken under Section 17 and remission orders provided. It is not the place to enact industrial policy for this country. Remission orders are hip pocket, ad hoc measures to deal with something and they are being used for industrial policy. If the Government believes that there should be something in this area, let it bring on to the floor of the House of Commons something called the tire industry manufacturers assistance act, 1988 and let Members of Parliament who have these plants in their ridings and know something about the issues deal with it.
When I dealt with the officials and tried to get some explanation about the abuse, Mr. Speaker, I felt that I was seeing an episode of Yes, Minister that had been jointly scripted by Franz Kafka and George Orwell.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to point out to the Hon. Member that the remission order granted to the Goodyear Tire Company is worth $25 million over a four-year period, and not $50 million as he has

March 15, 1988
Adjournment Debate
just stated. I should like also to emphasize that these $25 million are not a subsidy, but a remission on duties otherwise payable on this company's future imports.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that the Canadian tire industry is making a major contribution to the economy of this country, with a production worth up to $1.7 billion in 1985. Tire manufacturing in Canada provide jobs to some 11,000 people, including 4,300 in Ontario, 4,000 in Nova Scotia, and 2,700 in Quebec. This industry has been exposed to strong restructuring pressures, to a series of takeovers, mergers and acquisitions which have resulted in a significant number of job lossses. Moreover, in anticipation of free trade with the United States, it is important, not to say essential, that the Canadian tire industry should become completely competitive on the North American market.
A remission is considered as a proper mechanism to encourage new investments in Canadian tire manufacturing firms and thus ensure the future of that industry in Canada. More specifically, the purpose of this remission of duty is to help tire makers streamline their facilities and rationalize their North American operations. Moreover, the tire duty remission program will avert future job losses and, as you know, will preserve existing jobs in this industry.
Clearly, if tire makers do not meet the expectations both of the Government and the industry, it will be the Government's responsibility to put an end to these benefits.
The Government is quite concerned about the effects of manpower upheaval and disruption from lay-offs. However, we should not loose sight of the jobs which will be secured as a result to the steps taken by the Government. I understand that only a few workers have been laid off and could still be recalled following the closing of the Goodyear plant in Toronto. I understand also that Goodyear has set up an employment priority program in Valleyfield and Medicine Hat. I know that the company has offered the same transfer rights to any new plant which could be built within the next five years, provided such employees meet the hiring requirements.
I have also been advised that Goodyear not only has met all of its legal commitments, but exceeded its obligations under the agreement it signed with its employees, when it ended its operations.
Mr. Speaker, our Government feels that the tire duty remission program will help tire manufacturers become more efficient. It is quite concerned about the long term profitability of Canadian tire manufacturers and we believe that the steps we have taken will open for them interesting opportunities in the future.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES-PRESENCE OF DIOXIN IN PAPER PRODUCTS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, last week was my birthday. In fact, it was on March 11, to be exact.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: Thank you all very much for those kind acknowledgements and applause. But no, Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no need for you to sing Happy Birthday tonight. Do not worry about the cake because I was well looked after. I had a birthday cake here in Ottawa with which my staff very kindly provided me and I had a cake back home as well. Do not worry about that.
No, Mr. Speaker, I will not tell you how old I am. However, I will tell you that I am so old that when I was a kid, I used to get handkerchiefs as birthday presents. You remember what handkerchiefs are, do you not, Mr. Speaker? Those were the things we used to use before there were those paper tissues that we use now to wipe our noses with. Does that ring a bell?
I used to get handkerchiefs for every birthday and every Christmas. They came in all sorts of sizes and colours. Most of them, of course, were white, and the best kind were made of Irish linen. There were all sorts of other kinds as well and lots of pretty colours. I suppose they were supposed to be colour coordinated, but I did not understand that in those days.
Shortly after the Second World War, I got an awful lot of khaki handkerchiefs. I think they were probably war-surplus handkerchiefs. Then I used to get lovely handkerchiefs with my initials on them, the real fancy kind.
I have collected so many handkerchiefs over this period of time that I have a huge drawer full of them at home, and I never use one of them. The reason of course for that is that we do not use handkerchiefs any longer to any real extent, we use these paper tissues.
When I first started using paper tissues, we called them Kleenex. They were soft, strong and they popped up in the box. That was the only kind of paper tissue available, but now just about every paper company makes a paper tissue like that.
I am very seriously considering going back to using my old handkerchiefs again. This is because they have discovered small amounts of something called dioxin in these paper tissues and not only in paper tissues but in paper towels, coffee filters and paper plates. The levels of the dioxin appear to be small, but in fact they have been found to be higher in paper tissues and in paper towels than in some other things. Dioxin is an extremely toxic substance. Trace or small amounts have been known to cause birth defects, cancer and damage to the immune system.
The pulp and paper industry tells us that it suspects that these dioxins in paper tissues are formed by the chlorine-
*1%
;||
March 15, 1988

bleaching process that is used in the paper-making here in Canada and the United States. In Europe, they use an oxygen-bleaching process and they apparently do not have the same dioxin problem. Of course, the industry says that low levels of dioxin pose no real and immediate threat or health hazard to us, but you will recall that a toxicologist with the environmental defense fund in the U.S. said these are products from which we can assume there will be a transfer of dioxins into ourselves.
In January of this year dioxin was found in the waters near the MacMillan Bloedel Harmac pulp mill in Nanaimo, British Columbia. You know where that is, Mr. Speaker. It is not very far from Victoria, as you well know. A spokesman for the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans said at that time it should not come as any great surprise to anyone that there was dioxin found in the waters near that pulp mill. It may not be a great surprise but it is a matter of great concern. That is why I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary what in the heck we are going to do about it. What action is he and his Minister going to take to make sure this health hazard is eliminated?
Are we going to follow the European method and use an oxygen bleaching process to eliminate dioxin from paper products? Are we at least going to warn people that there is this problem with things like paper tissues? If we do not do something pretty soon, I am going to have to go back to putting handkerchiefs on my shopping list for Christmas and birthdays. What about it, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary? What are we going to do?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond with further details to the question raised by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) regarding the steps being taken by this Government to protect the health of Canadians from the effects of dioxins and furans in paper products.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has already informed the House that in early October, 1987, he commissioned an interdepartmental committee with representatives from Health and Welfare Canada, Environment Canada and Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada. This committee has met several times to co-ordinate the activities under way within the three departments and to ensure there is effective communication among the various groups working on this issue.
Within National Health and Welfare a task force of experts from the Health Protection Branch has met to review the preliminary data reported to the media in late September by the American Paper Institute, API, and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Although both American groups had hoped to have their final reports available for release in November, the necessity of ensuring these extremely complex analyses for dioxins and furans at such low levels are accurate and reproducible, resulted in an unavoidable delay.
Adjournment Debate
The EPA has now released details of its kraft pulp paper mill study. The API has provided a descriptive report of its research work on the migration of dioxins and furans from paper products to contact foods and has issued its assessment of the health risk associated with human exposure in contact paper products such as diapers, tissues and bond papers. It should be emphasized that it has taken nearly three years to complete the arduous task of developing the capability to sample and analyse these products, pulps, sludges and waste waters.
Officials within the Health Protection Branch have been able to complete an assessment of available data and have concluded that the minute concentrations of dioxins and furans found in some bleached paper products are well below the level of concern for human health. A quantitative risk assessment will be carried out using data currently being developed by contractors to the API and by Health and Welfare Canada laboratories.
National Health and Welfare does not expect to complete in a few months what has taken others almost two years to carry out. This research is technically extremely difficult and costly. Nevertheless, Canada has earned a reputation as a world leader in dioxin and furan research, and is fully capable of assessing the need for further analytical data and providing the technical skill to obtain it. Assessment of the implications of such data is also complex. However, it will be completed promptly once the data under development are released.
Work is also under way in the Department of the Environment, which has the responsibility for developing appropriate control strategies for the pulp and paper industry. Department of Environment officials have set up a Canadian task force to investigate the levels of dioxin and furan releases from pulp and paper manufacturing and, as appropriate, to investigate control strategies for the industry. The task force, in connection with the provinces and industry, will implement a sampling program and make appropriate recommendations on control needs for the industry.
Officials in both departments are in direct contact with industry in Canada and the U.S. to ensure that research on this issue is properly focused and complementary. It is in the best interests of Canadians that we build on all available and reliable data rather than ignoring those studies carried out by non-governmental groups.
These are the steps being taken by the Government to ensure that paper products sold in Canada pose no adverse health risk to Canadians and to ensure that sources of dioxins and furans in Canada be identified and controlled. I think I can safely say to my hon. colleague that he can continue to use paper tissue products without fear.

March 15, 1988
Adjournment Debate
EL SALVADOR-UNION WORKERS FIRED UPON BY MILITARY/ BOMBING OF OSCAR ROMERO COMMITTEE OFFICE


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, on June 2, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) a question about human rights violations in El Salvador in relation to Canada's support for the Government of El Salvador. In particular, I referred to a report which I had sent him the previous day that the United Workers of El Salvador, when demonstrating peacefully for the release of hundreds of political prisoners illegally held in Mariona Prison, were fired upon by the military which seriously wounded the Secretary-General of the union, Julio Portillo. I asked the Minister to request the Duarte Government to account for this violence and for the growing attacks during the last few months by the Duarte Government against trade unionists.
At the same time I asked the Minister to take up the matter of the bombing on the same day of the office of the Oscar Romero Committee of Mothers for the Detained and Disappeared. Two mothers were wounded and their files were all destroyed. The next day the Minister of National Defence threatened to break up their weekly peaceful marches if they continued to ask for news of their husbands, brothers, and sons who had disappeared. The Minister promised to answer. Nine and one-half months later he has not yet answered me.
The Canadian Government is renewing its bilateral aid to El Salvador although the Government ended that aid in 1984 on account of human rights violations which threatened basic civil and political society in that country. The present Government reinstituted bilateral aid on the explicit premise that the Duarte Government had both the will and the capacity to bring about peace and respect for basic human rights as well as judicial, economic, and social reform.
We should note that bilateral aid is not the only form in which aid can be given. It can also be given through Canadian non-governmental organizations and through multilateral institutions which can do it just as well as can the Canadian Government. Choosing to do it bilaterally sends a signal to the El Salvadoran Government and the rest of the world that our Government supports the Government of El Salvador and approves and accepts the Duarte regime as a regime worth working through. It in fact claims that the Duarte regime is improving and trying to continue to improve the human rights situation there.
The facts are the opposite. Since the time I spoke, political violence has remained at a very high level and, in fact, is increasing in El Salvador according to all independent observers. The total body count might be down, but that only reflects a decision on the part of the death squads to target the leadership of human rights organizations, trade unions, cooperatives, and other progressive groups.
The murder of Herbert Ernesto Anaya, the President of the Salvadoran Non-governmental Human Rights Commission on October 26 brought the whole question of human rights back into world attention. The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, in
its Human Rights Review from 1987, once again named El Salvador as among the worst violators of human rights in the hemisphere.
The United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities reported on September 2, last year, that:
... serious and massive violations of human rights are still occurring in El Salvador.
As I said, the body count is only one indication of the human rights situation in El Salvador. A better one is the number of military officers prosecuted for human rights violations. That number is zero.
The only part of the Esquipulas peace accord that appears to be honoured by the Salvadoran government was the amnesty they provided to the death squads who killed trade unionists and other critics of the status quo.
The U.S. based lawyers Committee for Human Rights in El Salvador testified last year that:
The collapse of El Salvador's criminal justice system is general and pervasive. Indeed, as best as we can tell, that system has never functioned effectively in the criminal justice field.
Land reform, a key issue in El Salvador, as in most Central American countries, is failing. Duarte's land reform program has turned into a shallow farce, overseen exclusively by organizations supporting the Government. At least 19 legally recognized peasant organizations have been excluded from participation.
The most authoritative human rights non-governmental organization in Canada monitoring latin American concerns is the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America. It represents most of the major denominations in Canada and conducts both on-site visits and continual assessments of reports and documentation.
In their most recent report on El Salvador, they quote our Government's reply to the Report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, in which our Government said:
... the degree to which human rights are respected is a factor in determining eligibility for Canadian development assistance.
Well, to quote the Inter-Church Committee:
In view of their careful assessment of the over-all human rights situation prevailing in El Salvador during 1987, the churches and church bodies which make up the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America believe, in accordance with the above stated policy of the Canadian Government, that there should be no new bilateral Canadian aid given the Government of El Salvador under present conditions.
I call on the Government to end bilateral aid to the murderous government of Duarte in El Salvador.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, on June 2, 1987, the Hon. Member asked in the House whether the Government
March 15, 1988

had any knowledge of the wounding of Julio Portillo, an official of the United Workers of El Salvador. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) replied that enquiries would be made into the case.
Our embassy has now confirmed that Mr. Portillo was shot on May 31, during a protest outside Mariona Prison. Fortunately, we understand he is recovering. There conflicting versions of what happened. One version is that he was shot by soldiers during a scuffle to remove protest placards. A second version is that he was shot by prison guards as the protesters were walking away from the site. A third version is that the protestors themselves fired the shot, accidentally wounding Mr. Portillo.
The Hon. Member also requested that inquiries be made into the bombing of the offices of the Oscar Romero Committee of Mothers for the Detained and Disappeared. Our embassy confirms that a bomb exploded in those offices on may 28 injuring two members. To date no one has claimed responsibility.
Adjournment Debate
The Canadian Government deplores the incidents of violence that continue in El Salvador perpetrated by both sides in the conflict. As we have in the past, we will continue to urge further reform at every opportunity both bilaterally and multilaterally. Inquiries on specific cases such as these also serve to register official Canadian interest and concern.
The latest incident that has come to our attention concerning the United Workers of El Salvador is the arrest and beating of labour leader Umberto Centeno on March 10. Although he was subsequently released, our embassy in San Jose, Costa Rica, is investigating the incident.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, March 16, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers