1988-03-07

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), and pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, the second report of Canada concerning the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-3701, 332-3780, and 332-3957 to 332-3965 inclusive.



INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is International Women's Day, an occasion which is set aside to honour women everywhere. For Canadians International Women's Day is an affirmation of the vital role which women play in all areas of our society.
We possess in our country a proud tradition of women's activism. At the turn of the century Canada's suffragists
overcame seemingly insurmountable odds to obtain the most basic democratic right, something we now take for granted, the right to vote. They drew collective strength from their organizations, many of which continue to this day. Women s groups were also concerned about special issues, taking on child labour, intemperance, and unsafe labour practices as issues of their own. The healthier and better social environment which we all enjoy today has been largely the result of women's efforts to translate their own vital social concerns into effective reforms.

By seeking remedies to a number of social ills, Canadian women came to the realization that they had to play a more significant role and exert a greater influence in the decision making process and the development of policies.
Some 18 years ago, the famous Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Status of Women made Governments aware of women's determination to play an active and significant role in our society. Today, Mr. Speaker, women in greater number take their rightful place in every scope of activities, because they have proven themselves in the areas of responsibilities they have assumed so far.

I grew up, as did some others in this Chamber today, in what sociologists disparagingly refer to as the flat fifties. But they were already significant signs of change. It was the age of John Diefenbaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: -who, among other things, appointed Canada's first woman cabinet Minister, the Hon. Ellen Fairclough-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: -who, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, still has a considerable number of fans on this side of the House.
It was also the time of another female politician, a very lively lady named Charlotte Whitton who was the Mayor of Ottawa. She was fascinating but, as I recall, she wore tweeds a lot and she wore shoes with laces. For those of us teenagers who were devout believers in Seventeen magazine, she was not exactly what I wanted to be when I grew up. However, I was absolutely fascinated with her. She was unpredictable, she was uncompromising, she was intimidated, she was unbeatable, and she was never, ever uninteresting, not ever.

March 7, 1988
Statements by Ministers
As I was growing up these women were on their own to a large extent. However, today women are not alone in pursuing their economic objectives or their social and legal equality. Women now have many allies in that quest for equality. The Government is a staunch ally of Canadian women. We have proven that and will continue to prove it.
MO)
As our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said last year at the Canadian Advisory Council symposium on the family:
If old prejudices and attitudes die hard, it must be said that Canada is a changing society largely because women are changing it. I look forward to the day when affirmative action programs will no longer be necessary, when equality is taken for granted ... That is why our Government continues, in its commitment to women, to address the need for full equality. The goal of women, the role of Government is to hasten that day.

We have already taken several major steps to make it possible for women to participate fully in the economy. Honourable Members are aware of course of the employment equity programs as well as the federal contract programs; of our efforts to ensure that women can participate equitably in the job training and development programs through the Employment Planning Strategy; of our reform of the pension legislation; of our concrete efforts to enforce the principle of equal pay for equal work; and of our legislation aimed at the enforcement of alimony ordinances.

That is only a partial list of our initiatives on behalf of women. But none of this would have been possible had our Government not taken swift action to renew the economy. There is a very fundamental truth about equality, that is, that genuine equality does not thrive without a sound economic base.
Perhaps nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the Third World where women's daily struggle to feed themselves and feed their families overshadows and overwhelms any concerns with rights and with equality.
In Canada we are fortunate. We know that to make significant progress on the social issues and on issues having to do with women, those that are so important to the achievement of true equality for all Canadians, we must have sound economic policies. A growing and buoyant economy enables every Canadian to contribute her or his full potential to our society. That is what equality is all about.
Sound economic policies permit our Government to address a number of barriers that still limit the choices available to women in pursuing opportunities. One barrier clearly is the lack of affordable quality child care. Women's equality is a paper promise unless women are offered opportunities to actively participate in all of society's endeavours, confident that their children are well cared for.
Our national child care strategy commits our Government to spend $5.4 billion over the next seven years and another $1
billion annually after that to enhance and expand child care services in this country.

The national child care strategy is made up of three major components. A new child care legislation will finance, together with the provinces, the creation of 200,000 new quality day care units in Canada. Two tax measures will offer increased assistance to families with young children. And an assistance fund for special projects in the area of day care will give priority to proposals aimed at improving services and to innovations in this area.
In short, our national day care strategy offers Canadian parents real alternatives to choose what is best for their children.

At the other end of the spectrum we are addressing the situation of elderly women. I was pleased to announce last month with my colleagues, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Minister of State for Seniors (Mr. Hees), our new seniors initiative. With its commitment of an additional $30 million in funding annually, this initiative will encourage innovative approaches to meet the wide range of needs felt by Canada's seniors, both women and men.
Since this is International Women's Week, I cannot ignore Canada's continued interest in the status of women worldwide. Last August, in Zimbabwe, I represented Canada at a meeting of commonwealth ministers for women's affairs. That was the second such meeting, the first was an adjunct to the Nairobi conference.
Largely through the efforts of Canadian representatives, ministers at that conference adopted a plan of action that directs commonwealth countries to integrate women in all aspects of their work, including training, development and education. At their meeting in Vancouver in October, commonwealth heads of government endorsed the plan of action, setting the stage for co-operative action to enhance the status of women throughout the commonwealth.
Our activities within this particular forum will continue. I am pleased to announce today that Canada will host the third meeting of commonwealth ministers responsible for women's affairs in 1990. This is a significant honour which reflects the reputation we enjoy for our efforts to integrate women's concerns in our national policies and programs.

A major part of our Government's economic and social strategy is to encourage women to deliver their full potential. We feel that women's equality is good for the economy. Our Government wants women to get their fair share. It strives to offer women the possibility of contributing to the economy. For the economy, that means more resources and improved productivity. For society, it is a simple question of social justice. Tomorrow being International Women's Day, we want to recognize the skills and abilities of half of our population.
March 7, 1988



These are not just slogans reserved for occasions like International Women's Day. They are statements of principle that have guided the efforts of our Government since the start of our mandate.
It goes without saying that women have the intelligence, are now getting the education, and certainly have the talent to participate fully in all aspects of our society. Women know the contributions they have made to our country. Our Government also recognizes women's contribution and their potential for more. We will continue to be full partners with women as we move toward our goal of real equality for all our citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and address the House on behalf of Canadian women on International Women's Day. This is a day for all women from all over the world to celebrate the gains we have made and to help plan our goals for the future.
We come together today to celebrate our achievements, to share our knowledge and experience, and to rally our forces so that we can continue to press ahead toward even greater challenges.
When I look back over the last 20 years I am amazed and overjoyed at the leaps and bounds by which we have made progress. Things are dramatically different for women now than they were then.
Women have an endless amount of choice today. We can go into areas we never would have dreamed possible before. Attitudes and options have changed, and I am deeply grateful to every Canadian who has helped bring us to where we stand today.
This is a day when Canadian women should take stock of what has been accomplished and where they want to go. It is a day to let our Government know what we want and expect from it. Things have changed for the better but we still have a long way to go before we are completely equal competitors in the workforce. We need help from the Government to achieve this.
The Government has made many promises to women and has claimed to be on the side of women in Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the Government of the commitment it made to 52 per cent of the country's population. However, first I would like to look at what women are doing today and how they are living.
The notion of the Canadian family has completely changed. Sixty per cent of all mothers with young children work fulltime. In 60 per cent of all families, both parents must work to afford an adequate life-style for their children. The majority of women today find themselves balancing heavy domestic responsibility and work. The cost of raising children is
Statements by Ministers
becoming increasingly onerous. The cost of education alone for a child from zero to 18 years is $106,000 today. A couple with children must earn $6,000 more each year to have the same saving ability as couples without children. The cost of full-time receipted child care is a minimum $5,000 a year per child.

And what about single parent families? How can they afford these services? We must remember that 72 per cent of single parent families are headed by women, and that half of these women earn less than $10,000 a year.
It is not surprising they have such low incomes, when we consider that the majority, that is, 72 per cent of part-time workers are women, and we see that part-time workers receive no pension benefits or annual leave or sick leave. When we see that the majority of the unemployed are women and that women still tend to be in job ghettos, in other words, earn 63 per cent of what men are earning, I think it is high time an employment equity policy was introduced to do something about this very basic problem.
What do these statistics tell us, Madam Speaker? They tell us that the role of women and the role of the family has changed, and that although women have more choices then they had before, there is still a lot to be done. Many women are still relegated to occupational ghettos, are poorly paid and receive no social benefits. Many women have to support a family on an income that is below the poverty line. Is it so surprising we have a birth rate of only 1.7 per cent? Is it so surprising that parents decide to have fewer children because they cannot afford more and because our society does not provide them with the support services they need to raise happy, healthy children?
As a society in this country, we claim to believe in equality. We support the principle that women must have the same opportunities as men. How can we expect to achieve equality if we do not help women who carry the heavy domestic burden that is traditionally theirs? What will happen to Canadian families if we continue to expect every woman who works both in the home and outside the home to be a superwoman, able to carry on her career and raise her children without any trouble? Pious promises are not enough, Madam Speaker. We must act now.

Prime Minister Mulroney once said that for many women child care is the key to future equality. I agree with him. Women will never be able to participate fully in the job market if they cannot find high quality affordable child care for their children. The Conservative Government came out with its national strategy on child care in December 1987. Unfortunately, it seems to have overlooked two key issues in child care, the need for immediate spaces and the need for quality.
The Government allocated $3 billion to federal-provincial cost sharing programs with the aim of creating 200,000 new child care spaces. Right now only 10 per cent of eligible

March 7, 1988
Statements by Ministers
children under 13 years of age can find places in child care. There is an immediate need for over one million places. The Government is not meeting one quarter of this demand.
These 200,000 spaces will only be created once the federal and provincial Governments have completed negotiations. When will this be, next year? In two years? Canadian women cannot wait that long. Canadian children cannot wait any longer, either. There is no guarantee of quality in child care because the Government set no national standards. There are no standards set for training child care workers or licensing proper facilities. The Government is going to give away money to the provinces without any system of monitoring how that money is spent.
Instead of creating affordable child care spaces, the Government has put S2.3 billion into new tax deductions. That means that if one can afford to pay $5,000 a year for child care, one can now get $4,000 back in deductions. If one cannot afford to pay $5,000, one cannot get anything back for child care. How is a single mother going to get off welfare if she cannot afford child care and, therefore, cannot go out and work?
Canadian women need immediate funds from the Government to create new child care spaces now. Every province should be complying with nationally set standards of quality and affordability. We need money put into programs for latchkey children, for longer parental leave at birth, for day care at night, for quality day care training and not for regressive tax deductions. This is an issue of extreme importance for Canadian women and the present Government has bypassed it.

The Government has also promised to promote employment equity and make it easier for women to enter non-traditional job sectors. We all know that women are often segregated in occupational ghettos and are thus unable to move up through the ranks. Measures must be taken to broaden their horizons, increase their skills and change attitudes in the work place.
The Conservative Government has just announced it will spend $8.8 million to achieve this objective. Fine, but $8.8 million to help 51 per cent of our population is peanuts! Does the Government really believe it will make any kind of progress this way?
Federally regulated employers and those who do business with the federal Government must now implement employment equity programs. This means they must try to remove unfair employment barriers and make a special effort to give target group members, including women, access to employment.
Madam Speaker, it is not enough to urge employers to make "a special effort". We need compulsory programs with standards and set quotas for hiring women. Equal pay for equal work should apply to all employees under federal jurisdiction. The Government must agree to grant major
incentives to businesses for setting up programs that will help women move up to senior levels.

However, simply setting up these programs will not meet women's needs. We need adequate training programs for women so they can move out of job ghettos. The Conservative Government has cut spending on job training by 23 per cent since 1985. Under the Canadian Jobs Strategy funds were shifted from the public to the private sector for on the job training. It has been found that employers have favoured men over women as trainees. There are no controls in place to monitor employers or to evaluate the work skills acquired by trainees.
[DOT] (M30)
There is almost no funding in language training to help female immigrants. The Government seems to assume that female immigrants will be provided for by their spouses or will take jobs that do not require language skills. As a result many find themselves doing menial labour with no benefits and no way out.
Some programs under the Canadian Jobs Strategy are targeted at women. To be eligible for most of these programs women must be unemployed anywhere from eight months to three years. Any woman who cannot afford to stay out of work that long cannot profit from these training programs.
Training allowances are still less than minimum wage. How can a woman who supports a family afford to get job training if the Government gives her no financial aid? Unless the training programs change and unless the Government allocates more funds soon many women will have little hope of bettering their economic prospects.
It has been documented that under a free trade agreement many women will lose jobs in the manufacturing and service sectors. Even faced with this threat the Government is still cutting spending on job training.

There is another problem I would like to discuss and which I would like to bring to the attention of the Government, namely new reproductive techniques. We have all heard about surrogate motherhood, sex selection and cloning.

We need to set up a Royal Commission to study the many legal, social and moral questions involved. This is a very serious issue that affects many people in Canada. I hope that the Government will start acting on these issues very soon.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam
Speaker, it is a great honour to rise to speak to the issues of Canadian women. I must also say that it is a very humbling experience.
March 7, 1988



Madam Speaker, first I should like to congratulate my colleague the Minister responsible for the status of women for her initiative in the House today. Too seldom are women given priority in traditional political institutions and we have very few opportunities to speak directly to Canadian women. Today is the appropriate occasion to do just that, for International Women's Day highlights their achievements and their contributions to our society.
For centuries now Canadian women have been struggling to deliver their full potential as human beings. Our country's heroines can be found in the history of the Amerindian and Inuit people, among the first European women who came to live in North America, and among all immigrant women who had the courage to settle in a new country and who are still doing so. We must also commend others who fought so that all women would enjoy basic rights: suffragettes, pioneers in various professions, first women elected to Parliament. One of these, of course, was Agnes MacPhail.

New Democrats share Agnes MacPhail's vision of full equality for women, along with her other goals of justice and peace. This is why our approach to the objective of equal participation of women in society is very different from that of the present Government.
The Minister responsible for the status of women has stressed the need for economic equality if women are to have equal opportunities in our society. She stressed the events of the flat 1950s when the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister of Canada.
It is also interesting to recognize, as we look at what the accomplishments have been, that our first cabinet Minister, the Hon. Ellen Fairclough, was excluded from discussions of the Cabinet concerning the Steven Truscott case because the Cabinet of the day and the Prime Minister thought that it was not proper for her to be present when such discussions as rape and assault against women were being discussed. I think we can reminisce a bit and celebrate the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of today would not exclude his female cabinet Ministers from any discussions of Cabinet. At least I hope that that will not be part of the history of the Government.
As we talk about the accomplishments of women in the House of Commons and in the country it is important that we do not exclude the Hon. Judy LaMarsh who made great strides in decision making and taking responsibilities in major departments, in particular with respect to health care development.
I do not think that women will become equal until they reach economic equality. Yet the Government is attempting to implement a trade policy that will endanger the jobs of so many Canadian people and, in particular, women. Many of these women who are the most vulnerable are immigrant
Statements by Ministers
women and those who are employed in industries that will suffer from the trade deal. These are industries that we have already heard will need major adjustment programs. Yet we have not seen any potential recommendations for such adjustment programs.
Immigrant women are attempting to become full and equal partners in our community. The history of women in the country has been that immigrant women have certainly made a major contribution. Today they are handicapped by federal government policies in employment and language training which ignore their needs.
It has been recognized that women face barriers in employment that impede their abilities to secure well-paying jobs and achieve deserved advancement. This is why several provincial Governments, such as the Province of Manitoba, have introduced pay equity legislation and have not been afraid to identify a budget allocation to implement that legislation. The federal response to these employment inequities has been weak and ineffective. We have yet to see a strong commitment to affirmative action and pay equity by the present Conservative Government.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy mentioned by the Minister has proven to fall short of women's needs. It has excluded many women by requiring them to have been out of work for an extended period of time, by failing to provide adequate child care and, finally, by ghettoizing women in low-skilled occupations. This is certainly not a cause for celebration.

The Minister also praised the national day care strategy, but Canadian women know that it does not give them much choice. Affordable and quality day care services will still be limited and fall somewhat short of the needs of Canadian families. In addition, the Government has done nothing to make it possible for income-earning parents to remain at home for a reasonable period of time after the birth of a child.

Canadian families have asked for a child care policy that will offer them quality, affordable and accessible child care. Instead, the federal Government has opted for tax measures that help the rich and do very little for middle and low-income Canadians. New Democrats know that this strategy does not benefit average Canadians. We will continue to advocate adequate services for our children.
If we do not have standards in a national child care policy then what we are really advocating is low paid jobs for people who look after caring, instead of helping to develop our greatest national resource, that is, our children. In this country we have still not established standards for people who are delivering care to our children, and certainly they are among the poorest paid of any jobs in Canada today.

March 7, 1988
Committee Reports
We all know that women and children constitute the majority of the poor in our country. Older women are expected to survive on meagre incomes, and they are without adequate pensions. All the programs in the world can be announced, but until pensions for women are above the poverty level, those people who have worked hard in our community and in our country to develop it and to look after the children, to build the families and the homes, are being relegated to a life of poverty in their later years. That is not adequate for Canadian women. Instead of announcing new programs, I would hope that the Government would ensure that pensions for older women are certainly above the poverty line.
As one looks at the employment program of the Government, it can be seen that it has identified targets. Yet those targets are only numbers. In reality, the targets are met by allocating women low-paid jobs; traditionally, women are asked to take retraining in secretarial work, hairdressing, and they are not encouraged to go into non-traditional jobs. There is not the child care available to allow those women to take on adequate retraining.
When we talk about economic equality, we must look at every single policy that is brought forward by the Government and make sure that those policies do address the inequities that are happening to women in our society. Women are still earning only 66 cents for every dollar that a man is earning. That is not a case for celebration. Therefore, we must work harder to ensure that those inequities are addressed.
What we do recognize today that is a source of celebration is that the Minister responsible for the status of women is a female cabinet Minister. The Opposition and New Democratic Party do have women who are Members in the House. However, we would be remiss if we did not recognize the fact that women are still very poorly represented in the House of Commons percentagewise compared to the population of women in Canada. I hope that we will continue to work together and cross Party lines to ensure that women do have broader representation.
I hope that the Minister takes into account some of the comments that have been made today. I believe that we are addressing inequities for women that have not been addressed by the present Government. If we are going to have equality for women in Canada we must have economic equality, access to the job market, pensions above the poverty level, and we must ensure that our children are nurtured and cared for in a way that allows women to feel that the great responsibility they have taken over the years is also a responsibility of the Government. As partners we will build strong Canadian families, and the future of Canada will be protected if the Government could put into effect an adequate national child care policy. The one the Government presently has is a sham. Canadian women and children deserve better.
Today we have much to celebrate, but there is much work to do. 1 would hope that together, as Members in this House of
Commons, we will celebrate what women have accomplished and recognize that there is still a long way to go; that as partners, and public legislators, we will focus on that and not try to be defensive of inadequate policies.



ANIMAL PEDIGREE ACT


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-67, an Act respecting animal pedigree associations, I have the honour to present the Bill to the House, with amendments, in both official languages.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my honour to present a petition from a number of constituents who feel that the present Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade deal with the United States. The petitioners feel that the trade deal negotiated threatens the fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty since it removes the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, and it effectively removes the ability of the Government to direct Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadian citizens. The petitioners believe that it will work against the ability of the Government to reduce regional disparities.
Therefore, the petitioners are asking Parliament to dissolve to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam
Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present petitions from 611 British Columbians who are protesting the present process of native land claim negotiations in our province.
In particular, the petitioners request that the Government of Canada pass an Order in Council pursuant to Section 73 of the Indian Act placing all Indian Band fishing by-laws under the authority of the Fisheries Act of Canada, and instruct the federal Nishga claim negotiator, and all other Indian claims negotiators, that Indian land claims are not to be settled by granting fish from the public Fisheries of Canada to the exclusive use of the claimants.

March 7, 1988


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Madam Speaker, the four petitions I present today bear the signatures of Ontarians in Moose Creek, Maxville, St. Paschal Baylon and Winchester, and Quebecers in Deux-Montagnes and Pointe-Claire. Your petitioners deplore the fact that over 100,000 people were homeless in Canada last year, that an ever growing number of young people, women and entire families do not have a roof over their heads, that the number of affordable housing units is constantly dwindling, and that the Government has yet to do something to solve this problem.
Wherefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take immediate action to ensure that all Canadians live in adequate and healthy accommodation and that a re-integration program be established to make it easier for these destitute Canadians to regain their place in society.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I too wish to present a petition. The petitioners are urging the Government not to proceed with the free trade agreement negotiated, and they urge the Government to call an election on this issue before proceeding.
The petitioners point out what they feel are shortcomings of the trade agreement. They urge that an election be held on this topic.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a petition signed by a large number of constituents who are concerned about the trade agreement. They are concerned that it undermines the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, or to equalize opportunities between regions. The petitioners believe that the trade agreement would deny Canada the policy or freedom to determine its own economic future.
They call upon the Government of Canada to dissolve Parliament and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition presented by citizens of Canada who point out that the proposed agreement between Canada and the United States removes the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, removes our power to develop Canadian energy resources in the best
Petitions
interests of Canadians and removes the power to equalize opportunities between regions.
The petition also points out that the agreement failed to secure access to the Canadian market for Canadians which was supposed to be the key objective in the negotiations and it threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to dissolve and permit the people of Canada to speak on this issue.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and privilege to present a certified correct petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from citizens of the Province of Ontario who believe that the trade agreement between Canada and the United States will have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence and that the agreement implies a loss of jobs in many sectors and regions.
The undersigned request that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada and that this debate result in a national election.


Marion Dewar: Madam
Speaker, I have the responsibility and honour under Standing Order 106 to register this petition that has been duly certified from citizens of Ontario.
These citizens say that the trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and it would undermine our abilities to build a society distinct from that of the United States. The proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure access to the U.S. market, which was the key objective in these negotiations, but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, these citizens ask that Parliament be dissolved to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and responsibility to present a duly certified petition from a number of Canadians.
Considering that the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement will have a fundamental impact on Canada's economic, cultural and political independence and that it implies the loss of jobs, the undersigned request that the Parliament of Canada obtain a clear mandate from the Canadian people through a national debate on the alternatives available to Canada and that this debate result in a national election prior to the signing of any such agreement.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition duly certified on behalf of residents of the Province of Ontario who note that the Conservative Government has no mandate from the Canadian

March 7, 1988
Order Paper Questions
people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised whereas, in fact, the resulting agreement will constrain the Government of Canada to act. Secure access has not been obtained and hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened by the agreement.
For those reasons, the residents of the Province of Ontario call upon this Parliament to dissolve and to give them an opportunity to reject the trade agreement in a national general election.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair inadvertently omitted to call two of the subject matters that are part of our daily routine of business. With the permission of the House, I would like to revert to those subject matters at this time. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, 1 ask that all questions stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to advise the House that the Government has no further schedule of speakers. This is a matter which has had exposure to the public and the House since June of last year. There has been a healthy debate in public and in the House and all three Parties have indicated their support for this important Bill. We feel the matter can now proceed to the second reading conclusion so that the Bill can go into committee and be fully examined by Members.
I urge my colleagues to allow the House to put the question as soon as possible.


Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, I hear a Member laughing over there. It is no laughing matter. As a matter of fact, it is the usual practice in this House to share information and to tell us what business will be called today. If the House had been told that the back-up Bill today to Bill C-72 was something else, which we were not, then maybe the Member would have a point.
The question before us right now is a very important one. Seven government Members have spoken in this debate, four Liberal Party Members and three New Democrats. That is hardly a very extensive debate. We have had six hours and some minutes of debate and that is all. The principle of a Bill of such importance to this country, which was tabled last June 25, 1987 and called for debate on February 8, a month ago, then shelved by the Government for a month while some people objected to it publicly, I think requires at this time some clarification from the Government, an indication of what it intends to do.
We have heard all kinds of propositions from the Tory backbench. We have heard about all kinds of amendments that will be proposed from the Tory back-benchers. We are looking forward to hearing them in committee but the basic principle of the Bill is what second reading is all about.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, today we maintain that the Prime Minister of the country must say where he stands on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) did so last February 9, and we expect the Party leaders to state their position on this important matter, today if need be.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, obviously the discussion that we have heard to date on Bill C-72 has been very important. The New Democrats have had three speakers and we would like to have two more presentations today. I do want to indicate very clearly that we are prepared by the end of the day to wrap up this stage, namely, the debate on principle stage. When you look back over the debate that has occurred, the principles of this Bill have been clearly articulated and now we can move to some of the specifics, which is the next stage.
I simply want to say that we are quite prepared to see a vote on this before the day is out.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from the New Democratic Party.
I want to point out to the House that the Bill was called for debate. We are in no way trying to preclude speakers from the other Parties. As well, I would like to say that there is no question about the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) commitment to this subject because the Bill stands in his name. We are ready to vote on the principle of the Bill and put it into committee for second reading.
March 7, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Madam Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 39 minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) had the floor. He had used up four of the usual 20 minutes allowed in this debate. I take it for granted that he has chosen not to resume his remarks, that the Opposition should now have the floor, and that alternance between government and opposition Members will continue today.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Madam Speaker, the last time I had the occasion in the Chamber to speak on the issue of language was in 1984. At that time, I presented on behalf of the then Government a resolution dealing with a solution to the very serious and painful experience of Manitoba as it was trying to realize its own language issues. By way of comment, I should say that my introduction was immediately followed by the words of the newly-minted Leader of the Opposition of the time who gave what I consider to be one of the finest addresses he has made in this House. I am only sorry that he is not making himself available today to give similar testimony on behalf of such an important issue.
At that time, it was very crucial for the House to assert the national interest, the public interest, in my province, one of the western provinces. There were at the time a number of voices being heard from western Canada, voices of hatred, voices of extremism, voices of terrible and awful prejudice. These voices tended to cloud the issue. I believe that it was a fine moment when members of all Parties clearly expressed their support for the Manitoba Government's efforts to find an acceptable way of implementing its responsibility to ensure the protection of minority language rights in that province.
In some ways, we have a reflection of that same kind of debate today. Once again, we have been presented with a fundamental responsibility on behalf of all Canadians to assert one of the fundamental elements of Canadian society. Once again, we are hearing an echo of those voices that are attempting to fan hatred, distrust and intolerance.
Historically, this Parliament has over many generations had to address itself to three very important axioms of Canadian unity. One is our relationship with the United States. We share a continent with one of the most powerful countries in the world. It has always been one of the most sacred trusts of this Parliament to ensure that that relationship was designed in a way that would ensure the integrity and independence of a Canadian society against the incredibly powerful pull of the other country.
A second axiom has been to deal with the centrifugal pull of the regions, the way in which there has always been a move
Official Languages Act
toward fragmentation, a pulling away from the centre. Again, it has been this Chamber which has had to express itself on behalf of a notion of one Canada. We have tried to build institutions, practices and programs that would hold Canada together.
On those two counts, the present Government has not played fairly with Canada. 1 have been most critical of it, particularly on the first question. The Government has forgotten the need to ensure integrity and independence and the need to ensure that there is a strong, effective national Government able to represent all Canadians.
The third axiom has been the delicate and sensitive relationship between French and English, the need to maintain a balance of languages. On that count, I believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and those in his Government have served and expressed the interests of Canada. They have not forgotten the historical lessons, nor have they attempted in any way to alter what has been a very important responsibility and obligation of this Chamber which represents the entire country. However, there are those within those ranks who disagree. That is one of the reasons why we must maintain this debate.
We must ensure that that minority within the government ranks is not given the credence and credibility it sometimes seeks to attain. That is why it is important for me as a western Member of Parliament who comes from a western province to clearly assert my support for this legislation and to say very clearly that those from my province who have spoken against this issue as Members of Parliament or as others do not speak for the majority of the people of the Province of Manitoba. It is important to understand that, so that those in the rest of Canada-

-particularly in regions of Canada where French is spoken, like New Brunswick, Quebec and other areas of the country, to understand that some people in western Canada strongly support this initiative and the Bill we are considering today. Most western Canadians endorse this measure. There is no minority voice, the voice of prejudice which represents the attitudes and views of western Canadians.

That is why it is essential that we examine clearly what is being said and what successes we have had. It is so unfortunate that there are those among us who try to dredge up the old skeletons of history, who reach back into the chamber of horrors of the past and try to pull out old political shibboleths that no longer make sense.
The successes and achievements of this country have been unique. Think how many other countries in the world are torn apart in the most divisive, fratricidal conflicts. Places like Sri Lanka, Ireland and Lebanon have been sheared, dividing families, communities and neighbourhoods over matters of language and culture. Yet we in Canada have found answers,

March 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
sometimes in an awkward way, sometimes in a divisive way, but we have found answers that have allowed us to maintain a sense of community and to overcome those kinds of divisions. That is a unique achievement.
That achievement has been particularly important in western Canada because the experience and presence of the French language is not strong. Statistically, the languages of origin of many of the people of the West are perhaps German, Ukrainian or Italian. Yet in the last 20 years or so, western Canadians have clearly come to see that this is not a regional issue or a parochial issue, it is a Canadian issue. Therefore, they have been prepared to support and work at the implementation and the advancement of language rights, French and English, right across the country.
The Government to which I belonged enacted the Official Languages Act of 1969. At that time, there was a clear distinction made that the protection and enhancement of the official languages was in no way a qualification of the multicultural fact of Canada. The two could live side by side because in fact, when talking about language rights, we were talking about individual rights, not group rights. Individual rights are the rights of Canadians. Of course, the entrenchment of those rights in the Charter of Rights of 1982 made them a part of the fundamental law of the land.
Mistakes are made at times. I refer with some trepidation to the Meech Lake Accord which advances the concept that we are now establishing group rights in Canada, that rights are established according to one's collectivity, according to the group to which one belongs, not according to the fact that one is an individual who happens to speak French or English. That in itself must be looked at as a trend to be treated with some wariness. As long as we were able to assert the principle of language rights as individual rights it did not damage or begin to infringe upon the concept of cultural rights as we have come to understand them and use them in this country. I believe that that has been one of the successful formulas which has resulted in the majority of western Canadians supporting and promoting the enhancement and protection of language rights across Canada as a Canadian issue. If we find ourselves straying from that very successful formula of ensuring individual rights we could be opening up an avenue of further dispute and conflict.
Flowever, this Bill does not do that. This Bill is very much within the tradition of asserting, before the courts, in the provision of services, and in the use of language within the federal apparatus, that French and English have equal status and are to be used equally by all Canadians regardless of what their mother tongue might be. This Bill is very much in keeping with the precedent, the body of law, and the judgment of past Parliaments.
The view which I am trying to express was well put in part in an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press. That is not usually
my favourite source of quotation, for a variety of reasons, but I think that on this issue they got it right. It reads:
The anti-bilingual group could have proposed changes that would arouse interest outside their own ranks and would stand some chance of being adopted. They chose not to. They chose to propose a policy so blatantly antiFrench, so remote from policy that all federal Parliaments have endorsed ... that they knew it had no chance of arousing interest among other MPs. That is not policy-making. That is posturing to arouse and delight ethnic prejudice.
Playing to communal hatreds is an easy, sleazy game played usually by politicians and demagogues of the lowest type.
The editorial goes on to talk about the fact that it is so easy to arouse fear among people, as I am sure all of us in this Chamber have seen. Parents in my riding ask whether this means that their children will be denied promotion and advancement in the Public Service of Canada. That, of course, is not the case, but that is the fear which is aroused by the initiatives being taken by my colleague who represents the constituency next to mine. That kind of distortion, when not clearly counted, can lead to the misunderstandings and fears which are expressed. Civil servants in a Crown corporation in Winnipeg have asked me whether further advancement will be based upon one's capacity in French and English. Of course, there is nothing in Bill C-72 which would provide any bias one way or the other. However, the fears which have been expressed give credence and impetus to those fears and concerns.
I would hope that Members of this House would use this time in this Chamber to counter that kind of demagoguery and appeal to hatred because, as the Winnipeg Free Press says, that is the easy, sleazy game played by politicians of the lowest type. I think that is the proper definition of it.
Our position on this Bill has been very clear. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) stated it effectively and my colleague, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), has been perhaps the most outstanding defender and advocate of it in this House over the last several years. It is incumbent upon the rest of us not only to adopt the official position but to try to speak, as I am trying to do today, from our own regions and our own communities. We must plead with those who have aroused so much antagonism, resentment, and reaction to this Bill to cease and desist. They are not helping the country. They are not advancing the public interest in any demonstrable way. They are simply retreating into the past and relying upon an appeal which goes to the roots of our being, but which civilized society has built up institutions, laws, and practices to suppress and restrain.
Our country is facing so many other pressures. There is that pull from the south, that incredible magnetic power which seems to be so attractive to so many Canadians, particularly Members opposite. There is the centrifugal tendency to pull the county apart over various issues, one being the increasing power of provinces and regions to assert their own positions, sometimes in total disregard of national interest. If there is one place in the country where that must be fought against, it is here. That is the mandate we accepted as federal Members of
March 7, 1988

Parliament. We must think beyond parochial or provincial boundaries and try to establish laws which will represent all Canadians and will provide guideposts for future Canadians.
One of the finer hours of this House was in February of 1984 when the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, in his first address to this House spoke eloquently and with some understanding of the concerns and fears of western Canadians about language legislation. He clearly spoke for all Canadians when he said that one must not succumb but must in fact educate, enhance, and broaden those concepts. That is the same kind of responsibility which we face today with this legislation. It is the same call for a unified and non-partisan approach. Those of us who represent western constituencies can only suggest as strongly as possible that the minority view which has been expressed from some parts of our region does not reflect that which most people think, believe, or would like to see happen.
I ask my colleagues from western Canada to understand the responsibilities which they bear as Members of this House, to speak for a wider and broader concept and belief which their own Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the NDP, and all three caucuses have adopted. They must ensure that this Bill does not become the source of further controversy, apprehension, or fear among Canadians but, in fact, becomes an accomplishment, a further step toward the unification of this country. If we can approach it in that spirit we will have again done our work well on the fundamental issue of how we keep Canada together.


Mr. Orlikow:: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. member. He was here, as was I, in 1969 when Parliament passed the Official Languages Act. It was passed with a very large majority and a majority of the Members of every political Party represented here. It was brought forward because it was considered by the Government of the day and by the vast majority of the Members of Parliament, to be one method, one means, of helping to keep this country together.
I will support the Bill we are discussing for the same reason. I am certain that a majority of Members of Parliament from all Parties will support the Bill.
As the Hon. Member has said, there are some people in Parliament and outside Parliament who oppose the Bill and who never accepted the idea that this country should recognize the two languages, as declared by Parliament. We are hearing criticism that is very often based on misrepresentation. For instance, the magazine Western Report stated that it will not be long before every public servant in this country will have to know both languages, and that every judge appointed by the federal Government will have to be fluent in both languages in the event that someone in the West or Atlantic Canada insists on having a trial conducted in French.
Official Languages Act
I do not believe that any of these statements are factually correct. I am sure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and the Member for Winnipeg- Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) have received letters and phone calls protesting the Bill, as have I. I called the Public Service Commission office in Winnipeg and was told that there are some 6,900 federal public servants, of which 3.6 per cent are Francophone. After almost 19 years of the Official Languages Act, there is still a very small percentage of Francophones.
The Hon. Member was a cabinet Minister and Minister of Transport for a number of years. Does he have any information like that which was given by the Public Service in Winnipeg about the situation in Winnipeg and western Canada concerning Crown corporations such as the CNR, VIA Rail and Air Canada which employ a large number of people in western Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, first, let me say that the amendments proposed by the Member who shares representation of part of the City of Winnipeg would set back substantially whatever progress has been made. It would lead to the absurd result in St. Boniface, which is a French speaking area of Manitoba, where civil servants working in that language in that part of Manitoba would not only be unable to use the language of their mother tongue but to speak the language of those whom they are serving. Of course, that concept is perverse in the extreme and turns the whole concept of official languages on its head.
There are certain designated services to the public, such as in the airline industry, where that service at the Winnipeg airport must be available in both French and English at all times so that travellers from across Canada can be understood and served. There has been no particular designation other than in those areas where such services are required.
The phobia that the Western Report and others are trying to instill is not based on fact. Indeed, I suggest that progress has not been made in many of our Crown corporations to properly ensure adequate representation in both French and English. As the Commissioner of Official Languages pointed out, there are still some areas where much work needs to be done. I hope that this legislation will do that and clearly signify that the steps taken by the Charter in 1982 are now the policy and program of the Government of Canada. That would require the managers of our Crown corporations and Public Service departments to be more solicitous and responsible in bringing about further changes.
The requirements under the present Official Languages Act are not to displace English but to ensure the protection of language rights in both languages. That is a principle that we often forget. I hope that answers my colleague.
I believe this is cornerstone legislation that can provide the basis on which to build in the future. That is why it is important it receive the unanimous support of the House.

March 7, 1988
Official Languages Act


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a short comment and then ask the Hon. Member a question. I will have been in legislatures and the House of Commons for 48 years next May. 1 have seen many kinds of Bills come and go. I seldom hear people question the procedures of democracy. We do not know what is in a Bill when it is introduced. Once it has been printed we are given a reasonable time, sometimes a long time, to study the Bill. We then have the right to vote on the principle of the Bill, after which it goes to a committee where changes may be made.
The purpose of sending a Bill to committee is to make changes if they are necessary, to clarify the wording or the intent so that the principle can be followed. It then comes back for report stage where there is another opportunity to determine whether the Bill is in its desired form.
Finally, there is third reading stage where the Bill can be either supported or thrown out.
We must remember that we are in a democracy. As the Hon Member said, the principle of this Bill is bilingualism. That principle was adopted many years ago.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Are you for it now?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Bilingualism has been accepted. My people support it and I support it-


Michael Morris Cassidy: You support it?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Well!


Gordon Edward Taylor: What made you think that I did not?


Michael Morris Cassidy: You voted against it in 1973.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is the trouble, Madam Speaker. Some people try to stir things up to hurt what they are supposed to be supporting. Of course I support bilingualism. Anyone in this country who wants to be fair will want all of our people, unilingual and bilingual, to be treated fairly.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Do you support this Bill?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member leaves all his courtesy and common sense at home he should stay home with them. He will have a chance to make a speech. I do not know why he is questioning the things I am saying, which are straight democratic principles.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Yes or no? One word, yes or no?


Miss MacDonald:: You are out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We all know that every time a conversation starts up from across the floor, it becomes very difficult to listen to the person who has the floor and who should be allowed to express his or her opinion.


Michael Morris Cassidy: But it is much more revealing, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The time for questions and comments has actually expired. However, if the House agrees, we will allow the Hon. Member to conclude and give a short time for reply to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I will do so rapidly, Madam Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that we go to committee to make changes, if changes are necessary. For instance, in this Bill, the English Part I says "all" judges, any judge. The French part says "a" judge. Consequently, I think some thought that every judge would have to be bilingual. It will be many, many years before everyone in Canada is bilingual. So things like that should be changed.
Surely the Hon. Member would agree that that is why we are going to committee. I am sure that with his experience, he is not going to say we should not make any changes which are sensible and reasonable and are in accord with the thinking of people in western and eastern Canada, of Canada as a whole. The kind of country we want is one in which we can work out our differences, a united country. Some groups in western Canada, and perhaps some groups in eastern Canada, want to separate this country and sever us so we cannot operate as one Canadian country.


Lloyd Axworthy: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the courtesy of extending a few minutes. I was afraid for a moment that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) was going to provide the response, which I would not share.
I certainly have no quarrel with the description by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) as to how the House works. In my remarks I was not referring to the kind of technical amendments which would improve the Bill about which he is speaking. I was specifically speaking to the proposals put forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) on behalf of a group of members of his Party, I think there are some 15 or so signatures. It states, for example, that the new language Bill should reaffirm the right of Canadians to remain unilingual without prejudice. Simply put, the advancement of the official languages should never be the responsibility of Government. In other words, the amendments being put forward on behalf of those Members are of such Draconian extent, they would totally and completely not only gut the Bill but cause a major crisis and confrontation among Canadians.
It was to those amendments specifically that I was referring and which I found unacceptable. I would hope the Hon. Member for Bow River, in rising to speak, would not associate himself with this particular set of amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.
March 7, 1988


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to take part in this debate. I was born in British Columbia and grew up in Toronto, but I also had a very interesting experience, an important one for Canadians. I not only worked in Montreal but also spent a year at school at the seminary in Quebec City. That is where I learnt French, and it was a rare opportunity for an Englishspeaking Canadian to become thoroughly familiar with the French milieu in Quebec.
Madam Speaker, I am relieved that finally, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), managed to impose a measure of silence on some of the Members in his caucus who want to undermine Bill C-72, and that the Government's commitment to this Bill remains intact. Nevertheless, I am afraid the Conservatives have sent two messages to Canadians, one that they will support bilingualism and the other that they also want to be of some help or give some assurances to those who are opposed to bilingualism, that it is okay, that they have friends in the Conservative Party.
I support Bill C-72, and that is also the position of my Party. Although I know some of my English-speaking constituents, for instance, will be affected by certain problems, since there are bound to be problems when changing a modus operandi that has been in effect since Confederation, we are certainly not going to emphasize those problems. I think these issues are important to all Canadians, and we must not forget that the rights Bill C-72 gives to Francophones are also given to Anglophones.
Madam Speaker, Bill C-72 brings us a step closer towards the full equality of English and French as official languages in Canada. In essence, the legislation contains the basic elements of the 1969 Official Languages Act, while clauses have been added that arise from guarantees contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution. The Bill also includes practices that came into effect after the 1969 Act was implemented.
A discussion of the principles of Bill C-72 means going straight to the heart of bilingualism and how it has been embodied historically.
Madam Speaker, I am not going to enumerate all the principles of this Bill. I am sure you know them. I support those principles, and I believe they should be implemented, although certain technical amendments are in order. But what worries me-

What I am afraid of is the degree to which certain back-bench Conservatives seem to want to basically gut this Bill. I note that in 1973 there were 16 members of the Conservative Party who were opposed to the resolution which at that point related the application of the principle of bilingualism to the Public Service of Canada. A number of those 16 Members are as
Official Languages Act
strong today in quiet, I suppose suppressed, opposition to this Bill as they were at that time.
It is fortunate that the Conservative Party, by putting forward this Bill, is now lending its official support to the concept of bilingualism, something we have always supported and something which was initiated by a Liberal Government. Nonetheless, I have had the opportunity to look at the proposal for supposed re-evaluation presented by the back-bench committee of the Progressive Conservative Government. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) suggested, this is something that should be taken slowly because it could be indigestible if read inattentively and quickly.
The proposal, to begin with, according to this back-bench committee, which I believe includes the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), states that all references in the preamble, the purpose statement, and other clauses of the Bill, should be-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is insinuating that I am a part of some backbench committee. That is a lie. Let us straighten that out. Why does he not make his own speech instead of making speeches for Members on this side of House?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I stand corrected and I certainly withdraw that reference.


Finlay MacDonald: It is not the first time you have had to withdraw something.


James Douglas Manly: We are pleased he is not a member.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) will want to stand corrected and the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has, I think, made his point very strongly and in language that is perhaps not very useful in this House.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I would hope the Hon. Member would withdraw the word he used, which I believe is unparliamentary. But I have already stated that I apologize to him and I withdraw the reference and I stand corrected on that particular point.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I so withdraw.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That was not recorded.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Perhaps that could be recorded.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We sometimes have a problem when Hon. Members make statements and the microphones in front of them are not open because they have not been given the floor by the Chair. Sometimes they are recorded by the Hansard reporters, but it is difficult for the Chair to know what has been officially withdrawn or accepted if Hon. Members do speak without the microphones being open.

March 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
I do take for granted that the Hon. Member does agree that some language was perhaps too strong for this House. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has withdrawn. The Hon. Member for Bow River has accepted the apology. I think we can get on with debate.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I would ask simply that you check the "blues".
May I point out that this back-bench committee stated that all references in the preamble, the purpose statement and other clauses of the Bill to establishing bilingualism as a goal of the Government and in federal institutions and to extending bilingualism to the private sector and to Canadian society generally should be withdrawn. Instead of that Members of this committee proposed that alternative words be placed in the preamble.
They want it to read that, whereas the Government of Canada is committed to preserving the rights and freedoms of the unilingual public whether they speak French or English and without discouraging the efforts of individual Canadians to speak the other official language for the betterment of themselves as individuals and as citizens of Canada.
That proposal, wherever it comes from within the Conservative back-benches, and I do not know who the members of this back-bench committee are, goes directly contrary, not just to Bill C-72 but to the Constitution of Canada which provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges. It goes directly contrary to the Official Languages Act of 1969 which was adopted by all Parties in the House and which states:
The English and French languages are the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the Parliament and Government of Canada, and possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights-
It goes contrary to the changes to Article 16 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which states:
English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.
It goes directly contrary to the 1973 statement on the Public Service which was adopted by all Parties.
We are talking about measures which have been supported by all Parties. If there is an element within the Conservative Party that thinks otherwise, then those in it should come forward and let their names be made public. I think that what they are doing is profoundly dangerous to the country and to the historic agreement under which we created a society which is bilingual and multicultural, a society in which all Canadians have the right to recognition of the language in which they want to work.
There were about 15 other proposals. The back-bench committee wanted to gut, to eliminate the power of the
Commissioner of Official Languages. It wanted to eliminate the right of the Federal Court of Canada to enforce Bill C-72. It wanted effectively to gut the whole set of provisions with respect to the languages of work. It suggested that any person working in the Government of Canada should have the right to work in their designated language only without prejudice to their job status in accordance with this part.
As far as I understand it, that means that the back-bench committee is trying to rewrite 20 years of efforts to create a bilingual Public Service by saying that anybody who is bilingual will not be able to communicate with someone who is a superior because that superior will have no obligation under any circumstances to work in other than their official language. In other words, there could be English-speaking Deputy Ministers or French-speaking ADMs and branch directors who would have no obligation at all to communicate with people who respond to them in the language in which they have the right to work.
The committee also proposed that the language of work for the national capital region should be English unless a position, section or department should be designated bilingual or French essential. Imagine how most Canadians would feel if it were stated that the language of work in the national capital should be French unless it had been designated to be English or bilingual by the Governor in Council. We would have had outrage from across the country. Yet back-benchers of the Conservative Party see nothing wrong in having that principle go in the other direction.

Madam Speaker, it is also suggested that English should be the language of work for components of the Canadian Armed Forces that are directly or indirectly involved in combat. Are we really going to tell members of the Vandoos and other regiments that they will have to learn English if they want to be able to work in the Canadian Armed Forces? I find that intolerable, Madam Speaker. It is like telling someone from British Columbia who wants to become a member of the Canadian Armed Forces that he will first have to learn French.
Finally, Madam Speaker, these back-benchers are suggesting that the primacy of Bill C-72, proposed in this legislation and, although it did not exist before, nevertheless necessary to ensure the principle of bilingualism is truly applied, be struck from the Bill.
Madam Speaker, I would like to mention a specific problem, but before I do, since we have several language teachers with us here in the House, I would like to try and put the situation into perspective by quoting certain figures that reveal to what extent Canadians are involved in this question.

At the present time in the Public Service of Canada 60 per cent of the jobs are designated English essential and 28 per cent are designated bilingual. Seven per cent are designated
March 7, 1988

French essential while 5 per cent are designated either French or English. Therefore English-speaking Canadians without learning a word of French now have access to 65 per cent of the total number of Public Service jobs as opposed to 12 per cent of unilingual French-speaking Canadians who have access to those jobs that are either French essential or designated either French or English. With the increasing percentage of English-speaking Canadians learning the second official language through immersion, for example, Anglophones who have become bilingual, if the current designation remains the same, will have access to 93 per cent of all federal government jobs.
It is therefore difficult to contend that the official language policy is an instrument which prevents English-speaking Canadians from having access to the Public Service. Indeed, it may very well become a tool which will facilitate access to the federal Public Service by Canadians whose first official language is English provided they make the commitment to bilingualism by learning the second official language, French.
I want to point out in particular that the suggestion that somehow French is being pushed down the throats of people in Alberta, western Canada or in other parts of the country is ridiculous. For example, in Manitoba, only 5.5 per cent of the federal government jobs in that province have been designated bilingual while the remaining 94 per cent are English-only positions.
It is interesting that of those 547 bilingual positions in Manitoba 228, or 42 per cent, are occupied by individuals whose first language is English but who have since become bilingual. This illustrates how the challenge of bilingualism is being met very successfully by English-speaking Canadians across the country and in this particular instance in Manitoba.
The two major bilingual districts in the country are the national capital region and Montreal. If one travels outside this area and looks at the situation they will see that in western Canada as a whole out of 50,000 federal government employees only 1,300 positions are bilingual and 63 per cent of those positions are occupied by Anglophones. In Ontario, outside the national capital region, there were 2,613 bilingual positions out of 35,000 public employees. Some 60 per cent of those positions in Ontario outside the national capital region were occupied by Anglophones who have become bilingual. In Ontario, outside the national capital region, there were 1,700 federal government positions occupied by Francophones which represented 4.8 per cent of the total. It is not that great. It is interesting that in western Canada there are three positions designated French essential. Of those three jobs two are currently held by Anglophones. The 18 French essential positions in Ontario are currently held by Francophones.
In Atlantic Canada there were approximately 20,990 federal government positions in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Of those positions 1,086 were bilingual and two-thirds were held by Anglophones. In New Brunswick, which is officially bilingual, there were about 7,500 federal
Official Languages Act
government positions. About 2,400 were designated bilingual. It is interesting to note that more than one-third of those bilingual positions were held by Anglophones. In other words, the suggestion that Anglophones are being excluded from bilingual positions does not square with the facts at all.

Madam Speaker, I would now like to deal with the implementation aspect of the Official Languages Bill. Perhaps you could let me know how much time I have left after the remarks of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).
Last week, I had a chance to meet a number of language teachers, some of whom are in the House today. They are involved in a labour dispute with the Government or, more specifically, with Treasury Board. Now why is this significant? It is because in Bill C-72 Treasury Board is designated as the agent responsible for the administration and implementation of bilingualism in the federal Government. Among other things, Treasury Board is to submit an annual report to Parliament on the implementation of bilingualism in the Public Service.
Madam Speaker, today, we have a big problem. The big problem is that our language teachers, whose work is essential in order to provide for bilingualism in the Public Service of the Government of Canada, are now in a situation where Treasury Board adamantly refuses to listen and is trying to impose very unfair changes in their working conditions.
The situation is that up until September of last year, it was normal that the professors of the official languages, or people teaching official languages in the Government of Canada, taught for approximately 20 hours a week and had a substantial amount of time for preparation. Is that necessary? Yes, it is. Why is it necessary? It is necessary because a great deal of the instruction that they are carrying in the other official language is with officials who have to work with complicated technical subjects. To use their time effectively and teach them effectively then preparation is necessary; for example, in order to be able to deal with a Department of Justice official who needs to know how to work in the other official language for legal drafting, or someone who is a scientist who needs to know technical terms for dealing with environmental issues in the other official language because it happens to be a part of their responsibility. I could extend that to include an economist who needs to know how to communicate with officials of the Government of Quebec or New Brunswick en franqais over very complex or difficult economic issues.
Someone cannot do that and teach 30 or 35 hours a week. Yet that is precisely what the Treasury Board is asking of the language professors. What the Treasury Board is saying is that those language professors will have to teach as much as 37 hours a week with no time for preparation or marking.

March 7, 1988
Official Languages Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Parliamentary Secretary, on a point of order.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I think we are discussing a very important Bill, Bill C-72 on official languages, and I think the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is discussing another measure that concerns language teachers, a measure that comes from Treasury Board. I think it would be more appropriate for the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to discuss the contents of the Official Languages Bill.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is saying we should talk about official languages and bilingualism in the abstract, without getting specific. I am all for discussing principles, and we support the principle, but we also want to look at how this Government is practising its principles. In this instance, I am talking about language teachers who give courses for Francophones who want to learn English and who have to learn English to remain in a bilingual position, and for Anglophones who need French to be able to function. The Government has now changed their working conditions in such a way that they cannot do a professional job, and as a result, this will deprive public servants of their right and of an opportunity to work in the other official language. How can the Government honour its commitment to bilingualism if there are no teachers to teach the other language? They have been without a contract for eight months. The right of teachers to be guaranteed a certain number of hours to prepare their classes is being ignored, a right that the Government or, more specifically, Treasury Board has refused to recognize in the bargaining process so far.

I wish to conclude by saying in a very strong manner how much I deplore an advertisement that appeared in The Ottawa Citizen and other newspapers recently by the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada. The ad states, "Wake up Canada racism runs rampant on Parliament Hill. Proposed Official Languages Act a racist document". I wish that there was some way by which that particular group could be brought before the courts, or in some other way forced to apologize to the people of Canada and to this Parliament for that type of slur on Parliament in trying to bring official bilingualism up to date 20 years after the Act of 1969.
The misinformation, the lies, and the misrepresentations in this particular advertisement are contemptible and should not exist in a free society. I urge all Canadians who look at this to say yes, there may be some contention about how we apply bilingualism, but let us not dispute the principle. Let us work constructively in order to ensure that this society is genuinely committed in act as well as in theory to the principles of bilingualism, and ensure that that is a reality for every Canadian, so that every Canadian of whatever official language group can be served in the language of their choice by the Government that we have in this great country.


David Orlikow: The Hon. Member states that he deplores the misstatements of fact which were made in the ad he referred to, and in some of the material that we in western Canada see, for example, in the Western Report.
Does the Hon. Member agree with me that the real feelings of people in western Canada, in cities like Ottawa, and other cities is seen in the thousands of Anglophone parents who arrange for their children to be educated in the French language? Those parents recognize the value of having a knowledge of more than one language, rather than the nonsense espoused by the view contained in that particular advertisement.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It is quite extraordinary if one goes to Whitehorse, Edmonton, Calgary, or Winnipeg, to see the degree to which parents have opted to have their children go into immersion programs and learn French, and the degree to which parents have been pressing the school boards, not only in the major cities of western Canada, but also in smaller communities, to offer education in both official languages.
I represent an area where the question of bilingualism has been a difficult one at times. On the one hand, people have chosen in a very strong way to have their children educated in the other official language. In particular, the Catholic school boards in Ottawa do an excellent job. But it is true that for unilingual civil servants who are 40 or 50 that it has been tough. Changing things is not easy. But at the same time we have to understand that the principle of bilingualism is important. We all want to maintain a country. A country cannot be maintained if we hark back to the 1960s when CN did not make its cheques or its menus available in both official languages, but only in English, depending on where one was.
I mentioned the misrepresentations of the Alliance for the Preservation of English. This advertisement states that the Bill would have the Government "authorized to infiltrate provinces, municipalities, business, labour, and volunteer organizations with its insidious bilingual policy". That is totally untrue. It states that, "All federal judges will have to be fluently bilingual, translations and interpreters are to be eliminated". That is patently and completely untrue. It states that, the Official Languages Commissioner would become "investigator, policeman, prosecutor, witness and judge as and when he chooses". That is completely untrue. Those types of misrepresentation are what I believe can poison relationships between the two official language groups in this country when we should be looking for statesmanship.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) as he spoke in support of Bill C-72, the re-enactment and revision of the Official Languages Act of 1969. The Hon. Member was commenting in response to a question from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) about the way in which English-speaking Canadians across the country have recognized the way in which the
March 7, 1988

country has changed. They are sending their children to French immersion classes to equip them for the new Canada.
Has the Hon. Member seen something of the survey done by the Canadian Facts people a couple of years ago? Could he say something more about the way in which legislation when it responds to a national necessity, which the Official Languages Bill did in 1969, can play its part in changing a country, developing new attitudes and giving us a Canada which is much more sensitive to the realities of French and English in this country than was the case back in the days when even federal Crown corporations could be found quite blind to the reality that there were many Canadians who preferred to speak in French or who were even French unilingual but were neglected?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, 1 grew up in the 1950s. I was fortunate to become bilingual as a child. It is a real privilege and it is something now which has become much more open to Canadians than it was. I was the only Anglophone in a French speaking college classique in Quebec, totally immersed, and being the only Anglophone indicated how few Anglophones had that particular experience.
I am very much familiar with the degree to which we had two solitudes in Canada up until the end of the 1960s. Yes, I believe we have changed and changed substantially since then. Change is not without difficulty. We see that even today as Quebec struggles with such issues as the question of Bill 101.
I think that after 20 years of worrying about Quebec's future status and whether Quebec would be part of Canada, we now have a constitutional accord in which Quebec agrees that it wants to be a part of Canada. That in itself is a tribute to the foresight of all three Parties in adopting the Official Languages Act in 1969 as one of a number of significant steps to ensuring greater equality for the two language groups and for ensuring that French speaking Canadians were not locked into a linguistic ghetto which excluded them from the rest of Canada.
It is also fair to point out that in 1969 there were problems for French Canadians while in that period of time English Canadians in Quebec, then as now, had a wide range of services in the Province of Quebec, yet French Canadians outside of Quebec did not. To this day there are still problems. Nonetheless, for French Canadians in the other provinces outside of Quebec the situation has improved dramatically over the course of the last 20 years. Education is now available for their children in the language of their choice, a choice which hardly existed back 20 years ago. A number of provinces, including Ontario, albeit with difficulty, and certainly New Brunswick which has become officially bilingual, have recognized the existence of the linguistic minority. These have also been essential building blocks toward the creation of a country which can live with itself and where linguistic groups can live with each other much more happily and constructively
Official Languages Act
and, I hope, permanently than perhaps was the case 20 years ago.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, this is a Bill that we celebrate in the Official Opposition. We are pleased to see it brought forward. We were anxious during a period of delay and during a controversial period when media reported hesitations and uncertainties. I was hoping that today at the beginning the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would be on his feet.

I am told he was in the House today, to emphasize his commitment to this Bill and to give us the assurance that it will be passed with its main principles intact and perhaps even strengthened in committee, and that we will soon embark on this second, very important stage in providing for an official languages policy that is fair to all Canadians.

I have thousands and thousands of bilingual Canadians living in my riding of York Centre. But the second language which they speak is not French. The first language is English. The second language could be Italian, it could be Hindi, it could be Urdu, it could be eastern European and it could be Spanish, to a growing degree. The bilingual Canadians of York Centre are, by and large, not English-French speakers but English and something else.
As many of them are new to our country, a question they undoubtedly ask is why is Canada committed to official languages French and English and why not to Ukrainian as a second language or to one of the many, second languages that are spoken in my riding. There is a very good answer to that question, a very important one. It is an answer more and more with which newcomers to our country come into contact and which I believe once understood gives a very wide acceptance and understanding about why French and English are the official languages of Canada. The answer lies in our history. The answer lies in our constitutional arrangements. The answer, I would assert, lies in the soul of our country. More and more I hope Canadians will come not only to accept and understand but to recognize the source of strength that we derive from having two such important historic and widely understood languages as the official languages of our country.
So far as the numbers are concerned, there is no other language group that can claim the numbers that there are of French speaking people in our country. The Ukrainian community which might be third or the German community which might be third is very far behind the Italian community which has, I think, 400,000 Italian Canadians of Italian origin, born in Italy, living in the Metropolitan Toronto region. Even they, with their very large numbers, are far behind the French fact in Canada, the millions and millions of Canadians for whom French is their first language and is still the main language they speak.

March 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
On the numbers question, although you may lift up your head in York Centre and look hard to find a French speaking person, looking across the national scene there is no doubt that French is the predominant, second most frequently used language in Canada. That though is not the whole of the story. The important fact is our constitutional arrangements. We would not have a Canada, a country stretching from sea to sea if a fundamental understanding had not been reached that the official language minority, the English in Quebec, the French living in the rest of the country would have their linguistic rights protected.
That understanding and engagement which was reached back in the 1860s in its original version provided the cement in sufficient quantity to tie together a huge continent north of the United States as one country.
To show how important that cement is, we do not have to look very far back in our history. We have simply to look back to the late 1960s and 1970s when a fear of survival on the part of Francophones mainly living in Quebec was behind a great shaking of the foundations of Canada, the possible risk of us losing our nation, a debate, a campaign, a period of soul searching by the people of Quebec and the rest of us and a commitment to a renewed and strengthened federalism in Canada. It is that renewed and strengthened federalism which provides the latest historic reinforcement of our two official languages of French and English.
Those who have arrived in Canada lately, of whom so many are my constituents, appreciate this country tremendously. It is for them a land of opportunity, and it is an opportunity for us to have them here with their energy, education, resources, muscles and talents, all the things they offer to build our country. It is important for them to recognize, as I think they do, that a life in Canada would not be possible if this were not a bilingual country where French and English were equally respected.
I would like to turn to the Bill, but first I would like to say one more thing about French and English. We are lucky, and we do not appreciate our good fortune, to have these two particular languages as our official languages. It is worth reminding Canadians who are mainly unilingual about the richness and power of the other of our great languages. We do not have the problem a country like Belgium has with part of the population speaking French and the other part speaking Flemish, a language with its own richness but a language with a very small international community behind it.
We do not have the problem of an African country where one of the official languages is Swahili, a language which may well be a rich and interesting one but is one with no written dimension and no literature, spoken by 150,000 or 160,000 people. Yet the exigencies of that country make Swahili an official language and ask others to learn that language. We could handle a challenge like that in Canada, I think, but we
do not have to. We have two rich, full, historic languages which have so much merit that more and more Canadians are learning to speak and use two languages.
Some Canadians who attack the official policy of bilingualism indeed think that we are talking about requiring people to learn to speak both official languages. One can understand why they might think so. They see thousands and thousands of people, particularly young Canadians, making themselves bilingual. They are doing this in parts of Canada where it is hard to find native speakers of the second official language they wish to learn. I am thinking of our western cities and of my own City of Toronto where, until very recently, it was hard to practise French on anyone. High school teachers were themselves teaching a language in which they were not very comfortable, a language they had studied academically but could not really converse or live in. Recently, however, Toronto has become more cosmopolitan and more Canadian in the sense that there are rich resources of the second official language available to those who want to learn it and share it with people who have been speaking it from birth or are very fluent in it.
We have to remind those who oppose this flourishing of bilingual Canadians and who feel threatened by it that that is not fundamental to the official languages policy of Canada. Bilingual people have a lot to celebrate. There are a lot of reasons for wanting to become bilingual, but the official languages policy is, as it happens, precisely the opposite.
The official languages policy ensures that French or English-speaking people ought to be able to live their lives as much as possible only in that one language. It is designed to ensure that those who want to live their lives in French or in English, as much as is reasonably possible depending on the region in which one lives, the profession one has chosen, one's community, and one's relationship with anything that Parliament can control including federal government agencies, should not have to use the other language. Service should be available in the language of one's choice. This is an important point for critics of this Bill to recognize.
We are seeking, if I can put it this way, to protect the unilingualism of the group which does not want to have the federal Government deal with it in the other language. When that is understood, it will become much easier and more realistic for Canadians to accept the advances that are represented in this Bill.
I would like to make another point that I consider to be pretty fundamental. The fact that a Government of Canada, Liberal or Conservative, could bring forward a Bill like this at this time tells us a great deal about the evolution of our country since the first official languages Bill. There are features of this Bill that would not have been realistic as part of the original Bill because we would not have been able to put them into effect. It would not have been realistic, for example, to find in every province at least one judge for every Section 96
March 7, 1988

court who could speak the official minority language of that province.

French-speaking Canadians in our western provinces will be able to be heard before the courts in the language of their choice. That is something new for Canada, the fact that we have that possibility.

I do not think it is off topic to mention that I have complained to the Government about the evolution of the criminal justice system as it pertains to bilingualism. When the Liberals were in power, we made provision for language minority speakers in any province of the country to have the legal right to a trial in their own languages, not just to have interpreters present. We provided that one should be able to be tried in his own language, and that meant that we would need prosecutors, judges and jurors who spoke the second official language. That provision was contained in the criminal law reform brought forward by the former Liberal Government.
In that Bill, we provided for late proclamation of that provision. Some people would ask why we did not proclaim it right away if we were so committed to it. We were committed to it, but if we had proclaimed it right away we would not have been able to try people in every province of Canada. There were not jurors, prosecutors or judges all over the place who could deliver on that provision. It would have been against the interests of justice to have proclaimed it in every province.
We provided for proclamation by the Governor General when the system in each province had reached the point where that type of service could be provided. I think it is disgraceful that with the new Government in office for three years there are still provinces which have not proclaimed that law. In Newfoundland and Alberta where it has not been proclaimed, it is possible to have a complete criminal trial in French, and it has already been done in both provinces. That proves that it can be done, yet those provisions have not been proclaimed. Cases are now being taken to court by French speakers who want to have their right to be tried in French in those provinces. Since the Governments of the provinces have not forthrightly declared the provisions to be in force they are having to argue under the Charter that they are entitled to have their trials completely in the language of their choice.
I am not going to attack the good faith of the Government. As I said, I would like to have heard some members of the government Party reaffirm their commitment today and say that the Bill is moving forward to be sustained in principle and to be implemented. I am assuming that that will happen. I am looking forward to seeing the Bill go to committee. My Party has some points it will want to make. However, I would very much like to have seen a proclamation of the right to trial in the official minority language after all these years that it has been in effect in every province.
Official Languages Act
As a result of this Bill there will be better access to justice in the two languages. There will be ready availability and visibility of bilingual federal services in communications. We can look forward to a recognition of the right of Canadians to work in their own official language in federal institutions in accordance with the linguistic responsibilities of those institutions. There will be a confirmation of the principle of full participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians in federal institutions. I hope there will be substance to the commitment to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and to promote the official languages in Canadian society.
I was critical that the Meech Lake Accord did not contain a more forthright commitment to protect and promote the official language minority in every province. There is now a great opening for the federal Government to act in connection with the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Saskatchewan about the status of French in that province. I hope, expect, and demand that the federal Government act to promote the recognition and enhancement of the French language in that province. That would be one way of showing that within the prerogative of power of the federal Government, and within its responsibilities, there is an openness toward the francophone community and the French language in that province. The federal Government ought to take on the responsibility of standing up for official language minority groups wherever they are in the country.
The Bill also provides for federal co-operation with the provinces and the private and voluntary sectors to provide and extend bilingual services. The suggestion which I just made with regard to Saskatchewan would be well within the spirit of that aspect of the Bill.
I welcome the legislative framework contained within the Bill setting out the powers and co-ordinating roles of the Secretary of State in promoting official languages and providing support to official language minority communities. There is a confirmation of the policy role of the Treasury Board and recognition of its mandate to monitor the implementation of the legislation by federal institutions. There is an enhancement of the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages and as important and perhaps more important than that, the Bill provides judicial recourse so that Canadians of other language expression who feel dissatisfied with the way in which the law is being applied and believe they have a legal grievance can go not only to the Official Languages Commissioner, who will undoubtedly act in his best discretion as he sees it, but also before the courts to make their point. That is a breakthrough which I welcome.
Finally, there is provision for the primacy of the rights and obligations under the official languages Bill over any federal legislation which may appear to conflict.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of the Hon. Member very much. He emphasized the fact, with which I agree, that the country will always, or at least for a long

March 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
time, be partly unilingual. The time to learn a language is when you are very young. For many years in Alberta we made the mistake of starting to teach a language in grade nine or ten. That did not work. Today 23,000 boys and girls are learning the second official language in the Province of Alberta. This is encouraged by the Government of Alberta which has put in charge of this program a man who is completely bilingual.
Since there will always be, or at least for many years, people who are not bilingual, would the Hon. Member agree that applications for jobs, appointments to boards, and promotions in the Public Service, including the RCMP and the military, should be primarily based on merit so that there will be no special favours given to either those who are bilingual or those who are unilingual? If such things are based on merit we will get the very best treatment possible in each category. Would the Hon. Member comment on that?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, of course I agree with that. This gives me an opportunity to talk about some details of the Bill. Clause 38(3), which is the relevant section, preserves the merit principle. It provides that:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating or derogating from
the principle of selection of personnel according to merit.
Merit has a very well understood meaning and has a lot of experience and decision-making behind it. I am confident about the Public Service Commission's general appreciation of the principle. However, it must also be recognized that if the official languages law is the law of the land, one of the requirements is the ability to provide service to the public in French and English, not everywhere, but in areas where numbers warrant. Also, officials who want to work in the language of their choice must be able to do so and fit within a federal public service environment which can accommodate their wish to work in the official language of their choice.
Therefore, merit is relevant; merit and relevant merit in some cases-certainly not in all, and not even in the majority-will require the person involved to be able to speak both of the official languages. That is understood. It is a set-back for some individuals and that ought to be frankly recognized because it limits the scope within which otherwise meritorious persons would be able to perform their duties. However, it does not eliminate their place in the federal Public Service.
The Member's preliminary point was that there are a number of Canadians who can speak only one official language and probably, he said with some regret, that will always be the case or will be the case for a very long time. I go further than that. I would say that it would be a sign of health in our country, a sign of the freedom of choice that there ought to be, if there are always people in Canada who decide that they want to speak only English or are in a situation in which they only speak English, and others in another part of our country who limit themselves to wanting to speak only the other official language. We do not have in this country the goal of making everyone bilingual. We can certainly celebrate the fact
that there is a choice now and that even the province of the Hon. Member, which has no recent bilingual tradition, although it has an historic bilingual tradition, is making its own bilingual tradition. They are making it in our time through these 28,000 young people and others who will be able to speak French in that part of Canada.
I should have stated earlier that it is worth noting that one of the greatest sources of strength for those who have wanted to learn the other official language has been Radio Canada which has produced and provided French language radio and television throughout the country since the mid 1970s. In my case, I owe a great deal of my bilingualism to Radio Canada. I did not learn to speak French when I was growing up as a student, but learned it as an adult and mature student. Radio Canada and the French language CBC network were very important tools for me to acquire the idiom, the way the language is spoken.
For those who want to live their lives in English and those who want to live their lives in French, let us hope that nothing in the Official Languages Act will ever make it Canadian policy to try to reduce their rights.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments and will then ask the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) to expand on one particular section of the Bill. He has studied the Bill carefully and has had some involvement with the spread of judicial services across Canada for persons in the official language minority. He just observed that he would not mind if there were always Canadians who were unilingual. It may be worth noting that the Canadian facts public opinion survey in 1985 authorized by the Commissioner of Official Languages found that 99 per cent of those surveyed in Quebec thought it desirable that a person should know both English and French. I believe the proportion for British Columbia, where one might find the other extreme in opinion, was about 76 per cent who shared the opinion in Quebec.
Therefore, there are many Canadians who believe that certainly young people should be educated in both languages and should be capable of working in the federal Public Service in particular with both language abilities.
One aspect of fear mongering, like that to which my friend, the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) alluded, is the attempt to turn the Commissioner of Official Languages himself into a dreadful power. Anyone who believes that would do well to compare Bill C-72 with the Official Languages Act of 1969. The powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages have not been enlarged in this Bill.
Of course, the opportunities for individuals to pursue matters before the Federal Court of Canada and obtain some leverage on the federal Government has certainly taken place. That is worth noting.
March 7, 1988

I see that the time for questions and comments has expired.
I will not have the opportunity to ask about another provision.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to make a few comments about Bill C-72. As we have seen in the House, this is a very emotional issue for a number of Members. It is also an emotional issue for people throughout the country.
I attended accountability meetings in my riding two weeks ago. At two of those meetings I met people who had read the recent issue of Western Report. They stood up to ask what is this dreadful new Bill being imposed upon western Canada. I want to reassure them that they will be able to carry on and live good lives.
I do not think the emotions surrounding this issue should surprise us. Bill C-72 deals with the language of work and the language of justice. It deals with the language in which people can obtain Government service. In my riding there are people who felt that they personally have been hurt by the program of bilingualism as it was instituted. They felt that their careers had been red circled by bilingualism. Rightly or wrongly, they have a certain sense of grievance about the whole question of bilingualism. Bill C-72 and bilingualism deal with the fundamental relationship between English speaking and French speaking Canadians. It also deals with the relationship of those who come from another language tradition.
The importance of this issue is evidenced by the fact that we refer to the language we learn as children as our mother tongue. Our thought patterns are conditioned in our mother tongue and it is around those patterns and that first language that we have some very deep seated emotions. This is evident when we consider our attitudes toward people who speak with a different accent or a different dialect of the same language.
We sometimes take a very humorous approach to people who speak with an accent that we regard as strange and are sometimes shocked that other people may believe our accent is strange or somewhat funny. These differences are sometimes the source of humour and sometimes the source of snobbery. Sometimes people are educated out of their original accent, so that some people who go to Oxford ultimately have an accent that is stronger than people who have grown up in that area.
Often there is a deep seated prejudice toward another language. This is usually based on fear that is masked by an attitude of contempt. We as Members of Parliament, who pretend to be leaders in this country, must try to address the fear of people, rather than manipulate it, and deal with it in an intelligent and straightforward manner.
First, I believe it would be helpful if both French and English speaking people recognized that both our language traditions have traditions of linguistic imperialism. Perhaps one of the worst examples for Anglophones is the residential
schools where Indian young people would have their mouths washed out with soap for speaking in their native language. They were told to speak English.
I hope to resume my comments after Question Period, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member will want to continue after Question Period.
It being 1.40 o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.40 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government is preventing women who recently regained Indian status from getting decent housing on reserves. The ambiguous position of the Conservative Government is forcing native women into unwholesome competition with their own people for one of the basic necessities of life, housing.
About 95,000 people have applied to Ottawa for reinstatement to the reserves across the country and most of them are women. They have applied for housing on reserves because the 1985 legislation, Bill C-31, now allows women and their children to return to the reserves if they so wish.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that these women lost their Indian status because they married white men or someone other than a status Indian. However, the problem is that although the Government provided special funding for reserve housing for reinstated women, it did not give band councils clear criteria about how it was to be spent. The result is that money is being spent for general housing needs.


Some Hon. Members:: Time!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: There is already not enough money for Indian housing on reserves-


Some Hon. Members:: Time!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: -so once again the women are paying the price.

March 7, 1988



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of all residents-


Some Hon. Members:: Time!


Mr. Speaker:: There have been some interventions on the part of Members with respect to the general question of time for Members' Statements. As Members know, it is 60 seconds. Those Members who cut it below 60 seconds are doing a favour for their colleagues, and those who go over are doing a disfavour, and if there is too much agitation, of course the Chair has to step in. However, I would ask Hon. Members to leave it to the Chair.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of all residents of the City of Port Coquitlam in British Columbia, both past and present. It was 75 years ago that Port Coquitlam was officially incorporated as a City.
In honour of this occasion, I would like to read into the record books an excerpt from the Mayor's Proclamation:
And whereas on March 7th, 1913 the said Letters Patent under the Great Seal were so issued thereby creating the "Corporation of the City of Port Coquitlam".
And whereas exactly seventy-five years have elapsed between the date of the Letters Patent and March 7th, 1988;
Now therefore be it resolved that by virtue of the powers vested in me as Mayor of the Corporation of the City of Port Coquitlam, I Leonard M. Traboulay, do now declare March 7th, 1988 to be "Diamond Anniversary Day" in the City of Port Coquitlam and do urge all our citizens to take part in the many festivities planned for the balance of our Diamond Jubilee Year;
I am honoured, as the city's Member of Parliament, to invite everyone from Port Coquitlam and the surrounding communities, and people from all over Canada to join in the festivities and celebrate the Diamond Anniversary of the City of Port Coquitlam.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT'S AGRICULTURAL ASSESSMENT

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the Government has published a very sleek publication entitled: The Canada-i/'.S. Free Trade Agreement and Agriculture-An Assessment which was distributed to Members' offices on Friday. Can the Government explain why this so-called assessment fails to show the value of U.S. agricultural trade to Canada? Why the blank spot on page 11 where it should have appeared? Was the Government afraid the fact that the U.S. has always had the trade advantage in agricultural trade would change the reader's view of the agreement?
Can the Government explain why it chose to leave the impression that poultry imports are to be computed only on the basis of a moving average when the agreement specifically states that there shall first of all be not less than 7.5 per cent of Canadian requirements filled from the U.S.? Why did it neglect that fact? It is not in here.
More than a third of Ontario grape growers and virtually all British Columbia grape growers will be forced out of business according to the data contained in this assessment. Yet we are told that they "face adjustments" but this will "enhance competitiveness". How does being put out of business make one competitive?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, recently in a major article, the Toronto Star reported that individuals who belonged to the Khymer Rouge and participated in genocidal acts in Cambodia are residing in Canada as landed immigrants. This is a very serious allegation since the Khymer Rouge were responsible for two million innocent deaths, often using methods which rivalled the Nazis.
Such individuals have no right whatsoever to be allowed to live among civilized people. The Immigration Department and CSIS should immediately commence a full investigation to ascertain if the allegations are true. If it is found that indeed there are Khymer Rouge mass murderers in Canada, they should be charged with crimes against humanity. We must send out a strong message that there is no sanctuary in Canada, nor is there any clemency for this type of action against humanity.



DISASTERS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 4, four citizens of Fort Albany, Ontario, a small isolated native community near James Bay, perished in a tragic fire. Delna Edwards, age 21, and her three sons, Kenny, Peter and Jeremy, all died, burned beyond recognition, because the community had no way to fight the fire other than with five-gallon pails. Our heartfelt sympathy goes out to the entire Fort Albany community.
This type of incident should not be occurring in native communities. Ste. Anne's School in the same community provides yet another example of a tragedy waiting to occur. It
March 7, 1988

took repeated warnings by fire inspectors before the Government took action to close the school. The children have now been without educational facilities for a month.
When will the Government realize that it has an obligation to take prompt action to guarantee that all Indian communities across the country are provided with the means to ensure that the safety of their people is not in constant jeopardy? The Government must re-examine its priorities and give Canadian native communities the attention and support they rightly deserve.



FISHERIES


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, the Gaspe peninsula once more is faced with a plant shutdown. The Purdel Inc. group decided not to reopen its ground fish line in Riviere-au-Renard, putting some 300 seasonal employees out of work. One of the reasons given by the company is the impossibility to obtain raw materials. It feels a fishing quota within the 200-mile zone would have been a solution to the problem.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in December 1987 fishing industry groups in Quebec were denied access to the 200-mile zone by the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean (Mr. Siddon).
In view of the increasingly sad situation of the fishing industry in Quebec, it was agreed on my request that a meeting would take place in Gaspe within two weeks, in order to regroup the Quebec fishing industry and to resume discussions on the possible access of Quebec to the 200-mile zone. Until a longer-term solution is found I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that this Government will help the people in Riviere-au-Renard overcome that unhappy experience.



ABORTION


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, following the Morgentaler decision, predominately male politicians feel burdened by a heavy responsibility to reach a decision which they think is morally right and politically acceptable. Any decision should respect different personal and religious views that are deeply held in a pluristic society but should not impose those views on others.



S. 0. 21

[Stage Direction]
The Canada Health Act states:
The primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote, and to restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.
The policy of British Columbia of paying only for abortions when a woman's life is threatened is in direct contravention of the Canada Health Act and only serves to penalize women of low income. It establishes a two-tier health care system, one for the rich and one for the poor. It is also in contradiction with the views of two-thirds of British Columbians, as can be seen in a poll released today in British Columbia. When can we expect the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to restore equity to the health care system?


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, 1988 marks the twenty-fifth year of service of the Hope Volunteer Search and Rescue Group. The 23 members log 4,000 hours of volunteer work a year to train and to search for and rescue victims of mountain, water, and vehicle accidents. This is no small feat when one considers the rugged terrain surrounding the Town of Hope, British Columbia. Of the approximately 40 calls received a year, 38 victims are saved by the efforts of these people.
On February 27 I was pleased to attend the anniversary dinner and dance and to join with the others in honouring Clarence Kolcun for his 25 years of service. He is now the Honorary Director for Life of the Hope Search and Rescue Group. I would like to take this time to thank Barry Gannon, president of the group, his executive and hard-working members, for their dedication and service to the community of Hope. We are very proud of their achievements.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, hungry school children in Vancouver are caught between the bureaucratic regulations of the Canada Assistance Plan and the ideological blindness of the Vander Zalm Government. The Vancouver School Board is currently using reserve funds for an emergency program, feeding about 600 children in 23 schools, but a school board application for help from the Canada Assistance Plan has been denied because the

March 7, 1988
plan can only make money available to the city or province if they participate financially, and not to a school board.
The Social Credit Government refuses to participate because it fears the program will create dependency. Instead, Claude Richmond, the Minister of Social Services, wants teachers to let his Department know the names of hungry children so that their parents can be taught nutrition. We repudiate this hypocrisy which claims that the fundamental problem is not with poverty but with the family.
Next week Vancouver officials will appeal directly to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). I urge him to work out a creative solution which will cut through the red tape and ensure that school children in Canada do not go hungry.



CONSTITUENCY OF LEVIS


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, today the Leader of the Liberal Party himself is going from door to door in the city halls in the constituency of Levis in order to convince one mayor to run against me.
Those mayors should ask why his caucus is still opposing Quebec's entry into Confederation. Why do the Liberals still oppose in effect the Meech Lake Agreement? Why did the Liberals vote against the Bill concerning Quebec's pharmaceutical industry, against 1 300 jobs being created in Montreal? Why will the Liberal Leader gut the free trade agreement, something that will allow Quebecers to sell $20 billion worth of goods to the United States? A serious candidate should put those questions to the Liberal Leader who is going from door to door.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, we learned over the weekend that, once again, the Contras attacked a project in Nicaragua in which Canadians were involved. I refer to the Farmers for Peace from Alberta.
There were numerous Nicaraguans captured by the Contras, as well as an American. Fortunately, no Canadians were
captured, but great damage was done to the project, to the equipment, and to the buildings.
It is time once again to call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to condemn American funding to the Contras and to send a strong message to Washington that the Canadian Government does not take lightly this destruction being visited upon Canadian sponsored projects by a group that is funded from Washington.



MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, a resolution from the Defence Association of Canada focuses attention on what many people are already aware of, that is, that the Canadian War Museum has been grossly neglected as an historical, memorial, military, and research institution because of gross neglect by successive former Governments.
The museum cannot perform its role effectively because it is underfunded, underequipped, and housed in inadequate and insufficient space to fulfil its role as a memorial to those who made the supreme sacrifice in the service of Canada in war and in peace-keeping operations. It is also the focal national institution to record, preserve, and present the military heritage of Canada in peace and war.
I therefore ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) and the Cabinet to initiate action for a major expansion of its facilities, and institute other support programs to ensure that Canadians from every walk of life are made aware of our proud military heritage.



FISHERIES


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, today in Vancouver the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) is announcing an important conservation program that will affect all groups of fishermen-sports, native, and commercial.
It is well known in my Province of British Columbia that over the last 10 years the catch and escapement of Chinook, our king salmon, declined by some 75 per cent in the lower Strait of Georgia. The stocks are being overfished. Thus new enhancement and conservation measures must be introduced.
Beginning on April 10 all fishermen will be required to affix conservation tags to Chinook caught in B.C. waters. The

|
*5-
|

March 7, 1988

harvest rate will be reduced by some 20 per cent. However, at the same time, increased enhancement measures will be undertaken on the Nanaimo, Cowichan, and Squamish Rivers.
The battle to rebuild the Strait of Georgia Chinook stocks has begun. Our Government and our fishermen believe it is a battle that we can win.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion I direct my question to either the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister.
There was a report this morning from the special assistant to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion which points out that in the coming years under the Western Diversification Program western Canada will receive less money than it did last year under the normal Estimates of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.
I want to ask the Prime Minister what kind of con job is going on. How can we promise westerners further expansion and diversification when in fact the federal Government is spending less money to develop the west than it did last year and the year before that? Is this not a clear contradiction of the aims and objectives set forward in the Western Diversification Program? The rhetoric is okay but the cash is not there to back it up.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the statement to which the Hon. Member refers is a statement which says that spending in the west will increase by 15.4 per cent this year because of the announcement of the Western Diversification Fund. The new Department that is being created will not be abandoning western Canada. The Department that is being created will have a national mandate, and it will recognize that national mandate.
The additional funding of $1.2 billion in western Canada and the additional funding of over $1 billion in Atlantic Canada are funding that will be on top of existing funding. Therefore the report identifies an increase of 15.4 per cent in spending in western Canada.


TOTAL FUNDING FOR WESTERN DEVELOPMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is fudging the figures again.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: I wish to point out to the Minister the statement made by the official in the office of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who said that the total funding of the federal Government for regional development will be less this year in western Canada than it was the year before, and substantially less in Atlantic Canada. In both cases the federal Government is pulling back its commitment to the two regions of the country which need that type of funding most.
To quote the president elect of the Chamber of Commerce of Edmonton: "Western Canada is once again getting the short end of the stick". What will the Government do to restore proper funding to achieve proper regional development?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about proper funding. A phantom $4 billion was identified by the previous administration for economic development in western Canada. Some $4 billion was identified in the 1980 Budget. The next Budget saw the figure reduced to $2 billion, and it was just earmarked.
The Hon. Member mentioned the other day $3.5 billion identified for western rail infrastructure. If the Government attempted to use that type of shellgame we would identify $1 billion in the first Special Grains Program, $1 billion in the second Special Grains Program, $800 million in PGRT, and $350 million to $400 million in special oil programming. All those programs that are over and above existing funding to western Canada have been recognized by the Government, and there is $1.2 billion for western diversification.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that once again we are being treated to the funny world of Tory economics and mathematics which does not know how to add or subtract. As a result the regions get the short end of the stick, as the Chamber of Commerce has properly said.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I address my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. It is another question related to regional development.
On Friday, Canada's Ambassador to the United States, Mr. Gotlieb, wrote a letter to the U.S. Congress stating clearly that Canada wants a full exemption in the Omnibus Trade Bill from the language of the Congress which will define substantially the nature of subsidy which will involve regional development programs.
Concerning the important contradiction that has to regional development programs in Canada will the Prime Minister commit here and now that, unless the Congress of the United States totally eliminates all language and reference to subsidies and gives Canada an exemption, the Government will

March 7, 1988
Oral Questions
not go ahead and sign the trade deal that it negotiated with the United States?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, after the way the Hon. Member was dealt with by my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I understand why he changed the subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We expect the United States to honour the undertakings it made in the free trade agreement.


CHILD CARE
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. Given that the Government has set up no national standard of quality or affordability in its child care program, and given that American firms must be accorded national treatment under free trade, we are now threatened by the invasion of low quality expensive child care services in Canada.
The Government is not talking about its day care plan any more. Why has the Government lost all its drive with regard to providing a first-class national day care system? Is it because it has now become obvious that the Canada-U.S. trade deal will make it impossible for the Government to keep its promises to the women of Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, if there is any Government that has kept its promises to the women of Canada, it is this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: I cannot imagine a member of a Party that for 17 years did nothing on child care after a Royal Commission attacking us for the program of $5.4 billion that we have put into child care. As we know, this is a program in which we work with the provinces.
The same standards cannot be established in small communities in Newfoundland as could be established in downtown Toronto or in Montreal. The reason that this program is important is because it provides the flexibility for communities and parents to meet the needs that they think are important. They are the ones who have to determine what is the best type of care for their children.


GUARANTEE OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the Minister that she has failed to reply to my question.
My supplementary question is this: How can the Tory Government be so sure that the Free Trade Agreement is good for women when we know that in the services industry, American companies with which Canadian companies will have to compete have no minimum wages to pay, no social benefits to provide and no employment equity program to live with? So I should like the Minister to tell us how the Government can assure women that they will keep all the social programs they had to fight for and that their jobs will be protected instead of melting like butter in a pan!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, our social programs have nothing to do with the free trade agreement. Women have always done well in a prosperous economy. If one looks at the world today, where are women doing well? They are doing well in prosperous countries. Free trade will be the best thing that has happened to the women in this country for a long time in terms of job opportunities in the service sector, future training, apprenticeship, and entrepreneurship. There was a report last week on the number of women who are now entrepreneurs and how well they are doing, and how well they will do under free trade.
I think for the next century that free trade will see women's economic equality proceed even further than it has done.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for DRIE, I will put my question directly to the Prime Minister. I am rising on a very serious matter, the loss of 2,500 jobs in my home town of Brantford.
More than 2,500 people who are either working or are on lay-off are looking to the Government to ensure that their jobs are not lost forever. Canadian men and women want assurances that we will not lose the rotary combine technology that was developed with taxpayers' money, leaving this country without a major producer in this vital area.
Will the Prime Minister assure those workers that the Government will seek out a Canadian buyer that will use that technology to build combines and provide jobs in Brantford?
March 7, 1988


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion I would like to inform the Hon. Member that discussions are presently under way to discover whatever redeeming features there are in the circumstances. It is quite true that receivers have been called in.
Of course the interests of the workers, those who are disabled, those who are on early retirement, and those who had expected to be hired back, are paramount to us. We are concerned about the retention of the technology. We are concerned about the public interest generally. Discussions are under way, and we should have something more to report quite soon.


PROTECTION OF WORKERS' PENSION FUND
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I appreciate the concerns of the Government. We are now looking for action. While the Minister is concerning himself, I would like to know if he would assure those workers that any money coming from Varity Corporation will be used to keep the pension fund viable, assist any disabled workers, and help any workers whose pensions and benefits might not be covered in the 1986 bail-out, amounting to some $30 million to $33 million?


Frank Oberle: The question of the pension obligation is one that is very serious. There is a provincial role in the event that there should be any unfulfilled obligations. Discussions are going on with the province. There is the additional problem of continuation of parts supply to farmers who have become dependent on this particular combine machine.
All those things are being seriously discussed between officials, our provincial counterparts, and company principals.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER INDUSTRIAL REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister responsible for CDIC, who was proclaiming the great benefits of free trade. Massey is a victim of free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Will the Minister provide assistance under the Industrial Regional Development Program to help a Canadian buyer keep the people working with this Canadian technology, in view of the fact that there is more than 12 per cent unemployment in Brantford now and we qualify under Tier 2 of the IRDA program?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think that all of us on this side of the House are concerned about some of the issues raised by the Hon. Member. We have talked about the need for parts, and so on.
Oral Questions
The problems at Massey Ferguson have nothing to do with free trade. I have had an association with this company all of my life, and I knew something about it long before I was in government. I can tell Hon. Members right now that there has been free trade in farm machinery ever since I can remember. There are U.S. producers of farm machinery.
The problem in the farm machinery industry has to do with the protectionism that has been rising in the United States that has led to difficult times for farmers.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That's nonsense.


Barbara Jean McDougall: That is as much a part of it as anything else. It has nothing to do with free trade.


REPLACEMENT PARTS FOR EXISTING COMBINES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Industry, and it concerns the shutdown of the Massey plant in Brantford.
Since there was a specific agreement in 1985 that the federal Government would keep the specialized technology in Canada for this combine, could the Minister be more specific that that technology will stay in Canada? Could the Minister also be more specific that replacement parts will be available to the thousands of farmers who have Massey combines across the country, and that there will be a dealer network to service the combines that are presently in use across the country? This is an important decision that harms thousands of Canadian farmers.


Frank Oberle: The Hon. Member is quite correct, but 1 answered his question at least in part. It is anticipated that Varity will assume some of the responsibility to have a continued parts flow. Certainly, in terms of the technology there were undertakings that this technology would stay in Canada. It is entirely possible that a buyer will come along and purchase that technology, or assume it.
As I stated, all of those serious problems are being discussed with our provincial counterparts who also have an interest in terms of the equity that the federal Government has in the plant. On three occasions we have been involved in extending the life of this particular company. The interests of the farmers and the interests of the workers are uppermost in our minds. We will come to as good a solution as can be worked out under the circumstances.


STATUS OF U.S. BANKS' INVESTMENT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. He will know that 3,300 workers at Massey are part of the pension plan and there is, in fact, a $54 million shortfall in that pension plan. I would like to ask the Minister a very specific question.

March 7, 1988
Oral Questions
His Government claims that free trade has nothing to do with this deal. Can he explain why the U.S. banks are preferred creditors and they will get their investment of approximately $75 million back before the workers at Massey-Ferguson can touch a penny of severance pay? Why the U.S. banks first by this Government?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, 1 don't for a moment accept the Hon. Member's premise that that is actually what is happening. It is true the receiver is on site and that obviously disbursements are being discussed.
Let me tell the Hon. Member, as I said in my earlier answers, that that part of the problem which may result in unfulfilled obligations to workers who have taken early retirement is uppermost in our minds. There is a provincial responsibility, but safeguards are in both provincial and federal legislation to make sure that workers will not be deprived of what they have earned in pension benefits.


BENEFITS FOR OLDER WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary one for the Minister of Labour.
Given that this Government is the Government that removed labour adjustment benefits for older workers from this sector in Brantford in 1986, will the Government itself now restore these benefits for older workers to provide some kind of hope for the future for men and women in the city of Brantford?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to my hon. colleague that this Government did not remove the program that was in existence. It was scheduled to terminate under the previous Government in 1985. We continued it into 1986 in order to develop with the provinces and the private sector a better program that would govern all older workers-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Where is it?


Pierre H. Cadieux: -not just some older workers. May I remind my hon. colleague that under the old program the workers to which he is referring would not be covered.
Hopefully, this POWA agreement on which we have been working for the past two years will be finalized in the coming weeks. As a matter of fact, I have already communicated with my colleague in Ontario today, and we are scheduled to meet on Friday.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ONTARIO PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the members of the Public Accounts Committee of Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. All Canadians are very proud of our Armed Forces reserves and were very much encouraged by the White Paper on defence and that the Government will be increasing the reserves.
Will the Minister tell this House when he plans to implement the program?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, our intention over the course of the next 15 years is to treble the size of the primary reserves. We will start by adding some 2,000 members to the reserves this year. We are also procuring new equipment for them.
As my colleague, the Associate Minister for National Defence, indicated last week, we will be starting with the naval reserves to purchase vessels which can be used by them for minesweeping, in the very near future.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it relates to the northern allowance. The Prime Minister is aware that more than 600 communities in Atlantic Canada qualify for this isolation allowance. Of those 600 communities, not one, not a single one, is in New Brunswick.
Why is there not a single community in New Brunswick included in that list? Can the Prime Minister explain why there is such discrimination with regard to New Brunswick?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the program of northern allowances is, as the Hon. Member knows, one that was put together based on Treasury Board documents on a program it had for the public servants. We have, as a Government, made a commitment that we will
March 7, 1988

have a commission of inquiry to study the appropriateness of the criteria in place for determining the isolated areas. The Hon. Member can make his points there as well as in the House.
[ Translation]
REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF iLE MISCOU ON LIST


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to direct to the same Minister.
I call the attention of the Minister to the fact that, in New Brunswick, the Miscou Island community, with a population of fewer than 1 000 inhabitants, was isolated for over two and a half months last Winter without ferry or air service. Surely this island meets the criteria of the National Revenue Department!
Will the Minister make sure that this community is included on the list beginning this year, so that it may avail itself this year of these benefits in respect of tax year 1987?
Why must New Brunswick people wait and why will they be the last to get these benefits? Why this unfair treatment?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the program was put together on a basis that was arrived at for public servants a number of years ago. That is the basis. That is why we are having a commission of inquiry to see if it should be extended further and be added to. We will be glad to listen to the representations of the Hon. Member.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. To be eligible for the Job Re-entry Program of the Canadian Jobs Strategy a woman must be out of the labour force for three years and engaged primarily in homemaking activities, yet the reality is that many women must, out of economic necessity, take menial low paying jobs or part-time work and are, therefore, denied access to the program.
Can the Minister assure this House that these eligibility requirements will be abandoned in order to provide women with greater access to the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program?


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister responsible for the Status of Women has already adequately answered this question. As soon as any country experiences prosperity, women will improve their lot. There
Oral Questions
has been more entrepreneurship in the last few years and, therefore, that is the greatest opportunity for women.


EMPLOYMENT PLANNING-REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has failed to reply to my question.
I want to tell him that the women who are eligible for the Canadian Jobs Strategy are found in the poorly paid jobs which traditionally have been women's ghettos.
Will the Minister agree to amend the Canadian Jobs Strategy to ensure that the training programs will prepare Canadian women for non-traditional and well paid jobs?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that the Canadian Jobs Strategy is working extraordinarily well for women because it is the most flexible job program that we have ever seen in the history of Canada. There is a particular component in it for women. It is to deal with problems of the women who are the worst off, and they are the women who have been out of the labour force for quite a long time.
There is a non-traditional component in it. Let me say that when I was in British Columbia last year I was talking to a woman entrepreneur who, under the Canadian Jobs Strategy, was teaching other women in her community about working on logging rigs and in the woods. If that is not non-traditional for women, I do not know what is.
Let me say as well that we have, in conjunction with the provinces, a new training agreement which the Prime Minister brought forward at the First Ministers' Conference. My colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, has been working very hard with the provinces on apprenticeship programs for women. We have been moving forward very strongly on this issue and we will continue to do so.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. The Department of Finance's rules on deductions for residents of northern and isolated communities are the most arbitrary and fundamentally discriminatory piece of tax law ever put in place by any Government in the history of Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: You have forgotten Allan Mac-Eachen.

March 7, 1988
Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: How is it that communities that have substantial services available to them in rural Canada qualify for the special tax treatment and yet communities like Trout River on the great northern peninsula, an isolated community, or communities on the Port-au-Port peninsula, isolated communities, that have no services and 75 per cent unemployment, do not qualify for this program? How does the Minister explain that inequity in this program? Will he do something more than appoint another expensive commission to bring justice and fairness to the tax system?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the House should know that there are dozens, at least 100 communities, in Gander-Twillingate, for example, that are included under the program. There are dozens of communities in Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe that are included. The Hon. Member knows that. Cochrane-Superior and all northern ridings in the House are well represented by the program. We are trying to improve the program. That is why we have the commission of inquiry.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing worse than an ivory-towered, well-heeled, smug Minister of Finance other than one who does not know he is smug.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


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


REQUEST FOR NEW RULES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of State for Finance if he realizes that, even in those communities where this tax deduction is available, there is a feeling of outrage in this land because a neighbour one or two kilometres away does not qualify. Even those who have the benefit of this package want fairness, justice and equity in the tax system. They do not want another expensive and long drawn out commission.
Will the Minister tell taxpayers in rural and isolated communities to apply for that deduction, that it will be paid, and that when the Government cleans up its act it will publish a new set of rules some years down the road and that the people will not be made to suffer for the Government's incompetence now?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is essentially asking for no discrimination whatsoever. This program has helped thousands of Canadian families and will continue to do so. We will improve it in certain details as best we can through the commission of inquiry. The Hon. Member is arguing for no program at all.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who will know that the special assistant to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion indicated earlier in the weekend that the percentage of funds in the regional development programs allocated to both western Canada and Atlantic Canada was substantially reduced this year from last year. Would the Deputy Prime Minister be nice enough to explain to the House what he plans to do, in light of this revelation, to ensure that western Canadians get their fair share of economic development funds?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I did answer that question in reply to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. I can only add for the Hon. Member that considering the drought relief, the $658 million contributed annually for the transportation of grain, the over $3 million put into the Canadian Wheat Board pool and the Prime Minister's announcement of ACOA and western diversification, along with a statement that these agencies will provide additional funding, all I can say is that whatever official the Hon. Member is quoting is inaccurate.


AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned here with funds that will result in the diversification of the western economy and the economy of Atlantic Canada, not with the variety of programs that are statutory or that the regions can expect as a natural course.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: What do you mean by a natural course?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Some people might think that this is very, very funny. Since western Canadians now represent about 30 per cent of the population of Canada, why is it that the amount of funds set aside for economic development for western Canada accounts for about 15 per cent? Western Canadians are not asking for anything special, just to receive their fair share.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, first the statement in the news report the Hon. Member is quoting is a 15.2 per cent increase because of western diversification. Why did the NDP vote against the $127 million for the Atlantic program? Why did the NDP vote against $101 million for western diversification? Why did it vote against $456 million for regional industrial expansion? Why did it vote against $38 million for agriculture-


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!
March 7, 1988


FINANCE
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. I have here the remission order granted by the Government for Goodyear Tire Company worth about $50 million, a remission order granted on December 22 of last year, the same year that Goodyear closed its plant in Etobicoke-Lakeshore and over 1,500 workers there lost their jobs. Mr. Peter Rose of Goodyear has subsequently stated publicly that the expansions carried out by Goodyear would have been done without the $50 million benefit of the tax remissions. My question, therefore, is in two parts.
First, in light of that, would the Minister consider rescinding the remission order? Second, if he is not prepared to do that, could he at least inform the House what mechanism is in place to ensure that this tax expenditure will bring a benefit to Canada that is at least equal to the $50 million that has been made available to Goodyear?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern about this matter which deals with an important organization in his riding, and he has gone through the history of this very carefully. However, I have to tell him that he is wrong in his recommendations about the duty remission scheme. It is in place generally to prevent future closures and to maintain present jobs. We have here a scheme in place which will help specialization, modernization and expansion in the tire industry within Canada. The duty-remission scheme allows that, and without it, it would be much more problematic.


SIKH ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and again concerns the letter the Minister sent to the Premiers urging a political boycott of three Sikh organizations. The Minister's answers in the House in recent days have been equally deplorable. The Government should realize that simply ignoring and denying the injustice done against these Canadians will not lessen the hurt and damage that have been inflicted.
Given that the Premier of British Columbia has refused to co-operate with the Minister, that the Premier of Ontario has not supported the letter despite claims made by the Secretary of State in the House, and that members of his own Government have attacked his position, will the Secretary of State finally do the honourable thing and withdraw these offensive allegations? If he will not, will he agree to establish an inquiry
Oral Questions
that would investigate the evidence upon which the Government is rationalizing this most questionable action?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, no. With regard to the position of the Premier of Ontario, I was only quoting what I had seen him quoted as saying in the newspapers. It was The Toronto Star, and perhaps that was wrong, and I will check that again.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You quote from The Toronto Star?


Charles Joseph Clark: It is a terrible thing, Derek, and the Hon. Member and I will not persist in it.
Let me finally say that in an issue of this kind that is very sensitive, there is an opportunity, if political Parties wish to do so, to try to exploit the issue for partisan advantage. I hope that Members of this House would be above that standard of conduct.


TREATMENT OF ETHNOCULTURAL GROUPS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, members of his own Government have recognized that the Secretary of State, through this letter, is playing dangerously with the social and cultural fabric of Canada. He ought to stop making jokes about it and begin to deal with it in a serious and sensitive fashion.
Since we only learned of this letter because it was leaked, and since the Government's policy is now to condemn entire groups and organizations because of the alleged and unproven acts of a few, would the Minister advise the House if any other Canadian ethnocultural group or community has been irresponsibly targeted for such offensive treatment by the Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I presume that question was put precisely. The precise answer is that no group in Canada has been irresponsibly targeted by the Government.


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for either the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister who is supposed to be looking after Manitoba's interests; or perhaps the Minister in charge of the Western Diversification Office.
There is growing concern in Manitoba about delays in the approval of projects and the percentage of funding which is going to Manitoba through the Western Diversification Office. Who in the Government can say today what the Government is

March 7, 1988
Oral Questions
planning to do to solve the obvious problems which exist in Manitoba with regard to funding from the Western Diversification Office?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Member asks a question which is very important. The fund is not designed for one province. It is designed for western Canada. The initiatives which have taken place in other provinces involve the industry in most cases, provincial funding, and top-up from western development.
In seriousness, the $3 billion wish list put forward by the Government of Manitoba was not helpful. If that Government had developed one or two major initiatives with which we could have joined, we could now be involved in funding.
I can assure the Hon. Member that in the near future we will be able to come to an agreement with the Province of Manitoba and enter into funding which will strengthen the whole economy in western Canada.


PROPOSED HEALTH INDUSTRY INITIATIVE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that it is not only with regard to proposals made by the Manitoba Government but also with regard to proposals made by the private sector that there has been a great deal of concern about delay.
I would like to ask the Minister about one particular proposal from the Manitoba Government which, as I understand it, has been on his desk for some time now. That is with regard to the health industry initiative.
Can the Minister say when the federal Government is going to respond to that? It is quite far along. The ball is now in the Minister's court and people in Manitoba want to know when they will have an answer from the Minister with regard to that proposal.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has already taken steps with the announcement of over S90 million of investment in the LCDC Lab to be located in Manitoba.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That's different.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member says that that is in the past, but it is a large expenditure and it will be part of the business support structure which will bring other health initiatives into Manitoba.
I can assure the Hon. Member that if the Province of Manitoba can identify, not health care projects but health research initiatives, our colleagues in Manitoba and myself are ready to sit down and discuss projects one at a time to bring benefit to Winnipeg.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for housing my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A section of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement calls for CMHC to decide by March 15, next Tuesday, whether it will accept the U.S. C-D grade plywood for use in housing financed by CMHC. The Minister knows that at the present CMHC requires construction plywood to be C-C grade in Canada, a higher standard than the U.S. C-D grade.
Under the free trade agreement the phase-out of the plywood tariffs over the next 10 years is subject to CMHC's approval of the U.S. lower grade. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that Canada will not yield once again to this unfair pressure from the U.S. Government?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is doing government business outside the House. I will take that question as notice and reply to my colleague.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the subject has already been discussed in Cabinet but I respect the fact that perhaps the Minister is not yet ready to tell us about it.


CANADIAN STANDARD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the climate of Canada is very cold and rigorous. The Minister who responded to me is responsible for Indian Affairs. He knows that we are responsible for building Indian housing on reserves. We certainly do not want to lower our standards on the reserves of Canada.
Why should it always be Canada that lowers its standards to please the mighty United States? Can the Minister explain this to the people of Canada?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the criteria that are established. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in conjunction with the building industry in Canada and the research that has been put forward-


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about the consumers?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: 
GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The GATT prohibition on Canada's export restrictions for unprocessed herring and salmon will mean the loss of 4,000 shore workers' jobs on the coast of British Columbia. Seventy per cent of these jobs are held by women, many of them single parents, many living in isolated communities where there are no alternate sources of employment.
Will the Minister guarantee that these jobs will not be lost and assure the House that he will not accept a GATT decision which guts our fish processing industry and takes away our right to manage our own resources?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I understand the deep concern of the Member and, indeed, of all Members with that GATT ruling.
I must say that I find it odd that a Party that has spoken so unequivocally in favour of the GATT could, with any sense of consistency or honesty, now be attacking the GATT process which it has so resolutely defended on every other occasion.
The Hon. Member will know that there have been extensive vigorous representations by Canada to other countries involved in the GATT panel. He will know that there are discussions ongoing now involving the industry and the provinces. He will know that there is a meeting on March 9 to deal with this very important question and that we are looking for a solution which will respect the GATT, which most of the House, and the NDP most of the time, supports, and protects the interests of fishermen, fishing interests, and fish processing plants on the West Coast.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the NDP has been consistent and unequivocal in its support of jobs and of workers' rights to have those jobs. We do not want the Government to bargain those jobs away.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT NOT ALLOW GATT DECISION TO STAND
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister guarantee that the Government will not allow that GATT decision to stand? If it stands we will lose those jobs because the Government has shown itself to be incapable of bargaining with the United States.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the experience that the House is now having with the NDP on GATT is illustrative of what Canadians would find if they look at what the NDP does and not only at what it says. The NDP is for GATT in principle and against GATT in practice. You cannot have it both ways if there is to be an effective international system.
Oral Questions
We have given the guarantees that we are in a position to give with regard to fish processing and other related industries on the West Coast of Canada. We are proceeding in a practical way with the industry, the fishermen involved, with the provinces, and with other Governments. We are looking for a solution which is consistent with Canadian international trading principles and consistent with the requirements and needs of that industry in western Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Agriculture deals with the closing of the Massey grain combine plant.
Is the Minister of Agriculture prepared to announce to the House today that concrete steps will be taken to make sure that the Canadian farm community will be able to purchase spare parts for these combines and obtain after-sales service for these Massey-Ferguson grain combines? What concrete steps can he announce to the House to reassure the Canadian farm community?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member drafted his question before I gave two answers to it on a previous occasion. The Government is very concerned, in particular, about the retention of the technology in Canada. As I said earlier, discussions are under way to safeguard the interests of farmers and dealers. It is anticipated that Varity and other companies will assure that there is a continued supply of those essential replacement parts in the event that there are no redeeming features to the present circumstances at Massey-Ferguson.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will have a short supplementary question, followed by a single question by the Member for Scarborough West. That will close Question Period.


EMPLOYEES' PENSION FUND
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we still did not get an answer. My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the 3,300 pensioners and would-be pensioners of the Massey-Ferguson plant.
Will the Prime Minister meet with the provincial authorities of Ontario who now have a committee to assist the employees with the $54 million shortfall in the Massey-Ferguson

March 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
employees' pension fund in Ontario? Will the federal Government agree now to participate financially with the Province of Ontario in a rescue plan for the funds of the pensioners?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question earlier as well. There is the question of the pensioners and the question of the approximately 300 disabled workers who are uppermost in our minds.
There are discussions with our provincial counterparts to determine just what are our respective jurisdictions and responsibilities. There will be no unsatisfied obligations to any person who has earned certain pension rights from this company.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Marxist Mengistu Government of Ethiopia is reported to have used coercion to compel unwilling peasants to submit to its resettlement program.
Insofar as Canada is partially aiding this program, what action will the Government take to ensure that Chairman Mengistu will honour his commitment to Canada that Ethiopians will participate in this program only by their own individual free choice?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, when my colleague, the Minister for International Relations, was in Ethiopia a few weeks ago she raised precisely that question with the Government of Ethiopia. She was given an assurance at that time that there was no forced resettlement.
I want to make two points. First, a voluntary resettlement program is something that can be accepted by all Members of this House as a necessary part of development. This House, this Government and Members in it, are opposed to forced resettlement programs.
Second, if any evidence of forced resettlement with regard to the settlement program can be brought to my attention or that of my colleague, the Minister for International Relations, I would like to have it. I can assure the Hon. Member that we will bring it directly and immediately to the attention of Ethiopian authorities.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and the use of the Official Languages of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) had the floor.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, just before the House rose for lunch I was pointing out that there is a lot of emotion surrounding the whole subject of language. There is a certain degree of fear, some prejudice and sometimes there are people who attempt to manipulate our fears and prejudices.
I also pointed to what I called linguistic imperialism. Certainly both English and French have been used in an imperialistic way to force themselves upon other peoples around the world. That is generally true of European languages, as I suppose it is of other languages in other parts of the world.
I pointed to the Canadian experience where Indian young people who went to residential schools and spoke their own Indian language were forced to speak English. Their mouths were washed out with soap if they spoke their own Indian language.
Today there is a situation in which many Indian nations are faced with the loss of their languages. Indeed, some have been lost because of that kind of cultural imperialism.
This Bill represents an attempt to do something quite different. We are trying to guarantee the equality of both our official languages.
Everyone recognizes that it is difficult to maintain a language when one is in a minority situation. That is certainly obvious when we consider Canada west of the Ottawa River. The further west one travels, the more difficult it is for francophone communities to maintain their own language. In British Columbia, for example, Maillardville is the only francophone community in that province which still maintains French as the language of the community.
At this time I want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for the kind of leadership he has shown in this whole question of language. I wish he had continued to show that leadership today by speaking on this Bill because it would have been helpful if he had spoken. However, he chose not to do so.
March 7, 1988

When he was Leader of the Opposition he showed a degree of leadership and courage in standing up to some Conservatives from Manitoba who were obstructing the process toward getting linguistic justice in Manitoba.
What the Prime Minister is saying through Bill C-72 is that the whole program of bilingualism is not just a Trudeau-Liberal plot that has been foisted upon Canadians by Quebec, but a fundamental recognition of the true linguistic nature of Canada. I give credit to the Prime Minister for taking that approach.
We saw a similar act of leadership by a former leader of the Conservative Opposition, Robert Stanfield, when he refused the candidacy of Leonard Jones because Leonard Jones was taking such an intransigent approach to the whole question of francophone rights. This is not and should not be a partisan matter. It is, however, an area where leadership has and will continue to be needed. That is particularly true in western Canada where there is deep misunderstanding of the French fact.
We must admit that it is not limited to the Conservative Party but is an historic fact that runs deep. For instance, there was the situation in 1890 when Anglophones forming a majority in Manitoba stripped the francophone minority of their historic rights in their own language.
David Lewis, former leader of the NDP and former federal secretary of the old CCF Party, pointed out some of the difficulties in our own historic traditions regarding language. He pointed out that he always had some difficulty getting our previous leaders, including M.J. Caldwell and J.S. Woods-worth, to recognize the importance of linguistic and cultural matters to Quebec. He told the story of Harold Winch, a very distinguished member of the CCF who, in 1955, made an offhand remark that all MPs in the House of Commons should be speaking English. That was a completely outrageous suggestion. It was uttered before the time of simultaneous translation. It caused a furore because it was completely contrary to Party policy. However, it was the type of remark that western Canadians were inclined to make in the House of Commons. That took place over 30 years ago, and we have made progress since then. However, there are some people who are still rooted in those old fears and prejudices. I think it is incumbent upon the Government to give some real leadership in this matter, not only in terms of bringing this Bill forward and ensuring it gets through the House, but in addressing the real fears some people have, fears which some people are attempting to manipulate in what I consider to be an unscrupulous way.
It is on that basis that I welcomed the letter that was put into the Western Report by 10 western cabinet Ministers. I think that is important. I think it would also be important if the Prime Minister had spoken in this debate. I think it would have been important if more of the back-benchers from
Official Languages Act
western Canada had been willing to speak in this debate. Not all of the back-benchers from western Canada in the Conservative Party agree with the Neanderthal attitude of the Back-Bench Committee. There are a number of back-benchers in the Conservative Party who take a reasoned approach to this. I think more of those people should have spoken up to assure the people of western Canada that this legislation is good legislation and there is nothing to fear from it.
I would be glad to answer any questions that any Member has.


Mr. Winegard:: Madam Speaker, I have listened to this debate through most of the morning and now into the afternoon. What I really do not understand is, since we obviously have agreement in principle, why we do not get busy and vote on it. I ask my colleagues to my right if they are ready to vote.
I do not know why we continue to talk. Let us get the Bill into committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there any more questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I do not believe there is anyone in this House who disagrees with the main principle of this Bill, which is that Canadians, in terms of the Constitution of Canada, where there is significant demand, will be able to get services in the official language of their choice. I do not think there is any disagreement with that at all. But there is another principle contained in the Bill that in fact has nothing to do with official languages and has everything to do with constitutional changes as they affect the northern territories. I want to address this very briefly.
This principle is contained in Clause 90 of the Bill which states as follows:
The ordinance entitled the Official Languages Act, made on June 28, 1984
by the Commissioner in Council, as amended on June 26, 1986, may be
amended or repealed by the Commissioner in Council only if the amendment
or repeal is concurred in by Parliament through an amendment to this Act.
Of course, the Official Languages Act referred to here is the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories, a statute passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories.
The inclusion of this principle in the Bill is adding insult to the Meech Lake injury. It says in effect that the elected representatives of the people of the territories, at the provincial-type level, are not to be trusted, that Ottawa in some way has to maintain control, that the apron strings will remain tied.
There is no precedent in the Northwest Territories Act or any of the Acts establishing provinces where this type of control is to be maintained by the Parliament of Canada. In fact, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the people I represent, it is completely unnecessary and, coming as it does after the Meech Lake agreement in which the territories were treated so badly, it cannot fail to elicit this deep feeling on the part of my constituents.

March 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
If one examines the language laws in the Northwest Territories, one will find that we have probably the most progressive language law in the whole of Canada. Not only does the Act respect English and French as official languages, but it also respects the many indigenous languages spoken in the Territories which were spoken there probably thousands of years before ever a word of English or French was uttered on this continent. The people who speak those languages do not want to lose them. They are faithful to those languages. They feel the same way about their languages as the people in Quebec undoubtedly feel about the French language.
Much work has been done in the territories with respect to the extension of French language services to the small French speaking minority there. We would have to thank the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Crombie) for making funds available so that those services can be extended.
The history of Clause 90 goes back to the Joyal-Nerysoo Agreement of 1984. At that time Serge Joyal was the Secretary of State for Canada, and I suspect this was a rather unequal treaty. It is my suspicion that it was forced on Richard Nerysoo, who was then the Government Leader in the territories. It was done at a time when funds were to be made available to the territories for the provision of these French services as well as services in indigenous languages.
The agreement specified that Clause 90 as it now reads be applied to a Bill which was then entitled Bill C-25. It was the official languages Bill-not unlike the Bill we have before us today-which was to have been brought forward by the Liberal Government of the day but, for some reason or other, it died on the Order Paper.
Whatever the situation was in 1984, it certainly does not exist today. Clause 90 is redundant, superfluous and unnecessary. If for some remote reason, and I cannot foresee it happening, the territories wanted to amend their Official Languages Act in a way which took away the rights of Frenchspeaking people-and I do not think this would happen-there are various recourses available to the federal Government to deal with this situation. It is not necessary to put Clause 90 in the Bill. Federal authorities can instruct the Commissioner of the Territories to refuse consent to any amendment to the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories. Federal authorities retain the power of disallowance. It can disallow any territorial legislation. Over and above that, it has the power to enact overriding legislation should it so choose. Therefore, Clause 90 is not necessary at all.
On February 17, the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, feeling as strongly about this issue as I do, adopted the following resolution:
Whereas the people of the Northwest Territories and the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories have in recent years taken large steps towards the achievement of responsible government;
And whereas there is presently, before the Parliament of Canada, a federal Bill which provides for a reduction in the legislative authority of the Legislative Assembly of the N.W.T.;
Therefore, be it resolved:
-that this Legislative Assembly declare its strong opposition, through the
Speaker, to the enactment of Clause 90 of Federal Bill C-72 presently before
the Parliament of Canada, which clause reduces the legislative authority of
this Assembly.
I would like to record my thanks to two Members of the House of Commons in particular who have spoken on this issue already. One, of course, is the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior (Mr. Penner) representing the Liberal Party who is in the House this afternoon. The other is the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) of the New Democratic Party.
Those of us who are familiar with northern issues realize that this is not a Party issue. Rather, it is one that acts against the interests of the territories eventually becoming a province in their own right. Hopefully, that is something that we are all agreed upon regardless of our Party persuasions.
I am not really pessimistic about this because I have every expectation that Clause 90 will be removed at committee stage. Therefore I would like to get this matter to committee at an early opportunity. Presumably, at that time, the Governments of the territories will have an opportunity to appear as witnesses. I think that this is really a technicality that can be put to rights with no great problem.
Finally, I would like to say that the territories have now come of age. Constitutional authority once granted to them is not to be rescinded. Here we are trying to rescind that authority under the guise of a Bill that deals with official languages. That is not acceptable to me or to my constituents. Therefore I hope that every consideration will be given to the remarks that I have made and to the remarks of other Members of the House of Commons speaking on the same issue when the Bill is referred to committee.


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


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I listened with care to the comments of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). He has addressed an important matter felt quite keenly in the Northwest Territories. I would like to say something along a very similar line on behalf of the Government of the Yukon and in recognition of the fact that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) is not able to be here today. I know that she wanted to address a particular concern which is quite similar to the one which has just been put forward regarding the Northwest Territories.
We are concerned that the Bill be considered carefully in committee. We expect that it will soon go to committee. We are concerned that in Clause 3 of the Bill in which federal institutions are defined there is an exclusion, which is, of course, relevant to what the Hon. Member was just addressing. The definition of federal institution does not include any
March 7, 1988

institution of the Council or Government of the Northwest Territories. Because that particular exclusion is in place one might conclude that the Government of the Yukon, an institution of the Council or the Government of the Yukon, is in fact included under "federal institutions". That is a matter of grave concern to the Government of the Yukon. I think I can say that it is of grave concern to the entire Legislature and to all the people of that part of Canada.
This concern is very similar to the one expressed by the Hon. Member from the Northwest Territories and requires application here because the Yukon is practising full self-government. After the Meech Lake meeting the question of the Yukon, as with the Northwest Territories, achieving provincial status becomes profoundly problematic. That is one of the objectionable points that has been raised about the Meech Lake agreement.
It is proper that the Parliament of Canada should respect the Legislature, Council and Government of the Yukon and not impose on them official bilingualism but rather have them accept as we wish it to happen in the other provinces of Canada, the standing of English and French as official languages as is true in New Brunswick. We would like that to happen in other cases. The Government of the Yukon is advancing services and extending services and so on. But it is necessary at committee to take this up.
As the Hon. Member has anticipated, some revisions relating to the imposition of constraints on the Government of the Assembly of the Northwest Territories are essential. Similarly, there needs to be a recognition of this concern for the Yukon in the committee's consideration of the Bill.
I appreciate your allowing me the time, Madam Speaker, to put this case on behalf of the Yukon in the absence of the Hon. Member who is away on business elsewhere.


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, all I can say is that I agree with the comments of the Hon. Member. I did not speak of the Yukon in my address because I was not entirely clear what it is that the Government of the Yukon wants. It has not advised me of its particular standing on the issue. I would be pleased if it would be so kind as to do so.
When one looks at the Bill one sees that in many respects the Yukon has been treated even worse than the territories. The Government and the Legislature of the Yukon have been treated very much as a federal government Department in the Bill. I am sure that although the Government has not told me this, it would find that unacceptable.


B. Keith Penner: Madam Speaker, I want to begin by commending my friend, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), for drawing attention to the difficulties with respect to Clause 90. Toward the end of my remarks I wish to indicate my strong support for an amendment to that particular clause which in no way affects the principle of the Bill.
Official Languages Act
I am prepared to vote on the Bill, but my constituents would expect me, because of its great importance to French-speaking people outside Quebec, to express a strong word in favour of Bill C-72 which I consider to be an important Bill for Canada.
I consider it to be a necessary Bill. I consider it to be a piece of legislation which is in fact long overdue.
All of us here are aware that the Constitution of Canada provides that English and French be the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all of the institutions of Parliament and the Government of Canada.
However, the linguistic rights so guaranteed do not go far enough, in my view and certainly in the view of the Government and of the framers of the legislation, for example, in the area of the language of work. Hence there is a need for Bill C-72 which will serve to ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada, especially in those areas in which there has been some difficulty in the recent past. I am thinking of the administration of justice. I am thinking of providing services to the public in all areas of Canada. I am thinking of carrying out the work of federal institutions in either one of the official languages.
Further than that, and most important to me and to the constituency in northern Ontario which I represent which has a significant Franco-Ontarian population, is one of the stated objects of Bill C-72. I refer to the support and the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and generally the advancement of the equality of status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society.
Some Members of Parliament who keep abreast of these matters will know that in one of the major communities in my constituency, namely, Kapuskasing, there was in fact a struggle that finally ended up in the courts when the local council attempted to have the community designated as bilingual. In the end, because of the court decision, it had to pursue the goal of bilingualism in a somewhat different fashion. But had Bill C-72 been in place at the time, the cause of bilingualism would have been greatly strengthened.
Supporters of Canadian bilingualism will certainly hail and applaud this Bill. Bill C-72 bodes very well for the future of bilingualism in Canada. It builds on the very solid foundation that has been established by past Prime Ministers, including the Right Hon. John. G. Diefenbaker, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, and, most particularly, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

With a view to strengthening federal legislation on the official languages, Bill C-72 has a three-fold objective: first to ensure the equality of the official languages, second to support the development of the official languages minorities and the advancement of equal status for both official languages and,

March 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
third, to define the powers and obligations of federal institutions with respect to this matter.

Clause 33 of Bill C-72 makes English and French the languages of work in all federal institutions. It grants to officers and employees of all federal institutions the right to use either of the official languages.
It has already been drawn to the attention of this House that the February issue of Western Report interprets this clause to mean that if a person is not bilingual then-

-you cannot work for the federal Government.

That, of course, is a gross misinterpretation. In that context, it does seem to me that a new generation of young Canadians is coming to realize that to be bilingual is a qualification which will assist enormously in promoting a career in the federal Public Service. The fact that many jobs now require fluency in both official languages should upset no one. In the same manner as mathematics is essential for engineering, chemistry is necessary to a career in pharmacy, and anatomy is required for medicine, it is increasingly recognized, if a person chooses a career in the Public Service of Canada at the federal level, that bilingualism is a prerequisite for that person to extend his or her career as far as his or her abilities will allow.
I was able to cut my political teeth on the policy of official bilingualism. 1 did so especially during the first Trudeau administration. I did so in all parts of the country where initially the policy was extremely unpopular. For example, I can remember on a radio call-in show where a man said to me that he was sick and tired of having French jammed down his throat. I asked him to elaborate a little, and he made reference to the famous cornflakes box. The conversation ended very abruptly when I told him that he was meant to eat the contents of the box, not the box itself.
Clause 40 of this Bill has particular appeal for me, and also for the Franco-Ontarian constituents whom I represent in this House. Under Clause 40 the federal Government is committed to enhancing the vitality of minority communities, supporting and assisting their development, and fostering the full recognition and use of both official languages.
It will be the task of Canada's Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) to direct a co-ordinated approach to the implementation of this provision. Federal Ministers will be empowered by Bill C-72, if they are so designated by the Governor in Council or the Cabinet, to consult and negotiate with provincial Governments to ensure the co-ordination of federal, provincial, and municipal educational services in both official languages.
Canada's first Prime Minister said it as well as anyone. Sir John A. Macdonald, a Conservative Prime Minister, when
speaking to the House of Commons on February 17, 1890, as reported on page 745 of Hansard, stated:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other; I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible.
Canada's first Prime Minister was correct. His statement, however, was made with a negative connotation. He spoke of the futility of repressing one language or the other in Canada.
Today, with Bill C-72, we are able to speak of the advancement of bilingualism, enhancing the vitality of English and French where it is necessary to do so, assisting the development of two official languages, and fostering their full recognition.
To the Party opposite, which now forms the Government of Canada, I can only say, "Congratulations. You have come a long way". In this legislation what the Government is doing is essentially right in every respect.
Henri Bourassa wrote this in 1916:
The preservation and simultaneous growth of two national languages-far from being an obstacle to the progress of Canada, constitutes its most powerful factor and our greatest national asset.
At this time we are only considering the principle of the Bill. There will be another time and occasion for a clause by clause analysis. With reference to one clause which I referred to earlier, I do wish to raise the need for an amendment. In advancing the cause of bilingualism, which I fully support, I fail to see why it is necessary to reduce the legislative authority of the Fegislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. I refer to Clause 90 of Bill C-72 which prohibits that Legislature from amending one of its own statutes, namely, the Northwest Territories Official Languages Act, without the prior approval of the federal Parliament.
Hon. Members opposite will be quick to point out to me, as some have already done, that Clause 90 is consistent with an agreement reached between the then Secretary of State and the Government of the Northwest Territories on June 28, 1984. That is an agreement made by the previous Liberal Government.
I say to the House that such a provision was unnecessary then, and I further submit that paragraph 8, which put that obligation on the Legislative Assembly to seek permission from this Parliament, is no longer even in effect. The Bill which gave it effect, Bill C-26 of the day, died on the Order Paper.
All of that aside, we are now living in 1988. Despite the Meech Lake Accord which is a set-back for the North, the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories is rapidly evolving toward full responsible Government. There is no agreement now in effect regarding official languages. The Northwest Territories has its own statute. Therefore, it is entirely logical and reasonable to argue that Clause 90 is not required.
March 7, 1988

Therefore, at a later stage in the consideration of this Bill, I will either move an amendment myself, or if the amendment comes from my friend, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, I will support it. As I stated earlier, this in no way touches on the principle of this excellent piece of legislation.
I wish to conclude by commending the Government in general for bringing forward Bill C-72. I applaud its efforts, I welcome all aspects of this Bill, the thrust of it, and in particular I extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State who is responsible for the Bill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I enjoyed listening to the Hon. Member. His address was positive. I believe some of the points he was raising are very important. For instance, the Bill does not require everybody to be bilingual. The Bill is based on the fact that there will always be English-speaking and Frenchspeaking unilingual people in this country. A second language is always advantageous, whether it is French, Ukrainian, Danish, Swedish, Chinese or whatever. There are Canadians today who speak two and three languages. There are others who never in a lifetime will want nor will there be a need for them to have a second language. Consequently, I think we have to make it very clear in our regulations and in the committee as it goes through this Bill that there will be no discrimination against unilinguals in the market-place where the work is done.
There is always the hope that people will be able to learn another language. As I mentioned this morning, the Government of Alberta is already encouraging people to learn the second official language. Some 23,000 students are enrolled in that program under the auspices of the Government of Alberta.
I would like the Hon. Member's comments. In the everyday working place that is wholly unilingual, the foreman, or the boss as he is sometimes called, should never be worried about the fact that he will not be promoted because he knows only one language, the one being the language of his working place. I think Canadians should be aware of that point and the committee should also cover it very carefully.
There is another point I would like to mention. I mention both points now to save time. The Hon. Member talked about federal institutions. He is right. This Bill does apply to federal institutions. Consequently, there is no reason at this time for people in provincial or municipal courts or provincial or municipal bodies to fear that someone will force them to speak a second language whether that language is French or English. I think that is a very important point we have to recognize.
The Bill is very important and the regulations and the administration of it are very important. I hope that when the Bill comes out of the committee it will be abundantly clear to all concerned that in a unilingual area there will be no pressure whatsoever placed on people forcing them to learn another language and that they will be able to have their promotions
Official Languages Act
on merit and ability. I would appreciate hearing the Hon. Member's comments.


B. Keith Penner: Madam Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has raised that matter. The Bill itself takes account of the concern, the concern about the merit principle. In Clause 38 of the Bill in Part VI which deals with the language of work, it says quite clearly:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating or derogating from
the principle of selection of personnel according to merit.
I notice that the Hon. Member for Bow River was very precise in raising the point. He is talking about those areas where it is unnecessary to be bilingual, and in that area of the Public Service promotion should not be denied because a person does not have the capacity to speak both official languages. The Bill makes that perfectly clear. I think the Hon. Member from Bow River raised the point because I indicated to him that there is a growing number of positions in the federal service, certainly senior positions, in which bilingualism is required. I think I would continue to make it an appeal to the young people of Canada, and I know the young people in Alberta have responded very positively to it, that if they want a senior career or want to advance their career in the Public Service of Canada then bilingualism is one of the attributes they should have on their curriculum vitae. It will help them enormously.
It has now become commonplace to say that it is unthinkable that we would ever have a Prime Minister again in this country who is not fluently bilingual. If that is true for the Prime Minister of the country, it is true for many other senior positions in the Public Service, and the young people of the country will want to be cognizant of that. Having said that, however, the point made by the Hon. Member for Bow River is a valid one that where only one language is required, no one should be restricted from being promoted in a particular area.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take part in the debate on Bill C-72 this afternoon. We are asked to consider Bill C-72 respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada so as to promote respect for this country's linguistic duality. Madam Speaker, we need this piece of legislation to reaffirm our commitment respecting Canada's bilingualism policy. And even if there were no other reason to introduce Bill C-72, this reason in itself is enough to justify reaffirming this commitment in the House of Commons today. Of course, Madam Speaker, there are other reasons, and I will be dealing with them in the course of my remarks later this afternoon.
The first thing I want to say about this measure is: at last we are debating it in the House of Commons. I say "at last", Madam Speaker, because we have been waiting for two years to have this kind of measure. The Bill was introduced in the House on June 25, 1987 and promptly forgotten. Indeed the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) moved a non-confidence motion in the House on February 1 last to

March 7, 1988
Official Languages Act
denounce the Government's refusal to forge ahead with the official languages issue. Here is the text of the motion sponsored by my colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier:
That this House condemns the government for its inaction, its lack of political will and its hesitation to accept debate in the House of Commons, at the second reading stage, on Bill C-72 respecting the status and use of the official languages, thus causing a clear setback in the application of the Act by federal departments and agencies, in addition to having detrimental effects on national unity.
A hard-hitting motion, Madam Speaker, but still it did stir up some action: a few days later, on February 8, the House began the second reading debate on Bill C-72. It lasted two days and during that time seven Government Members and five opposition Members took the floor, hardly justification to claim that the measure has been debated at length in the House of Commons. Yet earlier today the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) took pleasure in blaming the Opposition for the snail-pace progress of this legislation. As he is wont to do, the Prime Minister takes it out on parliamentarians and other political Parties whenever he wants to hide his incompetence. We know better, Madam Speaker, we know that this measure has been at a standstill for two weeks and I would urge the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) to pay attention-


Richard Grisé: If the Prime Minister had spoken to this Bill you would still be making the same remarks.


Don Boudria: -because he too has a lot to learn, Madam Speaker, a lot more than most other people, and if he listens carefully he just might learn something.
Finally, we have today this third day of debate in the House and, although the Prime Minister has chosen not to participate in it, he is to be blamed just the same for the lack of progress of the issue in the House. The two other political leaders, namely the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) and the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) have both participated in it. So far, the Prime Minister has refused to do so. I trust that he will honour us with his participation before this second reading debate comes to an end.
As I was saying, Madam Speaker, even if it were for no other reason than to reaffirm our commitment to the official languages issue, we should have Bill C-72 just the same. As 1 was saying, however, there are other reasons: first of all, since the original Official Languages Act was adopted, we have passed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Sections 16 to 20 of the Charter dealing with the official languages issue. We have had also the Meech Lake Accord, so that we need to make a sort of new commitment and rejuvenate this legislation which is already several years old.
There had been several other previous initiatives which recognized the linguistic duality of this country so that the Official Languages Act is not the first. Think of the history of our country: The Quebec Act, 1774, made reference to the linguistic duality; The Union Act, 1840; The British North
America Act, 1867; and The Manitoba Act, 1870, even if this legislation was never or almost never enforced, and many others. Finally, let us not forget the Laurendeau-Dunton Report which gave birth to the present Official Languages Act. Naturally, this Laurendeau-Dunton Report was prepared at the request of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, a former Primer Minister of Canada. In this Laurendeau-Dunton Report, the so-called Royal Commission of Inquiry on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in Canada concluded that our country needed an Official Languages Act to recognize in a concrete fashion the Canadian linguistic duality, as well as the need, privilege and right of every Canadian to be served by the Federal Government in the language of his or her choice.
Some have asked why we need a new Bill and why we need it now. We need it because it is finally time for us to revamp a law which has aged many years and because of the constitutional amendments we have made over recent decades including the Meech Lake constitutional Accord which has not yet been fully adopted and the 1982 constitutional document.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, in a press release dated February 4, deplores the Government's failure to act on the official languages issue, and I want to quote the following from the text released by the Federation:
What is the Mulroney Government waiting for? Why won't it proceed with
second and third reading of a Bill that was tabled six months ago? We can find
no explanation for the delay, and we want the Government to proceed
immediately.
Madam Speaker, it is clear Francophones outside Quebec are upset about the Conservative Government's failure to act. What does the Bill contain? I think it would be in order to give a brief enumeration of the main points of Bill C-72. First of all, the Bill will contain a preamble, defining the Government's commitments with respect to official languages. It will contain measures to provide for improved access to the administration of justice in both languages, a very important issue.
There will also be measures to improve the access to, and the direct visibility of, bilingual federal communications and services.
There are provisions recognizing the rights of Canadians to work in the official language of their choice in federal institutions, in accordance with the linguistic responsibility of these institutions.
There is also recognition of the principle of full participation by French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians in federal institutions.
There are many other measures, but I would like to conclude with what I consider to be a very important one, namely, the primacy of the rights and obligations of the future legislation
March 7, 1988

or this new Act over federal statutes that are not compatible with its provisions.
Madam Speaker, I have the honour of representing in the House the electoral district with the highest percentage of Francophones outside the province of Quebec.
There are about 70,000 Francophones in my riding, the electoral district of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. The riding borders on Quebec, and as you know, Madam Speaker, since you cross my riding on your way to Ottawa, some parts of the riding border on Quebec to the north, east and south. So although we are in Ontario, we are almost surrounded by Quebec, which partly explains the high percentage of Francophones in my riding.
1 was born in Quebec and am a Franco-Ontarian by adoption, so I see myself as a Franco-Ontarian, as a Quebecer, but above all, as a French-speaking Canadian.

When we discuss the issue of official languages, it is important to bring to the attention of the House the commitment of the Government in that regard. One thing which has happened over the last few years which best describes to me what I believe is a lack of commitment on the part of the present Government was the trial of one Luc Paquette. Mr. Paquette asked the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta for a French trial. He won the right to a French trial with a judge, jury and Crown Attorney. The federal Government appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal and challenged Mr. Paquette's right to the trial. Mr. Paquette ended up losing his right, though others who had made similar applications before were successful. Those who will make similar applications in the future, because of the precedent-setting decision in the Paquette case, will not be successful. I feel that that is an unfortunate move on the part of the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Hnatyshyn), one which should not have been contemplated and one which this Government will live to regret.

We know, Madam Speaker, that many conservative members do not support the Official Languages Bill. To my knowledge, this is the only legislation since I came to this House that, despite unanimous support from Cabinet ministers and both opposition parties, does not enjoy the unanimous support of Government back-benchers.


Mr. Blenkarn:: We will soon see!


Don Boudria: This is a very special situation, and a conservative member opposite is suggesting we will soon see. Indeed, Madam Speaker, we will see, first, whether Governe-ment members, who expressed such disagreement on the Bill, will be present to demand a division, since five members must rise to indicate their disapproval before there can be a division. Secondly, we will see whether there will be a division in this
Official Languages Act
House and whether hon. members will be present to vote in line with the views they expressed in this House in the past.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Let's get on with the vote now.


Don Boudria: Once again, we hear from government Members who do not think that debating this issue is important. They have a right to think that. However, we have been debating this Bill for three days in the House of Commons, and for an inept Member to state otherwise is totally inaccurate. He should be ashamed of himself that such an important piece of legislation is being refused the opportunity to be debated.

Some will suggest, Madam Speaker, that the official languages Bill will force Canadians to be bilingual in order to work in the Public Service. I have here the February 1, 1988 copy of the Alberta Report, an English language magazine published in western Canada, and I would like to show it to you, but since this is contrary to our rules, I will simply read the cover which states:
Si vous ne pouvez pas lire ceci, vous ne pouvez pas travaiiler pour Ic
gouvernement federal.
Translation: "If you can't read this, you can't work for the federal Government".

Madam Speaker, we know that such a statement is totally inaccurate. We know that of the 221,000 jobs in the Public Service, 60 per cent require English only; 7 per cent, French only, and 28 per cent are designated bilingual.
How is it then possible to utter such nonsense, suggesting that if a Canadian is not totally bilingual he or she cannot work in the Public Service? This is absolutely false, as most hon. members in this House know.

Earlier this year there was an election in the Province of Ontario which, of course, was won in a landslide by the Liberal Party. In that election one political Party chose to fight the election against bilingualism and, in my opinion, on the backs of French Canadians in Ontario.
This political Party, supported by an outfit calling itself APEC, the so-called Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, was going from constituency to constituency trying to convince municipalities to adopt resolutions declaring themselves officially unilingual. In my opinion those resolutions were reprehensible, and luckily only a few municipalities fell for that trap set by APEC and the issue went nowhere. However, the general theme was picked up by the provincial leader of the Conservative Party and that Party was just about wiped out in the election.

March 7, 1988
Western Economic Diversification Act
There was a message in that, the message being that Canadians have now evolved beyond that. If such schemes ever worked, they will not work in 1988. I am sure that the present federal Government has realized that and I hope that it will assist in their decision some of the back-benchers who had some reservations about the Bill.


Mr. Horner:: You haven't convinced anybody.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, it is not important that I convince anyone. What is important is that the people of Canada have an Official Languages Act which is in their interest and will reflect the fact that we live in 1988, not that we are vestiges of the former century, as some Members of this House would like us to be.
I will conclude by reminding this House that the Mayor of Alexandria, a town in my constituency, said not long ago that APEC should stand for "All People Created Equal".

All Canadians are equal. All Canadians have equal rights. We will know in a few moments whether Government back-benchers will have the courage to express their convictions, whether they will rise in this House to demand a division to determine whether members support or reject Bill C-72. I hope we will enact the Bill. Naturally, as anyone else I wish for amendments, improvements, but a vast majority in this House will support Bill C-72 today, and we will send it to a committee of the House. But Bill C-72 must not die in that committee! We must discuss the matter, we must discuss it rapidly, and bring it back in this House to enact it in order that Canada in 1988 may have an Official Languages Act, 1988.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: I heard someone say no.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I did not hear a "no" but I will ask the question again to make sure that there is unanimity. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.
I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill C-l 13, an Act to promote the development and diversification of the economy of Western Canada, to establish the Department of Western Economic Diversification and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The last time Bill C-l 13 was under consideration, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) had completed his speech.

The question and comment period following the Hon. Member's speech is now available to Members. If there are no questions or comments the Chair is prepared to recognize Hon. Members for debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, in view of the progress which the House has made today I think it would be in order to suspend the sitting of the House until five o'clock in order to allow for Private Members' Hour to take place at that time.
March 7, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion made by the Hon. Minister of State. Is there unanimous consent for that?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 4.10 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5.02 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It being 5 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
ADVISABILITY OF ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL FOOD POLICY Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of establishing an improved national marketing structure for all major farm produced commodities and negotiate with the provinces a national food policy with over-all production targets and market sharing.
He said: Madam Speaker, last Friday night I attended the Essex County Federation of Agriculture annual meeting to honour their activities. I found myself sitting opposite two young people who had been working since they entered the labour force to try to earn enough to provide some kind of basis on which they could purchase a farm. They came from farming families and wanted to establish a future in farming for themselves. This motion is very much directed at them and toward hundreds of farmers across my constituency with whom I have talked in the last three and a half years.
Frankly, they have faced very difficult circumstances throughout that three and a half year period. The two young people I faced last Friday should be the future of our farming community, yet that young woman and man had found themselves in a position where the prospect of getting into farming, rather than becoming a more realistic goal, was becoming less likely, despite the fact they were earning more and saving more money.
I suggest that this is just one sign of the reality of the farm crisis which exists across Canada. The farm crisis in Essex County and in many other parts of Canada can be seen in terms of the very heavy debt loads which farmers are carrying. The crisis in Essex County is shown by a drop from one-third to two-fifths in the price of land which farmers have held for the last four to six years. The consequence of this to a farmer who has contracted a very significant debt is that the asset which covers that debt is very much reduced year by year.
National Food Policy
However, the heart of the crisis is not the debt load which farmers carry. As the Essex County Federation of Agriculture told the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) in a letter: "Despite highly efficient agricultural operations the current prices for farm commodities do not cover the basic costs of production in many cases, do not provide any return on investment, nor a reasonable wage for labour expended plus management skills".
In addition, as I have suggested in the House on a number of occasions, there are various mechanisms of harassment which Governments seem to be using to undercut farmers' potential for the future. For instance, one has seen in Essex County a doubling in the tax audits affecting farmers in the past year. Much tougher definitions are being applied in the process of this auditing, which has the effect of putting the farmer in a catch 22 situation. He or she must go out to find a job off farm in order to cover debts and the low prices for commodities, then tax audits refuse to classify this farmer as a full-time farmer because of the job he or she has had to take off farm. The consequence is that they are able to write off much less of their losses than was true previously.
Of course, farmers are not just sitting back and taking this. Farmers across Essex County and right across the country are fighting back with imaginative approaches and new methods of organization.
Again, to use my own constituency of Essex-Windsor, as an example the National Farmers' Union has formed a new local within the county which has expanded tremendously. One of the methods it is using to fight back is to hire people with an accounting background to go to the various Farm Debt Review Boards, which are held to look at the farmers who have got into difficult debt positions, and through the National Farmers' Union could work out as effective and optimistic a picture of the farm operation under scrutiny as is possible.
The union has been quite successful in a number of cases in persuading both Farm Debt Review Boards and banks that farms which appeared at first glance to be non-viable, with some satisfactory writing down of debt, some sort of sharing of the debt burden-for which farmers are not responsible-are really viable. It is not farmers who raised interest rates to 22 per cent in the early 1980s. Yet they are the people who are having to carry the burden of this increase.
The National Farmers' Union has fought back on that level. The Essex County Federation of Agriculture has fought back on the question of prices and the lack of relationship between prices and the cost of production for most farmers. Our office in the last few days has been talking with various experts in the farm community in Essex County. They have been able to generate figures which give one a sense of the depth of the crisis. The cost of production of soybeans is about $6.08 per
[Stage Direction]
March 7, 1988
National Food Policy
bushel. The soybean growers' estimate of what they will receive as a price is $6.42 per bushel. It is at least some positive return, but a very small one. The cost of production of soft winter white wheat, another major crop in Essex County, is estimated at $3.19 per bushel. The market price as of today is $3.45 per bushel. Most farmers would have delivered their wheat in August of 1987, at which point the price was $3 per bushel. They would have lost something in the order of 19 cents to 20 cents per bushel with respect to their soft winter white wheat.
Perhaps the most hardest hit of commodities in my county is corn. The cost of production is approximately $3.18 per bushel. The market price is $2.02. The loss is over one dollar per bushel for these farmers.
What can we do when we are faced with these prices? I think it is something that has to concern all of us in this House. It is why I have tried on as many occasions as I could to speak out about these farm concerns. I think the first thing we have to do is to look at our marketing structures throughout this country. With respect to dairy farmers, with the feather industry, it has become viable, for the most part, to be a farmer, because there is successful supply management which works well. I speak with some personal experience on this subject. My family has operated a dairy farm north of Guelph very successfully since the period that supply management came in. So it has worked and it has worked with the feather industry.
Poultry farms are successful now and would not have been in the past. I recognize it is more complex for crops which are exported rather than serving the domestic market, as is the case, for the most part, with dairy products and the feather industry. However, with respect to those export crops, it is possible to have a two-price system. We have had it with respect to wheat quite successfully. One of my great sorrows with respect to the trade deal which has been presented by the Government to us in the House is that the two-price system for wheat is going to disappear. With respect to the two-price wheat system, the Ontario Wheat Board stated that Canada's two-price wheat policy has been a very important stabilizing factor in the general domestic wheat industry. The pricing mechanism provided by the policy has worked well for both the marketing board and the millers. Supplies have been assured and purchase risks have been eliminated through established prices to millers and processors.
It is not just processors; consumers as well have a predictable price. They do not see these jumps and ups and downs which have taken place in many farm commodities, which make it hard to predict. So they have a world for which they have been able to budget and which they understand. I think it is absolutely crucial that we have an improved marketing structure for all major farm produced commodities. It will have to be negotiated with the provinces. It will have to involve a national food policy, not just provincial food policies. We will have to accept over-all production targets and market sharing within our domestic market. Of course, we have to accept as a
reality also that for exports we cannot apply that kind of price predictability. We have to accept that those ups and downs are going to take place.
We have to negotiate with the provinces for the fullest possible coverage, for help for starting farmers. We have to deal with some of the problems, which, I admit, have existed with respect to national marketing structures, including the accelerated cost of quotas which have prevented some young farmers from getting into farming.
The last word I want to leave with the House is that besides the points made in this motion I stress that it is crucial that we keep in Canada the capacity to direct our own affairs with respect to agricultural policy. That is why I find the free trade proposal of the Government, the trade deal with the United States, to be so destructive with respect to many parts of agriculture, specifically those parts of agriculture that I represent in my constituency.
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join in this debate in Private Member's Hour on the motion raised by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).
The Hon. Member has touched on problems which are certainly common to agriculture across the country and which I think relate specifically to the grains and oilseeds sector which has been beset by low prices as a result of conditions in the market-place lying beyond the borders of our country. Of course, I am talking about the trade war between the United States and the European Economic Community. This is a problem which has been discussed countless times in the House. I do not think it needs revisiting at this point in time.
The question is what to do about it. Of course, a number of initiatives have been taken by the Government which I intend to enlarge upon later in my remarks.
First, I want to say in response to the Hon. Member's remarks that, certainly, there is an enormous overhang of farm debt out there. We are told right now that there is something in the order of $22 billion owing against farms in Canada. It is worth noting that the Standing Committee on Agriculture at this time is embarking upon a study of that very problem. It is called the "22 billion dollar problem". It is intended to try to seek some solutions to this overhang of farm debt resulting from the overcapitalization of agriculture during a period of rampant inflation followed by the catastrophic drop in grain and oil seed prices.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Clark) seconded the Hon. Member's motion. The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to indicate that he did so, not out of support for the intent of the motion, but because in the absence of any opposition Member in the House at that time he wanted the Member's motion to be heard. It was for that reason that he seconded the motion.
March 7, 1988

The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor talked about domestic wheat pricing, the two-price wheat policy, as some sort of argument in favour of the thrust of his motion that the Government consider further supply management schemes relative, I gather, to the grain sector. Frankly, I found that rather curious. There is no question that the domestic wheat benefit, the two-price wheat system, is being phased out at this time, not as a result of anything relating to the trade agreement between Canada and the United States but, rather, to the distorting influences which that artificial program has had on production and cropping patterns across Canada over the past several years.
In that regard I want to refer the Hon. Member to the report of the Special Committee on the Pricing of Domestic Wheat which reported to the House in the spring of 1986. That was an all-Party committee which travelled across the country. It listened to the interests of farm groups, producers, Governments and food processors. It concluded that there were problems relating to the policy. In particular it related to the fact that it was already leading to a distortion and a displacement of production in the sense that an artificial price of $6 or $7 per bushel of wheat would tend to encourage a tremendous movement into that kind of production in areas where, traditionally, other crops had been grown. Over the past two years we have seen the problems that that committee flagged becoming exacerbated.
As the Hon. Member has pointed out, the result is that in Ontario there has been a tremendous movement into the production of hard wheat, which traditionally has not been grown there, with a consequent displacement of that domestic wheat benefit and a shift in it from western Canada into Ontario and, indeed, into other areas of the country. I think that has caused considerable difficulties. It perhaps points out one of the problems relating to the sort of policy which has the capability of sending the wrong signals into the market-place, distorting production and sending producers chasing after something that is artificial. I think it has caused a problem.
In any event, I want to assure the House that the Government well knows the importance of agriculture to the country. It recognizes the enormous contribution that agriculture makes to our economy. It well understands that it has a responsibility to ensure that agriculture has a strong and stable future.
It is important to be clear about this responsibility. I do not believe it is up to the Government to impose marketing systems that Canadian farmers neither need nor want. What the Government must do is to continue to work with the provinces and with the private sector to develop effective long-term plans. That is exactly what it is doing at this time. The national agriculture strategy signed by the federal and provincial Ministers of Agriculture in the fall of 1986 is a major milestone in federal-provincial relations.
At that meeting the Ministers agreed that the long-term future of the agri-food industry depends upon maintaining existing markets, developing new markets and responding to
National Food Policy
changes in the domestic and international environment. It depends on effective measures to address farm income problems.
Regulated marketing can be an important part of the solution. Supply management has certainly helped to provide stable incomes to producers in certain sectors, particularly the dairy, poultry and egg sectors. The policy of the Government and of the Progressive Conservative Party has been to look to producer choice in those particular sectors. If the bulk of producers want that form of program, it has been the policy of the Government to attempt to assist. In that regard I cite the establishment of the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Agency in 1986 during the term of this Government.
There is no question that supply management can be effective in certain sectors, notably ones that 1 think would have difficulty in the international market, those sectors which traditionally have not been exporters. Of course, it was the producers themselves who asked for the authority to establish national marketing plans in these areas. It was the producers themselves who helped to bring their own supply management systems about.
Producers in many other sectors simply do not consider supply management to be a viable solution. I cite cattle and hog producers who are strongly opposed to production targets and to market shares. Although the issue is raised repeatedly, a majority of red meat producers have rejected consistently supply management as being incompatible with their marketing goals. Our red meat industry competes successfully in the international market-place exporting much of what it produces.
Another example of course is the grains and oilseeds sector in which production targets and market sharing run against the current consensus among grain and oil seed producers and their organizations. The fact is that fully 80 per cent of our production of wheat, for example, goes into the international market-place. Clearly, with that kind of emphasis on export it is impossible to apply any sort of suggestion such as the Hon. Member has made relative to that sector.
I see that my time is almost up. I wish to reiterate that the Government recognizes the crisis caused by the international trade war in the grains and oilseeds sector. It has come forward with programs of historical magnitude in terms of assistance to the grains and oilseeds producers, including huge payments under western grain stabilization, two successive Canadian special grains programs, fuel tax rebates, and a myriad of other programs to help tide the grain producers over this time of crisis.
On the international scene, various Ministers, including the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer), through the Cairns Group have been actively pursuing attempts to bring a measure of sanity back into the international market-place. Indeed, this week the Minister of State

March 7, 1988
National Food Policy
for Grains and Oilseeds returned from Argentina after another round of talks to attempt to reduce the effects of subsidies world-wide which have had the effect of causing these disastrous prices to our producers.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for again flagging the problem. It gives us an opportunity here to point out that some of it is caused by factors beyond our borders, but Government is responding to it in a measure which is unparalleled in Canadian history.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to say a few words on the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Agricultural marketing is perhaps the most difficult and challenging responsibility for farmers and Governments across the country in the whole agricultural production question.
We are very capable, particularly in the developed countries of the world, of producing massive amounts of food. The question is, how can we market those products both domestically and internationally at a price that is adequate to give the farmer a decent return on his investment?
We have seen the chaos created by the United States with its Farm Bill and with the massive subsidy program, which is not only designed to drive down the price of food, especially grains and cash crop items, but at the same time guarantee its own producers a very reasonable level of return. At the same time as the United States is driving down the world price, it has been providing massive export subsidies to its markets. It has been estimated that it has driven the price down by approximately $3 billion and provided some $6 billion or $8 billion per year in compensation to its producers.
This total chaos has been the greatest challenge ever faced by Canadian agriculture. No piece of legislation in the history of our country, in this Legislature or in any other, has had such a devastating impact on Canadian agriculture. Thousands and thousands of farmers have been put out of business because of the international trade wars which are now going on between the United States and the European Economic Community.
The disturbing part is that perhaps those trade wars are not finished. At some stage in the next year or two we hope that the United States and the EEC will draw back. Although the funding is only for three years, the American Bill provides for the legislation being in place for five years. If the funding continues and no international agreements are made, then the same chaos will continue.
We have seen a dramatic rise in the number of farmers in our country who are facing bankruptcy. It has risen from
30,000	or 32,000 to approximately 50,000 farmers who are either in serious financial difficulty or who are totally insolvent. The Government has not responded. Over one year ago the FCC went into a lack of financial viability. The Government has not responded by providing funding to take FCC out
of its state of insolvency. On April 30, 1987 that was estimated at $124 million, and the estimates are that by the end of this fiscal year it will be up to $300 million. It is clear that the situation for many farmers is untenable with regard to the farm debt crisis.
The situation of extremely low world prices, farm debt brought on by devaluation in farm land, put in context with the uncertainty of the whole supply managed market for the dairy and poultry industries, for the fruit and vegetable industry, for the grape industry, and for many other industries, by the free trade deal with the United States, has caused either the greatest financial instability, in the case of supply management managed commodities, or the greatest uncertainty which our country has ever seen in agriculture.
The free trade deal will cause immediate violent repercussions in some areas, for example, in the production of grapes. Our grape producers in the Okanagan Valley and the Niagara Escarpment have input costs of $600 to $800 a tonne for grapes, competing with grapes produced in the southern areas of California at $100 to $200 a tonne. This is simply not viable. That whole industry is facing a colossal disaster, an agricultural and industrial adjustment of tremendous proportions, yet there is no provision in the free trade agreement for that. Simply put, they have been sacrificed. They know it. They have been promised there would be a phase-out or adjustment period of 10 years. There is no adjustment period of 10 years; it is cold turkey next January, if the deal is passed.
The deal may not be passed. The United States Congress may well turn it down. The United States Congress may well require that the Government of Canada fulfil its commitment in the trade deal to ensure that the provinces will comply. The Government stated it would do that. There is no known way that that can be done, unless the Government invokes the peace, order, and good government clause, the emergency stand-by powers of the Constitution. As I understand it, the Government has stated it will not invoke those sections of the Constitution in order to implement the trade deal, so the deal may fall apart because of that. It may fall apart because of a general election. But at this stage we have to assume that the Government, having 210 Members of Parliament, will likely pass the enabling legislation.
The whole range of agricultural commodities will face the problems of the free trade deal, including canola meal and canola oil, which have found a tremendous market in the Pacific northwest, where it will be subjected to the loss of transportation assistance under the Western Grain Transportation Act. It is expected they will lose some $30 or $35 a tonne for transportation under the free trade deal, whereas the tariffs which apply to canola meal and to canola oil going to the Pacific Northwest running as high as over $30 a tonne will not be viable for them. It is just the same with fruit and vegetables. The growers have operated under the protection of seasonal tariffs. If they are an expanding industry, those tariffs are removed. The snap-back provision, which is in the Act and often hailed by the Government, is not in fact available.
March 7, 1988

Without getting into all of the commodities, Madam Speaker, you can see that the free trade deal with the United States will have an extremely adverse effect on the marketing of a number of commodities. The commodities are simply not viable when put into direct competition with low-priced commodities coming in from the United States at uncontrolled levels and price.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate on the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), who is proposing that we have a national food policy with production targets and market shares for all major farm commodities. He is suggesting that we have supply management for industries that depend greatly on export. If we followed his suggestion, we would lose 35 per cent of all the pork producers in Canada. One in three, every third person down the road, would be out of business. If we followed his suggestion, we would have 80 per cent of the wheat producers in Canada out of business and 12 per cent of the beef producers. The Member is suggesting that we can find some way to have both supply management and an export market, but I do not think that is at all possible and the end result will be as I have already said.
The Canadian Consumers Association emphasized that point and the producers in the dairy, poultry and egg sectors have benefited greatly from the supply management schemes that are in place at the present time. Other countries have not had these programs and they have paid through massive export subsidies, subsidies which the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) spoke about as disrupting farm income in Canada, and, indeed, in North America. The Americans have had to do something by trying to buy down the excess dairy cattle. This happened in the United States last year and in the European Economic Community before. Certainly supply management has cost Canadian consumers a small amount, but they have a good and high quality product on a regular basis and consumers and producers have been well served.
This Government is fully supportive of supply management schemes. In fact, we have, since we came into power, brought in the latest of the supply management schemes through a national marketing agency for broiler hatching eggs which was created in 1986. Supply management is not the panacea for the entire agricultural industry. It is important that we recognize that the agricultural industry is very diverse and that what works in one sector indeed will not necessarily work in another sector or may perhaps be unnecessary in another sector. That is why the Government has made a commitment to producers that we will support whatever marketing systems producers decide work best for their particular commodities, as long as those interests are also in the public interest. Some commodity sectors believe that they are better off with a free market system. Most red meat producers, for instance, are opposed to supply management.
National Food Policy
In 1986, beef producers in this country earned cash receipts of $3.6 billion. Of this amount, more than $413 million came from exports of beef and beef products. This is the amount the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor would be prepared to sacrifice for a supply management scheme. Hog producers reported cash receipts of $2.1 billion. Exports accounted for more than $800 million of this amount. Again, this is the amount that would be sacrificed. Red meat exports earned more than $1.2 billion for the Canadian economy. That is more than $1.2 billion toward a favourable trade balance. Canada simply cannot afford to produce red meat exclusively for the domestic market. The red meat sector is certainly among the healthiest parts of the Canadian farm economy.
When dairy, poultry and egg producers opted for the supply management system, it was to bring order out of chaos. Their sectors had been ravaged by boom and bust cycles that cost them and Canadians a great deal. They sought some sort of orderly marketing to provide stability to their sectors. Red meat producers prefer unfettered markets, and they are managing quite well. What is more, contrary to what the Member for Algoma has just said, red meat producers are excited by their prospects under the free trade agreement. They anticipate increased export opportunities under free trade with the United States. This would be lost under a supply-managed scheme.
Many farm sectors will benefit from the removal of tariffs and the elimination of technical barriers, but perhaps none more so than the red meat sector. Stan Wilson, President of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, has said free trade is welcomed by cattle producers right across the country. Bill Vaggs, head of the Canadian Pork Council, said he is "very comfortable" with the free trade agreement. He has urged the federal Government to do everything in its power to keep the doors open to the United States market for Canada's hog and pork exports.
Even the report by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, a ministry headed by a person dedicated to finding reasons why free trade is bad for Ontario agriculture, even that department working under that kind of direction failed to find a problem for the read meat sector. In fact, it found that there would be some $18 million advantage per year in Ontario alone for the red meat sector. This same study, I believe, forgot that farmers are consumers and consume a great deal of products in their farm operation and would benefit from a reduction in tariffs and the products which they consume. It also failed to realize that many farmers have children, even farmers themselves who work off the farm and would benefit from more jobs that pay higher in their communities. The very least optimistic report which the Ontario Government could find still showed an $18 million advantage for Ontario red meat producers.
In recent years, the value of Canadian red meat and live animal exports to the United States has totalled more than $1 billion a year, nearly half of Canada's farm exports to that country. Our red meat sector is fully competitive with the U.S.

March 7, 1988
National Food Policy
Its assured duty free access to the U.S. market helps guarantee the continued well-being of this sector.
The free trade agreement will exempt both our countries from each other's meat import laws. Without an agreement, U.S. meat import law could limit Canada's beef and veal exports to the United States, either through formal import quotas or so-called voluntary export restraints. The agreement is going to provide an improved environment for additional investment in meat processing plants since there is now much greater certainty of continued access to the U.S. market. That, of course, demonstrates again the tendency for years where we in Canada have sent more money out of this country across the border to invest in American business to avoid tariffs, money that could have stayed here at home to produce Canadian jobs. Of course, the more money we keep at home, the greater the chance for Canadian employment.
The particular advantage that Canadian meat producers will have will be the removal of the tariffs on portion-controlled cuts of high quality beef. This should provide a greatly increased market in the United States.
The trade deal also addressed the broadest possible package of mutually beneficial trade barrier reductions, an end to the misuse of technical barriers in such areas as meat inspection where every lot could have been inspected as it went across the border, and the misuse of food additives as well as the use of specific veterinary drugs will facilitate red meat export. How well the pork industry knows of the problem with chloram-phenical, indeed, the long-lasting problem of chloramphenical which is not presently available to the Canadian producer. Red meat producers have every reason to be optimistic about their prospects under free trade and every reason to be optimistic about their industry's future.
The motion before us today is not new. Back in 1971, beginning with Bill C-176 it was proposed that we establish the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. Originally, cattle and hogs were covered under this Act. A very spirited defence from a variety of organizations fought over a year and had the red meat sector excluded. Since that time the issue has resurfaced on many occasions and is resurfacing in the Ontario sector on a regular basis through the Federation of Agriculture. Some individuals favour supply management for red meat. However, the majority of the industry is clearly not in support of this alternative.
In 1986, at a national workshop on hog marketing alternatives, Canada's pork producers turned thumbs down on supply management. There are certainly viable alternatives, however, for the industry. These would include tripartite stabilization plans, the new commodity type mortgages under the Farm Credit Corporation and the Farm Debt Review Agency about which the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor talked.
The red meat industry is not asking for supply management. Without any sort of regulated intervention in the marketplace, the red meat industry is competing with vigour and with success. There are better methods of supporting the industry, methods that I outlined briefly above, and that is the course this Government will take.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join in the balance of the debate on Motion No. 99 presented by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) calling for the establishment of an improved national marketing strategy for all major farm-produced commodities and for the negotiation with the provinces of a national food policy with over-all production targets and market sharing.
I think some Hon. Members who have spoken, particularly those on the government side, seem to have taken this motion somewhat out of context. They immediately say that this is an attempt to set up supply-managed marketing for all commodities across Canada. That is not necessarily so. It is an attempt to discuss with the provinces a long-term national marketing strategy.
This motion is timely because of the circumstances in which we live. We have seen develop over the last four or five years an income crisis in agriculture as farm returns do not meet the cost of production. This has in turn augmented a debt crisis so $22 billion to $23 billion-worth of debt is now being carried by Canada's farmers, a debt load which they cannot afford to carry, given the current value of land and the market outlook.
We have watched as land and agricultural assets have deteriorated in value. There has been deflation in the agricultural sector for the last five years, yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is still attempting to fight inflation. In rural areas across Canada, land values are between 40 per cent and 50 per cent lower than they were four or five years ago. Yet the Minister persists in trying to fight what he calls inflation. To do that, he has kept the interest rate higher than it needs to be. It is 1.25 per cent higher this year than it was a year ago. This has meant high fixed rates for Farm Credit Corporation loans. These rates are so high that the very small amount of money the Government made available for the FCC to lend was not even taken up by farmers. They went elsewhere to get loans at much cheaper rates.
Because the Government persists in holding the interest rate higher than it needs to be in order to fight inflation in the Toronto area, the Canadian dollar has risen to the 79-cent level from about 71 cents or 72 cents in the past year. This means that for farmers who export, the price of their commodities has effectively fallen 10 to 12 per cent and the cost of borrowing money has risen 1 per cent to 1.25 per cent.
A bit over a year ago, the agriculture committee took it upon itself to investigate ways of reducing costs at the farm gate and attempted to look at the price of inputs and what could be done by Government and farmers to reduce those input costs. We found that there was not very much that could be done in terms of real savings, which would have meant more
March 7, 1988

money in farmers' pockets. Very little could be achieved. There has been virtual free trade in farm chemicals and most farm inputs including farm machinery. The trade deal would not solve that problem and has not solved that problem. It may have exacerbated some other problems on the market side, but I will deal with that later.
The only hope farmers have of having a bottom line that leaves money in their pockets is in doing something about the marketing end. In a number of commodities, farmers have turned their attention to that in the past, and I will review very quickly, because I see that time is short, the three methods farmers have utilized to improve their bargaining power in the market over the past 50 or 60 years.
During the First World War, the Canadian Wheat Board was first established as a single-desk seller of all western Canadian wheat. The farmers hated it. There was a great political furore when the Government set up that Wheat Board. In fact, the political impetus for setting it up, going back in history, was that the grain traders on the grain exchange had got themselves into a box they could not get out of, so the Government intervened, froze all the assets and began marketing the grain itself. The grain traders had sold four, five and six times as much grain as actually existed and there was no way that contracts could be met.
After a year's experience with the board, farmers began to see the advantage of single-desk selling. They got a higher price for that crop of grain than they had ever received before. They got an even price, regardless of when they were able to deliver. They all got the same price, and they decided that they liked that. There is no way now that farmers would give up that single-desk selling agency, the Canadian Wheat Board, which markets export grain at the moment and has been undermined a bit over the years.
Another type of single-desk agency is provincial hog marketing boards, one of which I was active in setting up in the Province of Saskatchewan. They function like little wheat boards with less bargaining power because they restrict themselves to their own bailiwick. If they were able to get together across the nation and market through one desk nationally, they would be able to extract another one cent, two cents or three cents per pound for hogs from the various processing firms. That is an option that is held back from them by the current legislation which does not permit any commodity to put together that kind of a national program except those that are named in the legislation including dairy products, poultry, eggs, now tobacco and soon, I hope, potatoes.
The third type of system is the type everyone hates, everyone on the government side at least, and that is the supply managed marketing boards, which work very well and are the epitome of efficiency in commodities that are very necessary for the maintenance of good food and nutrition. They have done a good job of providing consumers with exactly the amount needed without producing waste which only adds to
Supply
the cost and is an unnecessary expense to the system. I regret to see that my time is up, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
[ Translation\
It being six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion related to the business of supply.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hopkins:
That this House recognizes the pivotal role that NATO continues to play in mutual security and defence and in furthering progress in arms control and disarmament and, therefore, reaffirms its commitment to continued Canadian participation in and active support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a primary instrument of Canadian defence policy.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House will now deal with the deferred vote on the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins).
Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.

It being 6.25 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, March 8, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers