1988-03-10

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday during the time allotted for statements pursuant to Standing Order 21 the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) made a very useful intervention with respect to the situation in Manitoba. There was some commotion in the House at the time. I should explain to the House, and I want it to go on the record, that Your Honour's remarks at that time were very helpful.
At the time that my hon. friend was making his statement pursuant to Standing Order 21 I do not think there was a realization on this side of the House that Premier Pawley had resigned as Leader of the Party. Naturally, we understood that the Government of Manitoba had been defeated but there was no understanding that he had resigned as Leader of the Party.
My friend from Churchill made reference to the contribution that Premier Pawley had made to his province and to Canada. We also recognize that, although we may not agree on philosophies.
I want to have it made clear on the record that the natural partisan nature of the House spilled over at that point. But at the time I do not think there was a realization that the Premier of Manitoba had resigned as Leader of the Party.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say to my hon. friend how much we appreciate his generous comments. Anyone in an elected position who serves his country, his province and the people of Canada always deserves to be recognized and have our appreciation extended to him. I appreciate the generous comment that my hon. colleague has made today.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) for his helpful and gracious comments. 1 also
want to thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for his gracious reply.
I say to some other Hon. Members who may have considered that my intervention yesterday was by way of admonishment that I am very glad to have the explanation which the Minister has given. The exchange this morning is in keeping with the best traditions of this place. I thank the Minister and I thank the Hon. Member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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 65 petitions bearing Nos. 332-3805 to 332-3809 inclusive, 332-3812, 332-3820 to 332-3822 inclusive, 3323833, 332-3834, 332-3840 to 332-3844 inclusive, 332-3851 to 332-3853 inclusive, 332-3856, 332-3866, 332-3868, 332-3869, 332-3900, 332-3908 to 332-3915 inclusive, 332-3919 to 3323927 inclusive, 332-3934, 332-3935, 332-3939, 332-3943, 3323947 to 332-3950 inclusive, 332-3952 to 332-3956 inclusive, 332-3972, 332-3974, 332-3985 to 332-3991 inclusive, and 3324057.



STRIKING


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Fifty-third report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]

March 10, 1988
Introduction of Bills



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 MEASURE TO AMEND

['For the fiscal years (a) 1984-85 (A) 1985-86 (c) 1986-87 (d) 1987-88 to date, what services did each department and agency buy from the National Arts Centre catering department and, in each case, what was (i) the nature of the service (ii) its cost to the client, department or agency (iii) the specific location where the service was provided?\nReturn tabled.']
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-285, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (pregnancy).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to introduce this Bill for first reading. This Bill will remedy what I believe is an injustice under the Unemployment Insurance Act. It will enable women whose children are born either prematurely or with severe health problems and have to remain in hospital for a period of time to postpone taking the remainder of their maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act until such time as the child is released from hospital. This has occurred in several cases recently and brought to our attention in the House. It is something that I hope Members on all sides of the House will support and agree to.


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

Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling petitions signed by residents of Saint-Leonard, Montreal North, Aylmer, Hull and Pointe-Claire, all in Quebec.
Your petitioners believe that by signing the Free Trade Agreement, the Mulroney Government sold out Canada without getting anything in return, and that Canadian industries still have no protection against U.S. trade laws. They also believe that the jobs of thousands of Canadians, especially women, are threatened, and that the Conservative Government has yet to make any provision for helping them through the transition period.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to condemn the Government for having signed the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement.


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome this opportunity to table a petition signed by a number of constituents in my riding and neighbouring ridings. The undersigned refuse to eat irradiated food and are opposed to the construction of food irradiation centres. They ask for the immediate withdrawal of all irradiated food now on the market that does not bear the international symbol for irradiated products, and that such withdrawal be legislated.
They also ask that all irradiated products be labelled as follows: "This product has been irradiated with radioactive isotopes as a preservative measure; the effects on health are unknown".


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by some 350 residents of southwestern Saskatchewan concerning Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code which creates new laws against the production, sale, rental, and distribution of pornography.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support the Bill which will make it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, or rent pornographic material as defined.
The petitioners call upon the Government to pass Bill C-54 without dilution in the belief that this Bill gives recognition to the inherent dignity of individuals, particularly women and young people who are most vulnerable to exploitation in this area.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who believe that the federal Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States.
The petitioners believe that the trade deal that was negotiated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) threatens the fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty since it removes the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership in Canada, and it removes the ability of the Canadian Government to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians. It also eliminates or severely reduces the possibility of equalizing opportunities between the regions of Canada.
The petitioners believe that this trade deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future, and thereby undermine our ability as Canadians to develop a society distinct from that of the United States.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve in order to allow the people of Canada an opportunity to decide on this trade deal during a national general election.
March 10, 1988


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and responsibility of registering with this House a petition that is signed by many Canadians from across Canada.
The petitioners feel that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future, and that it would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
The trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure access to the American market, which was the key objective in these negotiations, but it threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of approximately 75 constituents, most of whom are public servants. The petitioners are concerned that Bill C-33 will affect their future pensions. They contributed to indexation as well as to pensions, and the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain legislated full indexation of the federal Public Service, Canadian Armed Forces, and Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension benefits.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think we could all make the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) happy if we agree that
Supply
Question No. 209 could be made an Order for Return, which return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 209 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier: For the fiscal years (a) 1984-85 (A) 1985-86 (c) 1986-87 (d) 1987-88 to date, what services did each department and agency buy from the National Arts Centre catering department and, in each case, what was (i) the nature of the service (ii) its cost to the client, department or agency (iii) the specific location where the service was provided?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Secretary of State for External Affairs erred seriously in urging upon the Provincial Premiers a political boycott of three Sikh organizations in Canada, thereby condemning entire groups on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations against individuals and, consequently undermining the multicultural fabric of Canadian society;
That this House, while condemning violence and terrorism as political instruments, affirms that all Canadian citizens, regardless of origin must not be subjected to any coercion, intimidation or other action by the Government designed to prevent their free and peaceful expression of their opinions and concerns about events and issues in Canada or in other lands; and
That this House therefore demands that the Government provide Parliament with all relevant information that led to its aforementioned communication with the Provinces and provide the Canadian Sikh community with a full, public opportunity to defend its honour and integrity and that the Government immediately withdraw its allegations and issue a full apology to all Canadians, and to the Canadian Sikh community in particular, for initiating an unprovoked attack on the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens and for thereby subverting federal multiculturalism policy.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain degree of sadness that I raise on behalf of my Liberal caucus colleagues the matter before the House of Commons, and it is with a great deal of sadness that I have had to rise in my place over the last number of days to ask the Government, particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), to account for the letter he wrote and sent to seven Premiers which urged a boycott of the activities of Sikh organizations.
I believe that those actions constitute an undermining of the social and cultural fabric which is Canada as we know it. They dangerously play with that very tender fabric by attacking the

March 10, 1988
Supply
dignity and honour of an entire membership of Canadians in three organizations. In this attack I believe that the Government is contributing to, perhaps not intentionally, but the fallout is contributing to and aggravating racial tensions and race relations in Canada.
While it is with sadness that I rise in my place, I believe it is a necessary undertaking, because we must constantly remind ourselves as a Parliament that our country is as strong as its treatment of its weakest minorities within its borders.
We know that the Canadian Sikh community has been besieged in recent days and in recent times. However, this should not condone its further abuse as a member of the Canadian community or as a member of the Canadian family.
I am confused and bewildered by the letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because only last June, 1987, at a convention of the World Sikh Organization in Vancouver, the following message was brought to the membership:
-I am delighted to extend my warmest greetings and sincere best wishes to the members of the World Sikh Organization of Canada.
The Sikh community in Canada represents an important component of this country's multicultural structure, one which we, as Canadians, are proud of. Ours is a nation that has been strengthened by the cultural and ethnic diversity of its peoples; by celebrating your role in Canadian society you are helping to unite not only the people of your community, but the people of Canada as well.
On behalf of the Government of Canada, may I wish the members of your community continued health and prosperity.
That letter was signed by no less than the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and sent to the same organization in June, 1987. It is the same organization which is now being targeted for political boycott.
In 1985, a year after the Government took office, at another conference of the same organization a message was delivered by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) of the Conservative Party, in which he said:
-I am here today not representing the Government of Canada, but 1 am here as an independent individual Member of Parliament. 1 do however have the blessings of the Minister of External Affairs, the Right Hon. Joe Clark.
Therefore I am confused, as a Member of Parliament, that only last June the Prime Minister of Canada publicly congratulated, welcomed, and recognized this organization, and then in the same year, while one thing was being done publicly, the exact opposite was being advocated secretly. I bring that to the attention of the House of Commons because I believe to a certain degree that those two contradictory actions are deplorable.
First, there are two problems with the letter-one is procedural and one is on substance. From a procedural viewpoint, I question why the Secretary of State for External Affairs only sent the letter to seven Premiers, not to all of them. Why were federal Members of Parliament not sent the letter if it was a matter of urgent necessity? Why were the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for
Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), not briefed and provided with the same information? Why were municipal leaders not advised?
I am talking about the elected leadership of the country who work and mingle with the community organizations from which the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked the Premiers to dissociate themselves. On top of that, we only found out about the existence of the letter through a leak. If it were not leaked, we would not be having the debate today; we would still be in the dark.
Therefore, this leads me to ask what other letters have been written and sent to various elected representatives in the country about the Sikh organizations or the Sikh communities? What other ethnocultural groups have been targeted with similar letters?
Finally, on the question of procedure, I find it puzzling that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has asked us to be ignorant and to ignore these three organizations. If we take a very different example-and I admit that it is a very different example-in South Africa, the Minister said that notwithstanding the fact that we believe that the Botha Government in South Africa is a repugnant, offensive regime which continues to prop up institutionalized racism, as bad and as evil as we know that Government to be, we will not break diplomatic relations because we will try to have that flicker of hope remain so that we can change a bad situation into a good one from within.
To a certain degree I sympathize, although we have taken a somewhat different attitude, with the attempted logic and sincerity of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, if we accept that attitude with that evil regime and, to a lesser degree, if the Minister has proof of individual members of these organizations having clearly participated, with evidence, in various violent activities, why would he not try to keep the channels of communication open with these organizations to bring these people to justice and to try to work from within rather than to say to the Premiers to treat individual organizations and the Canadian members of these organizations as political lepers?
How will ignorance produce justice? How are we to stem the tide if these elements exist in any organization or community, if we in fact send out a letter saying, "Don't bother with these organizations"? It does not solve the problem.
As I have mentioned, the second problem is the question of substance. One justification for the letter is that the Minister stated that there were some members who were engaged in these activities. In the letter to the Premiers he said:
Some members of these organizations have also engaged in or promote
violent activities-
Is that proper justification for the letter? Why take an unproven or alleged matter, a matter of individual responsibility, and transpose it into a blanket of collective guilt which covers all Canadian membership in those organizations? Why
March 10, 1988

be a contributor to creating a stigma which is difficult for that community to shake?
This is not a problem faced by only first generation Canadians of that community. It is a stigma which takes root in their youngsters, in the young men and women who should have the same future and opportunities in the country, but because of the stigma they start at a different place than do their peers in Canadian society.
Why does the federal Government, through this letter, begin to equate Sikhism with terrorism by that collective guilt allegation? There have been enough injustices in the past that one would have thought we would have avoided another occurrence, that we would have avoided bringing further pain and in some quarters, further shame in being who you are in this country.
We had the situation of the Japanese Canadian redress where Canadian citizens were discriminated blatantly by governments and other Canadians because of who they were. We still have elements in our society that lay the blame on the whole dark episode of Naziism on the doorsteps of certain German Canadian elements in this country. Recently in my own community, in the Canadian Italian community, certain elements have tried to equate Italianism with the Mafia. That hurts, Mr. Speaker. First it hurts because it is not true of that community. Second, it hurts because it creates baggage which must be carried, not by one generation but by second and third generation Canadians.
While every sensible Canadian condemns terrorism and any act of violence as a means of arriving at any end, which is shared by all Members and Parties in this House, it does not give the Government or the Minister the right or the licence to take on an individual responsibility and say, "Therefore, the collectivity of that membership is guilty". That is not the way our justice system works in Canada.
If there are cases of individual responsibilities, then what is achieved by this letter? Does this letter bring those individual members to justice? Does this letter provide us with the evidence that would suggest that certain members perhaps should face justice? What gain do we have by painting those three organizations and, through other debates, the community with that same brush?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs who will participate in this debate may say that certain members within the world Sikh organizations at some time or other may have said certain things. He might draw to the attention of the House that a certain Secretary General of the World Sikh Organization, General Bhullar Singh, may have said at one point that he would like to obtain arms to help obtain a homeland. Mr. Didar Bains, the United States Vice-President of the World Sikh Organization may have made statements suggesting that the assassination of Mrs. Ghandi was a legitimate means to achieve that end.
Supply
There was a debate whether or not those statements were said. Assuming they were said, this Member, this Party, dissociate ourselves with those statements. More important, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian membership in these organizations, attacked by the Minister, who are in this Chamber participating and listening to this debate, have dissociated themselves from those comments, if they were ever made, and condemn those comments, if they were ever made. Those statements were deposited with me in my own office when I raised these issues. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he has the Canadian membership of these organizations which dissociate themselves from these statements, why prosecute, through this letter, the collectivity?
The second justification for the letter is to propose a boycott because these groups advocated an independent Sikh homeland in India. The Minister writes to the Premiers:
I would appreciate your co-operation in avoiding events and activities which
could be perceived as supporting the Sikh organizations mentioned above or
their objective in the creation of an independent Sikh state.
This issue of an independent homeland is clearly a foreign issue which is sovereign only to the citizens of India who in the end, in their own time, in their own way, must come to grips with that. Since when should our federal Government take sides on an issue, state its preference in favour of the current Indian administration and then on its strength punish Canadians of Sikh origin in Canada who may not share this view? How could the rights of full citizenship in this country with the freedom of participating in the community and political life of Canada be denied and infringed upon by a government which urges a boycott of those organizations?
Foreign policy is an outgrowth of domestic policy. Foreign policy is a reflection of the principles, the ideals and the aspirations to which we as a Canadian people subscribe. We cannot always do and say what the world wants us to do and say. Instead, we must do and we must say what the Canadian citizens permit us as a society to say. Therefore, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has the standards for a foreign policy backwards. He should not be putting it backwards because there are serious repercussions with that procedure.
What happens if the Government of Yugoslavia were to call or write our Minister and say, "We don't want your politicians associating themselves with Croatian Canadian clubs". If Greece were to do the same thing with Turkish Canadian clubs, what then? What about the situation between the Sinhalese and the Tamils? We cannot be coerced or intimidated into taking a certain foreign stand on an issue and allowing that issue to undermine rights of Canadians back home, whoever those Canadians are, wherever they came from and however long they have been in this country.
The Minister for External Affairs is either the Minister for External Affairs for Canada or he is the Minister of External Affairs for India. If he is the Minister of External Affairs for the latter, he might have some justification for saying the things he did because that would be his prerogative. But he is

March 10, 1988
Supply
not the Minister of External Affairs for India. He is a Canadian Minister, a Canadian Member of Parliament, who must always maintain the first rule, which is to stand up for Canada and stand up for Canadians whoever those Canadians may be. He abdicated that responsibility and I draw it to this attention.
The third and final justification for the Minister's letter is that the boycott was favoured to a certain degree by the Government of India. Again, the Minister writes in his letter:
The activities of these organizations have been a significant irritant in our relations with India. The Government of India has taken particular exception when elected officials attend functions sponsored by these organizations.
The Minister is implying that the reason he wrote the letter was to secure relations with India. Past governments have always tried to secure a working respectable relationship with India. Previous Liberal administrations did not do so to the detriment of Canadians back home. We were not willing, in order to enjoy the favour of the existing Indian Government, to sacrifice Canadians of Sikh origin here, nor should we in any relationship with any other government. But this Government was prepared to sacrifice the citizenship of Canadians back home. One would have at least expected the Indian authorities to have defended, come forward and supported the Minister. But what happened, Mr. Speaker? Well, I will tell you what happened. A spokesperson for the Indian High Commission in Ottawa completely dissociated herself from that letter. She was quoted as saying in a Globe and Mail article for February 26:
But India has not complained about the involvement of elected officials with these groups, she said.
"What transpires between federal and provincial governments in Canada is purely an internal matter".
Those were the words of Mrs. Tripathi of the Indian High Commission. I asked the Minister the other day whether he could explain the discrepancy. Could he explain why the Indian High Commission in Ottawa is saying that it did not order or suggest a political boycott? I asked why the Minister implied in his letter to the Premiers that that was the case. If it did not come from the Indian Government, then what was the justification and by whom was that seed planted? That brings us to the issue that is at the heart of this dilemma.
This is more than a struggle for the Canadian Sikh community. Naturally, they feel the most pain and they feel the challenge of overcoming the stigma of yet another attack. However, this struggle has manifested itself in other communities. This latest allegation, an official statement of the Conservative Government, tramples also on the larger question of the principles underpinning our multiculturalism policy and the multiculturalism that is the reality of Canada.
It is sad to see that the Minister of State for multiculturalism has been silent during this entire debate. It is equally deplorable that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, rather than coming forward with evidence that would in any
way substantiate the actions his letter recommends, rather than retract his letter in the absence of such evidence, prefers to hide behind these general, unproven allegations that cut Canadians deeply.
I see that you are indicating that my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker. I appeal to the Chair for some understanding because of the sensitivity of this issue. I conclude by saying that the Government has the responsibility to provide the House and, and through it, Canadians with an inquiry so that we may have the documentation and information that is in the possession of the Government of Canada that prompted such action. This inquiry would provide a forum in which Canadians, members of these three organizations and members of the larger Canadian Sikh community could defend their honour, their integrity and their place within Canada. If there is to be no such inquiry, then the Minister ought to withdraw the letter or apologize for writing it.
The Premier of B.C. has refused to respect the Minister's letter. The Premier of Ontario does not support the letter, despite claims made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House. Members of provincial legislatures across Canada are writing to say that they will not follow the letter. Members of the Government's own Conservative Party have publicly criticized and attacked the Minister's letter. The Minister should finally realize, therefore, that he is becoming increasingly isolated in his defence of the indefensible.
I ask the Minister today to do the honourable thing, to provide this House with the evidence so that we can get to the issue at hand and clear the name of this community.
Finally, we in this House must recognize one unmistakable, unquestionable reality. History has placed all of us in Canada within one common border and under one common law. All of us, from the most powerful and the wealthiest of men to the poorest of children share one possession; that is, being Canadian. Granted, it is difficult to know from time to time what that precisely means because it means so many different things to so many different people. In part, to be a Canadian means to have once been a stranger, to have left the old and familiar for the new. But it also means that those who deny the strangers among us also deny the strength and the future of Canada. I ask the Government to stop denying Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: There had perhaps been an understanding that the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) would be followed by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), but the Minister has indicated that he would like to speak now and that would be the usual arrangement. I would hope that Hon. Members would accede to that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Questions and comments.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: I am rising to speak, Mr. Speaker. Sir, I intend-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the right hon. gentleman. I think we have a bit of a procedural matter to sort out here.
March 10, 1988

I will recognize the right hon. gentleman in a moment. However, there is the usual 10-minute question and comment period, and I think the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is seeking the floor.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend's comments. I must say that 1 agree, by and large, with the points he was raising.
The Hon. Member knows, of course, of the wounded feeling which exists within the Sikh community across Canada today as a result of recent developments. However, that is part of an ongoing process, and the Hon. Member will be well aware of that.
While I listened to the Hon. Member's remarks I could not help but think that years ago Jews living in Canada urged and worked toward the creation of the State of Israel. Today, Palestinians as well as Canadian citizens are urging the creation of a homeland for Palestinians. On Parliament Hill we have seen demonstrations of people of Croatian origin urging the creation of a Croatian state. We have seen Ukrainians, Slovaks and a long list of people appear on Parliament Hill, all in their own way, and I might add in their own peaceful way with an emphasis on the word "peaceful", indicating their concern for the creation of a homeland or a state for their people.
Is there something different here? Again, people of the Sikh faith are urging the creation of a homeland for their people. I do not see much difference between that and the Jews some years back urging the creation of the State of Israel.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member poses a very interesting question. He asked about the similarity between the struggle for a defensible State of Israel and the one that is being advocated by Sikhs in India through peaceful means. Those human struggles are the same. Although there are different forces at play in those different regions of the world, the human desire to live in peace and in dignity and to have a place to stand is shared, whether we are talking about an independent homeland for Sikhs in India or about the struggle of Jews who wanted to be able to live behind identifiable and defensible borders.
The second aspect of this question is the more delicate part. When previous Governments of Canada supported clearly and unequivocally a state for Israel, those Governments did not create a backlash affecting Canadians of Arab or Palestinian descent. Regardless of our position on Israel, that position was not used as a way of politically boycotting the Arab community. We did not suggest to the premiers that they treat those individuals as political lepers because we supported a state for Israel.
What we have here is a double standard. As far as we know, we did not politically boycott those Palestinian and Arab elements within Canada at that time. Those people are now Canadians because being an immigrant must stop at a certain point in one's life. The word "immigration" describes a process. However, after you have been here 5 years, 10 years
Supply
or 20 years and you take the oath, you are a Canadian and the immigration process is behind you.
What is happening here is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is saying that he agrees with India not granting an independent homeland for Sikhs. That is debatable given the fact of the state of Israel. Yet more importantly, the fact that the three organizations mentioned in the December 11 letter stand for an independent Sikh homeland in India is used as justification for boycotting those organizations. That is the shame. That is the knife wound.
Canadians, regardless of background, have freedom of speech. They are free to meet and discuss local issues or issues from afar in a non-violent, non-subversive way. I find it offensive that a foreign policy initiative is undermining domestic policy with respect to the rights of Canadians. We cannot allow that. Domestic policy draws its strength from a secure situation at home. It is only from that secure base that we can export our freedom, our democracy, our progressive vision to help an ailing world.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will know, I am sure, that the Sikh community throughout Canada has worked hard in adversity since its arrival in the last century. Can the Hon. Member speak to the allegations concerning Secretary General Bhullar Singh and Mr. Didar Bains? Can he give us anything more than he has as to whether or not there was violence done by any member of the World Sikh Organization in Canada?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the information the Hon. Member seeks beyond what I mentioned. It has gotten back to me from a number of Members of this House in the last 24 hours that some of these statements may be raised on the floor of the House. I accept that. The reason I drew that to the attention of the House is so that the Minister could bring forward evidence of terrorist activities. In the end that might hurt the community, but I welcome it in the sense that there is more public discussion about possible terrorist activities by some members of that community. I welcome an intelligent debate that would rid that community and others of the cloud that continues to follow them and which suggests that being a Sikh is equivalent to being a terrorist. I made some of the statements I did because that is a preoccupation of some Canadians in the Sikh community. They told me they were prepared to go public to condemn and dissociate themselves from any terrorist activities or statements made by those two gentlemen.
I would also like to offer a confidential communique dated May 14, 1985, sent to the national councils of the World Sikh Organization in Canada, the U.S. and Great Britain. It is from the Secretary General and says that the World Sikh Organization constitution lays down that it is a peaceful organization working for human rights of Sikhs in India. Therefore, membership screening committees in those countries I

March 10, 1988
Supply
mentioned should be instructed not to accept membership from known or proven terrorists. Any member who is guilty of terrorism should be removed from the World Sikh Organization according to its constitution.
I think this directive is proof that those Canadians who have been maligned because of their association with those organizations do not agree with or promote the subversion of any entity in the world. I offer that communique so that we are aware of the facts of the situation and not just the fears and misconceptions which might exist over this debate.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I might caution Hon. Members of the House about drawing parallels between the situation in India respecting Khalistan and other events in the world. I think before they begin to make those statements in the name of their Party, which there is some temptation to do by both my friend from Kamloops-Shuswap and the Hon. Member who introduced the motion, they would want to carefully consider the implications of what they are saying.
Sir, I intend to be as dispassionate as I can be in this debate. I think it would be helpful if I began by reading the letter in which the Official Opposition wants to make an issue. The letter was tabled in the House the other day and it states:
I am writing to you concerning possible invitations to you or members of your government to attend functions organized by members of the Canadian Sikh community.
The majority of these invitations are valuable in ensuring that your Government is kept informed of developments in the Sikh community and that the community is encouraged to participate fully in Canadian life.
There are, however, three Sikh organizations which exist largely to advocate the creation of an independent Sikh state, known as "Khalistan". These three organizations are the Babbar Khalsa, the International Sikh Youth Federation, and the World Sikh Organization. Some members of these organizations have also engaged in or promote violent activities aimed at Indian interests in Canada and elsewhere. The activities of these organizations have been a significant irritant in our relations with India. The Government of India has taken particular exception when elected officials attend functions sponsored by these organizations.
I fully understand the dilemma that elected officials face in making decisions as to which functions to attend. In some instances the sponsoring organization may not be readily apparent. Despite these difficulties, I would appreciate your co-operation in avoiding events and activities which could be perceived as supporting the Sikh organizations mentioned above or their objective in the creation of an independent Sikh state.
I would also request that you consider circulating a copy of this letter to members of your Cabinet and caucus. Should you require any additional information on this matter, please contact me.
That was the content of the letter which the Liberal Party is seeking to generate a debate over. I had hoped this sensitive issue would not be exploited for partisan purposes but the Liberal Party has chosen to put a motion forward in this House and therefore we will reply.
Sir, no one in this House should need reminding that modern societies are complex, and they are becoming more complex. Unhappily, one element of that complexity, one phase of modern international and national life, is that there is an increasing recourse to violence, not simply in the world
apart from Canada but also in Canada. All civilized societies wish to work to overcome those tendencies toward violence, to deal with the root causes, to not participate innocently in the encouraging of activities which might have a violent consequence. Certainly that is a deep commitment of this country and this Government.
Sir, we must not forget that Canadians have been victims of terrorism both at home and abroad. The pervasive fear that affected all Canadians as a result of the terrorism of the October crisis in Canada in 1970 can never be far from our minds. Even more recently Canadians have experienced the tragic consequences of terrorism. Canadians narrowly escaped death in the hijacking at Karachi in 1986. Canadians were aboard the Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, which was hijacked in September, 1985, which was the scene of the murder of one of the passengers by terrorists. Three hundred and twenty-nine people, most of them Canadians, died in the Air India tragedy in 1985. A Canadian was killed in the attack on the Turkish Embassy in 1985 and in the same year Toronto's subway system was held hostage by terrorists. In November of that year a Canadian mother and her infant son lost their lives in a terrorist attack on an Egyptian airliner in Malta. In 1986 there was an assassination attempt against a visiting Indian state cabinet Minister on Vancouver Island.
In the course of my responsibilities I have stood at the graveside in Beiseker, Alberta, when the Canadian woman and her infant son, victims of terrorism abroad, were laid to rest in Canada. In the carrying out of my functions I have been representing Canada and this Parliament on the peninsula near Cork in Ireland where a memorial is established to the Canadian victims of the Air India tragedy. Sir, I have been to too many funerals to take this question lightly. Yet I am acutely aware that other of my colleagues in other countries less orderly and less free than ours have been to more funerals.
We have an obligation in this House to the nature, the freedom, and the multicultural reality of Canada, to ensure that we do everything that we can to allow Canadians to pursue their goals and live their lives in peace and freedom.
As I said in the House on the occasion of the death of Valinda Leonard and her infant son in the Egyptian air incident, no nation is immune to the scourge of terrorism. It is for this reason that it is essential that we pursue with our allies the development of concrete measures to combat terrorism. Similarly, we must put in place protective measures at home and be vigilant in ensuring the prevention of occasions and opportunities for terrorism to incubate or to strike.
That, Sir, if I may say so, is particularly important in a country like Canada precisely because we are a multicultural nation that encourages people to come here from every corner and every colour of the world and to follow their goals, their religions, and their views here in Canada in accordance with Canadian law. There is more opportunity for more people to
March 10, 1988

come here to express their traditions, to live their lives, than is the case in many other countries. As we provide more opportunity, that imposes upon us a greater obligation of care and imposes upon public officials a greater sense of responsibility.
The obligation is greater for us also because we are a free nation and we take our freedom seriously. It is protected in the courts, it is enshrined in the Charter, it is part of the practice of life in Canada. Sir, we all know the elemental reality that there can be no freedom for a society if there are not restraints accepted by individuals. Some of those restraints are set out in law and in policy.
Surely, Sir, we who hold the trust as public office holders have a particular obligation to ensure that laws are respected in Canada, to ensure that this country and its officials do not inadvertently become instruments of organizations or of interests which might seek the dismemberment of friendly states or which might promote or encourage the violence which could be so destructive to the freedom and the multicultural reality that we know here.
Separatism has a particular meaning for Canada. It reminds us of a very difficult period in our history. I think that most Canadians would strongly object to any other country giving support to anyone who promoted separatism in Canada, particularly through violent means. We would certainly press to have that country's government not give, or even be seen to give, any kind of support to such activities.

Mr. Speaker, The Sikh community has a long history in Canada. It has made an outstanding contribution to Canadian society, and as I said in the House on March 3: This House knows that the vast majority of Canadians of Sikh origin are first-class Canadian citizens trying to raise their families in peace and trying to raise their families in freedom. The Government has a duty to help them do so.

I have been privileged to visit Sikh temples in Toronto. I have met with representatives of the Sikh community across the country. I have also celebrated with them the richness of Sikh traditions which are enhanced so much when the adherents of Sikh traditions are free to practise their religion in peace. I also had the sad duty, as I told the House earlier, in June, 1986, of dedicating a memorial in Dunmanus Bay, Ireland, to the victims of the Air India tragedy, many of whom were Canadian Sikhs.
As I said in the House on March 3, "This House knows that the vast majority of Canadians of Sikh origin are first class Canadian citizens trying to raise their families in peace and trying to raise their families in freedom". The Government has a duty to help Canadians do that.
However, let us face the facts. The activities of a small, militant minority in the Sikh community represent the most serious internal security threat that Canada faces today. Undeniably this minority seeks to dismember a friendly
Supply
country, either through peaceful means or violent means. My friend, the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), asked the other day whether there was not a difference between the World Sikh Organization and the other two. Indeed, Sir, there is a difference, but the constitution of the World Sikh Organization clearly states that one of its objectives is "to strive through peaceful means for the establishment of a Sikh nation, Khalistan". At the time that constitution was adopted there was a vigorous debate within the World Sikh Organization. They knew then that their decision would be controversial and the consequence of their decision is that their objectives are incompatible with Canadian policy.
Let me give you, Sir, some background on the other two organizations mentioned in my letter. The Babbar Khalsa is an India-based international organization comprising Sikhs whose objectives are the eradication of Sikh apostasy and the establishment of an independent state of Khalistan. In India the Babbar Khalsa has been involved in numerous acts of terror against moderate Sikhs, Hindus, and official representatives of the Government of India and its composite states. The Canadian branch is relatively small, but its total devotion to Sikh independence and its willingness to undertake acts of violence make it a serious source of concern.
In May, 1986, members of the Montreal area Canadian Babbar Khalsa were involved in a plot to place a bomb on an Air India flight from New York. Two were convicted and given life sentences. On May 25, 1986, four members of the ISYF attempted to assassinate a visiting Punjab state Minister in British Columbia. They were each sentenced to 20 years for this offence. As a Government, Sir, we cannot ignore these facts, nor can we ignore other cases of terrorism that we have encountered.
The International Sikh Youth Federation has its roots in the All India Sikh Student Federation, the largest and best organized Sikh extremist organization in India. The All India Sikh Student Federation activities and programs are directed toward disrupting and subverting the civil and political process in India for the express purpose of establishing an independent Sikh state of Khalistan. Members of that organization have been involved in aircraft hijackings, political assassinations, and the random, indiscriminate killings of both Sikh moderates and Hindus.
Moreover, these two organizations have occasionally attempted to dupe Members of Parliament or public figures in Canada into supporting their cause, for example, by having them photographed under the Khalistan flag or wearing buttons indicating support for Khalistan.
These groups exist largely to promote the creation of an independent Sikh state known as Khalistan based on the Indian state of Punjab. In pursuit of that objective some

March 10, 1988
Supply
members of that organization have used, counselled or promoted the use of violence.
The Canadian Government cannot remain silent when individuals or organizations advocate the use of violence for political ends, namely, the dismemberment of another country with which we have a longstanding and friendly relationship. My letter, therefore, asked our provincial Premiers to avoid appearing at organized events or activities which could inadvertently lend their endorsement to the separatist objectives of these groups.
My letter did not ask Premiers to avoid receiving or meeting with any particular individuals, whatever views they may espouse. Even though this Government rejects their separatist cause, we fully recognize all Canadians' right to freedom of expression. It is the attendance or participation by representatives of the Canadian people in events or functions sponsored by these three organizations about which I am concerned.
When political leaders openly associate with such groups, whether they intend to do so or not, they lend credence and support to the objectives for which those organizations stand. These organizations have in the past taken advantage of politicians attending their functions. I believe most Canadians would very strongly object and would want its government to object to another country's leaders giving support of any kind to anyone who promoted separatism in Canada, particularly through violent means. This Government would certainly press to have that country's government not give or even be seen to give any kind of support to such activities.
Naturally enough, such activities invite representations to the Government of Canada from the Government of India, just as Canada made representations to other countries in 1970 during the period of the FLQ. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would be delinquent if I did not take account of the foreign policy implications, particularly for our relations with a friendly government on an issue which they regard as vital to their national integrity.
These activities also created deep concerns in Canada, particularly because the actions of a small minority are tearing the Canadian Sikh community apart. The point of concern and the reasons for sending my letter were activities within Canada. I act as a Canadian Minister in the interest of all Canadians.
As I said earlier, the activities of a small group of Sikhs in Canada constitutes one of the most serious internal security threats which Canada faces today. A militant minority in Canada has, through violence and intimidation, been able to exert a disproportionate influence in the community of Sikh origin in Canada.
[ Translation]
A number of initiatives have been taken by the Canadian Government to deal with the present situation so as to avoid any possibility of Canada becoming a centre of Sikh extremism.
Our most important initiative has been our attempt to express encouragement and support for moderate Sikhs who have decided to oppose the excesses of a militant minority that wants to wage, within our borders, a war that has its origins in another country.

Some have asked whether the Government has exercised its responsibility to warn public figures about other organizations in Canada. The answer is clearly yes, respecting the activities of groups which themselves, or through their members, are associated with violence or with the purpose of dismantling other friendly countries in Europe and elsewhere. I and my officials have received many inquiries from Members of Parliament and provincial governments about the nature and the objectives of groups which have requested meetings with public figures. We have provided the appropriate advice and have received co-operation in these instances.
The principle is the same. This is not a new policy. Other Canadian Governments have adopted similar positions. I note the presence in the House of the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), the former Solicitor General. In addressing a comparable problem in 1984, he argued that acts of violence or terrorism in support of a free Armenia would not be tolerated in Canada and that this country should not become a surrogate battleground for alien causes. Rightly, he said that this would invite anarchy. He also said at the time that the efforts of the Government of the day, the Liberal Government in which he was a minister, were directed only at those who violate the laws of Canada. I would add that they should also be directed at those who counsel violation of our laws, directly or indirectly.
I said that the Government would be willing to provide briefings to Members of Parliament in camera. In that nonpartisan spirit, I must say that the External Affairs critic of the New Democratic Party has approached us. We have agreed to provide him with such a briefing. That option is open to other interested Members.
The real problem here is that whatever we might wish, Canada is not immune to violence and to terrorism. There have been too many instances of terrorism in this country. We, as the Government, have the responsibility to respond with firmness, within the bounds and the laws of a free and multicultural society. We owe that to all Canadians, but we owe it particularly to the great majority of Canadians of Sikh origin who are not, in a situation in which excessive pressures exist, free to pursue their goals in accordance with the traditions which drew them and so many to this country.
Where we are not doing enough as Members of the House of Commons is in reaching out to encourage the moderate majority of the Sikh community in Canada to stand strong against the tiny minority who practise or counsel terrorism or violence. We are having a debate today. I suggest to all Members of the House that the best next step for all Members would be to ensure and encourage the freedom of Canadians of
March 10, 1988

Sikh origin in this country to pursue their goals in Canada in accordance with their tradition and the laws of this country.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to be quoted by the Hon. Member and I stand exactly by everything the Member quoted. Does he not see a very great difference between the position of the former Government and the position which he has espoused? I was talking about breaking laws in Canada or advocating breaking laws elsewhere to achieve a separation in a country by violent means. It is one thing for us in this country to oppose international violence, it is quite another thing-and novel, I assert-for the Government of Canada to take sides on a question of separation where violent means are not the issue.
I will deal with the violence question in a moment because I think the Minister is wrong there as well. However, fundamentally, why does he believe that the Government of Canada should stand for any particular arrangement in a foreign country? Is it not for the Indians to determine the shape and the extent of their country? Is that not an issue on which people who are interested in India, wherever they are in the world, should be able to take a view and advocate by peaceful means? Why is the Government of Canada suddenly taking a position that the Conservative Government believes the present arrangements in different countries in the world are the correct ones?
The Armenian community of Canada, all of them proudly, and the overwhelming majority of them peacefully, would like to see a separate Armenia established partly in Turkey, which is a country with which we have an alliance. Does the Government of Canada not support listening to the Armenians and allowing members of the Canadian community to take sides on that question about whether or not there should be a separate Armenia? Again, we are not talking about violence.
Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) targeted the Armenian community for boycotting the Armenian Association that he knows well in Toronto? During the last election campaign his Cabinet colleagues visited them, made speeches and promises to them. What is wrong with people from a certain country wanting to see that country separate?
The Hon. Minister said, "We are opposed to the dismemberment of friendly states, particularly through violent means". I will agree that we are opposed to the dismemberment of friendly states through violent means. However, what about the dismemberment of friendly states through separatism, as a result of decisions the people of those countries might make and that Canadians with ties to that homeland might advocate? Why is the Minister introducing into the foreign policy of Canada the notion that we are committed to oppose the dismemberment of friendly states?
I can remember when I was a Minister and we were talking about the separation of Canada and fighting it. The United States let it be known, not through a formal statement but
Supply
clearly and unambiguously, that it wanted Canada to remain united. Was that helpful to us?
The point I want to make is why do countries which have friendly relations with another country feel that they have to take sides, for or against, concerning questions of separatism? Specifically, why does the Armenian community receive such different treatment from the Government than it is according to the Sikh community?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the essential allegation is that this is a sudden policy or a new policy. It is not. The example that the Hon. Member used is the example that I will quote back to him. It was not very long ago when the Government of which he was a back-bench supporter in 1970 was dealing with the question of the FLQ and all of the consequences of that matter.
He has asked me if the expression by the United States of its belief in a united Canada was helpful to Canada. Let me put this question to him. What would the reaction of his friend, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, have been if the Government of the United States, through some of its senior members or through some of its leading parliamentarians, were to appear at meetings of the FLQ? What would be his reaction?
It is not an academic question since there was a position taken by the Government of Canada at that time.
The position that was taken by the Government of Canada at that time was based precisely upon the principle that I am invoking here.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has asked me a question. The FLQ was a terrorist organization. I challenge the Minister to characterize these organizations as terrorist organizations. He said that some members have promoted violence. Perhaps some members have. It has not been proven. But even if they have some members of a very large organization who may be promoting terrorism, that is a very unfair basis on which to characterize these organizations.
The Minister missed another point in the answer that he gave to me. He asked me how I would like it if the official position of the United States was for separation in Canada. I would not like the Americans to be for separation. I would not like them to be against it either. It is a matter for Canada. So when the United States takes an official position for or against it, it is stepping over the limit. That is my point.
For others, for provincial Premiers and for leading parliamentarians, surely a democracy such as India would understand that provincial premiers and leading parliamentarians are not the official voice of Canada. They are people who oppose in many cases the official voice of Canada.
Does the Secretary of State not see the difference between a country such as Canada taking a position for or against, which I think is quite wrong, and leading parliamentarians or provincial premiers being able to take positions? I am limiting this to the non-violent context because a terrorist organization,

March 10, 1988
Supply
as I indicated in my letter which was quoted by the Minister, is in a totally different situation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, not to prolong this, to the best of my belief the position being articulated now by the Hon. Member is a position different from that followed in practice by the Government of which he was a supporter in 1970. Its concerns expressed to other countries did not relate exclusively to the FLQ but to the appearance of giving official support by countries friendly to Canada to separatist forces, however they were pursuing their goals within Canada. That is the answer to the best of my belief. I believe the record will prove that my recollection is correct.
The Hon. Member had a second question. I made a note of it, however, 1 regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that my writing becomes so illegible sometimes that I cannot understand it.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on another tangent. The first words expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in his remarks were with respect to an implication that I was exploiting for partisan gain this issue. I take offence to that. That offence does not come lightly. I take offence to that because 1 want to know why it is that whenever someone stands up in this Chamber and attempts to discuss or to defend a perceived injustice against a minority in our country the first response from the Government must always be that someone is trying to exploit for partisan gain.
I just want to put on the record that when one stands up for minorities it should not be construed as being for offensive, political partisan gain. The numbers are clearly not there to suggest that if one deals with perceptions one will necessarily gain politically from this issue. I point that out to the Minister quite honestly and candidly. The perception of political gain may be on the Government side. I allow the Minister those political gains.
What 1 am not prepared to say, Sir, is that it is fine to support one minority and to hold qualified support for another minority because that minority might not be as popular in this day and age. I refuse to subscribe to that qualified support for minorities. Either one is in favour of standing up for minorities or one is not.
I would like to ask the Minister this. He mentioned that members of a small militant group might be causing terrorist activities. I do not want it to be construed that we are sanctioning that small militant group, if in fact there is evidence to suggest that that is going on. There are 250,000 plus Canadians of Sikh origin. Some 20,000 Canadians of Sikh origin belong to the World Sikh Organization. There were 700 individuals who came out to a meeting on Sunday evening in my riding. It was attended by myself, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and others. These people came out to the meeting partly because they had never met a Member of Parliament in their lives. They brought their wives, they did not leave them at home. They also brought their
children dressed in the costume of their nation. There were 700 people in a room that was meant to hold 500. Why in the name of goodness is the Minister trying to equate the membership of those organizations and that community with this type of letter?
I visited a city in our country just the other day where there were a number of municipal aldermen who were implicated in some wrongdoing in that city. The first question I was asked by a member of the media was, "Because you are of Italian extraction, Mr. Marchi, don't you feel a bit guilty or ashamed?" I said, "Why should I? I am not a municipal alderman in that city being implicated. Whether it is true or whether it is not is besides the point. Why should I feel ashamed? Why should my son or daughter carry that shame?" I suggested to this person that we have had individual Members of Parliament who have been implicated in wrongdoing. Is that to suggest that all Canadians of anglophone persuasion or of francophone persuasion ought to carry that shame? Of course not.
When will Canadians who are not from either French or English background cease to carry the shame of a few rather than having to carry the shame of an implication that is theirs by right through collectivity? The time has come to end that kind of thing.


Mr. Speaker:: We are a bit over the prescribed time for questions and comments. I know that often the House is prepared to go a little bit beyond the allotted time. I am asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he wishes to reply.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The first point which the Hon. Member described as a tangent had to do with partisanship. His allegations, I reject.
The point that I meant to raise to my good friend, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), was that naturally the people to whom I gave my considered advice are free to follow it or to reject it. They were owed, I believe, my considered judgment, and they have received it.
Third, as I mentioned in my remarks, the World Sikh Organization itself in debating its constitution spent a great deal of time discussing whether or not there would be a reference in that constitution to the independent state of Khalistan. They knew the controversy at the time that that constitution was debated.
Fourth, a large part of our purpose here is to try to create a set of circumstances in which that great majority of Canadians of Sikh origin will in fact be free to pursue their own values in this country and not be subject to the types of pressures that we all know exist now and that impose a very real burden on them.
Finally, Sir, on a matter of apology, I advise my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) that,
March 10, 1988

unfortunately, I am due to be hosting a luncheon for Lord Peter Carrington at precisely this moment. I know the profound interest of my friend, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and he would not want me to be absent from the lunch. 1 normally try to stay in the House on debates in which I am involved, but I cannot in these circumstances.
Mir. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is not a happy day for myself, and I suspect for most if not all Members of Parliament, to have to chastise the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on a particular initiative that he has decided to launch.
It is sad because this is a very dark day for the Canadian Sikh community; a quarter million Canadians of the Sikh culture and the Sikh faith are wounded as the result of the decision of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to suggest to Canadians that certain Sikh organizations are not worthy of a visit by a Member of Parliament, or others.
It is a dark day for the Sikh community when the Secretary of State draws attention to what he states are inappropriate actions on behalf of certain Sikh organizations and, in a sense, it casts a pall over the entire Sikh community. Today a dark cloud hangs over the Sikh community of Canada which simply fans the fires of discrimination and racism that we see glimpses of today. The sad part about it is that it should never have happened. While I applaud a number of initiatives undertaken by the Secretary of State on behalf of our country, this is not one of them. His initiative was wrong. His condemnation of the World Sikh Organization was completely and totally inappropriate.
I speak for my colleagues in the New Democratic Party who have a long history of speaking out in support of minority groups in Canada. The history of Sikhs in Canada has not always been an easy one. From their origins before the turn of the century when the first Sikhs entered Canada to become some of the most exemplary groups of Canadians that we have ever witnessed, they have encountered difficulties. In 1908 the Government of Canada banned Sikh migration. In 1914 during the Kamagata Maru incident nearly 400 Sikhs who had indicated an interest in journeying to Canada to become citizens were stopped at the Port of Vancouver and through a Canadian gun ship were eventually forced to return to India.
In an effort to remind ourselves of this incredibly black incident, I have a Private Member's Motion that, if passed by the House, would see the erection of a memorial cairn on the West Coast to remind us that certain groups of Canadians have had a difficult time in our country. We ought to go out of our way, as parliamentarians, and the Government of Canada ought to go out of its way, to ensure that all Canadians are treated fairly, and that as a result of a Government initiative no Canadian ought to feel any sense of discrimination, harassment, or feel any of the pangs of racist activity.
Supply
Sikhs have assisted Canada in its development in the forest industry, in agriculture, in commerce, in the professions, and as I stated earlier, Sikhs have become exemplary citizens in virtually every walk of life. One of the reasons that Sikhs were attracted to our country and have assisted in its development can be found in what Canada is and what it represents in the world nations. This is a country that prides itself on its multicultural policies, and its Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is a section in our Constitution that states that Canadians will have the freedom of conscience and religion; Canadians will have the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, and Canadians will have the freedom of peaceful assembly. That is what members of the World Sikh Organization thought existed in Canada.
In the constitution and by-laws of the World Sikh Organization there are a number of objectives, for example:
To promote and facilitate an active line of communication amongst the Sikhs of the world.
To promote and protect Sikh interests all over the world by participating in the formulation and implementation of the policies of the Sikh nation.
To work for the promotion of the ideals of universal brotherhood, peace, justice, freedom of worship and speech, respect for cultural diversity and human dignity for all, without any distinction as per the instruments and covenants of the United Nations' Organization.
And this, Mr. Speaker, is the important one:
To strive through peaceful means, for the establishment of a Sikh nation, Khalistan, in order to protect the Sikh identity and faith as ordained by Guru Panth in the daily prayer 'Raj Karega Khalsa'.
I wish to emphasize the words "peaceful means". In the very statement of objectives of the World Sikh Organization, the organization indicates that it will work through peaceful means.
The Secretary of State has indicated that he was concerned about terrorism and violence. All parliamentarians oppose terrorism of any type. All parliamentarians oppose the use of terrorism in terms of fostering any peaceful action. Whether it is terrorism by Canadians or on Canadian soil or elsewhere, it must be opposed.
The manner in which this is opposed is by Governments encouraging peaceful political action, peaceful protest, and peaceful discussion. Therefore, I believe that encouragement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the seven Premiers to whom he wrote hampers peaceful political pursuits of any multicultural organization. It contradicts his goal of fighting terrorism.
Many of us have attended meetings of the World Sikh Organization. Many of us who have gurdwaras in our own communities know members of the World Sikh Organization and have good friends who are members of that organization. We take some offence to the letter that the Secretary of State for External Affairs sent to seven Premiers. We take offence for two reasons. The first is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not feel it was appropriate to send the same information to Members of Parliament, did not feel it was appropriate to send the same information to the Leaders

March 10, 1988
Supply
of the opposition Parties in the House of Commons, and felt it was not appropriate or necessary to send the same letter to mayors and councils of the metropolitan areas of Canada, some of which represent millions of Canadians.
I want to read from the letter which was sent to the seven Premiers. In part the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote:
I would appreciate your co-operation in avoiding events and activities which
could be perceived as supporting the Sikh organizations mentioned above or
their objective in the creation of an independent Sikh state.
Of course one organization mentioned was the World Sikh Organization. What goes on in the country of India is of little interest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or at least it ought to be. It is a concern of the Government of India. Whether or not the political organizations of India in terms of territory are appropriate is not for the Government of Canada to hold a view on; it is a matter for the Government of India.
The fact that there are Canadian citizens, people living in Canada, who have personal views about the need for a country such as Khalistan ought to be of little concern to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. These are Canadian citizens who, by our Constitution, have the right to hold whatever views they wish to hold in terms of having the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. I must also remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canadians have the freedom of peaceful assembly to discuss matters of concern to them, whatever they may be.
In terms of history, I recall Canadian citizens who had concerns regarding the eventual formation of the State of Israel and Canadians today of Palestinian origin who are interested in the creation of a homeland for Palestinians. They have meetings and discuss the matter. I also recall Slovaks, Croatians, and Ukrainians living in Canada who have an interest in the creation of homelands for their peoples.
The fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would single out this particular incident, take sides with a foreign country, and say that we support the position of the Government of India against the views held by Canadian citizens is completely and totally inappropriate.
What we see here, in a sense, is group condemnation. When we single out an organization, such as the World Sikh Organization with membership in the tens of thousands, and recognize that across Canada our friends and colleagues are members of the World Sikh Organization and therefore, by implication, are condemned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs for harbouring terrorist notions and supporting violence and terrorism, it is completely inappropriate. This collective guilt which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has created, this group guilt or group condemnation, is completely unacceptable.
He went on to indicate in his letter that members of these organizations had also engaged in or promoted violent activities. I want to remind him that organizations do not carry out violent activities; individuals do. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs has information that people are participating in violent activities, arranging terrorist activities or participating in terrorist activities, then we should take the appropriate steps and lay charges. We should deal with these individuals as individuals in Canada, but not condemn an entire organization and, by implication, an entire community in Canada.
The Sikh community is grieving today. It is being torn apart and is being ghettoized in a community sense because of the sweeping generalization and sweeping condemnation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as a result of the letter. If he has evidence that indeed terrorism is being encouraged, that terrorist activities are being organized, and that violence is occurring as a result of some organizations, let him take action and provide evidence.
I listened very carefully to his words today. There was not a shred of evidence, not a single fact which would give his initiative any credibility. It is easy to stand and condemn a group of innocent people but, quite frankly, that activity has no place in a free and democratic society.
It seems that the only appropriate action now would be to clear the air. I am very saddened by the fact that the matter will now have to go to some form of inquiry, but I think it is the only alternative left. This means that the issue will stay on the front pages of newspapers and be reiterated time and time again in the news media, which will lead to more and more of a cloud over this very critical, important, and integral community in Canada.
Whether that is done through the appropriate standing committees of the House of Commons, whether the matter is referred to the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, to the Standing Committee on Human Rights, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, or to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, I do not think is particularly critical, as long as the Secretary of State for External Affairs is called upon either to provide evidence or to apologize to the Sikh community of Canada and to the organizations he has named in his letter. If he does not, it will be up to the Sikh community to take action, because I believe that there is no way the Sikh community can stand condemned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs without fighting back for its rights.
It is sad that this must take place in a free and democratic country like Canada. Of course its initiatives can take the form of hearings through the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the form of court actions to clear the names of the World Sikh Organization and the other named organizations.
It seems puzzling that the whole matter has occurred. I would like to think that it has no relationship at all to our trade relationship with India. Indian government representatives in Canada have dissociated themselves totally from the initiative taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They say that in no way did they urge the Minister to take this
March 10, 1988

initiative, that in no way did they counsel the Minister that this was appropriate or necessary. It was simply something done by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, presumably on his own decision. It is puzzling, because I recall attending meetings and conventions of various Sikh organizations where there were representatives of the government Party in attendance and where members of Cabinet sent greetings and so on, presumably endorsing the goals of the organization or their efforts in Canada.
The fact that the World Sikh Organization has as one of its goals the creation of an independent Sikh homeland, does not mean that a Member of Parliament attending a meeting of that organization necessarily supports that particular initiative or particular goal. I notice that the Secretary of State for External Affairs meets regularly with representatives of the South African Government. Presumably that does not mean that the Government of Canada supports apartheid. I could think of a number of public meetings or public gatherings of organizations which I attended. That would certainly not mean that I support all their goals and objectives.
Actually, we as a Parliament must go beyond simply clearing the air on this particular issue. We also have to take other actions. We have to take action in our immigration offices. We have to take action in our customs offices. We have to take action through CSIS and the RCMP and through our High Commissioner in India. I am sure all Members of Parliament who have Sikhs in their communities could identify countless examples of discrimination against Sikhs, discrimination against Canadian citizens who we know very well and work alongside, but who happen to be different because their name is Singh and because they are members of the Sikh organization.
I heard of a sad situation the other day. A gentleman, was crossing the border coming from the United States into Canada. A Sikh was accompanying him. As he was stopped at the border the customs officer looked into the vehicle and said, "That's fine, Sir. You can go through. But we will have to question this associate of yours". When asked why the officer said, "We are under orders to do that". Presumably the only difference was that one man had a turban and one man did not, one man's name included the word Singh and the other one did not. One was a Sikh and the other was not. Because of the ability of the customs officer to identify the individual's cultural heritage meant that he would be interrogated because there were orders to do so. In a country that prides itself on its freedom, its multicultural heritage and policy, whose government puts out a report called "Equality Now", we cannot tolerate that kind of discrimination at our borders.
We all know of individual immigration cases that we work on. Again, there are subtle ways of discriminating against people of the Sikh faith. The Secretary of State for External Affairs must provide a forum in which to justify his particular behaviour in this instance, or he must apologize to the World
Supply
Sikh Organization and to the Sikhs of Canada. It is now obligatory for the Government to take a number of other actions, as I said earlier, with our customs officials, our Immigration departments, in New Delhi through the High Commissioner's office, with the police and with CSIS to ensure that appropriate missives are communicated. Discrimination against those of the Sikh faith cannot be tolerated and the Sikhs in Canada should be able to play their rightful role as Canadian citizens.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) of the New Democratic Party. I think he made some very valid points. I would like to dwell on freedom of expression and freedom of association. I think it is a fundamental right for Canadians to have this freedom. Our Charter guarantees that freedom to all Canadians. What bothers me about the whole situation is that in trying to influence other members of governments whether provincial or federal, telling them that they can or should not attend certain functions, is contrary to the fundamental principle of Canadian justice and the Charter.
Does the Hon. Member believe that we as Canadians have to uphold the fundamental principles of the Charter, the freedom of expression and the freedom of association?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of my hon. colleague from Calgary. Yes, not only must we take steps to ensure that the rights and freedoms of Canadians are upheld, but perhaps we should go beyond that and take extraordinarily steps at times to ensure that no Canadian is ever left with the impression that his or her rights are less than others.
This particular issue gives us that opportunity. We have heard from Members on all sides of this House. The matter has cut across partisan political lines. We have heard from Members of the Liberal Party, Members of the Conservative Party and Members of the New Democratic Party condemning the Secretary of State for External Affairs for inappropriate action, for an action, if you like, that virtually encourages terrorist activities. It works against people expressing their views in an open and free way.
There is another fundamental right that we as parliamentarians have to be particularly sensitive to, namely, being asked not to attend certain kinds of functions. We all have the intelligence to decide what groups we are prepared to discuss issues with and what organizations we are prepared to meet with. We do not need a lecture from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to indicate to Members of Parliament which are or are not appropriate groups.
When it comes to domestic affairs in India, that is the concern of the Indian Government. Our Secretary of State for External Affairs, I think, would be spending his time more appropriately taking steps to ensure that the rights and freedoms of Canadians are being upheld as opposed to being, if

March 10, 1988
you like, a voice, which in this case, obviously was for another Government.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend my colleague from British Columbia on a very well thought and articulated representation in the House on this sensible issue. I applaud the courage and the decency of stating one's convictions, which the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) did. I am pleased that the House Leader for the New Democratic Party has signalled publicly his support for the appropriate forum and inquiry, as difficult as it will be for the community and for the Canadian fabric, to try to clear the air on this issue. Hopefully we will get the Government to concede on that point, notwithstanding that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not refuse or agree to such an inquiry. I hope my submission to the Standing Committee on Multicul-turalism, which was one of the committees mentioned by the NDP House Leader, will be successful in trying to evaluate that evidence which is currently confidential and in the possession of the Government.
Could the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) tell us why the Prime Minister of Canada would send his congratulations, recognition and best wishes publicly on June 7 to the World Sikh Organization meeting in his own province while probably at the same time-the letter was dated December 7 and as the Member knows it takes quite a bit of time to consider action, write a letter and redraft it-secretly the Government was making moves in the very opposite direction from the public endorsation of the Prime Minister?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 will allow the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) to finish up briefly, please.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. It points out vividly that once again the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) erred in the decision to send that letter. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) obviously was indicating the Government's support for the World Sikh Organization while the Secretary of State for External Affairs was of a totally different mind. That lends more support for the need for an inquiry of some kind.
It also raises the spectre of what other letters have been sent. This one simply came into our hands as an error. It was leaked and it became public. If this letter became public, are there other letters being sent to organizations or to individuals saying, "Do not attend this or that meeting?" This is a big brother approach that I do not think we want to see continue any longer. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs takes seriously the suggestion made by the two opposition Parties for some kind of a hearing, either public, parliamentary, or a hearing by one of the standing committees of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The floor will be free after Question Period. It being a little after one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, once again the Tibetan people are demanding their independence and freedom. It has now been 38 years since China marched into Tibet to enforce its rule on this small, peaceful country, and it is 29 years since the uprising of Tibetans on March 10, 1959, to protest the foreign domination of their country. On that occasion tens of thousands of Tibetans were killed by Chinese security forces and it is that date which they are recalling today.
It is interesting but sad to note that, while the world has given a lot of attention to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and to the problems in South Africa and Central America, very little attention has been given to this occupation of Tibet. Tibet and the Tibetan people have the right to freedom and I ask the Canadian Government to support their demands.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, would any MP in this House like to have his or her income tax reassessed because Revenue Canada deemed that a garage allowed too high a sum for a used auto that was traded in three years ago? No, not one.
That is what some farmers who traded used farm machines in on new ones three or four years ago are facing. In effect, Revenue officials are asking our farmers to change the figures on bills of sale. If a company allowed too much for the used machine, why should the farmer be responsible?
All of us, and probably all Canadians, get as much as possible for used machines when buying new ones. If the company pays too much, it has the God-given right to go broke, but the farmer should not now be reassessed because some ridiculous regulation was promoted by a bureaucrat who thinks he knows more about the price of farm equipment than the farmer or the manufacturer. I urge the Minister to rescind this ridiculous regulation and to stop his officials from harassing our farmers.
March 10, 1988



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in Africa where 80 per cent of the people live in rural areas, women do about 70 per cent of the work. Yet traditionally, aid funding has gone to men. Training has been provided for men despite the fact that women actually do the job. Women in developing countries need more training and land ownership, more equality in access to credit, and more legal protection.
The Government recently released a strategy paper which read in part:
Women are half the world's population but they put in two-thirds of its work
hours, receive one-tenth of its income and own less than one-hundredth of its
property.
The strategy paper states that CIDA supports grassroots projects developed by and for women.
Another new report by the North-South Institute presents an overview of NGO activity under the title "Bridges of Hope". It points out that in only 33 per cent of projects were local women actually involved in project design.
We must assure Canadians that the larger percentage of money going to NGOs and businesses will be dependent to some extent on the degree to which projects improve the living conditions of women.



NARCOTICS


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) made an important announcement at an international conference on substance abuse. He stated that both CSC and RCMP have launched a joint initiative to fight the flow of drugs both into and within prisons. The Minister has to be congratulated for his leadership and for his important contribution to the National Drug Strategy.
As a member of the legal and justice committee, I have visited many institutions over the last few months and have met many inmates. As Hon. Members are aware, the process of rehabilitating inmates is much more difficult when drugs are readily available. I can assure Hon. Members that the step taken by the Solicitor General is one that will really help those who want to be rehabilitated.
Fewer drugs in prisons will result in a more sound environment for inmates and prison workers, as well as a safer place within which to work. As a Canadian citizen and as a father, I am proud of the Minister's initiative. It provides Canadians
with a safer society to live in and sets a good example for all citizens to follow.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Montreal are becoming increasingly impatient with the federal Government's failure to act decisively on projects as important as the development of the Vieux-Port and the space agency.
We all remember that in November 1986, the Committee chaired by Mr. Laurent Picard made these projects its two main recommendations for reviving the economy of Greater Montreal. Unfortunately, on December 2 the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) responded to these recommendations with some well-meaning platitudes, and two days later, all those representing Montreal's socioeconomic and political interests deplored this lack of decisive action.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Montreal want to know what the federal Government intends to do about the space agency. Is the federal Government going to announce its decision before, during or after the election campaign, which means never?



TRANSPORT


Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada has suspended the sale of three-wheel all-terrain vehicles in Canada, following as usual the lead of the United States. The suspension may be acceptable in the provinces where roads have been developed, and the suspension is enforced in areas where the vehicles cannot be used anyway. However, in the Keewatin and central Arctic regions, where there is a lot of tundra and muskeg, the three-wheel ATVs are less expensive than the four-wheel versions, and are used extensively for hunting and for work.
Northerners have already been hit hard financially by the anti-fur lobby. Forcing them to buy four-wheel ATVs instead of three-wheel ATVs imposes a further financial burden because the price difference can be as much as $1,000 to $3,000.

March 10, 1988
Suspension of the three-wheel ATVs was opposed by all the callers to a territorial open-line program held at Rankin Inlet last Friday. Therefore, I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to allow the sale of the three-wheel version to northern residents until roads have been built.



AIR TRANSPORT


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, last year the U.S. and Japanese Governments signed a nuclear agreement calling for possible transportation of plutonium, a speck of which can cause cancer, over Canada. Canadians did not like this idea and said so.
From Arctic Bay to Eskimo Point to Iqualit, to Whitehorse, to Toronto, to Faro, to Edmonton, to Vancouver and to Haines Junction in the Yukon, and in many other communities, thousands of Canadians signed petitions to this Parliament opposing those flights. Letters were sent to Canadian and American government officials. NDP and Liberal MPs demanded answers. The Canadian and U.S. media followed the issue closely.
Tad Homer-Dixon, a Canadian student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, worked to oppose these flights. John Polanyi, Nobel Prize winner, spoke out in opposition.
For those cynics who say ordinary persons cannot make a difference, here is proof positive that they can. We have learned through the U.S. Department of State that the U.S.-Japan nuclear agreement will be modified through an official exchange of letters requiring the Japanese to pursue an allwater route.
There are still concerns. Nuclear proliferation is a real threat. There are environmental dangers. The fight is not over but we can be pleased that we, ordinary people, have won a major battle.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, as we mark the end of International Women's Week it is appropriate to bring to light the dramatic progress this Government has made in appointing women to key decision-making positions.
We have almost doubled the percentage of women appointed to federal boards, agencies and commissions. The figure now stands at 28.6 per cent, compared to 15 per cent under the previous Government.
The number of federally appointed women judges has risen to 20, a 22 per cent increase since our Government took office. Appointments of women to senior levels in the federal Public Service have more than doubled.
Twelve women have been appointed to positions as Ambassadors, High Commissioners, and Consuls General, a rate six times higher than that of the previous Government.
This is not a token gesture but clear evidence of this Government's recognition of the talents and competence of Canadian women.



TELEFILM CANADA


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, he finally did it.


Mr. Tobin:: Did what?


Don Boudria: He threw in the towel.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Who?


Don Boudria: I am glad the Hon. Member asked. Jean Sirois, of course. Jean Sirois, the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) friend, Tory bagman, leadership supporter of the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), an all-round Tory, has decided that he no longer wants a juicy $64,000 a year political appointment as Chairman of Telefilm Canada, effective April 13. He wants to go back to his law business where he can make the real dough, such as $400,000 legal contracts which he recently got from the federal Government and his friend, the Prime Minister.
Canadians are relieved that Jean Sirois is leaving. He has long since worn out his welcome at Telefilm Canada. However, we want to know why April 13. The Prime Minister should phone him up today and tell him to leave the keys to the executive washroom before he goes home tonight.

Mr. Speaker, why wait until spring? I say we should fire Jean Sirois as of now!



TAXATION


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in December, 1986, a list of communities qualifying
March 10, 1988

for northern resident tax benefits was released by the Department of Finance. Surprisingly, the list included several villages in southwestern Saskatchewan. Because it is manifestly unfair that residents of one community qualify for the tax benefit while those all around it do not, I raised the matter in this House on several occasions in April of 1987, requesting revision of the criteria used in designating an isolated post. Unfortunately, the subsequent revisions merely exacerbated the problem by confirming the original list, while excluding all other communities.
The determination procedure is arbitrary, inequitable, and capricious, and requires urgent attention. I call on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to act quickly by putting a senior person in charge of drafting common sense criteria which ensure that all residents of an area are treated fairly, evenly, and consistently.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, last week a senior immigration official spoke about foreign domestic workers as follows:
So what we have is a half-way house, really. We bring them in, and if they prove that they are good at their job then we land them and then they can stay in that job if they want or go on to something else. But at least they have two years in which they have to stay .with the family and do what we ask them to do. In the old system, when we brought them in just as immigrants, they would never stay. They would do day work, but they would never live in the house and stay, because they are out of their environment with the people of their own group.
Half-way houses are for unfortunates such as prisoners being rehabilitated, or ex-psychiatric patients, or the mentally retarded. It is wrong to speak so paternalistically about the hundreds of women, mostly Caribbean or Filipino, who come to work hard as domestics for Canadian families. Their pay is often shockingly low and they are often treated very badly. Federal or provincial laws or unions give them almost no protection. Canada needs these domestic workers. Immigration workers ought not to insult them.



ABORTION


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of January 28, 1988, has
left the country without an abortion law. It is now possible for abortion to take place any time during the nine months after conception.
We must, as parliamentarians, move quickly to remedy this deplorable situation. Nothing in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision establishes abortion as a right. We must, therefore, find a way to give both mothers and children the right to life and freedom.
Accordingly, we must bring in legislation which respects human life at all stages of development. A human foetus in the womb at three weeks is just as valuable to society and as much human as an unborn child at 24 weeks.
On this, the great moral question of the 20th century, all Members of Parliament must state clearly where they stand on the question of life or death for unborn children. I am proud to stand with those millions of Canadians who condemn the present situation. I join their plea for protection of unborn children.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, today I want to congratulate Miss Kim Campbell, Social Credit MLA in British Columbia, for having had the courage of her convictions.
Yesterday, Miss Campbell openly defied Premier Vander Zalm by saying she supported public financing for abortions and freedom of choice for women. "I am not for sale", said Miss Campbell.
Mr. Speaker, I admire and respect the stand she has taken. In fact, isn't this what politics is all about: Having the courage of one's own and one's constituents' convictions, whatever the political cost?
Premier Vander Zalm has publicly ignored the will of the majority of the voters in his province and has rejected the wisdom of the Supreme Court.
Miss Campbell is to be commended for her integrity and honesty. By her actions she has strengthened the democratic process, speaking up for those whose views are being ignored by Mr. Vander Zalm.

March 10, 1988
Oral Questions



CHARTER OF RIGHTS


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the Charter is diluting democracy in Canada. We now have two kinds of government, the elected government of Parliament and the unelected government of judges. The elected government proposes, the unelected government disposes.
The fault with this does not lie in the quality of decisions. The recent decision of British Columbia was right in my judgment. The fault lies in the way that the ultimate authority is no longer the elected government and, therefore, the ultimate authority is no longer the electors it represents.
This subject will not command the headlines or the television news. It has no quick fix, but it is fundamental to the future of democracy in Canada and it should be on the forward planning agenda of Parliament.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I note that it is 2.15 and I am delighted because many Members are here to hear the good news. It has been nearly four decades since Newfoundland joined Confederation, nearly 40 years. In all of those 40 years the constituents of Waterford-Kenmount, which riding in the area of St. John's West previously went by other names, had always voted Conservative.
Wednesday night, in the middle of the riding of St. John's West, the riding of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), the people of Waterford-Kenmount returned a Liberal, with a huge shot in the arm for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland. This is equivalent to the Riverview win in New Brunswick.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, as night follows day this means that the Liberal Party in Newfoundland and Labrador is on its way to government. I know that the Member for St. John's West, the Minister of Transport, joins me in congratulating Mr. Eric Gullage, the brand new Member in his federal riding, for a job well done and for the beginning of a brand new Liberal Government in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) January announcement that Canada would spend an additional $1.3 billion on research and development and would foster the establishment of centres of excellence has been enthusiastically received by the research community, and stimulated much discussion around the centres of excellence concept.
Perhaps this should be expanded into "networks of excellence". This is the view of Professor Gilles Barbery, Director of Mines and Metallurgy at Laval University. His field of research is one in which Canada ought naturally to excel. It is, however, shared by several universities, business corporations, and both provincial and federal government research establishments such as CANMET. Instead of centering all research in a specific geographical location we should strengthen the network, each component of which could develop its own speciality.
The same of course is true for other areas of research such as medicine, communications, or space technology.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. During the last general election the Prime Minister said:
The postal service is an essential service for every Canadian ... A new
Progressive Conservative government... will continue to improve the
standards of delivery providing all Canadians equal access to postal delivery.
The Minister nods. Some promise. Three hundred thousand Canadians now have to use those absurd supermailboxes. They do not work, they are vandalized, they lower property values, and they cause serious inconvenience to thousands of senior citizens.
Rural Canadians must drive 30 to 40 miles because the rural postal routes have been closed. Rural routes are a thing of the past.
Why did the Prime Minister promise all Canadians that they would have equal access to daily mail delivery if he did not intend to keep that promise, or did the Prime Minister really mean that Canadians would get fair and equitable delivery unless they happen to live in rural Canada, in a new
March 10, 1988

housing development, or in a suburb? Is that what the Prime Minister really meant?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there are a great number of inaccuracies in the preamble of the question by the Leader of the Opposition. I will deal with just one. No rural routes were cut, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition has indicated.
He talks about delivering mail through group mailboxes. That in fact arose out of a decision by the then Postmaster General in 1974. I believe the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the Government that made that decision.
In order to restore door-to-door delivery in all homes now served by group mailboxes, it would cost $1.3 billion over the next five years, with ongoing expenses of $400 million a year after that. I recognize that the Leader of the Opposition is sensitive to deficits these days, but he should be applauding the Post Office for the fact that this year it will make a profit in excess of $20 million, which is what we have accomplished in our term of office so far.


John Napier Turner: I will admit to one inaccuracy in the preamble. It was the Prime Minister's statement. One could fill one of those superboxes with the broken promises of the Prime Minister.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in this House on December 5, 1986: "There shall be no second class citizens in this country as long as this Government remains in office,-"


Mr. Mazankowski:: Right.


John Napier Turner: "-postal services or otherwise". The Deputy Prime Minister may want to answer this question, since he has intervened.
I guess the Prime Minister was right. People in new subdivisions, people in rural Canada, people in the Deputy Prime Minister's part of rural Alberta, and people in new housing developments are not second-class citizens under this Government, they are third-class citizens.
I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. Why does the Prime Minister think that the only way to improve the Post Office is to cut postal service?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, no postal services have been cut.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: The Leader of the Opposition is as accurate about the operations of the Post Office as he was about the considerations concerning what submarines are all about.
Oral Questions
The fact of the matter is that over the next four years there will be 6,000 new post office outlets opened to serve the public. The fact of the matter is that the Post Office finally is operating in the black. When our Government took over it had a deficit of over $500 million. I recognize that the Leader of the Liberal Party is not concerned about a mere $500 million. That is trivial. The Royal Bank can take care of that in no time at all. But as a-


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion for the Minister. Perhaps he would like to join me out in Manitoba on the rural mail routes and try to defend that proposition in the next provincial election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUPERMAILBOXES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the Minister correctly, he said that the Prime Minister did not tell the truth during the last election campaign and did not tell the truth either before the House. What kind of answer does the Minister have for hundreds of thousands of Canadians who saw the value of their homes go down because superboxes were installed in front of those homes and because they are not getting daily home delivery? What kind of answer does he have to that?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition continues in making these false statements-


Ms. Copps:: Oh, come on!


Harvie Andre: -and then asks me to justify a completely false, baseless, unprovable accusation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: The Rat Pack behind him does not want to hear the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister will answer the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated in the House on other occasions, where supermailboxes have been in place and the users polled the approval rating is about 95 per cent.


John Napier Turner: Oh, sure!


Harvie Andre: There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition about property values going down. He knows that that is not true.
Now that the Post Office is making a profit we are able to look at expanding the service which was cut back in 1974. It

March 10, 1988
Oral Questions
will be done in a responsible way, not by incurring huge deficits to be paid off by some future generation.


SUPERMAILBOXES-PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION IN ONTARIO
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the same Minister. On November 27, 1986,1 warned the Conservative Government in the House that the installation of supermailboxes would reduce property values and penalize Canadian homeowners in new subdivisions. Yesterday the Ontario Municipal Board ruled to reduce property taxes by 5 per cent on houses where supermailboxes had been installed because those property owners suffer a loss of privacy.
How long will it take the Government to understand that the supermailboxes are unfair and discriminatory, and that they deprive Canadians of the most fundamental right, privacy? Who will pay for the loss of their property value because of the installation of supermailboxes? Is the Minister going to reimburse them?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the Ontario Municipal Board specifically stated that there was no drop in property values, contrary to what the Hon. Member has said. What the Municipal Board stated in this case is that there was nuisance value to people as a result-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Why, were you delivering the mail, Harvey?


Harvie Andre: Apparently members of the Liberal Party are not willing to listen to the truth. They continuously make false accusations and then sit there braying like mules-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou.
[ Translation]


DEVALUATION OF REAL ESTATE-MUNICIPALITIES' LOSS OF REVENUE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, municipalities will have to cut their tax bills because of the superboxes, since the Ontario Municipal Board ruled yesterday that the boxes reduced property value. Does the Government intend to compensate municipalities for the loss of revenue? Is the Government going to compensate homeowners for the loss of property value?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I guess the real question is, is the Liberal Party going to come out in favour of a 60-cent stamp which would be required to pay for what it has just requested. Those are the facts. A 60-cent stamp will be required.
If that is the position of the Leader of the Liberal Party, let him take it honestly and go out and campaign on it, a 60-cent stamp to accomplish what he feels should be accomplished.


SUPERMAILBOXES-ONTARIO GOVERNMENT'S POSITION ON PROPERTY TAXES
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Is the Minister aware that the Ontario Government, not one hour ago, announced that it is not only prepared to abide by the OMB decision that was made yesterday for those residents who are unfortunate enough to have those boxes in their communities, but also for individuals in surrounding communities it is prepared to reduce property taxes by 5 per cent?


Harvie Andre: No, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT COMPENSATE MUNICIPALITIES
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister does not know, I am telling him that those superboxes do in fact reduce property values in those communities where they are located.
Will the Minister take steps to compensate municipalities and property owners because of the loss of tax base in those communities where the boxes are located, and indeed for the people who have those boxes inflicted upon them?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member will not be offended if he allows me to wait until I get the facts before accepting what he has to say as factual.
Very specifically, the OMB stated that there was no evidence of loss in property values. There have been independent studies, and I will be glad to show them to the Hon. Member that, in fact, property values are not affected.
After all, when bread delivery was stopped and when door-to-door milk delivery was stopped there was not a horrendous drop in property values because people had to buy their milk and bread in a different fashion. So, Mr. Speaker, get with it, the times are changing.


Mr. Broadbent:: There were no superbreadboxes put up. That's a great comparison, Harvie.


DOOR DELIVERY-REAL ESTATE ADVERTISEMENTS
Neil Young: Is the Minister aware that many real estate agents are now advertising door-to-door mail delivery as a special feature for individuals who are trying to sell property? Is the Minister aware of that? If he is, why does the Minister not do the right thing and restore door-to-door delivery mail service for all Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 10, 1988


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as indicated, the cost of that is SI.3 billion over the next five years. If the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party feel that that should be done and that we should incur the additional $400 million a year continuing expenditures, or pay for it by a 60-cent stamp, let them advocate that position. Certainly, I am sure the Government would consider it. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
That is what they are advocating-an additional expenditure of $400 million a year. One has to balance that. Would we rather spend it that way, or on better child care for Canadian mothers? Make the choice. Those are the types of alternatives we are looking at.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that the discussions with the United States which are taking place today, in Washington, regarding export restrictions on British Columbia herring and salmon, appear to be going nowhere.
Yesterday in the House the Minister said that he would protect the fishing industry and the jobs of fish plant workers.
Since the Minister had time last night to think out how he will protect those jobs, what action does he intend to take now to protect them?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Egmont indicated, the discussions are continuing in Washington. As I tried to indicate yesterday in the House, I think it would not be helpful to the Canadian position for us to speculate on what we might do after those discussions.
We will take it one step at a time. We are involved very closely in consultations with the industry, with the provinces, and with others. The discussions are continuing today.


EXPORT TAXES-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister knows, the workers in British Columbia are tremendously concerned about the issue, as are plant workers in the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada.
At first glance, under Article 1203 of the free trade deal, Atlantic Canada is exempt from the fish processing regulations. However, the Minister would have to agree that Article 1205 indicates that everything under the free trade agreement
Oral Questions
as far as fish exporting regulations are concerned also comes under GATT.
The Minister knows that, under Article 408 of the free trade agreement, we have given up the right to impose export taxes, in order to fight a ruling against us. He also knows that any nation only has two options to consider-first, to prohibit the export of raw resources or, second, to impose export taxes.
Will the Minister not agree and tell the House today that the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal does nothing whatsoever to protect the fishing industry and the fishing jobs in Canada? In other words, it does the reverse.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to that very extensive question, and the answer is no.


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister knows, today the Federal Court of Canada has prohibited the Immigration Appeal Board from hearing the case of a refugee claimant because the Government's Bill C-55 has created a "reasonable apprehension of bias" through its Section 38, which provides for firing all members of the board when the Act comes into force and rehiring only those whom the Government likes.
Therefore, will the Minister confirm to this House that, if the Federal Court decision stands, the fact is that the Immigration Appeal Board may be prohibited from hearing any and all cases, not only of refugees, but also, for example, of Canadian citizens seeking to appeal in an effort to bring over their relatives as immigrants? Will the Minister confirm that that is what can now happen?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the judgment of the Federal Court requires careful consideration. We are seeking legal advice from the Department of Justice.
However, I am very surprised that the Hon. Member for Spadina, who filibustered Bill C-84 for eight months, could ask any question about the status of refugees.


REQUEST THAT BILL C-55 BE AMENDED
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Minister is not ready to understand this issue, since the Canadian Bar Association warned him, on October 21, in speaking about Bill C-55, that exactly this was likely to happen, and that in the last four months the Minister has not done anything to prepare himself for this.

March 10, 1988

Oral Questions
Therefore, I will ask the Minister if he will now undertake to bring into Parliament an amendment to Bill C-55 which will assure members of the Immigration Appeal Board that they will have the normal rights and protection of tenure, that is, that they will not be dismissed during their term of office except for cause.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I won't bring in any amendment to Bill C-84, but I will tell the Opposition that we do not have a system in the country which is operating, which is working.
For eight months Canadians have wanted legislation to deal with the status of refugees. However, systematically you are stalling and dragging your feet on the refugee issue. I hope that you will face the problem today and that you will take your responsibilities.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister is aware, because he has been there several times, that the Nanaimo Airport needs a terminal building. It is one of the busiest airports on the West Coast, served by a halfdozen airlines operating out of a half-dozen trailers along the taxiway.
My question is simply this. When will the people of Nanaimo, of Ladysmith, and of Duncan have the airport terminal building they have been demanding for years and years and years?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say today-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -that this has been very much on my mind and that approval has been given for the construction of an air terminal building complex at the Nanaimo Airport.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I cannot understand how our predecessor Government ignored this obvious need.
The complex will include a parking lot, roadways, utility services, airline ticket and baggage claim services.


TAXATION
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it is on the subject of the tax deduction for northern residents, which is grossly unfair in its administration.
There are islands off the East Coast and the West Coast which are not on the list. Not a single community in New Brunswick is on the list. There are communities in Saskatchewan which are not on the list. As a matter of fact, his own Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek today in the House called the Minister's administration arbitrary and capricious.
Will the Minister stop being arbitrary and capricious? Will he now intervene personally, or the Minister of National Revenue, stop hiding behind an inquiry, and put on that list those communities which so obviously deserve to be there?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in the rhetoric the Hon. Member has just used I think he is ignoring the fact that a number of people have been very favourably treated as a result of the fact that the remission order, which was very temporary and only applied to a few people in northern communities for many, many years, is now on a permanent basis.
There are pensioners, self-employed people, and native peoples who now have assurance that the benefits are being received and will continue to be received by them.
The Hon. Member has referred to some problems on the borderlines-which communities should be in and which communities should be outside the treatment for northern communities. We have called for the creation of a commission to review it, so that people can make representations to the commission on whether or not they should be in.
In the meantime, some communities might qualify which are not sure whether they qualify now. The Department of National Revenue can provide them with that sort of information, at this point in time, prior to the creation of the commission.


Bill Rompkey: People are paying taxes now. They cannot wait for an inquiry. The system is unfair.


REQUEST THAT CERTAIN COMMUNITIES BE ADDED TO LIST
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, let me point out another thing. If one pays for a medical emergency in the North, in the Arctic, one cannot claim it on one's income tax. However, if one's employer pays for it, one can. It is that kind of inequity which needs to be rectified now.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why didn't you change it?



March 10, 1988


Bill Rompkey: As a matter of fact, the list has been revised because Trepassey in St. John's West has been added to it. We want other communities which similarly qualify to be added now; not after the inquiry, but now when they are paying their taxes.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think if the Hon. Member would reflect on what he has just said, instead of having a borderline here, he would have the borderline moved here. The precise point is that we want to have it assessed by an objective commissioner. With 208 ridings held by the Conservative Party in Canada, I am sure the Hon. Member would be critical of the Government for saying that this or that community is in. Because we have so many ridings it would be expected that there would be many more Conservative ridings favoured as a result. That is why we are proposing the creation of the commission to make these judgments.
There is $150 million worth of tax benefit being generated by this new provision in the Income Tax Act for people living in northern Canada. I am sure that the Hon. Member would be quite complimentary that we have made this very progressive move.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue and concerns women who head single-parent families and live together to save money. These women cannot claim the equivalent to married exemption. My question is this: Is this a fair and reasonable way to treat women living in such difficult circumstances? Why not amend the regulations to allow these women to claim the equivalent of the married exemption?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague, I will study this representation.
The Minister of Finance has pointed out that our Government has brought a lot of tax equity into situations where previously none existed. I will take her question as a representation.
Oral Questions EQUIVALENT OF MARRIED STATUS REQUESTED


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is not a representation. It is a request that has been around for a long time.
Would the Minister tell us about the principle that it should be possible for women in these circumstances, who are the prime members of the poverty group, single parents with children, trying to stretch their very few dollars as much as possible, to get the equivalent of married status? How soon will the Minister respond on the practicality if he agrees with the principle?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, this Government has always agreed with the principle of tax equity. That is why we brought in some very progressive measures, such as child tax credits, and as the Minister of Finance has just said, benefits for people who live in the northern regions of the country.
We have studied the situation concerning women, single parents, who are living in conditions of poverty, and we will continue to do so.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday I spoke of the trend for foreign owned firms in Canada to buy out their Canadian minority shareholders.
Since management will clearly find it easier to integrate Canadian and North American operations under the new trade agreement when there are no minority shareholders to deal with, does the Minister intend to take action such as issuing guidelines for good corporate conduct to encourage publicly traded companies to maintain a Canadian voice in decision making?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are guidelines that have been outstanding for some while now on the question of good corporate citizenship which include, among other things, just what the Member has said.
As my colleague pointed out yesterday, it is important to realize, looked at in the broadest sense, that investment in Canada expanded last year and it appears this year we will have very, very positive results. Investment intentions are up by 17 per cent this current year over last year. As one commentator said, "There are sure no signs of recession on the horizon this year".

March 10, 1988
Oral Questions


OFFERS TO BUY OUT MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question was not concerned with investment per se but with the behaviour of foreign owned companies within Canada.
Since Toronto based CIL Inc. has accepted a $184 million offer from its British parent to buy out CIL's minority shareholders, and an offer by a major pillar of Canada's food service industry, Nabisco Brands, to buy out minority shareholders closed on March 2, is this not evidence of a trend to buy out Canadian minority shareholders about which the Government should do something? We know the guidelines have existed since the previous Government, but are they being honoured and does the Government believe in them?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, before the Nabisco transaction took place there were discussions with Investment Canada, as there have to be under the guidelines, and Nabisco gave additional undertakings in areas such as world product mandates and increased capital investment that will significantly improve the longer term growth potential of the Canadian business and will secure additional employment for Canadians and maintain existing employment.
There are guidelines. Those guidelines were followed by the company in question. They were reviewed by Investment Canada and finally approved by the Minister responsible. Everything was done according to the law and according to the rules which govern the behaviour of foreign corporate citizens in this country.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. The Government has indicated that it intends to change the two-price wheat policy in such a way that producers will continue to receive support.
Two years ago an all-Party committee of this House recommended to the Minister of State that he explore, in conjunction with the Canadian Wheat Board and other wheat producer representative bodies, mechanisms to ensure that the two-price wheat policy continues to reflect historic regional market share of all wheat types. Has he had meetings in regard to this recommendation concerning historic regional market share as a basis for distribution of the benefit?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, we said before Christmas that we wanted to change the way the producers receive the benefit to do two things: to see the producer simply continue to enjoy the
benefit, and to make the industry competitive with product coming in from the outside. In line with that, I have had consultations with the industry and three meetings with producers in an attempt to arrive at a solution that takes as many points of view into account as possible, with the over-all objective of treating producers fairly whether they produce wheat in Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Quebec, on the Prairies or in British Columbia.
We are presently finished our consultations and are going through the process of determining how we will accomplish that, again in line with the basis of treating producers, no matter where they are in the country, as fairly as we possibly can.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ONTARIO MINISTER OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Monty Quinter, Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology of the Government of Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Minister of Labour cannot be here today. Therefore, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. I am sure he knows that the shopcraft unions have taken job action against CP Rail in Winnipeg which will not affect CN or VIA in any way and will, according to CP officials, only affect CP Rail in a limited way.
Could the Minister assure the House that he, the Minister of Labour, and the Cabinet will not, I repeat will not, proclaim Parts 2 and 3 of Bill C-85 passed last fall in order to force the shopcraft unions from not taking job action?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I am sure the Minister of Labour and the Government will look at the situation and make an assessment. I certainly cannot state that we will not take any particular action that might be authorized by legislation, but we will certainly examine the situation carefully first.
March 10, 1988


COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since those shopcraft unions were not involved in any strike last year but were lumped in with all the others, will the Minister see to it that the collective bargaining process is allowed to proceed with those unions? In light of the hundreds of millions that poor old CPR made the last couple of years-


Mr. Nystrom:: Poor?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, poor-it asked for 17 job concessions and then refused to negotiate for a year, would the Minister see to it that those unions are allowed to continue the collective bargaining process, and quit coming to the rescue of Canadian Pacific and the railways to the jeopardy of thousands of railway workers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I hate to see one Hon. Member of the House attack another Hon. Member like the hon. gentleman just attacked the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who, of course, was a director of CP before he came back into the House.
The hon. gentleman knows that we believe in the collective bargaining process and I am sure the Minister of Labour will not want to intervene unless there is some compelling reason why he must in the national interest. I can only repeat that we will look at the situation very carefully.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Minister responsible for the operations of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The Minister will know of a document which was submitted to the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia in December of 1987 with regard to the new coal mine for Pictou County. The document said that DEVCO's board of directors believe that they have a duty to respectfully advise both levels of government of DEVCO's considered opinion that a deep coal mine in Pictou County would not give benefit to Nova Scotia's economy, and that the impact such a mine would have upon the province's existing coal industry would offset any benefit.
I would ask the Minister whether or not he agrees with that particular opinion, since he and his Government appointed the senior management of DEVCO as well as the members of the board of directors.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think 1 answered that question
Oral Questions
fully yesterday. I acknowledged that we have received that opinion and I also acknowledged that we did receive a request from Westray Coal Inc. for the development of a coal mine in Pictou County.
As in any case, whether it be in mining or any other industry and whether it be in Pictou County or anywhere else in Canada, every company has the ability to put in a request to the Department. That request is under study. No decision has been made. We have the point of view of the DEVCO board and the DEVCO management as of the date the report was submitted to us. We also have the point of view of local members of the community, including the Government of Nova Scotia.
I can only assure the Hon. Member that all these considerations are being looked into. I can only tell him once again that no decision has been taken and I have yet to see the final financial and marketing results of the studies that are under way.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REJECT WESTRAY COAL INCORPORATED PROPOSAL
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the board of directors and senior management submitted this report to the Minister, it would seem to me to be a lack of confidence in that senior management and board of directors if the Minister does not accept their findings.
In view of the Minister's commitment yesterday that he believes in the fundamental principle of not shifting jobs from one poor area of a province to another poor area, and in view of the recommendations which clearly spell out dislocation of 275 jobs and a lessening of revenue of $20 million annually to the Cape Breton Development Corporation, does it not logically follow that he ought to do the reasonable thing and reject outright the proposal submitted by Westray Coal Inc.?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first, I still stand by the statement 1 made yesterday. As Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion I do not believe that it is a good policy to shift jobs from any region of the country to any other region of the country, let alone from one region of a province to another region of a province. That goes without saying. I have mentioned it before and I stand by that statement.
What the Hon. Member is suggesting is preposterous. He is trying to say that we should deny outright the rights of a corporate group to be heard. By extension, he is asking me to suggest that the Government would deny the rights of any Canadian to be heard before any tribunal, administrative or otherwise, in Canada. That I refuse. We are looking at the proposal, and as soon as I have the financial analysis I will be in a position to make a decision, taking into consideration the report the hon. gentleman has just mentioned.

March 10, 1988
13606_________________________________
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


INTEREST RATE LEVELS
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Thousands of Canadian small businesses and indeed hundreds of thousands of Canadians are grateful that we have seen a drop of 360 bases points in interest rates since the Government has come to office, and nearly 1,300 bases points since the height of 22 per cent interest rates under the previous Government. However, in light of the very strong dollar, there still remains a 2 per cent gap between interest rates in Canada and those in the United States. I wonder if the Minister can explain why we do not see interest rates dropping more these days.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has pointed out, interest rates have come down quite considerably since we took office. I should point out that he has made one comparison between interest rates in Canada and those in the United States. If he were to look at the prime bank rate of the two countries, I believe he would see that the gap is 1.25 per cent.
I have indicated and the Governor of the Bank of Canada has indicated that we are watching this very closely. We do have some concerns about the incipient inflationary pressure and we want to make sure that we deal with that now, rather than allow it to become a major problem in the future. This is contrary to what had been done in the past. In 1981-82 we saw the results of that inactivity. That is the basis of the interest rate policies of the Government of Canada, but I do appreciate the concern the Hon. Member has expressed, and we will be watching it very closely.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs I would like to ask the Solicitor General a question concerning the status of Indian policing in the Province of Ontario.
The Solicitor General may or may not know that the federal Government has refused so far to increase its share of funding of the present program and that the Indian chiefs of Ontario do not want to see this program become dependent on the provincial Government for its funding for obvious constitutional reasons. Since half the reserve communities in Ontario do not have resident police protection, I wonder if I could ask the Government what it is prepared to do to extend that police protection to those communities that need it.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs is aware of the
difficulty and is in consultation with the Minister of the Ontario Government. We are looking very closely at what alternatives are available, but I will take the Hon. Member's question as notice and seek further advice for him from the Minister.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, for months, representatives of the business community in Montreal, including employers, unions and politicians, have had to use advertising to ask the federal Government to locate the space agency in Montreal. On television, we see the director of La Presse, Mr. Landry, and the owner of the Journal de Montreal, M. Peladeau, saying: "Montreal c'est spatial".
My question is quite simple, and in the absence of the Minister of State for Science and Technology I will direct it to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
The people of Montreal want to know whether the decision about the space agency will be made public before, during or after the election campaign, which means never.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie that the Minister of State for Science and Technology is indeed in the House and is now about to answer his question.
Second, I would like to explain to the Hon. Member that agencies are not created in a vacuum. They are created to accomplish certain tasks. In this particular case, the existence of a space agency will depend basically on whether the Government decides to proceed with a space station.
As soon as we in the Government have reached a decision on participating in the space station or the European Space Program or similar programs, an announcement about creating an agency will be made.
Unlike the previous Government, we do not create agencies with no purpose or mission in life. We create agencies to administer programs.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie on a supplementary, but very short please.


AEROSPACE-MONTREAL-ECONOMIC SPINOFFS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I think and the Minister will admit that the Montreal
March 10, 1988

people will be very disappointed, for they were expecting a firm commitment that the space agency would be located in Montreal.
In view of his reply, I should like to know who decides about all the contracts which are awarded in all space research areas. The available information indicates that Quebec is getting only what trickles down. If there is no space agency and if there is no decision, could the Minister tell the House how come although "Montreal est spatial", that city is not getting the economic spinoffs it is entitled to?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can simply tell you that as far as research and development, science and technology are concerned, funds are very equitably distributed throughout Canada. Clearly an exception should be made for the National Capital region which is getting more than its fair share because of the historical evolution of an organization such as the National Research Council and its laboratories here in Ottawa.
I will be most pleased to try to obtain for my hon. friend precise figures, province by province, excluding the National Capital area; figures for the National Capital area will be given as well. I can tell you, however, that as far as science and technology expenditures are concerned, Quebec has never been and shall never be overlooked.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to one of the Ministers of Agriculture. As part of the farm aid package to western farmers last December the Government announced $750 million would go to reducing the deficit in the western grain stabilization fund. Since that fund was designed to be self-financing with approximately two government dollars matching each producer dollar, and since only 80 per cent of western farmers who participate will receive the benefit of this assistance, can the Government explain what, if anything, it is proposing to do to meet the cash needs of the other 20 per cent?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very valid question. We said at the time that in order to keep the fund solvent we wanted to do two things: write down the deficit; at the same time, realizing not everyone participated, we wanted
Supply
to give them an opportunity to join as of August 1, 1987. About 13 per cent of producers do not participate. We will very shortly be introducing amendments to take into account as best we can the concerns raised by the Hon. Member. He raises a very legitimate concern on behalf of producers who are not now participants in the western grain stabilization fund.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Deputy Government House Leader must recognize that in rising I am confirming that today is Thursday and he therefore has to give us a statement of government business for the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member very much for his information about the day.
I am pleased to advise the House that tomorrow we expect to deal with two Bills. The first one is Bill C-76 at report and third reading stage. Then we will move to C-109, the borrowing authority, at report and third reading stage.
On Monday we anticipate we will call Bill C-82 for further debate. It is our understanding there might be a disposition to wrap that up reasonably soon during the day and then move to further consideration of a motion which would deal with the subject matter of the Western Diversification Act passed earlier this week.
On Tuesday we will call Bill C-93, the Multiculturalism Act. We hope that very important Bill can receive second reading approval on Tuesday. On Wednesday it is our intention to call second reading of Bill C-79, the Elections Act.
At the present time it is our intention to designate Thursday and Friday as allotted days.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchi:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Secretary of State for External Affairs erred seriously in urging upon the Provincial Premiers a political boycott of three Sikh organizations in Canada, thereby condemning entire groups on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations against individuals and, consequently undermining the multicultural fabric of Canadian society;
[Stage Direction]
March 10, 1988
Supply
That this House, while condemning violence and terrorism as political instruments, affirms that all Canadian citizens, regardless of origin must not be subjected to any coercion, intimidation or other action by the Government designed to prevent their free and peaceful expression of their opinions and concerns about events and issues in Canada or in other lands; and
That this House therefore demands that the Government provide Parliament with all relevant information that led to its aforementioned communication with the Provinces and provide the Canadian Sikh community with a full, public opportunity to defend its honour and integrity and that the Government immediately withdraw its allegations and issue a full apology to all Canadians, and to the Canadian Sikh community in particular, for initiating an unprovoked attack on the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens and for thereby subverting federal multiculturalism policy.
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to participate in the debate today on the motion put forward by the Official Opposition. We have put forward this resolution because we want to bring to the attention of the Canadian people and the Government that a policy has been introduced by the Government which amounts to nothing less than a betrayal of the policy of multiculturalism. It is also a violation of the rights of free speech and free association, not just of the Sikh community which is the target for the Secretary of State for External Affairs' attack, but of all minority groups and all ethnic groups.
I participated in the debate earlier today when I had the opportunity to have some exchanges with the Minister. In the 20 minutes I have to participate now I want to deal with two questions in the context of this outrageous letter from the Minister. First, what is the proper role for the Government of Canada in the face of some or all members of any ethnic community espousing as a cause the separation of all or part of their historic homeland from its present arrangements? What attitude should the Government take toward that situation? Second, how is that affected by the intrusion of violence or unlawful means to effect that end?
The advocacy and promotion of separation in any part of the world can be democratic. When we are looking at the question, we ought to give that the first look. Then we should turn to how the position of the Government of Canada should be affected when it appears that violence or other unlawful means are associated with the cause.
The Minister made clear the position of his Government on that question. There is not much doubt about it. He said the official government position is to oppose the dismemberment or dismantling of friendly states, and then he added, "particularly through violent means". I will deal with that, but let us just deal with the dismemberment of friendly states.
I do not think it ought to be the official position of the Government of Canada, and I insist it has not been in the past, that Canada was in favour of or opposed to dismemberment of any particular state by peaceful, lawful means. Surely that is an issue for the people in the country concerned to decide. They have to decide on the shape and extent of their nation. However, here is the important additional point. People living in Canada have a right to their views about the situation in other countries, whether they are elected or not. That has
nothing to do with the official position of the Government of Canada which, as I say, should be neither for nor against. Within our country, I argue that the people have the right to have views, to promote their views, to advocate their views, peacefully, lawfully, as to the separation or otherwise of some other country.
The Minister made one particularly outrageous statement in his remarks and I want to explore it. I will give the House the tenor of the statement because I do not have the exact words in front of me. He said the vast majority of Sikhs want to come to Canada to live their lives peacefully. The implication was that they did not want to have anything to do with the situation in the homeland. He could be right about that; maybe the majority do, maybe some do, but that is their business. However, the idea that somehow or other it is wrong for them to have views about the arrangements in their historic homeland is so fundamentally offensive to our notion of multiculturalism that it has to be challenged right here in this place. The Government of Canada has no business suggesting that nice boys and girls who come to this country from another country should live their lives in Canada with nothing to say and nothing to think about their historic homeland. Just to put the proposition is to show how offensive it is.
People come to this country from many troubled places in the world. They bring all kinds of baggage with them including how they feel about the way their country is developing, their relatives, and their former fellow citizens, or perhaps their present fellow citizens because they may continue, under the laws of Canada, to remain citizens of both countries. Mr. Clark is telling the multicultural communities of this country-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I would like to bring to the attention of this long-term Member, who knows better, that he should not be using the Minister's name.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am rarely as outraged as I am by this and I apologize to you for referring to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) by his surname.
He is telling these people to come to Canada, to make this their homeland, to bring us their ideas, their songs, their dances, and their dishes, but not to open their baggage. He is telling them to leave their suitcases closed, to lock them up in their cupboards and not to start bringing out the things which bothered them when they were living in their historic homeland.
What nonsense that is. It is completely unacceptable to limit multicultural communities to living their lives in Canada now, to tell them that now that they are in Canada they must be good boys and girls and forget about the problems in the part of the world from which they came.
Well, Mr. Secretary of State for External Affairs, the communities which come to Canada are entitled to have their
March 10, 1988

views, to form associations, and to express their views without being told that that is somehow un-Canadian and without having officials of the Government of Canada, elected officials, and provincial premiers warned not to visit a group because it espouses the dismantlement of a friendly state.
We know something about the possibilities of separation in our country; we lived with that. It is always a possibility on the horizon of any great federal state that there will be a movement which will want to separate. What attitude should countries that are friendly to Canada take? Should they take the view that Canada has no business going through a debate about separation, that they are in favour of our country remaining united, or the opposite?
I draw a distinction between the official position of a country and the position of other elected people in the country or other prominent opinion leaders in the country. The official position should be neutral. When the President of France came to Canada and said "Vive le Quebec libre" meaning "I, France, am in favour of Quebec being an independent country" he was kicked out, and quite rightly, because he was speaking for France. He was the head of a country visiting our country and taking sides. That is wrong. However, to suggest that members of the French society should not have views on whether Canada should be separate or together, or advocate or promote them, is a totally different thing. I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to reconsider that position and to return to the traditional view that we do not take sides on the shape or extent of nations, friendly or unfriendly.
The Minister has picked on the Sikhs who are, unfortunately, the targets of a lot of criticism in this country, undeservedly so as far as the vast majority are concerned. What about the Armenians who live in Canada? They advocate the separation of that part of Turkey and the Soviet Union and the creation of an independent state. What about the Ukrainians? Do you think that Ukrainian Canadians are happy watching the nationalism of their homeland being snuffed out? Do you think they must remain silent about it and that no Ministers or Members of Parliament should listen to the aspirations of Ukrainian Canadians to have their historic homeland returned to an independent country? There are the Croations, the Basques in Spain, the Estonians, the Lithuanians, and the Latvians. The list is endless. For the Government of Canada to tell all of those ethnic groups to keep their baggage closed if they want to be considered good Canadians, not to let out these ideas which make certain foreign powers uncomfortable, is not the Canadian way to handle irredentism, to handle separatist aspirations or democratic nationalistic aspirations which multicultural communities have.
There are some rules. This type of recognition can create some tensions in our country. There is no doubt that it can. However, we fortunately have some rules for guiding the debate in our country. They do not include the kind of smarmy letter, to which I referred earlier, which the Secretary of State
Supply
for External Affairs had the crust to read in his debate. The rules we have are not his fancy opinions. The rules we have are the laws of this country and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the other point which I wanted to make.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs read a letter that I sent while I was Solicitor General, which I was pleased to hear and which I endorse. I reminded the House that we must be vigilant to oppose and stamp out violence, terrorism, or unlawful means, even if the target is outside of Canada. If we allow terrorist activities to be planned in our country, to be practised in our country, to be financed and provisioned from our country, we risk bringing terrorism to Canada and increase the threat to innocent people around the world of being killed and injured. We have a policy in that area, a policy of opposing the use of violence. When a group espouses violence we should oppose the whole group.
The Secretary of State referred to the case of the FLQ. He tried to suggest that somehow or other that was like the three groups about which I am going to speak in a minute. The FLQ was a secret association dedicated, by its constitution and its common bond, to the violent overthrow of the established government in the Province of Quebec and in Canada. It participated officially in secret meetings, bombings and dynamiting. The Minister tried to draw an analogy between that and these three organizations, a meeting of one of which I and some of my colleagues attended. Wives, spouses, and children were present and it was a far cry from anything which could be called a terrorist organization.
On March 16, 1987, the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote another letter warning Canadians about another group in the Sikh community called the Federation of Sikh Societies in Canada. What happened to them? I am not suggesting that he should have targeted that group, but why was the menu last year the Federation of Sikh Societies in Canada when this year the menu is three other Sikh groups in Canada? What is the Minister trying to tell us? What kind of consistency is coming from the Government? How can the Minister call a group a terrorist group on the basis that, as is indicated in the letter, although it is hard to believe, "some of their members have promoted or engaged in acts of violence"?
I want to pick a group which is beyond criticism to use as an example. Take the Roman Catholic Church and look at what some of its members are doing in Northern Ireland. They are terrorists. What does that tell you? Does that tell you that the Roman Catholic Church is a terrorist organization? Does that mean that Ministers of the Crown, Members of Parliament, and provincial premiers should stay away from Catholic organizations because some of their members are dedicated to the violent overthrow of the Government of Northern Ireland, the British Government, and to the establishment of an independent state there or an annexation or whatever? That is ridiculous. Yet that is exactly what he has done in this case.

March 10, 1988
Supply
The fact that he designated three groups, without adding the one group from last year, shows how mischievous this type of approach is. It has been alleged that some of the members of these groups have engaged in violence. For my purposes, I will not contest that, but what I am contesting is drawing a generalization about the group as a whole from the activities of a few members.
It would be different if these were terrorist groups. If the Minister or the Solicitor General were telling us that these were terrorist groups, he would even be fulfilling a duty because we should be warned by the Government of Canada about these matters. The Government has the powerful instruments of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP to learn about these activities which happen in Canadian society. It would be doing a service to Members of Parliament and provincial Premiers to warn us off from groups like that.
However, it is going too far for a Minister to draw a conclusion, from alleged facts that some members have engaged in or promoted terrorist activities, that the whole group is contaminated, irrespective of its goals, its membership and modus operandi.
My colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), already stated that there are 20,000 Sikhs in one of these three organizations. It is an atrocious slur against a group of 20,000 people to say we should stay away from their meetings because some of their members-one, two or ten of the 20,000-have promoted or were engaged in terrorist activities.
The Government has betrayed us on multiculturalism. It has betrayed us on the proper approach to take in the face of separatism in other countries around the world. I hope this debate will lead the Government back to a more sensible, restrained and appropriate approach for a country like Canada toward the communities that live here and want to live freely and make all their views and values known in a law abiding manner, respectful of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I think I listened carefully to what the Hon. Member said and tried to grasp the full meaning of his remarks. Setting aside the whole issue of terrorism, he spent a good deal of his time dealing with what he believes is a legitimate role for Canada, that is, to use Canada as a base of operations to promote separatism in other countries as long as it is peaceful dissent, as I understand him, in a land of free speech.
Will he enlarge on his concept of franchise operations in Canada from around the world who would feel free to use Canada as a base to promote separatism in other countries?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if "franchise operations" is a term of art. Unless it has some special meaning, I have no objection to that.
Let us take any particular ethnic community in Canada, including mine, for example. I am a member of the Jewish community. I am a Zionist. As a member of the Jewish community and as a Zionist, I have a view of how events in the Middle East should unfold. I am interested in it, I make financial contributions to it. I attend meetings on that subject and talk about how I feel that portion of the world should resolve its problems. Surely I am free to do that in this country.
I have Armenian friends and recently attended an important meeting at the Armenian Hall. They have ideas and expressed their views about what Turkey should do in relation to a very troubled province in their country.
The Government of Canada could be interested when manipulation of these groups occurs. Occasionally, foreign governments and international organizations may try to stage-manage the way in which a group would conduct itself. They may conduct various activities in an attempt to undermine some of the leaders of the community, for example, or in some way undermine the authenticity of the program of that community group. When that happens I think there is a role for the Government of Canada.
For example, when I was Solicitor General I learned how a community that was advocating independence in one part of the world was infiltrated by a foreign government opposed to that type of independence. There is a role for the Government to play in that circumstance. However, the Secretary of State has made statements about a group with 20,000 people, the World Sikh Organization, whose objectives as stated in its charter are, "To strive through peaceful means for the establishment of a Sikh nation Khalistan-", I am not suggesting that the Government or the RCMP must take that at face value. Perhaps a group will put in writing that it wants to use peaceful means in order to disguise the fact they are a terrorist organization. In this case, I do not believe that they are, nor does this group. The Government is not saying they are a terrorist organization, it is simply referring to some members out of that 20,000.
I am pleased to have this question because I want Government Members to at least see what it is they are rejecting. They are rejecting the idea that an ethnic community ought to be able to advocate what I call change in a certain part of the world. I have named a dozen areas where Canadians from those areas want change. I think the Government should not take sides officially, but certainly should not try to deter the groups by keeping other Canadians away from them.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, there are Tamils living in Canada who are concerned about the situation in Sri Lanka. There are Spanish people living in Canada who are concerned about the Basque and an area in France. There are Irish people concerned about what is happening in Northern Ireland. There are probably very few countries in the world today that do not have some group advocating separatism.
March 10, 1988

Toronto is a place where many immigrants and refugees have found a home but who still have legitimate domestic ties to their homeland. EIow many countries would the Elon. Member estimate should be encouraged, in one way or other, to carry on this kind of activity in Canada that would encourage separatism in another country? How many countries in the world can be represented in our country, which is then used as a base of operations to carry on strategic goals in another country?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Hon. Member, in asking that question, has a number in mind? I can only say that as long as these are authentic feelings being expressed by ethnic communities, the number will be the bottom line after freedom of expression is recognized for all the groups that care to express themselves.
I think it is also worth noting that there may be many other groups in the country or members of the community who feel that the country should stay together. A great many people who have come from India and Canada feel that India should stay together and remain one country. They have other ways of solving the grievances that are being put forward by the World Sikh Organization. Maybe there are even Sikhs-and I know there are-who feel that that country should stay together.
Is the Hon. Member suggesting that somehow or other the Government should take their side, that it should support that organization, that Members of Parliament and provincial Premiers attend their meetings while they boycott the meetings of the other side? Just to put the proposition is to show how ridiculous it is and how the position of the Government of Canada on this subject has not been thought out. Leave it to them, provided that they are bound by the fundamental code that they obey the laws of our country and respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we cannot say that they do not, then they have to be recognized as being allowed to do that.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has understandably been very critical of the policy of the federal Government as expressed in the letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). I fully support the anger and the outrage of the Liberal Party and of the Official Opposition on this matter.
If the Hon. Member and his Party feel so deeply that this letter was unfair and unwarranted, as we New Democrats certainly feel, why is it then that the Liberal Premier of Ontario indicated that he would in fact respect the wish of the Secretary of State for External Affairs? The Premier of Ontario, David Peterson, who received a copy of the letter from the Secretary of State said, "Yes, we will take it seriously. Obviously, we do not want to cause some kind of international incident or something embarrassing to the Secretary of State".
If this was such a destructive policy, if it was so deeply offensive, as it is to the World Sikh Organization and to the
Supply
other organizations which are singled out in the letter, that is, Babbar Khalsa and the International Sikh Youth Federation, why is the Liberal Party in Ontario saying one thing and the Liberal Party nationally saying something quite different?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, of course I am not in a position to speak for the Government of Ontario. However, neither is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in that position. He characterized the language to which the Hon. Member just referred as an endorsement of his policy. I characterize it as a polite reply, an indication that the letter will be examined. I think any letter that is sent by a Minister of the Government to a provincial Government ought at least to be received with respect, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I assure the Hon. Member that no Liberal will be able to accept the advice contained in that letter when it is considered on reflection.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Hon. Member for York Centre indicates that the Premier of Ontario stated that he would examine the request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That, with respect, is simply not the case.
The Premier of Ontario indicated that in fact he would obey the request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am now asking the Hon. Member for York Centre this: Has the Liberal Premier of Ontario had a change of heart? Have there been some consultations and is it now the position of the Liberal Premier of Ontario that, indeed, he will not obey the request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs? In fact will he not take the request seriously but, rather, reject it as being a totally unwarranted and unfair attack on a community which has contributed a great deal to Canada?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is wrong. The letter does not say that the Government of Ontario or the Premier of Ontario will obey the letter that was received from Ottawa.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allotted for questions and comments has now terminated. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Layton) on debate.


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate arising from the motion of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). This motion states that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) urged upon the provincial Premiers a political boycott of three Sikh organizations in Canada. This potentially inflammatory interpretation of the Minister's remarks is an injustice to both the intent and the substance of his message which was to caution provincial Premiers who might be "drawn inadvertently" into activities associating them with individuals who condone acts of violence as a means of achieving political ends.

March 10, 1988
Supply
I wish to stress the word "individuals". It is of course evident to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to all Hon. Members that the Government condemns the violent actions of certain individuals within a community, and not the community as a whole. Under no circumstances are we prepared to accept the notion that threats or actions endangering the life or well-being of any Canadian citizen, or any other person, are justified.
This Government embraces the belief that all Canadian citizens of every origin, including the Sikh community, many of whom live and worship in my riding of Lachine, have the constitutional freedom to be full and equal partners in the political, social, cultural and economic life of Canada. This nation was founded on that belief.
From the time of its first occupation by our aboriginal peoples to the arrival of British and French settlers and then immigrants from Europe and all parts of the world this country has been defined by a diversity of cultures, traditions and beliefs. It has promised certain freedoms to all those who choose to live here. As Canada grew and became a nation the ideal of a truly free country in which the rights of all its citizens are respected and protected grew with it.
Writing in 1865, Sir Hector Langevin, who became Canada's first Secretary of State, declared the principle, "Justice to all races, to all regions, to all nationalities and to all interests". That principle not only became a primary feature of government policy and legislation in the years to come, it became one of the fundamental values of our society as well.
On August 4, 1960, the values of equality of opportunity and participation for all members of our society were upheld by law when the Canadian Bill of Rights was approved by the House of Commons and signed by that great parliamentarian and Prime Minister of the day, John G. Diefenbaker. The Bill affirmed privileges to which all Canadians are entitled. It states:
In Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex ... human rights
and fundamental freedoms.
Again, in 1982, the Bill's guarantee of human rights was greatly strengthened with the proclamation of a new Constitution Act which contained the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In both spirit and wording the Charter provides the guidance through which this Government seeks to ensure the full and equal partnership of all Canadians in the life of their country. It also clearly states the rights and responsibilities of all citizens. I want to remind Hon. Members of some of the Charter's basic commitments.
Article 15 affirms equality rights for every individual. Article 25 recognizes aboriginal rights. Article 27 is an affirmation of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
After the current Government took office in September, 1984, it initiated a review of existing multiculturalism policy and programs with the aim of developing a new policy based
on the realities of today and the expectations of tomorrow. But even while this review was under way the Government was taking significant steps to reinforce multiculturalism as a cornerstone of Canadian life.
They include establishing the House of Commons Standing Committee on Multiculturalism; convening the first national conference on policing in urban multicultural societies held in Vancouver in 1984, and continued collaboration on a national strategy on police-minority relations; holding the first federal-provincial-territorial conference of Ministers responsible for multiculturalism in Winnipeg in 1985; and introducing the Employment Equity Act of 1986, which required federally-regulated employers to provide improved access to employment opportunities for women and the disabled, as well as for aboriginal peoples and racial minorities.
Also included is the launching of a program within federal Departments and agencies to ensure the hiring and promotion of members of racial minorities; increasing the rate of appointments of qualified members of Canadian cultural communities to federal boards and commissions in order that they better reflect the cultural diversity of Canada; and finally, proclaiming Canada's participation in the second decade for action to combat racism and racial discrimination. In regard to this latter initiative, the Department of the Secretary of State has a mandate for implementing Canada's international human rights obligations. It carries out that mandate in cooperation with various federal and provincial authorities.
The Department co-ordinates Canada's federal-provincial monitoring of how we are complying with measures guaranteeing the rights contained in the United Nations international convenant on civil and political rights, and the international convenant on economic and social rights, as well as certain other human rights treaties.
Through the Department of the Secretary of State the Government focuses on promoting human rights throughout the population at large. It is concerned with creating a wide-ranging awareness of understanding of basic human rights and freedoms. It concerns itself with the voluntary sector, with community-based projects that safeguard human rights, with public education and curriculum materials promoting knowledge of human rights. At the same time, the Department is concerned with enshrining justice in law.
In fact, the preamble to the Canadian multiculturalism Act, Bill C-93, tabled in this House on December 1, invokes the minority and racial rights provisions of the international convenant on civil and political rights, and the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
The proposed multiculturalism Act is an historic piece of legislation which will be debated fully in this House next week. I wish to remind Hon. Members of some of its highlights and its provisions to ensure the preservation of cultural heritage of
March 10, 1988

all Canadians of every origin, to promote the full participation of all Canadians in our society, and to enhance harmonious race relations and cross-cultural understanding.
The multiculturalism Act acknowledges the vital contribution to Canada of all its cultural and racial communities. It lays out the framework in which everyone will be able to participate in the business of the nation on a basis of complete equality. The supremacy of human rights is the essence of equality.
Far from boycotting any of Canada's racial communities, this Government seeks to affirm in law that all Canadian citizens are full and equal partners in our society. It seeks to recognize multiculturalism as a central feature of our society, not only for today but for the 21st century and beyond.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) clearly stated:
Multiculturalism is an affirmation of our commitment that Canadians of all ethnic and racial backgrounds have the right to equal recognition and equal opportunity in this country. Thus multiculturalism lies at the very heart of the idea of Canada, of our sense of country... It reflects where we have come from and where we are going.
The Canadian multiculturalism Bill sets forth the multiculturalism policy of Canada and it entrenches in law a government-wide commitment to implement that policy. It states that the federal Government will provide leadership to Canadian institutions and people to reinforce an appreciation and understanding of multiculturalism throughout the country.
The Bill sets out a clear mandate for the Minister responsible for multiculturalism. In particular, it assigns to the Minister the responsibility to encourage and promote a coordinated approach to multiculturalism throughout the federal Government. The Bill provides in legislation a clear and direct process of accountability through the tabling of an annual report to Parliament on the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada, and the review of this report on a permanent basis by a parliamentary committee.
When passed, the multiculturalism Bill will not only preserve the diverse heritage of this country's identity, it will provide a means of improving intercultural relationships in the present. The Bill provides a legislative base for programs that will assist cultural preservation, combat discrimination, and promote institutional change.
For many years the Government has supported programs which preserve and promote multiculturalism and which work to protect human rights in Canada. But the proposed Act gives legal substance to those programs. It underlines the commitment of the Government of Canada to help to create a fair and tolerant society for all Canadians in which the principles of equality, diversity, and community are an overriding characteristic.
The Government has reason to be proud of its record. It is a Government that refuses to accept discrimination, intolerance
Supply
or bigotry against any racial or cultural community or individual member of that community.
It has been proven again and again that Canada's unique multicultural character helps to give this country a healthy and dynamic social life, cultural life, and business life. Our diversity is one of our greatest national assets. It has brought us enormous economic benefits and increasing international respect.
We have shown the world that we are a nation committed to fairness, equality, and freedom. That conviction may be our most valuable natural resource, and one that we can be proud to export to the world.


James Douglas Manly: I was interested in the Hon. Member's comments in favour of multiculturalism. Would he be willing to address the following issue. What does he think about the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) sent a letter to seven Premiers in which he indicated that, in his opinion, they should not attend meetings organized by three Sikh organizations? By sending this letter there was a secret process involved, not a public one, which had the effect of shutting off a whole group of people from access to public officials and to provincial politicians. It shut them off from having any access to being able to raise issues that are of importance to them. It tarred them all with the terrorist brush.
Would the Hon. Member address that issue, as well as the broader issue of multiculturalism? When it comes right down to it, the degree to which we deal with individual situations like that is the degree to which our whole policy on multiculturalism stands or falls. It is fine to have policy written on paper, but what do we do in a concrete situation? I would like the Hon. Member to address that concrete situation.


Robert E.J. Layton: In response to the question posed by my colleague, as I understood it, the interpretation of the letter that was quoted in the motion and also by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this morning in the debate was to caution provincial Premiers who might inadvertently be drawn into activities or being associated with individuals who condone acts of violence as a means of achieving political ends.
What we have heard in the debate today was that this was not a representation to avoid contact with the Sikh or other cultural communities across the country, but rather not to be drawn into situations which condone acts of violence as a means of achieving political ends.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke indicated that it was not the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to ask elected officials to avoid events which may be sponsored by the three Sikh organizations in question. I have in front of me a copy of the letter that was sent by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I invite the Hon. Member who has just spoken to read the letter as well. In the letter he says:

March 10, 1988
Adjournment Debate
-I would appreciate your co-operation in avoiding events and activities which could be perceived as supporting the Sikh organizations mentioned above or their objective in the creation of an independent Sikh state.
Quite clearly the Minister is saying, avoid, stay away from events which are sponsored by these organizations. Does the Hon. Member agree with that suggestion?


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the emphasis placed by my hon. colleague on the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. "Despite these difficulties, I would appreciate your co-operation", he said in writing to the Premiers and offering his counsel from his position as official Secretary of State for External Affairs, "in avoiding events and activities which could be perceived as supporting the Sikh organizations mentioned above or their objective in the creation of an independent Sikh state". The emphasis is on those activities and events which occur.
Like many of my colleagues, I have enjoyed the community of Sikhs living on the West Island of Montreal. They are very peace-loving and very appreciative of the role they play as full Canadian citizens,


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to get back to the text of what the Minister actually said in the letter. I should like to read, again for the record, the opening paragraph of the letter:
I am writing to you concerning possible invitations to you or members of your government to attend functions organized by members of the Canadian Sikh community. The majority of these invitations are valuable in ensuring that your government is kept informed of developments in the Sikh community and that the community is encouraged to participate fully in Canadian life.
I should like to ask the Hon. Member who has just spoken the following: What in this letter or in that particular paragraph of the letter could be construed to mean that the Minister is trying to cut off the circulation of honourable Canadian citizens in the full participation in Canadian life?


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague, the interpretation which I place upon the words used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is that we are encouraged, as we are with all cultural communities, to enjoy, to participate in, and to be informed about the events and the activities of these societies.
I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs was alerting his colleagues, political officers of the provincial Governments, to the possibility that some of these events might be organized to take advantage of their official roles in society. When these events are for engaging in conversation and enjoying the activity, I do not see any restriction.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part)-International Year of Shelter for the Homeless- Shelter centres-Government position/Need for rooms- Request for more funds; the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry)-External affairs-Query why Government authorized Canadian company to become main supplier to Iranian artillery/Government export controls; the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)-Fur trapping industry-British plans to label fur projects-Effect on livelihood of Canadian trappers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchi:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Secretary of State for External Affairs erred seriously in urging upon the Provincial Premiers a political boycott of three Sikh organizations in Canada, thereby condemning entire groups on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations against individuals and, consequently undermining the multicultural fabric of Canadian society;
That this House, while condemning violence and terrorism as political instruments, affirms that all Canadian citizens regardless of origin must not be subjected to any coercion, intimidation or other action by the Government designed to prevent their free and peceful expression of their opinions and concerns about events and issues in Canada or in other lands; and
That this House therefore demands that the Government provide Parliament with all relevant information that led to its aforementioned communication with the Provinces and provide the Canadian Sikh community with a full, public opportunity to defend its honour and integrity and that the Government immediately withdraw its allegations and issue a full apology to all Canadians, and to the Canadian Sikh community in particular, for initiating an unprovoked attack on the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens and for thereby subverting federal multiculturalism policy.
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on this very fundamental question of human rights, a question which really goes to the core of Canada as a multicultural nation.
Canadians across the land were shocked when they learned of the attempt by the Conservative Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to dictate to elected officials at the provincial level, and presumably to officials at the local level and even officials in his own caucus, which organizations they could meet with in Canada.
March 10, 1988

Let us clear up the confusion right now. The Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Layton) who spoke just a few minutes ago suggested that the Minister was simply saying that there may be certain functions which might be inappropriate to be attended. That is simply not the case.
The letter-and I have a copy of it before me-sent by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Premiers states that the majority of invitations received from the Canadian Sikh community indeed can be accepted and would be valuable, but it goes on to say:
There are, however, three Sikh organizations which exist largely to advocate the creation of an independent Sikh state, known as "Khalistan". These... organizations are the Babbar Khalsa, the International Sikh Youth Federation ... and the World Sikh Organization.
The letter goes on to suggest:
Some members of these organizations have also engaged in or promote violent activities aimed at Indian interests in Canada or elsewhere. The activities of these organizations have been a significant irritant in our relations with India. The government of India has taken particular exception when elected officials attend functions sponsored by these organizations.
Who is it that is running the foreign affairs policy of Canada? Is it the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada, or is it the Government of India?
When we examine the response of our Secretary of State for External Affairs, it seems that in fact our policy in respect of this very important question is not being dictated by Canadians, by Canadian interests, but rather is a policy which is being dictated by the Government of India itself. I take exception to that suggestion, and I believe that many Canadians take exception to it.
The letter goes on to indicate that the Secretary of State for External Affairs believes that elected officials should avoid "events and activities which could be perceived as supporting the Sikh organizations mentioned above or their objective in the creation of an independent Sikh state".
Many of us thought that we had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which respected freedom of speech, which respected freedom of association, and which respected the multicultural heritage of Canadians. However, this kind of insulting, degrading attack on a community which has contributed an enormous amount to Canada is fundamentally unacceptable.
I would have hoped that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have recognized that, would have stood in his place and said: "I am sorry, upon reflection I realize that I was tarnishing an entire community", a community of some
200,000	Canadians who have contributed an enormous amount to our society, I might say, in the face of considerable adversity over the years.
It was early in this century, just after the turn of the century, that the first Sikhs came to Canada, to my own Province of British Columbia, to work in the forest industry. From the very beginning the Sikh community in Canada was the subject of government-sponsored, government initiated racist policies. The vote was denied to them, even though they
Supply
were all British subjects and other British subjects were entitled to the vote. They were forbidden to bring their wives and their families to join them. They were forbidden to own any timber-cutting rights or to hold any public office.
In an incident that we remember particularly vividly in British Columbia in 1914, some 376 would-be Sikh immigrants were kept stranded aboard a freighter, the Kamagata Maru, for some two months without water, without food, and were finally turned around and sent back to Asia, leaving the local community in turmoil. That long history of racism is one which we should recognize and take steps to overcome.
Evidently we have seen other disturbing illustrations of unfair attacks on the Sikh community in Canada. CSIS, the civilian security intelligence service, and indeed the RCMP, in their response to certain violent incidents, have effectively branded an entire community as being unlawful or as supporting terrorism. Members of the Sikh community are law-abiding, upright, outstanding Canadians who have contributed a great deal to Canadian society. That community itself is the first to denounce violence and acts of terrorism. It is for that reason that the community has taken such strong exception to some of the actions of CSIS and the RCMP in recent months.
I have been privileged to attend a number of functions at Sikh temples in the lower mainland of British Columbia at the Khalsa Diwan temple, the Akali Singh Sikh and others. I have spoken at various public meetings. In attendance at those public meetings have been representatives of organizations which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has singled out. I make no apology for that, Mr. Speaker. I was proud to have been invited to participate in those functions and proud to be invited to speak to Canadians who have contributed a great deal. Many of my constituents are from the Sikh community in Burnaby. Indeed, there are 60,000 Sikhs in British Columbia out of a population in Canada of some 200,000. It is precisely because of the strong history of respect for the law that this kind of attack on these three organizations is so unacceptable.
I noted in the letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Government of India has taken particular exception when elected officials attend functions sponsored by these organizations. There are some who are concerned. I have heard a number of representatives at the Sikh community voice this concern that, indeed, agents of the Indian security service may, in fact, be participating in actions here in Canada to undermine the credibility and respect of the Sikh community. We know that the Canadian Government sent back to India rather quickly certain people who supposedly were diplomats working out of the consulate, I believe, in Toronto. I want to flag this as one area of concern that Canada not in any way permit agents of the Indian security service to work on Canadian soil, whether they be acting as agents provocateurs or in any other capacity whatsoever.

March 10, 1988
Supply
The implications of this letter written by the Secretary of State for External Affairs are deeply troubling. If this very dangerous policy is applied in other sectors of Canadian society, where will it stop?
I recently returned from a visit to the Middle East. While there I visited the occupied West Bank, and Gaza, Israel. I met with Palestinians who are part of a national tragedy whose plight has been ignored for far too long by the community of nations, Palestinians who are seeking the right to selfdetermination, the right to decide for themselves on their own future, to decide who will represent them in international forums and ultimately to have the right of statehood accepted. Is it, in fact, the policy of the Government of Canada that Palestinian organizations in Canada that advocate an independent state for the Palestinians should be boycotted by elected representatives? That would be deeply offensive and would be an unwarranted interference in the lives of those particular organizations.
The implication of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs is doing is very dangerous. He is cutting off the channels of communication through various organizations, the World Sikh Organization, the Babbar Khalsa and the International Sikh Youth Federation. One can only imagine who else is on the list. He is cutting off communication with these organizations, which are certainly advocating a number of important policies but which are advocating them in a peaceful and open way. If these organizations are being told that they cannot communicate with other Canadians, that they cannot communicate with elected representatives then, in effect, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is encouraging the very kinds of acts that he purports to be opposed to. That is the danger of this approach.
It is through these organizations that the Sikh community in Canada can communicate its concerns to elected representatives. If then the organizations are treated as persona non grata, if they are driven underground and dealt with as if they do not exist, then as sure as I am standing here other organizations will surface which say, "If the Government of Canada will not speak to our elected representatives then we will take action". That action may be precisely what the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicates he wants to avoid. I suggest that, from that perspective alone, this policy is not only insulting but is counterproductive.
Where do we go from here, Mr. Speaker? I would suggest that this matter must not be allowed to rest with a one day debate in the House of Commons. I would suggest rather, as my colleague the House Leader for the New Democratic Party has proposed during his very thoughtful remarks earlier today, that either a special parliamentary committee be struck or that a standing committee be given a mandate to inquire into the implications of this matter from the perspective of human rights, of the multiculturalism policy in Canada, and, most important, of the implications for a proud and law abiding community of Sikhs in Canada that has been tarnished and insulted by the actions of this Minister.
I was disappointed that the Premier of Ontario in responding to the letter of the Secretary of State for External Affairs chose to indicate that the Liberal Government in Ontario would respect that decision. I quote from a story in The Globe and Mail, a respected national newspaper, for February 26, which reads:
Ontario Premier David Peterson promised yesterday to obey Mr. Clark's
request. "We will take it seriously", he told reporters outside his office.
"Obviously we don't want to cause some kind of international incident or
something embarrassing to the Minister of External Affairs".
If the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) wants to get up and disagree with the Premier of Ontario, certainly that is his right to do so.


Sergio Marchi: Check with your colleagues.


Svend Johannes Robinson: He will have the opportunity to do that. I know, for example, that the Premier of Quebec has certain views on the question of free trade which are at variance with the Member's leader. These differences exist within that Party and we understand that. It is a broad church, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is important and it is regrettable that the Liberal Premier of Ontario apparently has jumped into bed with the Tory Secretary of State for External Affairs in a way that does no credit whatsoever to the Sikh community in Canada. I would urge the Government to reconsider and recognize that a mistake has been made, not just a mistake that can be remedied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs standing up saying Canadians are free to attend whichever organizations they want, but one that can be remedied by the Secretary of State for External Affairs standing in his place in the House saying, "I was wrong, Mr. Speaker. I made a mistake. I tarnished and insulted the Sikh community in Canada unfairly. I recognize that and I want to apologize to that community".
That would be the honourable and noble thing to do. That is what we hoped the Secretary of State for External Affairs might have done today. In the absence of that, we are left with the alternative of proceeding to a parliamentary committee. Certainly we in the New Democratic Party intend to take this matter up in the appropriate parliamentary committee. It should not be left to the Sikh community to sue for libel. It has been suggested that there may be a lawsuit. Lawsuits cost money. When the community has been attacked, why should it have to spend resources to defend itself? Surely that is the role of the Government. The role of the Government is to stand up for the multicultural traditions of Canada and not to attack a community that has contributed an enormous amount to Canadian society.
I support the motion and I join with my colleagues in condemning this attack on the Sikh community of Canada.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to rise because I agreed with many of the points the Hon. Member
March 10, 1988

raised earlier. However, not surprisingly, he then got into his sanctimonious monopoly on virtue. That was a carry over from an earlier question he asked the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) about Premier Peterson's position.
The Hon. Member is basically twisting and turning the words the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) used in the House to suggest that a Premier of a province simply said that he would consider a letter sent to him by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it is not every day that a Secretary of State for External Affairs writes to a Premier. What Premier Peterson said was that he was neither endorsing nor supporting, publicly or privately, the letter. I checked with his office as late as yesterday. All he said was that he was still in the process of generally considering the letter. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that to say otherwise would be to play a game of intellectual dishonesty.
Moreover, I think it ill behooves the Hon. Member to play that little game when, for the last week or so, his Party has not had the courage to ask questions on this issue. One Statement Pursuant to Standing Order 21 was made by the NDP multiculturalism critic, whom I applaud. Yet day in and day out, we have at least had the interest to ask approximately six questions. Two members of the Government's own caucus have asked more questions on this subject than did members of the NDP.
When the Hon. Member wants to be sanctimonious, I would ask him to check with his own colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), on his position on Mr. Clark's letter. While the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has been away on other business for the last little while-


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Paproski):: Order, please. I would hope the Hon. Member would address the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, not by his surname.


Sergio Marchi: You are correct, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Hon. Member for Burnaby, who has been away on other business during the last week, to check with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway about why, in his humble opinion, Mr. Clark was right, why he continued to badger-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I have said it twice and I will not say it a third time. The Hon. Member has been here for a while now. He should know that he should address the Hon. Minister by his title, that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Sergio Marchi: You are absolutely correct again. Again, 1 would ask the Hon. Member for Burnaby, who laughs and shakes his head, why it is that his own colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, agrees with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and why that same Hon. Member continued to badger our side when we were asking pertinent questions of the Minister and why the NDP Member for
__________________________13617
Supply
Vancouver-Kingsway feels that his statements are correct when he says that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is correct that there are radical, violent groups within the Sikh community in British Columbia.
Rather than being sanctimonious and rather than trying to twist and turn the words of the Premier of Ontario, why does the Hon. Member not have the courage and decency to try to turn around the members of his own political Party who disagree with the motion and agree with the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs? That is probably why in the last 10 days the NDP caucus has not found the courage to ask one single question in the House on this issue.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in the limited time available to me to respond, I will try to be brief and focus on the issues as opposed to the rhetoric. First, with respect to the suggestion that we as New Democrats have not aggressively pursued this issue, I would note that it was my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), who on February 29 made a very eloquent statement in the House, I believe the first statement made on this particular subject. In his statement, my colleague called upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to reconsider his discriminatory and divisive action and to withdraw his letter to the Premiers.
I would like to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) for having aggressively pursued this matter in the House. Certainly he has done an excellent job in ensuring that this matter remain at the forefront of the parliamentary agenda. My colleague from Thunder Bay- Nipigon has worked on a variety of issues. He has worked on the establishment of the Chair of Sikh studies, and I know that my colleague for York West would want to join with me in congratulating him on the hard work and dedication he showed in seeing that particular project through to fruition.
With respect to the question of the stance of the Ontario Liberal Government, I am glad that the Liberal Premier of Ontario clarified his position to my colleague for York West yesterday. I accept his words, though the position he took with the reporter from The Globe and Mail was obviously different. Now he has had a chance to reflect and I am very pleased that he has had an opportunity to reflect on this matter.
With respect to the alleged position of my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway, I would simply ask the Hon. Member for York West where, anywhere on the record, he can point to my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway having said that. My colleague has been a strong and eloquent defender of the Sikh community on many occasions and has spoken in the Sikh temple in Vancouver on many occasions. Where, anywhere, in newspapers, in Hansard or in letters, can the Hon. Member point to any suggestion that my colleague has indeed supported the policy of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the letter he circulated? I suggest that the Hon. Member either put up or shut up.

March 10, 1988
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the supplementary question. I am just trying to figure out who is asking who questions here. Does the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) have a question for the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am answering his. He asked me to either put up or shut up. I am asking him to get his colleague for Vancouver-Kingsway to come to the House and put up or shut up because I have put up.
I was not looking for applause from the Hon. Member nor from any other Hon. Member for any action I have taken. That was not my point. My point was that it seemed to me that this Hon. Member is certainly not aware of the nuances of this debate which has taken place over the course of the last seven days or so. He is certainly not aware of the actions of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Perhaps his comments were picked up by Hansard in his constant badgering during Question Period-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Where?


Sergio Marchi: In his discussions with individual Members of Parliament and in discussions with our own leader, we have heard the very real concerns and feelings expressed by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I think if anyone ought to put up or shut up, it is certainly members of that Party who should try to tell us why there has been silence and inaction over the last week.
Is this the Party that shows qualified support for minority groups? Is this the Party that qualifies its support for certain minorities depending upon which way the winds of popularity are blowing? I take great offence at the sanctimonious words of this Hon. Member, given the record of his Party on this issue, and given the expressions of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I think the Hon. Member has to put up and provide the answers rather than ask the questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) to rebut.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Just very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I can understand the sensitivity of the Hon. Member. Of course, given the drop in the recent Gallup poll and the fact that his Party is dropping like a stone, there is a certain sensitivity there and I respect that.
I come back to the fundamental point.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We are in first place.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Hon. Member has not been able to point to one example anywhere in Hansard, or anywhere else, of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) doing anything other than standing up and vigorously promoting and defending the Sikh community in Canada. I am still waiting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps fortuitous that I have a chance to enter the debate at this moment. The Hon. Member will know that I am a person who speaks the truth. I heard his colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), say on more than one occasion that the Liberals were barking up the wrong tree, that we were trying to score cheap political points and we should not ask questions on this issue. He shouted those remarks from his seat. I heard them quite distinctly. He said the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was right. I suspect that is why the NDP has not asked any questions on this issue in the House.
However, I am happy the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is here. I hope he can get his colleague on the right track and that he will lead the charge with questions in the House. He can join with some Members on the government side who have displayed courage in standing up to the Minister. He is a very powerful Minister in the Government, and even some Conservative Members stood up and questioned his wisdom in this letter and its slur on the Sikh community.
I welcome the participation of the NDP in this debate. I am glad they have finally seen the light. I can only say, thank God for Members like the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) who continued to pursue this issue in the House. Thank God for Members like the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) as well. If they had not continued to pursue the issue in the House, I dare say we would not be having this debate today, which debate I think is very important to the fundamental principles of democracy in this country.
In his letter the Minister points out a number of reasons why he claims that we as Members of Parliament should not attend functions of the International Sikh Youth Federation, the World Sikh Organization, or the Babbar Khalsa. One reason is that these organizations exist largely to advocate the creation of an independent Sikh state known as "Khalisthn". I suggest that if Members of Parliament follow that advice and refuse to attend functions of any organization that wishes to dissociate itself from a Government under whose umbrella it is currently found, we would not be allowed to attend Ukrainian functions or functions of many eastern bloc countries including Lithuania. We would not be allowed to attend functions of organizations promoting the freedom of the people of Afghanistan. This weekend I am going to be attending a function in my riding dealing with a small community in eastern Europe known as the Slovaks. If I took the words of the Minister to heart and substituted the word "Slovak" for the word "Sikh", then I should not go to that function. They would like to see the creation of an independeht Slovak state. The same thing applies to Ukrainian Freedom Fighters and the Canadian Polish Congress.
March 10, 1988

There are many nations around the world fighting for an independent cultural and political identity. Are we as Canadians then to say that we will attend no functions organized by the Tamil community? I dare say that Members of Parliament not only have a responsibility but a right to attend cultural functions of people in our communities who represent various political points of view. They may represent viewpoints which differ from that of their respective Governments. That is why we live in a democracy. That is why Canada is the greatest country on earth. People come to this country and they have an opportunity, if they disagree with the Government of their homeland, to form an organization to that effect.
The Parti Quebecois had as one of its founding principles the separation of Quebec from Canada. They exercised their democratic right to express their point of view and they represented the majority in certain legislatures at certain times in our history. I did not agree with them or that principle, but I defended to the utmost their right to express those views in a free and democratic society.
If you listen to the remarks of the Minister in the House in responding to the questions of the Hon. Member, he keeps going back to the fact that these organizations exist largely because they support a political viewpoint different from that of the Government of India. Frankly that is no answer at all. That response eliminates any involvement by Canadian politicians with Ukrainian Freedom Fighters, the Canadian Polish Congress, or dozens of other Canadian-based organizations which exist in whole or in part to promote freedom from enslavement in their own countries. That is the kind of expression of support for freedom that we as Canadians support and want to foster.
That is one part of the Minister's letter which is absolutely and totally false and groundless. Let us get to the second part which deals with his contention that:
Some members of these organizations have also engaged in or promote
violent activities-
The Roman Catholic Church is a very large organization in Canada. I happen to be a member of that church. Does that mean that if another Roman Catholic is caught robbing a bank or in some way breaking the law of the land, somehow all members of the Roman Catholic Church are now persona non grata? If you apply the logic, or the lack of logic, of the Minister in this letter, that is the position all Canadians must take. If any person in any organization is involved in any criminal activity, then de facto, Members of Parliament are supposed to refuse to associate with other members of that organization.
Does the Minister not realize that this kind of slanderous accusation against the whole community is a blight on what we respect and know as democracy? Surely there is not a Canadian, whether of Sikh, Ukrainian or other origin, who would not want to see terrorism in this and other countries stamped out, terrorism of any stripe by any organization. However, the Minister does not cite individuals in his letter. No individual
Supply
charges have been laid. If they are, then let them be dealt with in a court of law. What he is doing is appealing to the lowest common denominator. He is appealing to a sense of racism which says that this organization will be blackballed by all Canadians because the Minister claims some members are involved in so-called violent activities.
The Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) put it best when he said that if people are involved in violent activities, whether they be members of these organizations, the Canadian Legion, or whatever, we must seek them out, lay charges, and prosecute them in a court of law. That is why we have a justice system. The system is not such that the Minister, who is supposed to represent the interests of Canada, can issue a letter which, in one fell swoop, discredits the hard work of a whole community and the thousands of Canadians of Sikh origin who are working hard to build lives for themselves and their children in Canada and have the right to belong to cultural and social organizations which give them some link with their past and the futures of their families and their own cultural heritage. I do not think we deny that right.
I will speak next April at a rally to be held by the Armenian community in this country. We do not want to see the day when the Secretary of State for External Affairs will write a letter saying that someone has been involved in something. Armenians have been subject to that kind of blasphemy, not by the Secretary of State for External Affairs but by allegations that an individual was involved in a terrorist act. Yes, Mr. Speaker, individuals in every community will, from time to time, break the law. They will, in a misguided way, decide to take out their frustrations in a violent fashion. They should be prosecuted with the full force of the law of this country.
However, we do not want to create a system similar in many respects to what many of these people have left behind. We do not want to create a system where, by virtue of sanction of the Government of Canada, we are blackballing a whole people, a whole community, a whole culture, a whole racial group because of the activities of a few and, in this case, the unproven allegation of the activities of a few.
I cannot tell you, Mr. Speaker, how offensive I find the contents of this letter. The Secretary of State talked about Members of Parliament lending their good offices or stature to organizations by attending functions and supporting, or at least involving themselves in, the work of those organizations. What disturbs me most is that the Secretary of State does not realize that this letter, written in his capacity as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is, in my opinion, a travesty of democracy. It should be the bane of every freedom-loving individual in this country. It should be rejected by every person who has chosen to come to Canada or been born in Canada because of the freedom which we have here. The Minister should realize that when he lends his name, his Department, and his reputation to the attack present in the allegations made in this letter he is discrediting the whole country of Canada.

March 10, 1988
Supply
As a country we have developed a certain reputation, sometimes warranted and sometimes not. Last night we saw a very sad story on the CBC with regard to our native community. Sometimes our record is not what we would like it to be. However, as a nation we have developed a worldwide reputation for tolerance, justice, and understanding. When Canadians go to Europe or other countries they receive a warm welcome as Canadians and this is very special for this country. We are the only country which, as a nation, has been awarded international recognition for our work in accepting refugees as a result of the involvement of church groups and individuals in the exodus of the boat people from Vietnam. We have a long and proud tradition, and the Minister does not realize that in one fell swoop, with a single letter, he can destroy that whole tradition.
No one is asking Members of Parliament to support the objectives of the World Sikh Organization. No one is asking Canadian Members of Parliament to say yea or nay, to say that they believe that there should be the creation of an independent Sikh state or that they believe that there should not. However, as Canadians and parliamentarians we owe our constituents the right to a climate within which to express their point of view. We should join them and point out the activities which we have seen, including the questionable activities of the police of the state of India with regard to search and seizure and the transfer of information between the RCMP in Canada and the police in India. We have a responsibility to ensure that the RCMP or CSIS is not aiding and abetting the persecution of the families of Canadian nationals back in their homeland as a result of the exchange of erroneous information.
We have a job to do. I have met on many occasions with representatives of the Sikh community in my riding. I have written to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to express my concern, and I consider that to be part of my responsibility. If I have the opportunity to support the work of freedom-loving people in all parts of the globe I consider it my responsibility to do so. Surely that is all that Members of Parliament ask from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They do not ask for a blanket condemnation of an entire group of people based on the alleged actions of a few which, if proven, must be illegal and therefore must be dealt with properly in a court of law.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is anything surprising about the fact that in this country, where people have found the freedom they sought... I did not agree with the Parti Quebecois. I did not agree with their desire to create a political party here in Canada for the purpose of separating from Canada. However, Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, and that is the whole point of a democracy, we can fight it out in the House of Commons or, in the case of the Parti Quebecois, in the National Assembly. We can do that, and we can go to the people and ask them to decide. This does not deny them the right to express their views and to say that the aim of the Parti Quebecois is to separate from Canada. Everybody knew about
it and it was not illegal. However, if you read the letter sent by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), it claims that Members of Parliament may not in any way associate with the World Sikh Organization or other organizations such as Babbar Khalsa and the International Sikh Youth Federation, the reason given being that they want to separate from India.
Mr. Speaker, it is not up to us here in Parliament to decide whether a new Sikh State will be created. As Canadians, however, we at least have the right to ensure that our Sikh population has the same rights as all other Canadian citizens, and that there is no unlawful exchange of information between the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Indian police, which have more or less resolved to kill members of Sikh families in that country. I think that is the point, Mr. Speaker. If we live in a democracy, and if we believe in democracy and want to keep that democracy, we can never accept this kind of letter, and the only way to deal with this problem is to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to withdraw what he said, to apologize to the Sikh population in Canada and to start rebuilding trust in the Canadian people. Here in Canada we have freedom of speech, and we live in a democracy, not anarchy.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and I want to commend her for her articulate and emotional intervention on this subject.
I would like the Hon. Member to give us her views on a question which I raised earlier. On June 7, 1987, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sent a letter to the World Sikh Organization which was having its conference in Vancouver. His letter essentially recognized the worth of that organization, the role that it played within the Canadian family and recognized the strength that the group brought not only to the Sikh Canadian community but to the Canadian community as a whole.
Then we have a letter dated December 7, 1987, sent secretly by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to seven of the ten Premiers, advocating the very opposite, which is the political boycott of this organization. He was asking that the Premiers treat this organization as a political leper.
I suggest that this letter was probably in the mill during the summertime, subject to consultations between the Minister and External Affairs officials about whether or not it should be written and to whom it should be written. What does the Hon. Member make of a public statement by the Prime Minister, recognizing the value of this organization, while at the same time a secret letter was sent advocating the very opposite of what the Prime Minister was promoting publicly?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, that would not surprise me. It would be completely in character.
March 10, 1988


Mrs. Anne Blouin (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, within today's debate it is important in my view to stress this government's performance in the area of human rights.
As you know, the Secretary of State is responsible for co-ordinating human rights in Canada. In that capacity, he works with his Cabinet colleagues and the provincial ministers responsible for human rights to ensure the fulfilment of our national and internationl commitments in that area.
Promoting human rights is not the specific responsibility of any one level of Government or interest group. It is of basic importance to all human beings on the planet. We should all be concerned with promoting better public awareness and understanding of human rights matters. Awareness helps preserve those rights we fought at home and abroad to protect an improve upon. Canada is party to a number of international agreements dealing with human rights, including the International Covenant-Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civic and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Penalties or Treatments.
Co-operation with the United Nations, Canada is taking an active part in the implementation of special projects, including the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and the Racial Discrimination and the Decade on the Handicapped. Those are programs extending over 10 years and promoting public awareness of those specific problems.
In that respect, during the coming Federal-Provincial-Territorial Conference of ministers in charge of human rights, that will be chaired by the Secretary of State, participants will have an opportunity to discuss the second Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.
As you can see, Ministers and officials responsible for human rights within federal, provincial and territorial administrations meet regularly to consider issues raised by the implementation of international treaties related to human rights and, more generally, to keep abreast of new developments in that field.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote brief passages from some of the instruments and covenants to which Canada is a signatory, just so you may fully appreciate the scope of our country's commitments.
First, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that nations, and I quote:
-shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights
and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to
secure their universal and effective recognition and observance-
Canada also ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Here is article 13(1):
Supply
Member States recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree
that education shall be directed to the development of the human personality
and sense of dignity, and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms.
Canada simply cannot take such commitments lightly. We are expected to report to international organizations on progress we make in honouring our commitments.
We discharge this obligation through reports drafted in close co-operation with the provinces and territories, as well as with federal ministries and organizations responsible for implementing various measures specified in treaties.
In 1986-87, the Human Rights Directorate of the Department of the Secretary of State contributed substantially to Canada's delegations when the United Nations was examining the report on Sections 13 to 15 of the International Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in April 1986, in New York, and also when the United States was studying Canada's Seventh and Eighth Report concerning the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, in Geneva in March 1987.
Mr. Speaker, the reports were well received. Canada was commended by the United Nations for taking its international obligations very seriously and for the quality and depth of its reports.
Perhaps I may take as an example a passage from the report tabled by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination during the forty-second session of the UN General Assembly in 1987.
The reports were presented by Canada's representative, who referred to various constitutional and legislative mechanisms that for ensuring respect for human rights, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as incorporated in the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982, the Canadian Criminal Code and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
He emphasized the leading role played by Canada, more specifically within the Commonwealth, in the fight against apartheid as well as his Government's commitment to continue to put pressure on the South African Government to abolish this system. He informed members of the Committee of measures taken by the federal Government and the provincial and territorial governments to achieve the objectives of the second decade of the fight against racism and racial discrimination, and he mentioned the Special Committee on Visible Minorities created by the Parliament of Canada as well as special measures to promote and protect vulnerable groups with respect to employment and training.
New legislation had been passed concerning employment equity, which obliged federally regulated employers to establish action plans guaranteeing equality in the workplace for visible minorities, women, the disabled and native people. In the case of the latter, Canada's representative informed the

March 10, 1988
Supply
Committee that important initiatives had been taken for their benefit.
Committee members stressed the quality of the reports submitted and commended the Canadian Government for its efforts in implementing the Convention and recognizing the ethnic character of a multicultural society.
The mass of information they contained deserved the attention of all other nations party to the Convention. Those reports could be taken as models by all federal states where the responsibility for human rights is shared between the Federation and its component parts.
You will probably agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite encouraging to receive such praise from the United Nations on the implementation of human rights in Canada.
Canada has a lot to offer to the international community. In that respect, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) announced in December 1987 the government's intention to establish an international co-operation center for the promotion of human rights and the development and strengthening of democratic institutions. That new Crown corporation will be called the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. It will deal first and foremost with co-operation between Canada and developing nations, and will be funded as such under Official Development Assistance. Eventually, the new centre may call upon other public and private sources to enter, if it so wishes into cooperation with developed countries.
The establishment of such an institution was first proposed in 1986 by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Canada's external relations, and accepted in principle by this Government in December of the same year.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs announced a month ago the appointment of two eminent Canadians, Professor Gisele Cote-Harper and Mr. John Courtney, to undertake a series of consultations across the country with non-governmental organizations, labour unions, religious groups and interested individuals. Those consultations are aimed at obtaining views and suggestions on the establishment of such an institution and on the ways and means of promoting co-operation with Third World Countries in the area of human rights and democratic development.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) took every opportunity during their journeys through foreign lands to state clearly what we think of human rights violations. The Secretary of State for External Affairs pleaded directly with Messrs. Gromyko and Shevardnadze, here and in the Soviet Union, to secure the release of political and other prisoners.
In recognition of his efforts, Mr. Speaker, last November the Association of Canadian Lawyers and Jurists for Soviet Jewry presented him with its annual human rights award.
During his recent visit to Zimbabwe and Senegal the Prime Minister met with six heads of African governments, including the President of the Front Line States and the former President of the Organization of African Unity.
In his discussions with the African leaders, reference was often made to the rapidly deteriorating situation in South Africa and its impact on neighbouring nations. Considering that the problem may not be solved through negotiations, the Prime Minister again set forth Canada's position as he had explained it in his October 1985 address to the United Nations, namely that existing sanctions will indeed be maintained.
The Prime Minister made it quite clear that Canada would bring pressure to bear in support of those who seek to restore justice in South Africa. As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, it was in December 1986 that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees presented the Governor General with the Nansen medal. The decoration was not meant for a Canadian citizen in particular but for the entire Canadian people as acknowledgement of their essential and lasting contribution to the refugee cause.
I might point out that it was the first time the medal, created in 1954, was awarded to a country. We can all stand proud.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to highlight some of the achievements of our Government and to tell the Canadian people that their Government's performance in the realm of human rights is second to none.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to make a few comments on the motion of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). I think that he has moved a very good and valuable motion, and I would like to read it into the record one more time. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Secretary of State for External Affairs erred seriously in urging upon the Provincial Premiers a political boycott of three Sikh organizations in Canada, thereby condemning entire groups on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations against individuals and, consequently undermining the multicultural fabric of Canadian society;
That this House, while condemning violence and terrorism as political instruments, affirms that all Canadian citizens, regardless of origin must not be subjected to any coercion, intimidation or other action by the Government designed to prevent their free and peaceful expression of their opinions and concerns about events and issues in Canada or in other lands; and
That this House therefore demands that the Government provide Parliament with all relevant information that led to its aforementioned communication with the Provinces and provide the Canadian Sikh community with a full, public opportunity to defend its honour and integrity and that the Government immediately withdraw its allegations and issue a full apology to
March 10, 1988

all Canadians, and to the Canadian Sikh community in particular, for initiating an unprovoked attack on the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens and for thereby subverting federal multiculturalism policy.
The reason for the Hon. Member's motion is the letter that was sent last December by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to seven provincial Premiers. In that letter he states:
There are, however, three Sikh organizations which exist largely to advocate the creation of an independent Sikh state, known as "Khalistan". These three organizations are the Babbar Khalsa, the International Sikh Youth Federation, and the World Sikh Organization. Some members of these organizations have also engaged in or promote violent activities aimed at Indian interests in Canada and elsewhere. The activities of these organizations have been a significant irritant in our relations with India. The government of India has taken particular exception when elected officials attend functions sponsored by these organizations.
Later on in the letter he states:
-I would appreciate your cooperation in avoiding events and activities which could be perceived as supporting the Sikh organizations mentioned above or their objective in the creation of an independent Sikh state.
When we consider the fact that this letter was sent secretly to seven Premiers we have to ask some very serious questions about what the Government is trying to do in terms of its relationship to the multicultural community in Canada, in particular its relationship to the Sikh community. What we are dealing with is a secret memo, a memo that would have the effect of subverting the access that members of the Sikh community would have to elected provincial officials.
They would not know what had happened to them. It was as though a whispering campaign had taken place saying that such and such a person has some grave disease and no one should associate with him and yet no one would come out in the open to make any accusations. In effect, that is what the Government has done with the Sikh community and with these organizations. It is a silent denial of access. It is a whispering campaign.
I know that it is not considered good parliamentary form to mention the Secretary of State for External Affairs by name. However, I would like to point out that he seems to have taken his namesake rather too seriously. I refer to his name, Joe. He seems to be taking rather seriously his relationship with another Joe, Joe McCarthy, because this kind of tactic smacks of McCarthyism. It is the sort of tactic that Joe McCarthy would use. It is not worthy of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is an attempt to smear an entire organization by association.
We could ask where it will all end. Different Hon. Members have asked that and have pointed out that Members attend meetings of Ukranian, Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian organizations. The Eritreans have been involved in a long-term struggle against Ethiopia for independence. There are Members of the House who meet with the Eritrean organizations, and I presume that there are Members who give funds to Eritrean relief.
Supply
Where will it all end? What will be considered to be beyond the pale as far as the Secretary of State for External Affairs is concerned?
We must recognize that all Members of Parliament, all public officials, be they provincial, municipal, or federal, must exercise some discretion when it comes to meeting with different organizations. However, to put some groups beyond the pale and to circulate a memo suggesting that elected officials should not meet with them raises very serious questions about the openness of our democracy.
A few weeks ago I attended a kind of ethnic organization dinner and was seated next to a person who spoke with a fairly heavy accent. He was advocating the dismemberment of a country with which we have very close relations. In fact, he was a Scottish nationalist and I was attending a Burns' dinner. He was advocating Scottish nationalism, the breaking up of the United Kingdom. We have very close relations with the United Kingdom. Many of us are members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. There I was sitting next to someone who was a Scottish nationalist. Perhaps that is beyond the pale as well. I see that Your Honour recognizes that that is a rather ludicrous situation, but I submit that what we have here is a ludicrous situation which has tragic implications for the Sikh community.
When we step back a little and look at what has happened, we realize that a people have been maligned unjustly. Sikhs form a very important cultural and religious community within my constituency, within my Province of British Columbia, and within Canada as a whole. They have a long history in the Cowichan Valley. They first arrived in the Cowichan Valley at the turn of the century and were very involved in the sawmilling industry. Because of the racist immigration policies of Canada at that time, there was a long period of time when they were not allowed to bring in their families. There was also a time when they were denied the vote, even though they were British subjects. They were not allowed to have timber licences. They were really confined in a ghetto or ghettoized, yet they continued to work and to add to the prosperity of British Columbia.
These early immigrants worked to build a union and fought for better conditions for all woodworkers in British Columbia. Since 1967, when the immigration laws were changed, more immigrant families have come to the area. I think that this has changed the whole perception of the Sikh community in the Cowichan Valley. They used to be forced to live as single males in bunk houses. Now we see them as family people, people concerned about their families, about their communities, about building their temples, and about maintaining their religious faith. Of course, being long established in the Cowichan Valley, they diversified. They are no longer simply involved in the woodworking industry. They are involved in business and in the professions as teachers, lawyers, and public sector workers.

March 10, 1988
Supply
Two years ago the first member of the Sikh community was elected to the Legislature of British Columbia. Mo Sihota, from the constituency of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, which takes in part of my constituency, I am proud to say is a New Democrat. I am also proud to say that he is one of the most outstanding members of the British Columbia Legislature today, which is recognized by people right across the board. He is an outstanding member of the Legislature, coming from the Sikh community with its history.
It has been my privilege at different times to attend worship services in three of the Sikh temples in my constituency. It is worth-while reminding Canadians of some of the basic Sikh beliefs. They believe in one God. They believe in equality for all people. After every worship service there is a communal meal at which people share food. This is important in our world where food is not shared, where large numbers of people go hungry. It is important to have that sacramental sense of sharing food and tying it in with worship.
It is important to recognize the contributions of Sikhs to my particular area, to my province, and to Canada as a whole. Also it is important to emphasize the fact that they are family people. They are community people. They are hard working and they are thrifty.
As I said, recently we have had more immigrants from India, mainly from the Punjab, the traditional homeland of the Sikhs. I remember in the late 1970s, when I was first becoming involved in running for federal office, talking with the late Tommy Douglas who pointed out that most Sikhs in our area were supporters of the All-Indian Congress Party, the forerunner of the Congress I Party. This meant that at that time they were supporters of a united India. Many of them believed in a united India, which was part of the vision of Mahatma Gandhi. The Sikhs had worked with other Indians in support of that ideal.
However, there was the growth of a separatist movement in India, a movement for a separate state called Khalistan. Unfortunately, that movement has been tragically mishandled, and I think that there have been tragic mistakes made on both sides of the issue. We can say that, looking at the situation from the security and comfort of Canada. One tragedy seemed to lead to another. When, on the orders of Indira Gandhi, the troops stormed the sacred temple, the Golden Temple at Amritsar, 1,000 people were killed. That destroyed any sense of confidence of the people in the Congress I Party. The Sikhs were no longer able to have faith in that kind of situation. Then, when two Sikh bodyguards assassinated Indira Ganghi, the tragedy was compounded. To compound it even more, it unleashed a fury of violence, which resulted in the massacre of some 3,000 Sikhs in India, mostly in the capital of Delhi. The Government took no real action to protect them at that time.
Naturally it had an effect upon Canadian Sikhs, particularly upon more recent immigrants who still had relatives and friends back in India, and naturally this feeling was exploited by militants who looked to the establishment of Khalistan.
Certainly there have been some very well publicized instances of violence. There have been suggestions that perhaps some of those instances of violence were caused by agents provocateurs from the Indian Government. I do not know. There is sufficient doubt at least to place questions on the issue, and the Canadian Government has requested that some people be sent back to India from our consulates.
In my own riding, there was a police raid on the Sikh temple at Duncan, which was highly publicized. We had great difficulty in trying to get information as to what was behind the raid. Lor months and even years the police refused to release information. Here we have this letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs saying:
There are, however, three Sikh organizations which exist largely to advocate the creation of an independent Sikh state, known as "Khalistan".
I can understand that there might be organizations that want to promote a separate state, but I do not see that that is necessarily wrong, even within Canada. The letter goes on to
say:
These three organizations are the Babbar Khalsa, the International Sikh Youth Federation and the World Sikh Organization. Some members of these organizations have also engaged in or promote violent activity.
Some members of the Conservative Party have been involved in violent activities. Some members of the New Democratic Party have been involved in violent activities, and even some members of the Liberal Party have been involved in violent activities. Does that mean we tarnish all these organizations as being violent? The letter goes on to say:
The activities of these organizations have been a significant irritant in our relations with India.
I can appreciate they might be an irritant in our relations with India. Some of the activities of the Ukrainian organizations are irritants in our relations with Russia, but that does not mean that we feel that we have any right or obligation to boycott those organizations. Some of the activities of some of the solidarity groups, solidarity groups from Central America, are significant irritants in our relations with the United States. The letter goes on:
The government of India has taken particular exception when elected officials attend functions sponsored by these organizations.
I can understand that the Government of India might take exception. So what, Mr. Speaker? Are we not an independent nation? Are not our elected officials elected to be responsible to the Canadian people? We are not talking about getting involved in subversion in India. We are talking about elected officials meeting with legitimate Canadian organizations. The letter continues:
I would appreciate your co-operation in avoiding events and activities which could be perceived as supporting the Sikh organizations mentioned above or their objective in the creation of an independent Sikh society.
"Activities which could be perceived", and the question is perceived by whom? Perceived by the Indian Government?
March 10, 1988

Obviously the Indian Government is supersensitive on this whole issue.
Reference was made earlier by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), to the establishment of a chair of Sikh studies at the University of British Columbia. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) encouraged the Government to fund the chair. Out of sensitivity to what the Indian Government might perceive as support for the Sikhs, the Department of External Affairs dragged its feet all the way and put up roadblocks against the creation of a chair of Sikh studies at UBC.
A Globe and Mail article for December 13, 1986 points out:
Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act reveal that an External Affairs official believed a federal grant for a chair in Punjabi literature and Sikh studies at the University of British Columbia would be misunderstood by the Government of India.
"While I fully understand that Canada's multiculturalism policies will be guided primarily by Canadian domestic considerations, the implications in terms of foreign policy must also be considered, "E. G. Drake, an Assistant Deputy Minister in External Affairs, wrote in April, 1985 to a Secretary of State official.
Multiculturalism here is being subject to foreign policy considerations. Mr. Drake continued:
"I hope, therefore, that the Indian Government's likely reaction can be taken into account before any conclusion is reached", "he stated.
Mr. Drake wrote that, should federal financing materialize it "would likely be misunderstood by the Government of India and might well cause damage to our bilateral relations with India."
A few weeks ago, when she was resigning, a former assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the Department of External Affairs as a hotbed of cold feet. I cannot think of a better characterization for this Department. A hotbed of cold feet, and so afraid of our relationship with India that it attempts to subvert our multiculturalism policy.


Robert E.J. Layton: No.


James Douglas Manly: We see the same kind of cold feet in regard to standing up to France on the St. Pierre-Miquelon issue. We see it in regard to the United States on our Central American policy. We are just not prepared to stand up as a nation. We are so concerned about our bilateral relations with India that we are not prepared to fund a chair of Sikh studies at one of our Canadian universities, which is fully in accordance with Canadian multiculturalism policies.
I was glad to see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs finally went over External Affairs on that issue and a year ago in February there was a grant for the funding of the chair at UBC. Credit has to go not only to the Sikh community, which pushed and advocated the chair but also to my colleague, the New Democratic Party critic for multiculturalism, the Member from Thunder Bay-Nipigon.
What we have with this letter is a slight on an entire community, a slight with no proof. Allegations are made of individual violence but no proof was made of that, and from
Supply
that the entire three organizations are placed beyond the pale for provincial politicians. It is a form, as I said earlier, of McCarthyism.
I object to the effect that this letter has had on my constituents, my friends, on the entire Sikh community and on the entire multicultural community in Canada. Who knows what other letters similar to this one might be in effect? It is an insidious sort of thing. The letter was written in secret. We did not even know what the Secretary of State for External Affairs was thinking about.
I fully support the suggestion by my House Leader, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), that the entire matter should be the subject of investigation by a parliamentary committee. The parliamentary committee should have access to whatever proof the Government thinks it has that these organizations are subversive. It should give access to the Sikh community so that it can come before this organization and state its goals and methods and clear itself. This letter has had the effect of maligning not only these organizations but, by implication, the entire community.
Finally, there should be very clear directions given to the Canadian government organizations that deal with Sikhs and with other multicultural communities, to CSIS, to the RCMP, to the Department of Immigration and to Customs to quit hassling and harassing them and to recognize their rights.
I think it would be in the interests of this House and of the parliamentary democracy of Canada and in the interests of the multicultural policy for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to step back a little bit from his involvement in this issue. I know that he has a personal emotional investment, having written the letter and having had to defend it. If he could step back a little bit and look at the implications of the letter, what it means for the Sikh community, and perhaps get a bit of perspective on his actions, then I think he would want to apologize through the House to the Sikh community.
I believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is a person who basically seeks what is best for the Canadian community. I do not think that this letter is worthy of the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he is at his best. I would hope that he would step back, look at the situation, recognize that he made a mistake and apologize to the Canadian people and in particular to the Sikh community.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Since there are no questions or comments, debate.


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are discussing today is a serious motion. I give the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) credit for the seriousness of his intent. The motion contains within it several items with which I propose to deal separately.
The first paragraph of the motion contains the assertion that the letter in question urges a political boycott of the Sikh

March 10, 1988
Supply
organizations, and there is a further implication later on that Sikhs in general are being affected by this. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that, as he acknowledged earlier in today's debate, I intervened directly on this issue in the House and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) indeed confirmed that it was not his intention in any way, shape or form to inhibit Members of Parliament from meeting with members of these organizations, from listening to their concerns or from becoming informed as to their views or concerns either about the situation in Canada or the situation abroad.
The second paragraph of the motion indicates that this is designed to prevent free and peaceful expressions of the opinions and concerns of Canadians of all origins about events and issues in Canada and in other lands. I am sure the Hon. Member is well aware that there is no prohibition at all on members of these communities meeting with the press, with the media, with Members of Parliament, with provincial Members of Parliament or with Premiers. Nor is there any ban on public meetings or on expressing views very forcefully, nor has there been censorship by the media. Indeed, members of the World Sikh Organization have been able not only to meet with MPs regularly but they have been able to meet with officials of the Department of External Affairs to brief the Department briefly on their particular concerns.
The letter issued by Mr. Clark deals with one specific issue, and that is the issue-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must bring to the Hon. Member's attention that it is the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, you have been consistent in your rulings on that all day, and I should have picked it up.
The letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs deals with the specific issue of attending, on a public platform, a meeting organized by one of the three organizations mentioned and somehow appearing to endorse unwittingly the aims and objectives of the organization. Should there be any doubt as to the aims and objectives of the organization, I would point out that Objective 2.0.2 of the World Sikh Organization is to strive, and I do emphasize, through peaceful means, for the establishment of a Sikh nation, Khalistan, in order to protect the Sikh identity and faith as ordained by the Guru Panth in the daily prayer "Raj Karega Khalsa". The organization clearly calls for the establishment of a separate state in India and in fact for the dismemberment of the country of India. I merely point this out because we in Canada ourselves took offence in 1967 when another foreign power appeared to endorse the aims of groups within our own country which sought the separation of Canada.
I also want to raise another general issue and that is that the United Nations has established codes of conduct for relationships between friendly Governments and for co-operation. One of the principles established by the United Nations in the
twenty-fifth Assembly was that states should refrain from actions aimed at the political independence or the territorial integrity of any state.
We as Canadians were very conscious of outside endorsement of actions which might represent a threat to our territorial integrity. Indeed, because of the general principles established by the United Nations, principles to which we subscribe, we must also be very conscious of appearing to endorse an action which threatens the territorial integrity of another friendly member of the United Nations.
I did mention that while an objective of the World Sikh Organization is to strive to establish Khalistan, it is striving to do this through peaceful means. However, my understanding is that senior members of the organizations, and as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) indicated, not just ordinary parishioners in the Catholic Church, made emotional statements following Operation Blue Star in 1984, statements which indeed advocated violent activities. To the best of my knowledge, these statements have never been repudiated. This information has been communicated to the organization involved, and certainly I would encourage it to repudiate these alleged statements because they certainly do not conform with my understanding of the group's aims and objectives at this time.
I wish to devote the remainder of my discussion to the assertion which is at the bottom of the first paragraph of the motion which is, that the letter constitutes a demonstration that the Government is undermining the multicultural fabric of Canadian society. In the four years since this Government took office, it has demonstrated time and time again its fervent belief in the concept of multiculturalism. It has done so because it has a deep-rooted belief in human rights and in the equality of all people.
Racism and discrimination have no place in Canada and, in numerous ways, the federal Government has sought to combat and root out manifestations of intolerance and social injustice. While the task is not yet done, we can take pride in what we have accomplished so far. When I say we, I refer not only to the Government but also to all Canadians from coast to coast who are working hard as the Hon. Member for York West who presented the motion today is working hard to make this a land of civility, generosity and openness.
No Government can achieve tolerance and racial harmony by ignoring the situation of its own agencies and Departments. For this reason, the Government has worked hard to see that the multicultural nature of Canada is reflected in the make-up of the federal Public Service. As Members may know, the percentage of our appointments to boards, agencies and commissions from the ethnocultural communities is something like 50 per cent higher than that of the previous Government. At Treasury Board numerous initiatives have been developed to promote employment opportunities for visible minorities. Indeed, the Government introduced an affirmative action program for visible minorities, including the setting of
March 10, 1988

numerical targets. The Public Service Commission is in the process of establishing a network of visible minority coordinators responsible for recruitment, inventory maintenance, marketing and counselling of visible minority candidates. These and other initiatives represent an important start in correcting the imbalance which has long existed in the federal Public Service.
The Government also brought in employment equity legislation in 1986. Under the legislation, Crown corporations and federally-regulated employers with more than 100 employees will be required to provide equitable employment opportunities for designated groups such as women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples, and members of visible minorities. Recently this House gave first reading to Bill C-93, Canada's first multiculturalism Bill. Soon it will receive second reading. When passed, the legislation will affirm a central feature of Canadian life. It will reflect our national conviction that regardless of origin, every Canadian citizen has an equal chance to participate in and contribute to the social, economic, political and cultural life of the country.
Because the Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is committed to fairness, it brought in a multiculturalism Bill. Because it stands for equality of opportunity, it brought in an employment equity Bill. Because it clearly appreciates the multicultural reality of Canada, it brought in special measures to promote the employment of visible minorities in federal structures. Therefore, let no Member of the House attempt to mislead Canadians about our Government's commitment to a multiculturalism policy. Let no one attempt to deny our commitment to racial harmony and social equality. Let no one accuse us of attacking anyone's rights, for we sought to do precisely the reverse and safeguard and enhance the rights and opportunities of Canadians.
The concern this Government has shown for minority communities encompasses all groups, religions and ethnic backgrounds. The Sikh community in Canada, like other communities which make up our national fabric, has received financial support for its worthy undertakings in recognition of the contribution it has made to Canadian society. Sikhs have been part of our multicultural nation for many years. They began emigrating to this country at the very beginning of this century. Since then their numbers have grown steadily and they have established roots all across the country. Today Sikh Canadians represent nearly 200,000 Canadians in all provinces, with particularly strong representation in British Columbia and Ontario. With their strong sense of family and their religious belief in morality, selflessness and responsibility, Sikhs have made a contribution to Canadian society greater than their numbers would indicate. They have shown a strong sense of entrepreneurship and made a very real impact on business and in the professions.
Sikhs have integrated well into Canadian society. They have also been diligent in passing on their linguistic and cultural
Supply
heritage from generation to generation. For example, virtually all second generation Sikh Canadians can understand Punjabi. Despite their record of achievement and their exemplary citizenship, Canadian Sikhs, like other visible minorities, are from time to time faced with problems of discrimination, ignorance or prejudice. I personally have been involved in some of these issues for over 10 years, beginning with some of the hard hat cases when I first became an MP 10 year ago, to establishing an immigration policy for Sikh priests and others because their religious needs were not being adequately recognized by the Government.
Equality of opportunity in the workplace and in society generally is of major concern. Sikhs are naturally concerned by the reporting of events in the Punjab and by what they feel is often a stereotyped depiction of their people, one which tends to overlook the very real contribution they have made to Canadian society. Indeed, I can cite a personal example of this in my own riding where the Sikh community is in the process of attempting to construct a new church. The reaction from the community was, my gosh, these are violent people, they must not build this anywhere close to our neighbourhood. Indeed, I took the opportunity to testify in Scarborough Council of my personal knowledge of the congregation and their belief in peace and their positive contribution to society.
In working to combat prejudice and discrimination, Canada's Sikh community, like other minority groups, received a good deal of direct and indirect support from the Canadian Government. The federal Government, through the Secretary of State's multicultural program, provided and continues to provide strong support to Canadian Sikhs. During the past two fiscal years, for example, more than $500,000 in grant money has been provided for some 64 individual projects. Many of those grants have gone toward school and educational projects to help new generations of Sikh Canadians understand and appreciate their heritage and retain and reinforce their traditional language skills. Others have gone to support cultural activities and programs aimed at better educating and informing other Canadians about Sikh Canadians.
One particularly important step was the Secretary of State's agreement to provide major financing support for the establishment of the chair in Punjabi language, literature and Sikh studies at the University of B.C. This chair, established last fall, received a $350,000 federal grant covering 50 per cent of the total required funding. Establishment of this chair represents the culmination of some four years of discussions and co-operative planning in which I was deeply involved, involving the Federation of Sikh Societies in Canada, the University of British Columbia, and the Department of the Secretary of State. Its goal is to initiate and promote research, both at the graduate and at the undergraduate level, in the areas of Punjabi language and literature as well as Sikhism, Sikh history and other aspects of Sikh studies.
The chair has established a focal point for generating a better understanding of Canada's pluralistic and multicultural

March 10, 1988
Supply
nature, and of Sikhs and Sikhism in Canada. It will conduct research into the contributions Sikhs have made to Canadian society and will encourage publication of this research so Canadians will have a better understanding and appreciation of this contribution. All in all, this new chair will make a valuable contribution to our knowledge and understanding, and I am proud our Government has played such a major role in its development and to have been involved so personally in seeing it established.
I might also mention that our Government provided major funding for a conference of Sikhism at the University of Toronto just over a year ago. This Government has given more support and encouragement to Canada's diverse ethnic communities than any other in our history. I think the Secretary of State summed it up well when he said a multicultural Canada is an enriched Canada. The more successfully we share our different cultural backgrounds, the more harmonious and unified we become as a society. The Sikh community, he said, has contributed much to our society. They have strived to meet the complexity and challenges of integration into the mainstream of Canadian life while still retaining the essential qualities of their own unique heritage.
Hard-working Sikh people have contributed much to Canada's economic prosperity and cultural richness. This Government will continue to work with vigour with all our culture minorities, as we have over the past three and a half years. We will help them retain their distinctive qualities, their cultural and language. We will also help them to integrate and achieve full participation in Canadian society. We will work with them to combat prejudice and ignorance wherever they exist in society. This is a commitment we have lived up to in the past and we have reaffirmed that commitment in the multiculturalism Bill which this House will be considering next week.
In summary, I do not think that when one examines the actions of the Government one can conceivably sustain the assertion in the first paragraph of the resolution that this Government has been undermining the multicultural fabric of Canadian society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, let me first pay respect to the Hon. Member for his participation in the issue of Canadians of Sikh origin. I know his record in Toronto and it speaks highly of his commitment and the values he holds dear.
The debate is now winding down and I was just wondering what his thoughts were about a standing committee of Parliament providing a forum to evaluate the information which prompted Mr. Clark's letter, and at the same time providing the members of those organizations a forum to defend their honour and their actions as a community. Does the Member favour such a forum in one of our standing committees?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for York Scarborough (Mr. Stackhouse), but the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has struck out today. That is the fourth time that he has referred to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) by his name.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to repeat the mistake. The Member asks whether I think it would be appropriate to establish a special committee. I think it may be, but not as a first step. I met for over three hours yesterday with representatives of Sikh organizations. There are two issues that have been raised.
First, the community has a feeling that it is being harassed by statements in the press or, indeed, by activities of CSIS. I told the members that, with regard to the activities of CSIS Parliament made a decision when it established CSIS that, unlike in the United States where the CIA and the FBI are subject to congressional oversight, a different mechanism would be set up in Canada with regard to CSIS. That mechanism was to provide a special committee of former Members of the House, Privy Councillors all, of different Parties under the chairmanship of the Hon. Ron Atkey, a former distinguished Member of this House. I suggested that an appropriate first step for the organizations involved would be to approach the CSIS oversight committee and take up their allegations with it, which is not directly in Parliament.
With regard to the other issues as to whether there were or were not statements made which advocated violence, which certainly run contrary to the constitution of the World Sikh Organization in Canada, those allegations were brought to the attention of members of the organization yesterday. I am sure that they will want to take the time to examine whether the statements were made by senior members of their organization. If so, since they run contrary to the constitution of the organization, they may feel that it is an opportune time to state categorically that these do not represent the aims and objectives of the organization in order that the WSO would not be seen to be in a position of advocating violence even though in the past, in a very emotional moment, individual senior officers might well have made statements which have that direct interpretation.
Finally, if the organizations involved cannot achieve resolution of their problems through the first two steps which I think should be taken, I would indeed be willing to meet with them again to discuss the possibility of further pursuing the issue in one of the standing committees.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do not take part in this debate with any great satisfaction in being able to criticize the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). I regard him as a decent man with great respect for people and I am sorry to see him embroiled in this kind of a controversy. I cannot imagine why he signed the letter that
March 10, 1988

went to the provinces. I would normally have expected him to be very much more sensitive.
The Hon. Member for York Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) who has just spoken made reference to how Canadians felt when a French visitor seemed to be encouraging separatism. Perhaps it is reasonable for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to tell provincial Premiers what his views are on certain sensitivities and how he would like them treated. However, unfortunately the form of this particular letter was such that it caused a great deal of pain to Canadian citizens.
What was wrong with the letter? For one thing it pointed to three Sikh organizations. However, organizations do not commit terrorist activities or cause difficulties for the host country; individuals do. The World Sikh Organization has some 20,000 members. The International Sikh Youth Federation is only two years old and has perhaps 2,000 members, and Babbar Khalsa has perhaps 200 members. Therefore, a very large and established organization was included, perhaps inappropriately, with two other organizations. In any case, to talk about organizations as if they were all-embracing, as if every individual who belongs to an organization shares the same views, surely is not realistic, as has been pointed out several times today.
The pain which was caused to Canadians of Sikh origin by the release of this letter added to the pain which they have been suffering ever since the Air India disaster. Many people have forgotten that terrorists do not spare their own. There were Sikhs who died in the Air India disaster too.
I was privileged to attend a religious service last July which was sponsored by many groups including the Vishnu Temple, the Kannada Sangha, the Hindu Sabha Mandir, the Bharati Kala Manram, the Hindu Prarthana Samaj, the Hindu Federation, the Zorastrian Society of Ontario, and the Association of Women of India in Canada. It was a memorial service for the victims of the Air India disaster, a most moving expression where prayers were offered by, among others, Sikhs. Prayers were also offered by Christians, Islamics, Hindus, Jainists, Buddhists, and people from the Jewish and Zorastrian faiths. It was a most poignant expression of grief for the deaths of many people but it was grief without bitterness. As one person who lost his two sons said:
The fact we are all victims here together sharing our grief makes life
liveable.
That is the kind of spirit that I have seen in the Sikhs whom I have come to know well since that Air India disaster. Sikhs in Canada are, for the most part, peaceful people. They have been horrified by the terrorism from which they too have suffered. They do not condone it. They have been pained by the assumption that they accept terrorism.
I have here a statement of the objectives of the World Sikh Organization. The first is to promote and follow the teachings of the ten gurus. The second is to strive through peaceful means for the establishment of a Sikh nation, Khalistan, in order to protect the Sikh identity. The fourth is to work for the
Supply
promotion of ideals of universal brotherhood, peace, justice, freedom of worship and speech, respect for cultural diversity and human dignity for all, without any distinction as per the instruments and covenants of the United Nations Organization.
These are very worthy objectives. As has been said, in an organization of 20,000, one cannot guarantee that every individual subscribes to those objectives. However, those are the objectives of the organization.
The organization has taken some steps over the years to dissociate itself from violence. I have a copy of a letter dated May 14, 1985, from the General Secretary of the World Sikh Organization to the National Councils of the U.S.A., Canada and the United Kingdom. It reads:
WSO constitution lays down that we are a peaceful organization working for human rights of Sikhs in India. Therefore, Membership Screening Committee in your countries should be instructed not to accept membership from known or proved terrorists and any member who is guilty of terrorism should be removed from WSO membership according to our constitution.
Another letter dated April 2, 1985, from the General Secretary to the National Councils of Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom reads in part: "We would appeal that the utmost care should be taken to avoid violence and provocation. Meetings and processions should be strictly in accordance with the laws of the land". It goes on: "We must fully co-operate with the authorities and abide by the laws of the land". Those are the stated purposes of the World Sikh Organization.
We are all aware of the violence in the Punjab. I was there a year ago and the situation indeed is one where grievances over riparian rights and religious differences have escalated over the years. They are not being solved by political or democratic means. There is violence on the part of Sikh terrorists and there is violence on the part of others. It is a country where the habeas corpus does not operate and people are detained without trial for very long periods. There are allegations of torture and mistreatment.
Surely citizens of Canada are entitled to talk to their Members of Parliament and provincial politicians about their concerns for the human rights of their relatives and friends in another country.
This has been the case with people in a long list of countries. There are many organizations here which exist to keep us aware of conditions in their country of origin. We have always claimed that this is part of their democratic rights.
Of course, none of us wants to encourage violence. None of us will have much time for anybody who is acting in any way against the laws of our land. However, I suggest that Canadians of Sikh origin by and large are excellent citizens. They are thrifty, hard working, peaceful people who are very family oriented. It has been a source of great pain to them that there

March 10, 1988
Adjournment Debate
is so much violence in their own country of origin and that some of that violence has shown in Canada.
The statements I have read make it clear that the World Sikh Organization does not condone violence. I think it behooves all of us to ensure that Canadians are able to exercise their democratic rights and express their concerns about conditions in their country of origin as long as they do it in peaceful ways. Whole communities should not be tarred with the excesses of a few, the excesses which the communities themselves have condemned and made clear they do not support.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. It being six o'clock, the proceedings under Standing Order 82(12) have expired.