1988-03-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour of laying on the table of the House the Seventeenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for calendar year 1987, pursuant to Section 34(1) of the Official Languages Act.

I would remind Hon. Members that this document stands referred to a Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour, indeed, it is a pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from petitioners who are concerned that the federal Government lacks a mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade deal with the United States.
They believe that the trade deal negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty since it removes the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership and to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians. It certainly does not equalize the opportunities between the regions of the country.
For a whole set of other reasons they are calling upon Parliament to dissolve now to give the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to table a number of petitions in accordance with Standing Order 106. The petitions of the undersigned residents of Canada read as follows: Your petitioners humbly state that considering the decision of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to proceed as of March 20, 1988, with the deportation of 2,000 Turkish nationals, men, women and children; considering the particular circumstances that led these people to come to Canada and the dramatic consequences their return to Turkey would have for these people; considering the legitimacy of granting them, on compassionate grounds, the right to settle in Canada; wherefore your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reconsider his decision.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty of presenting a petition from constituents of mine. It is an honour to do this on behalf of persons resident in northern communities in my riding along the Canadian National Railway line through Armstrong and, particularly, in Mud River.
These constituents protest, along with so many other of my constituents, that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. In fact, the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the U.S.
The agreement denies just that, secure access to the U.S. market which the Government promised. It threatens hundreds of thousands of Canadians and their jobs.
These Canadians protest and ask the Parliament of Canada take note of these realities and dangers, that it dissolve and give the people of Canada an opportunity to decide what they think of this trade deal with the United States.

March 22, 1988
Order Paper Questions


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for many of my constituents and other Montrealers who are extremely fair-minded and who wish to speak to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to ask him to prevent and not to expel the 2,000 Turkish men, women and children who are here because they were unaware of Canadian law. They were misled and given inaccurate information by unscrupulous travel agents and advertisements in their papers in their own areas.
These people are innocent victims. The error is on the part of the Government which knew in the fall of 1986 what the situation was and took no action to stem the tide.
Because of the particular circumstances, they ask that these people be allowed to stay on humanitarian grounds.
I deposit a petition with 25 names on it coming from Plamondon, Mountain Sights, Barclay, Letourneux, and the area of Marquette and Desrosiers Streets, in Montreal.
I have an additional petition with 18 names on it. These people feel the same way. They live on Cote-des-Neiges, Hudson, Queen Mary, in Laval, in the Town of Mount Royal, on Saint-Denis-in fact, across the spectrum of the large City of Montreal.
The last petition I would like to deposit-

-reads as follows:
That considering the decision of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to proceed as of March 10, 1988, with the deportation of 2,000 Turkish nationals, men, women and children; considering the particular circumstances that led these people to come to Canada and the dramatic consequences their return to Turkey would have for these people; considering the legitimacy of granting them, on compassionate grounds, the right to settle in Canada; wherefore your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reconsider his decision.
These petitions come from Jean-Rivard, Chabot, Laval, Garneau, Berri and other streets.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of petitions signed by residents of the Montreal area which concern the 2,000 Turkish men, women and children whom the Minister of Employment and Immigration is threatening with deportation.
Mr. Speaker, the undersigned refer to the innocence of these people. They were victims of misleading advertising. They were not aware that their arrival in Canada was not in accordance with Canadian procedures. These are people in need who sold everything they had to pay for their ticket to Canada.
The undersigned also stress the responsibility of the Government, since it became aware of the situation in the fall of 1986 but took five or six months to react.
Therefore, your petitioners ask Parliament to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reconsider his decision. The law must be interpreted justly and fairly, and that is what your petitioners are asking.
I have two petitions, each signed by forty-four people from Sherbrooke Street in Montreal, from Mountain Sights Street, Boulevard l'Acadie, Cote-des-Neiges, Fullum Street in Montreal East, Pointe-aux-Trembles, Henri-Bourassa Street, by people from Stanstead who signed these petitions, from Bourbonniere Street in Montreal and Cote-Saint-Luc.
Today we tabled petitions with about 400 signatures. More petitions are being signed in Montreal, and these will be tabled as we receive them over the next few days.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Act, laid upon the Table on Wednesday, February 18, 1987, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
March 22, 1988

Thomas Hockin: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Customs Tariff, laid upon the Table on Wednesday, February 10, 1988, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Hockin: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, laid upon the Table on Wednesday, March 16, 1988, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-117, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the first time and be printed.


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

Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-118, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the first time and be printed.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crombie that Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges).


Mr. Mitges:: Mr. Speaker, I had finished my time for debate. I believe there is now a 10-minute period for questions and comments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone).


Sheila Finestone: The Chairman of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism is to be complimented for the very careful exercise and leadership which he demonstrated as chairman of that committee. He proposed a very comprehensive list of recommendations which I read with a great deal of interest over the weekend. I would like to ask the chairman how he now feels about press clippings which indicate that the multiculturalism Bill received a cool welcome, that it is an empty promise on multiculturalism, it will not stem the rivalries, it is strictly une loi plus declaratoire qu'executoire.
The chairman called for at least the creation of a Minister and a commissioner of multiculturalism to watch over the application of the law. With the present structure the Minister watches himself and answers to himself. There is a less than enthusiastic response from the one-third of Canadians whom this Bill is supposed to enable to realize their full equality in our society. How does the Hon. Member respond to that? How can the Hon. Member stand in his place and compliment the Minister and be satisfied with the present Bill? Is the Hon. Member not hoping for changes when it goes to legislative committee, and does the Hon. Member plan to be at the legislative committee?


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: In answer to the questions asked by my hon. friend, the response to the multiculturalism Bill, building the Canadian mosaic, was very positive. We had a very good response.
The Hon. Member asked the question about why we have not appointed a Minister or a commissioner of multiculturalism. I grant that those are two areas in which we as a committee were in agreement. As I stated in my speech, I have been

March 22, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
around this place long enough to know that one does not get everything one wants at the start. We have our foot in the door, and a very substantive foot in the door of the department of multiculturalism. Hopefully, it will open the door in the future for a commissioner and also a full Minister. I am still hopeful that many of our recommendations will be accepted over a period of time. But, as I say, I have been here long enough to know that we will not get everything we want the first time, but I am hoping.


Abram Ernest Epp: One week ago I listened with interest when the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) spoke on Bill C-93, a very important piece of legislation. He said some very interesting things. I wish to commend him for raising the issue of group rights in his speech, and ask if he would be able to say something more on that subject. I ask that particularly in the context of what the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) suggests, for all the good things that one can say about Bill C-93, it is half of a good Bill. There is no machinery here. The provision for a commissioner, and provision for strong action by the Government has not been provided. It institutionalizes the status quo. We all recognize that the Canadian status quo involves very little respect for group rights.
The most massive failure to deal humanely and imaginatively with group rights is to be found in the failure of First Ministers' conferences to place the aboriginal right of selfgovernment into the Constitution, and the failure of the Department of Indian Affairs to lead or to work energetically with aboriginal peoples in establishing how they will govern themselves and how they will develop their group rights in Canada.
Together with my colleagues on the committee, I appreciate the careful leadership given by the Hon. Member for Grey- Simcoe. I appreciate the optimism that he still feels after all these years in Parliament. I particularly appreciated his expression of optimism that the Bill would be amended.
I would ask him to say a little on the establishment of group rights, recognition of those rights in a society that is all too attuned to individual rights and all too rarely aware of the importance of recognizing groups in Canada and providing for them. I particularly ask him in what way we might establish institutions, and I encourage him to suggest what he would like to see added to the second half of the Bill. The problem is that we in opposition cannot amend the Bill. We can amend it in the detail that is there, but we can hardly add substantive sections.
It is necessary for the Hon. Member to respond to what I know is the pressure from the ethnocultural communities across Canada and from the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, for the Government to recognize the lacuna that is represented by the second half of the Bill, or what simply is not there, and to fill that with substantial legislation.
The original Official Languages Act established a Commissioner of Official Languages. The revised Bill which the legislative committee begins considering this afternoon does not need to add to it. The Official Languages Act of 1969 established that commissioner's office, and now the multiculturalism Bill does not do that.
Would the Hon. Member offer us some more insight into group rights, and his thoughts on the Government taking up the challenge and giving us the second half of what could be a really good Bill, if only the Government acted on that.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: I thank my hon. friend and committee member for the question. As far as I am concerned, we are officially a bilingual and multicultural country, and to me that means that everyone in Canada should be treated equally under every circumstance whatever his or her background, whether it is European or Asiatic. Everyone in Canada should treat everyone else the way they expect to be treated themselves.
I look forward to the day when we will not require a multiculturalism committee or multiculturalism department because everyone will be tuned into the multiculturalism aspect of Canada. This will affect all the groups in Canada. There are something like 102 different ethnocultural groups in Canada today.
As far as the Bill is concerned, I would certainly like to see amendments. If I am chosen to sit on that legislative committee, I will be proposing legislation to change any aspect of the Bill that would actually further the cause of multiculturalism. I am looking forward to working with my hon. friend on that committee, together with the rest of the members of the committee, and see what we come up with.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to address this very important Canadian policy of multiculturalism and to speak on Bill C-93. All Canadians are very proud of our particular unique tradition of multiculturalism. In Canada we often refer to the fact that we are not a melting pot as in the United States. We have so many people who come from different lands who have brought such rich culture and experience with them. We recognize this and have made it a part of our own Canadian mosaic.
It is important that we have a multiculturalism Bill. This is the second such Bill. It is a little stronger than the one presented by the Liberals, but it still needs to be strengthened in many ways. I will speak to that in a moment.
The first part of the Bill recognizes the main principles based on many statutes, the Charter of Rights, and our international covenants which commit us to recognizing the rights of all people and all cultural groups. Interestingly, the Bill also refers to aboriginal people who have constitutional rights. I wonder how those same aboriginal people and their leaders will feel. I think that they may have some reservations about being grouped under multiculturalism. Certainly, most native people whom I talk to, and I agree, feel that they have very unique rights and must be dealt with separately. They
March 22, 1988

have much to contribute to Canada and are contributing much from their unique cultures.
The Bill is based upon the premise that we are a bilingual country and that the larger community of Canada is comprised of many cultural communities. I note that the principles are not spelled out in the same way as they were recommended by the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. Perhaps in themselves they need to be strengthened, but unfortunately this is not something we can do at this stage.
For the purpose of comparison I should like to refer to the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism dated June, 1987. Its first recommendation was that the new multiculturalism policy should embody the following eight principles: multiculturalism for all Canadians, advancement of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework, equality of opportunity, preservation and enhancement of cultural diversity, elimination of discrimination, establishment of affirmative measures, enhancement of heritage languages, and support for immigrant integration. I am sorry that these particular principles were not repeated in this very important Bill.
It is important that we start with basic principles. However, principles are just lip service and window dressing unless we provide the mechanisms to achieve the goals. This is the area in which the Bill is weak. Critics from a whole range of ethnic organizations have expressed concern in this regard as well.
As our spokesperson in this area has said, there is no new means of achieving a genuine multicultural Canada as recommended by the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. In effect the Bill is a symbolic gesture, and we need something more than that.
The Bill should have provided for a department of multiculturalism. It should have provided for a commissioner of multiculturalism. Also, there should have been provision for a research centre on multiculturalism and, I would say, on multiculturalism and racism. The Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and a number of other groups have criticized the Bill for these reasons.
At this point I should like to commend particularly the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) for his very outstanding work in the field of multiculturalism. I was very impressed with the document he prepared in June, 1987 entitled "A Living Diversity, Multiculturalism for All". It was a very excellent document on the aspects of multiculturalism which we feel are very important and which we stress very strongly. For example, too often the whole aspect of racism is left out when we talk about multiculturalism.
Manitoba has established a structure which deals with some of the problems. Its Government established the Manitoba Intercultural Council to meet with Ministers to press for action. That is what we do not have here. We do not have a
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
structure, a commissioner, or representatives from the multicultural community who really have a recognized official role in advocating and pressing for changes.
Just to compare the kinds of structures with which I am familiar, the only multicultural representative in British Columbia is one person who acts as a multicultural goodwill ambassador and attends multicultural events. Well, it is very nice, in a pleasant way, to attend events, but we need something to deal with problems and issues. We have that in the City of Vancouver. It is known as the Race Relations Committee and is very involved. These kinds of structures are very important.
It is too bad the Bill does not provide the teeth to allow for major criticism of government policies and to look at the problems of multicultural communities.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council has put out a very excellent document making several recommendations for improvement. I should just like to refer to it very quickly. It suggests that Bill C-93 should have included a commissioner to monitor the implementation of the Act, that there should have been various amendments to the wording of the Act, toughening it up with words like "shall" rather than "should" to express the Government's commitment to multiculturalism, and that federal-provincial co-operation should be spelled out, along with official involvement of the provinces.
The Minister's advisory committee should be appointed on the recommendation of the multicultural communities. Similarly, there should be more equitable participation of minority individuals in the form of increased appointments from the grass roots communities, not just from the elite here in Ottawa.
The council also mentioned three very important areas which were unfortunately omitted from the Bill; the multicultural department, the need for increased multicultural funding, and the need for charitable tax status for ethnocultural organizations to allow them to increase their own fund raising abilities. I think these matters are extremely important.
I should like to very quickly mention two statements in the "Social Infopac", a document prepared by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto. It indicates that multicultural policies at the federal and provincial levels have been in place for decades but that the rhetoric of multiculturalism seems to have outstripped the achievements of policies. The Bill tends to be heavy on rhetoric and weak on ways of implementing that rhetoric. It goes on to indicate that multiculturalism is a commitment to a pluralistic society. It proposes that we not only tolerate and respect differences but acknowledge the need to reduce disparities and barriers which prohibit diverse cultural and racial groups from participating effectively as citizens.
Particularly, I should like to concentrate on the fact that too often we think of multiculturalism as a collage of very colourful events. I am sure that we all enjoy many ethnic

March 22, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
events in our ridings. My riding of Vancouver East is a wonderful place. I think it is the outstanding multicultural community of Canada. There are constant events to celebrate the Chinese New Year, Italian carnivals, and the Japanese Summer Festival in the heartland of the Japanese community. We visit Sikh temples where we experience their events, food, and so on. Of course there are many events in the native communities such as those in the longhouse. July 1 is a mosaic of many different kinds of events in our community. I think particularly of the events at Britannia Centre in my riding, a multicultural service centre of schools, recreational facilities, and a library. Such events are wonderful. They are the joy of multiculturalism. However, they are not enough.
Our government policies and programs must take positive steps to ensure that persons of all ethnic backgrounds have equal rights and equal opportunities and that they do not experience racism. We must face up to the fact that racism and lack of opportunities are very prevalent, particularly with people of colour in society today. I attended a number of meetings of the Immigrant and Visible Women's Council which was formed in a conference last year. We heard over and over again the kind of double discrimination that women of colour face. I am sure men feel the same way.
Government policy must open jobs to visible minorities in a much more direct way with stronger affirmative action programs. I have heard many people comment recently that on TV news broadcasts we have many more visible minority commentators, guests and so on. Soon this situation will be taken for granted and we will not have to speak about it. But are persons of colour, visible minorities if you like, moving up in the public service and in other kinds of jobs? Perhaps they are getting in the door through employment equity but we have yet to find out. This is the first year we will be getting reports about it. Are persons of colour moving up into all levels of our public service? I suspect not, according to what I was told by the women's conference.
We must take tangible steps to protest racism and to uphold our Charter by acknowledging past injustices. This is why redress of the injustices that Canadians of Japanese origin experienced must be made. Chinese immigrants who came here at the turn of the century experienced injustice, but in a different way. They were not yet citizens of Canada. The Chinese and Japanese cultural groups and their wide group of supporters now say that we must wipe out these injustices from our history and our consciences. It is appalling that, after election promises to do something, there have been only two or three series of negotiations with Canadians of Japanese origin who lost their properties, were displaced, lost their communities and dignity as a result of injustices during World War II. It is appalling that the Government will not compensate them.
There was a big meeting recently in my riding on this matter. Not just one ethnic group is concerned about the matter. There are coalitions building and Canadians from all
backgrounds want us to take a stand. Individuals who are now elderly must have fair redress for their losses. Why shouldn't they? The Americans have done something in the U.S.A.. It is a shame that our Government refuses to do anything, to negotiate fairly with the organizations who represent the Japanese Canadians. We want the issue settled once and for all; wiped from our consciences and our history books. We want our children to be proud that we have recognized these people.
Similarly, I have spoken many times in this House about the Chinese head tax. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised to meet with Canadians of Chinese origin to acknowledge the imposed injustice, not only by the head tax laws early in the century but as well by the Chinese Exclusion Act which for many years prohibited Canadian citizens of Chinese origin from bringing their wives and families over from China. Here again the Prime Minister promised that his Government would meet with people and settle this issue. Now the Cabinet has instructed the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism that he cannot even meet with the Chinese Canadian National Council. How can you begin to discuss issues if you are not able to meet with the people concerned? I am honoured to be on an all-Party committee that has met once with the Chinese Canadian National Council. We are hamstrung unless the Government is prepared to act.
What about the many injustices and the stigma which is being stirred up by recent events, and I am thinking of the Sikh community. There were incidents last summer involving Sikhs who were refugee claimants at the time. We heard inflammatory language and the policies of the Government stimulated racism. In my riding, and in many others, we had numerous calls from people who expressed overt racism toward this group. Although no one condones terrorism, I do not think the statements by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have helped multicultural relations in recent days through his boycott of certain Sikh organizations. This is overt discrimination, but there are subtle discriminations as well.
I want to mention StatsCanada. I get so irritated when I look at the format for collecting information, which has for years focused primarily on groups from Europe. It is as if Asia and the people who came to Canada from there did not exist. Only recently have a few countries been noted as countries of origin. So we do not have recognition in the data on people who for many years have come from Asian countries to provide leadership in Canada.
I mentioned double discrimination faced by immigrant women, but there is triple discrimination as well. Not only are they faced with discrimination because they are immigrants and women, but also because many of them are coloured. We must have many more positive programs to assist women and to open opportunities; for instance, English as a second language, many community support programs, more relevant employment training and child care in relation to all programs. We must entrench our multicultural heritage in the Constitution; that is what we heard from multicultural and ethnic
March 22, 1988

groups when debating the Meech Lake Accord. There was concern that the rights of the minorities were not made specific at that time.
On September 3 last year I raised this problem in the House through a petition from Mosaic which is a multicultural group in my riding. The Canadian Ethnic Cultural Council also states that Section 15 of the Charter should define freedom from discrimination based on multicultural factors by adding "race, national or ethnic origin, colour (or) religion".
There are many things we must do. There are many omissions from the Bill. Basically it is a good start. I am sure that in committee there will be many amendments to the Bill. I was pleased to hear the previous speaker say that he will be assisting in this regard. Let us make it a very effective Bill and let us make sure that we remove racism from Canada.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have listened again with interest to the words of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). She spoke from her own experience in her constituency and her experience of life on the West Coast, a part of Canada where Asian migration to Canada is important. There is the establishment of communities of people from Japan, China and other parts of Asia as well as from the dominion of India in its day and from neighbouring countries. People have come to Canada from various places to find homes here. I appreciate her emphasis on the importance of legislation that will ensure respect for the rights of all communities in Canada to be enhanced by the Canadian Government.
I want to explore a related aspect in the Government's interaction with communities and representatives from the communities. I have a question of her about the possibility of a model. In fact, something like the Advisory Council on the Status of Women might be taken up by the Government to advance the cause of multiculturalism. Let me explain what I am thinking of here by picking up on the Hon. Member's observations about the Manitoba Intercultural Council. It is a very important body, as she suggested.
During a western multicultural tour almost exactly a year ago, I had the privilege of being in Winnipeg and being able to sit in on a joint meeting of the executive of the Manitoba Intercultural Council and a good part of the provincial Cabinet. I was impressed first by the fact that the premier, the Minister of Finance who had previously been the Minister responsible for multicultural matters and the Minister of Education of the Province of Manitoba were there, quite a diversity of Ministers over and above the Minister for Culture, Heritage and Recreation, who of course is primarily responsible. They were all gathered at the table to consider an agenda of important concerns which the Manitoba Intercultural Council had put forward.
This is a council formed largely of representatives chosen by the communities under legislation which the New Democratic
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Government put forward to ensure that the council would be genuinely representative and would articulate the concerns of the communities. We have not had anything remotely resembling that in multiculturalism federally. We have had behind closed doors advisory councils to a succession of Ministers. The Bill intends to perpetuate that particular model. It is greatly to be regretted that that is the model the Government plans to continue with, since it is not prepared to do anything on the matter of the commissioner or on a strong ministry.
I wonder if the Hon. Member, from her intense involvement in the women's cause and her advancement of that cause on the federal scene, would have any thoughts about how the model provided by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women might conceivably provide a federal example of a multicultural body. Such a body would be publicly established, speaking publicly, doing research and able to press the Government openly and gather support for the endeavours of others outside Government. What possibilities are there for drawing on one model and applying it to the multicultural area?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think that was the expert speaking, but he has raised a very interesting point. There are some great advantages in having advisory councils, but if there were to be something outside Government, I would hope that it would use a different way of appointing people than is used in the traditional government bodies we have now, like the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, although it is doing very good work and has an excellent director. I have always advocated that there should be some way for women's communities across Canada to nominate people for that body and that they not just be political appointees. I do not think we need that kind of tokenism in a new body.
We should also keep in mind that when it comes to women's issues, there is a government Department, Status of Women Canada, although there is not a commissioner. Perhaps it would be a very good idea to have one. There needs to be a mechanism both within Government and without to press for the policies.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks I alluded to the matter of racism in Canada and to the need for action along those lines. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Vancouver East could say something about the matter of the strong action that is required from her experience in the Province of British Columbia and, of course, in national politics.
The New Democratic commitment to equality, the necessity for doing more than just talking about fine principles and actually advancing those appeared in the debate on Bill C-62, the employment equity Bill. There we had a situation that is all too similar to this one. It was a Bill that enunciated some fine principles and did provide for some reporting, but it was only under extreme pressure that the Government responded in any way at all to the need for something more than the

March 22, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
gathering of information, something more than a vague setting of goals for advancement.
I have been profoundly distressed by the resemblance of Bill C-93 to Bill C-62. It states the principles and puts up the window-dressing but does not provide the kind of machinery that is required. We have a Bill that relates to the concerns of various groups, including the concerns of women of all colours and of all backgrounds, recognizing that women of colour, immigrant and visible-minority women particularly face great impediments to their advancement in Canadian society.
The similarity of Bill C-93 to Bill C-62 concerns me a great deal, and I wonder whether the Hon. Member could expand on the importance of having strong legislation. Perhaps she could express her thoughts about the possibility of the Government providing such legislation.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think I said in my remarks that to deal with racism is probably the most important area for policy and action on the part of the Government. Groups are quite capable of dealing with community events and multiculturalism as it exists now, but we must face the question of racism head on.
The Hon. Member is more of an expert on the Bill itself than am I, but as we deal with amendments to it we will look at how to strengthen it. Certainly there does not appear to be the kind of mechanism in it to deal with that issue.
I think it is also very important that we as a society look at the prevention of racism. I know that some committees at the community level are looking at how to do more in schools with language and with books to show that we have a multicultural society and to discuss these issues. As I mentioned, children should know about incidents of discrimination in our history, and they should know that under our Charter those kinds of incidents would no longer be tolerated.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for a portion of a city which can justly claim to be the birthplace of multiculturalism in Canada, I take great pride in the privilege of being able to intervene in today's debate.
Before dwelling on the merits of the Bill before us, I think I should say something about an honour which on May 6 will be conveyed to three residents of my constituency to be made Members of the Order of Canada on that date at a ceremony in Rideau Hall. What is remarkable is that no one has referred to the fact that each of the three of them represents what we celebrate here today, our multicultural heritage.
Mr. Krishan Joshee, who has lived in this country for approximately 30 years, was a distinguished educator and is now a public administrator. He was born in India, taught in Ethiopia, latterly in remote northern Alberta and most recently in the City of Edmonton, rising to the position of vice principal of one of Edmonton's Catholic schools, a remarkable achievement for a man of the Hindu religion. He was the founder of Edmonton's Heritage Festival which annually
attracts some 400,000 participants to Hawrelak Park in Edmonton South, a park which indeed was named after Edmonton's first mayor of Ukrainian origin.
The second individual who will become a Member of the Order of Canada is Mrs. Mary Lobay, descendant of one of the first pioneer Ukrainian families to settle in rural agricultural Alberta. Mrs. Lobay is indeed the surviving sister of the distinguished late Mayor of Edmonton, William Hawrelak, after whom the aforementioned park was named.
The third individual, Dr. Henry Kreisel, will be made an Officer of the Order of Canada on May 6. Dr. Kreisel is a distinguished Canadian author, novelist and most recently has delivered to the Minister responsible for multiculturalism a very interesting, creative and imaginative plan for the cultivation of heritage languages in our country. What is remarkable is that no one is even taking notice of their multiculturalism symbol because, at least in my city, multiculturalism is a fact of life in which we glory.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) has made the point that sometimes we do not recognize when we are walking through history. That is exactly what is happening right now. Giving legislative expression to Canada's multicultural and multiracial reality is a landmark event. It is an event for the history books, rooted in the everyday life of the Canadian people.

Bill C-93 represents a landmark in the evolution of our society. This legislation, while reminding us that multiculturalism is as old as Canadian society itself, at the same time emphasizes that it is also one of our most innovative enterprises. Furthermore, it bears witness to the determination and strength of those men and women who helped to build this great country we have become.

Our aboriginal peoples were the first citizens of this nation. They survived in a harsh and unpredictable natural environment by creating a strong spiritual life, and a mythology which is part of our collective sense of being Canadian. No doubt, many Hon. Members are aware that an outstanding exhibition of native arts and artifacts called "The Spirit Sings: Artistic Traditions of Canada's First Peoples" was assembled at the Glenbow Museum at Calgary as a showpiece of the Calgary Winter Olympics. It unveiled for the world the richness and diversity of aboriginal culture in Canada.
When the French and the British first arrived in this country they made contact with an aboriginal society which was both multicultural and multilingual. That essential reality of Canadian identity was intensified by pioneers of many different origins who came to forge a new future for themselves in this land of promise and opportunity.
March 22, 1988

As the Prairies were settled and our transportation centres grew into cities, we sought our farmers and labourers wherever we could find them. The list of their homelands, languages and cultural traditions is almost limitless. Their courage, endurance and dreams for a better life left a permanent legacy in every community across Canada; not the least of those legacies was tolerance.
A historic attachment to the land is part of the cultural heritage of all Canadians. It is shared by our aboriginal peoples, by courageous European pioneers, Sifton's men in sheepskin coats, Ukrainians, Poles, Germans and many others who dug deep into Canadian soil to create fertile fields, strong communities and their own special experience of being Canadian.
That experience is shared by those who helped open up this land from sea to sea. As we are all aware, the incredible task of building the Canadian Pacific Railway through the Canadian Shield, over the Prairies, down the treacherous Fraser Canyon could never have been done without the backbreaking effort of labourers from all corners of the globe, especially Chinese Canadians.

Canada did not become a multicultural nation overnight. Multiculturalism is a factor that has always been present in the course of our history. It is a factor that has greatly influenced our concept of human rights and equality among citizens. In Canada, we cannot tolerate any form of racism. Both socially and legally, discrimination and intolerance are attitudes that to us are unacceptable. It is ideals such as these which over the years have attracted and still attract people from all over the world to this country.

In the late eighteenth century roughly 50,000 American residents moved to what is now Canada during the revolutionary war, becoming known as United Empire Loyalists. In the nineteenth century, prior to Abraham Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, thousands of black Americans travelled north on the famous underground railroad to seek their freedom in Canada. In this century Canada has continued to provide refuge and a fresh start to hundreds of thousands of people fleeing oppression.
Multiculturalism is a working reality in our society, a welcome fact of our daily life. However, there was a time when severe doubts were expressed about the possibility of turning what some called a "motley crowd of immigrants" into a nation of Canadians. A young Methodist minister named J.S. Woodsworth, later the founder of the CCF Party, ran his All People's Mission in Winnipeg in the early 1900s. Surveying the scene around him with a mixture of pride and apprehension, he wrote in 1909:
English and Russians, French and Germans, Austrians and Italians,
Japanese and Hindus-a mixed multitude, they are dumped into Canada by a
kind of endless chain. They sort themselves out after a fashion, and each seeks
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
to find a corner somewhere. But how shall we weld this heterogeneous mass into one people? That is our problem.
As we approach the twenty-first century, the people and the Government of Canada have found ways to address that problem with caring and with imagination. One of them is the Bill that we are debating today.
We have come to understand that being largely a nation of immigrants, or descendants of immigrants, gives us a unique perspective on the world, and it gives us an appreciation of the strength and vitality generated by our cultural and racial diversity.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said so well when he addressed the Canadian Multilingual Press Association last October:
The magnificence of our citizenship has been powerfully enriched by our multicultural reality. This reality is part of our life, of who we are, of what we can become.
Bill C-93 gives legal substance to this Government's conviction that multiculturalism lies at the heart of our Canadian identity. This conviction was definitely lacking in the Liberal Bill C-48, as was much else of any substance. What that Bill proposed was a loose amalgam, a celebration of differences. Our Bill enables a catalyst which will aid in the creation of the new Canadian alloy, a sum much stronger than the aggregation of its parts.
When passed, our Canadian Multiculturalism Act will affirm in law that every Canadian can determine the extent to which he or she wishes to identify with, enjoy, enhance and share their previous heritage of birth and ancestry. It will promote multiculturalism as a central feature of our Canadian society and it will reflect our conviction that, regardless of origin, every Canadian citizen has an equal chance to participate in and contribute to the social economic, cultural and political life of this nation.
We as a nation are committed to the idea that all Canadians, wherever they are born, whatever their roots, are entitled to an equal chance. They have a right to be educated, trained, to choose their life's work and to be able to benefit from its rewards. There must be no barriers to ensuring that these things hold true to all Canadians of every origin.
It has been asked why there is no ministry in this Bill and no commissioner of multiculturalism. I submit that if we were doing it again and were not operating in the milieu of paternalism, which perhaps necessarily prevailed in the nineteenth century, we would not recreate a Department of Indian Affairs. Let us not be patronizing with multiculturalism today. Let us inculcate everything we do with the spirit that whatever minister takes the oath office, whatever officer or head of a Crown agency or corporation takes office, whatever member of a board of directors takes an oath of office, he or she subscribes to the multicultural reality and multicultural glory of Canada. Only then can we ensure that we have more Cabinet ministers with names like those of the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Hon. Minister of National Health and

March 22, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Welfare (Mr. Epp), and the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski), and more lieutenant governors like Lincoln Alexander and more premiers whose origins we celebrate, if not their policies, like Joe Ghiz and Bill Vander Zalm. We can ensure that all future athletes of all racial or cultural origins, such as sprinter Ben Johnson, diver Sylvie Bernier or equestrian Ian Miller will be able to realize their full potential.
I am sure Hon. Members will agree, however, that the vitality and richness of our multicultural diversity in action is not found only in our sports or political arenas. It is found in all the activities of our neighbourhoods, large centres and small communities all across Canada. The shops, restaurants, and small businesses run by members of our ethnocultural groups contribute in large part to this country's economic prosperity. According to census data for 1981, half of the small businesses in Canada are owned and operated by members of our cultural or racial minority groups. However, economics aside, it is evident that multicultural enterprises add the kind of variety, vitality, and interest to our downtown cores which help to animate our cities.

Formerly, multiculturalism was associated with folk dancing, national costumes or international cuisine. Celebrations and ceremonies held by a cultural community were basically the business of the people of that community. The situation has changed somewhat today, when we see a kind of symbiosis, where sharing and mutual appreciation are becoming increasingly important.

I recall a remarkable event which could have happened only in Canada at the celebration of India Day last year when a Ukrainian dance troupe performed a Punjabi harvest dance. That is more than symbiosis. Summer gatherings such as the Ukrainian Pysanka Festival in Vegreville, Edmonton's magnificent Heritage Days, Saskatoon's Folkfest and Winnipeg's Folklorama, or Toronto's Caribana and the countrywide Chinese New Year's celebrations are now part of the Canadian calendar of special events. Each year they attract more and more Canadians of all backgrounds and races as well as increasing numbers of visitors, visitors who recognize that this is what is uniquely Canadian.
I had the privilege in 1986 of being called upon on very short notice, in fact 30 seconds, to give a 15-minute talk on Canada and what it means to be Canadian. This talk was to be delivered half way around the world as I was visiting the province of Negros Occidental in the Philippines at the time. I had the advantage of having to wait for the simultaneous into the Ilongo language to finish, giving me an opportunity to gather my thoughts.
I chose to talk not about the stereotypes of Canada, the northern nation, the vast nation which is not quite the United States. I chose to talk about multiculturalism and celebrated the fact that while many countries in our world are multicultural through forces of invasion or history, Canada is the only country, certainly the first country on the globe, to have chosen by active political will to become a multicultural society and to glory in it.
Earlier in this debate the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) implied that the Canada Council turns away applications from some Canadians because of their origins. I cannot understand where the Hon. Member got this idea. He should know better. Let me cite some evidence to the contrary. The Council has funded Punjabi and Chinese literacy projects, documentary films made by Inuit artists, and the publication of short stories written by Greek immigrants. The Council has funded a biography of pioneer black Canadian community leaders and the performances of black musicians in Nova Scotia.
I do not intend to dwell on long lists. My point is to emphasize the work that the Canada Council has already done. More will be done. The multicultural policy of Canada will apply to the Canada Council as a federal institution and I am certain that the Council will join all other federal institutions in celebrating and promoting the cultural and racial diversity of Canada.
I would like to emphasize that Bill C-93 is perfectly clear, not only about maintaining our commitment to the official languages of Canada, but also about preserving our heritage languages. The Bill states that the Government of Canada will "facilitate the acquisition, retention and use of all languages that contribute to the multicultural heritage of Canada".
As part of that commitment the multiculturalism sector of the Department of the Secretary of State recently sponsored a national heritage language teaching training conference in Toronto. The Government is currently considering new initiatives in the area of heritage languages. We are considering how a heritage language institute in Edmonton can best be established, based on the recommendations of the distinguished Dr. Henry Kreisel, and what its mandates and priorities should be.
We are examining the possibility of creating a national network which would link an Edmonton institute with the Language Resource Unit at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education in Toronto and eventually to a complementary operation in Quebec.
Finally, we are asking the Assembly of First Nations to submit recommendations to the Government on the possible creation of an aboriginal languages institute.
All of this activity underlines the Government's belief that heritage languages are a vital element of communications and understanding in our multicultural society. Language is important to this country, not only in terms of social harmony
March 22, 1988

but also in an economic way for trade, for diplomacy, and for tourism.
A few years ago a government study analysed our tourism industry, particularly the question of why Americans come to Canada. We all assumed it was the snow-capped mountains, the rushing rivers, or the CN Tower, but that was not really the case. They said that they came because they appreciate the linguistic and cultural diversity of Canada. That was the number one reason given.

Mr. Speaker, this is being confirmed daily. Canada's distinctive character as a multicultural nation has made it a country that is enjoying healthy and dynamic growth both socially, culturally and economically. By putting to good use the knowledge, experience and talents of all these people who have come to this country from the four corners of the earth, we can greatly enhance Canada's potential in the areas of international trade and diplomacy and in the field of cultural and scientific exchange.

The Government believes wholeheartedly that a strengthened commitment to multiculturalism through Bill C-93 will add to our international stature. Multiculturalism is not only one of our most valuable natural resources, it is our gateway to the world.
I would like to extend personal congratulations to my hon. colleague, the Secretary of State, for bringing forth this historic legislation. I urge all Members of the House to respond quickly to the vision of the proposed Canadian Multiculturalism Act by giving it their full and unqualified support. This Bill is proactive. In fact, it has become a veritable Christmas tree, or Hanukkah bush, which offers choice and opportunity, not command and control.
In fact, only two weeks ago I was lobbied by the Canadian Conference for the Deaf and the Western Institute for Research into Deafness who put forth, with some vigour and some persuasiveness, the argument that the deaf ought to be embraced within the Multiculturalism Act. It is that attractive an Act. It is a joyful Act, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Marchi:: I commend the Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Edwards) for bringing a degree of sincerity and passion to the debate. Nonetheless, I think that this individual, who is part of the Conservative Party, is prepared to put multiculturalism into deep freeze, is prepared, by embracing this Bill, to say that the future of multiculturalism is in the past.
The Member was very articulate in a number of his analogies. If he wants to use Christmas as an analogy, I suggest that this Bill is a beautifully gift-wrapped box, but when opened up there is very little inside. If you want to use the Olympic analogy, this legislation is pleased with a bronze rather than striving for gold.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
The Member began by addressing a number of different points. He said first that to talk of a separate ministry was to ghettoize multiculturalism. Why is he so quick to label a ministry as ghettoization? Why is it patronizing to develop bigger and more effective program delivery by bringing various programs, which are now spread throughout the federal civil service, under one roof? Why is it ghettoizing to have a larger budget under one roof than now exists in various departments? Why would it be ghettoization to have a full time Minister and a Deputy Minister which would obviously give additional political power and why if we cannot see this as one step towards one day having one ministry of culture, not communications and culture, but one department of culture whose message is that our culture is multiculturalism?
We cannot necessarily attain that goal with just a leap of faith that lands nowhere. If one subscribes to that more progressive longer-term vision, one can see this as one stepping-stone towards that eventual day. Why is that too seen as ghettoization?
Finally, Bill C-48 was not the answer. I am prepared to say that today. One of the first things the former Minister responsible for multiculturalism under the Tory administration did was to send a copy of Bill C-48 to all the groups across the country in order to get a consultative process under way. He asked how he could improve the Bill, how to take it one step further? In the interim, there was a standing committee that had as its basic premise, I suggest, a very strong and comprehensive multiculturalism Act. Unfortunately, today we have a multiculturalism bill that is no better than bill c-48, despite the intervening four years of consultations and a unanimous report from a committee. I want to know why the Tories' definition of a future is clearly in the past? If Bill C-48 was not good enough, why did we not make it better?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Liberal critic has entered into this debate, because it gives me an opportunity to tell him that history and events have not only undertaken the Government, but have more than overtaken the Liberal Party. The fact is that Canadians, however they describe themselves beyond their Canadianism, today recognize that Canada is a multicultural nation and that that reality does not need to have the ghettoization of a particular ministry.
Rather than just leave it at that, I think it is appropriate to indicate what can happen. The Hon. Member has been around government for some time. I know he advised a previous Minister and I think he may have had some considerable part in the drafting of Bill C-48. However, the fact is that events have evolved very rapidly. Today the very idea of shunting off responsibility for multiculturalism to a particular Minister is not enough.
The Hon. Member says he could be the advocate. The fact is that each and every one of us, through every hour of every day,

March 22, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
should be the advocate and the celebrator of multiculturalism. We do not need some kind of a side ministry with, let us be honest, a history of turnover of Ministers for multiculturalism, being a training ground for junior Ministers who either disappear or go on to greater things. We need to have a commitment by all members of Government, by all Members of Parliament, to the multiculturalism reality.
The Hon. Member talked about the consultative process, and why did we not embrace the recommendations of the standing committee. The chairman of the standing committee intervened in the debate. He made a very forceful and lucid intervention. However, he recognized that not always are all the recommendations of a standing committee embraced by Government. There is always the opportunity for Government to take those recommendations and hold them up against the light of present day reality.
I think, with all respect to the excellent work of the standing committee, it was the standing committee that was looking to the past rather than to the future, not the Government. This Bill, which the Hon. Member has likened to a bronze medal or an empty gift-wrapped box, is holding itself up as the kind of Bill towards which other groups and other interests are attracted. It is the kind of forceful advocacy that, for example, certain members of the disabled community are looking forward to and they are looking forward to the work of my friend, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer), and his colleagues. They are looking forward to a similar kind of Bill coming forward in due time for the deaf, and the physically and mentally handicapped of this nation.
With all respect to the diligent labours of the Liberal critic, it is he who is looking to the past. The Government is recognizing the present and anticipating the future.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the words of the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) as he celebrated the cultural diversity of the City of Edmonton. It reminded me, of course, of the cultural diversity of the City of Thunder Bay, and I suppose so many of us know of our cultural diversity and want to say good things about it. However, we need more than just words.
I want to focus more particularly on what the Hon. Member said in speaking of the way in which Bill C-93 gives legal substance to the Government's convictions regarding multiculturalism. The Member speaks of the way in which it might provide a catalyst to achieve a Canadian alloy. That is an image I am not so sure about. Too many people have been merged and assimilated in the alloying process. What we want in a policy on multiculturalism is to step back somewhat and allow the kind of freedom the Member noted the Bill provides for, giving people the opportunity to maintain cultures while being good Canadians.
The Member says the Liberals are looking to the past, implying there is a future to be grasped. He talks about the need for legislation to do that, but how can he find any
satisfaction in Bill C-93, which does nothing to develop the machinery? Surely we cannot be content with the present situation where we have a very junior Minister who is in fact a person engrossed in the larger responsibilities of Secretary of State. We surely cannot be content with an advisory body that meets behind closed doors. We cannot be content with a budget that provides less than one dollar per Canadian, man, woman and child.
The Bill is inadequate. The worst judgment to render on this Bill is to say it institutionalizes the status quo. If we want to seize the future, if we want to have a real gold medal future, as the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) suggested, surely we have to provide the means. We have to empower communities and organizations to build the kind of Canada we want. We want them to foster their culture, to achieve their individual rights in Canada which have been trampled on all too often and still are not protected. We want that from a department which is aware of building, but not on the model of Indian Affairs where we had a suppression of the rights of a people from coast to coast.
Surely there is a need for action, but we cannot expect that from Conservatives. Conservatives just do not want to do anything in the way of strengthening multiculturalism organizations. They will state principles but will not provide the means and that is a judgment the Hon. Member for Edmonton South could say something about in trying to defend his own Party in its presentation of an inadequate Bill.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Thunder Bay-Nipigon, whom I respect immensely, may be sorry that he used those last couple of ideas. Sir, it was a great Conservative Prime Minister of Canada who opened my Party to the multicultural reality of Canada. The Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker is the man who spoke for all Canadians and who saw that their position in Canadian society had been overlooked, not only by my Party but by Canadian society in general. It was he who paved the way for the inclusion of the kind of people who my hon. friend and I celebrate and respect and who make up the new majority.
That is what I meant by the alloy analogy, in the sense that there are no majorities left in our country and that this Bill can be the catalyst which brings together a new Canadianism which is still in the process of defining itself. It was the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker who first articulated and inspired Canadians to embrace that reality.
Indeed, it was the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who carried forward that idea when he served as Leader of our Party. He stressed that Canada is, indeed, a community of communities.
It is to the eternal credit of the present Prime Minister that he threw his acts, his deeds and his warm endorsement behind this piece of legislation which has seen to it that this Bill will
March 22, 1988

become an important pillar of the new Canadian consciousness.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my voice to those who have addressed the issue of multiculturalism in our society. We have heard some very warm, concerned and considered remarks from our colleagues from all sides of the House. That speaks well for the vision of tomorrow which is building through the ongoing steps involved in multiculturalism.
I see in the House my colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) with whom I had the pleasure of studying Section 15 of the Canadian Constitution, and the Charter of Rights. At that time we were looking at equality for all, which was just another step, another building block in our concern for non-discrimination and integration for all people on a fair and equitable basis as part of the Canadian ethos.
In retrospect, what we have been doing over the past number of years has been building. I had hoped that when we finally took the important step to enact our nation's historic commitment to multiculturalism that we would be looking at a Bill, such as Bill C-93 which is before us, and judge that Bill on the basis of its quality, its substance and the extent to which it enhances multiculturalism across Canada. That is a goal which all Members of the House hold dear. It is what they represent when they stand to speak as the elected representatives of their ridings. I know of very few ridings in the country that are not a reflection of the true multicultural and bilingual qualities that make up the Canada of today.
Creating a legislated framework for Canada's multicultural policy is therefore in itself a positive and valuable initiative. We have travelled a long road to arrive at this point. My colleague pointed out the role played by the late Prime Minister Diefenbaker. He also pointed out the role played by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). Add those names to the names of Liberal Prime Ministers and one sees that this has been an ongoing and growing concern for many, many years.
We cannot argue with the developments that we have made as a society that understands and respects our many diverse peoples. But moving forward and building on past initiatives in this vital area of national policy is the duty not only of the Government but of Members on all sides of the House.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that despite the problems that exist with Bill C-93 and the newspaper coverage and the remarks of editorialists which indicate serious concern about the content of the Bill, that is not the view with respect to the thrust of the Bill. I do not think we can miss the chance to protect our multicultural tradition through legislative action, for this is an ideal that has been pursued by many modern societies. I think that Canada with this as a legislated direction may be the first to put it into legalistic form.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
It represents a commitment to the recognition of the many ethnic groups that make up our nation's diverse population. For example, Canada is a nation with a rich history of accepting peoples from many and varied ethnic origins and, hopefully, having them become part and parcel of what we call or perceive as mainstream Canada.
We are supposed to be establishing a framework in law for Canada's strong and long-standing multicultural policy, a policy that states that we accept differences based on race, religion, language, modes of livelihood and regions of origin or habitat. Since we are all differentiated from one another on the basis of some of those factors, we all may be described as ethnics. Therefore cultural diversity, like individual differences, must be accommodated within the framework of political freedom.
Our democratic ideal supports this idea of accommodation. Our pluralistic society requires it. The 1982 Canadian Constitution mandates recognition of our multicultural heritage.
One root of Canada's multiculturalism policy was the 1963 Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which was originally aimed at reviewing the status of the two founding peoples of Canada. An additional facet was added to the commission's task to examine the contribution made by other ethnic groups for which the cultural enrichment of Canada can be thanked, and the measures which could be taken to safeguard that contribution. This additional directive which came as an afterthought has in retrospect proven to be valuable for getting the ball rolling on Canada's multiculturalism policy.
By 1971 the Liberal Government committed Canada to a multicultural policy, but within a bilingual framework. In his statement Prime Minister Trudeau noted that although there are two official languages there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. This was really the first formal recognition of the fact that every Canadian is an ethnic of some variety and each of our cultures deserves respect.
With these statements, multiculturalism emerged from its status as a mere fact of Canadian life to become an issue for full and active discussion on the nation's public policy agenda. We must now look at how these very heterogeneous social groupings, which are a reality in our society, can be recognized as part of the basic strands that form the warp and woof of the tapestry that is found by the weaving of the fabric that is Canada.
The reality of multiculturalism's new place on the agenda of national debate and action was confirmed by the then Prime Minister's comments on the need for official support from Government that would contribute to a richer life for us all. We all start with small things and grow. Now is the time to consolidate a dispersed growth into one concrete area so that we can look at what is happening and move the whole issue forward.

March 22, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Fortunately, along with the words of the Prime Minister, about official support at that time, action did follow. The Government's actions included the establishment of a multiculturalism directorate within Secretary of State in 1971 and the appointment of a Minister of State for Multiculturalism in 1972. That was solid action, the kind of action that is missing in Bill C-93.
In 1977 Parliament passed the Canadian Human Rights Act which established the Human Rights Commission that could receive and investigate complaints of discrimination and develop programs that would combat discriminatory practices. Again, that was solid action, something more than the dreamy promises that we have in this Bill.
In 1982 the Canadian Constitution included multiculturalism, as well as Section 15, the equality and non-discriminatory clause, within our constitutional framework. There was a commission report, "Equality Now", and then a Bill, the beginning of a legislative framework.
In 1985 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Multiculturalism was established to act as a forum for ethnic community representations and to review the Government's progress in implementing multiculturalism policy, again, continuing a tradition of active not passive public policy with regard to multiculturalism.
This is not the first time that we have seen legislation in the House to support multiculturalism. As I previously stated, on June 21, 1984 the Government of the day, through its Minister, David Collenette, introduced Bill C-48, the Multiculturalism Act. Unfortunately, it died on the Order Paper when a federal election was called in the fall of that year.
The last action by Members of Parliament prior to the introduction of Bill C-93 was the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Multiculturalism in June, 1987. This was the product of many hours of careful thought and consultation by our colleagues on that committee. I wish to pay particular respect to and congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), for his leadership and his open and active participation.
A creative and open-minded report flowed from the deliberations of this committee. It urged the enactment of a multiculturalism Bill, the creation of a new line department with a full-time senior cabinet Minister, the establishment of a commissioner, and the increase of budgets for related programs, much like that found under the Official Languages Bill. If we wish the bilingual character of Canada and its distinctiveness throughout this land to become a reality, then we have to put some action and some concrete policies into place. The same is true with respect to multiculturalism; it is the other side of the coin that makes up this wonderful Canada of ours.
The Government's official response accepted the basic tenets of the committee's report, but concluded that a new department and Minister were not needed. On the contrary, it seems to me that few ethnocultural groups would reject the appointment of a full-time Minister who could respond to their needs and assure them of due respect and attention at the Cabinet table. This Minister could not handle this whole task by himself. He needs the collaborative efforts at the Cabinet table of all the different Ministers who have roles and responsibilities to ensure multiculturalism together with the bilingual nature of Canada.
Nor would a commissioner be the wrong approach. It is vital that we have a commissioner who would report to Parliament on the progress we are making in this new and very vital area of our Canadian social reality. We need to find ways to harmonize our varying societies, develop mutual respect, and reduce social tensions through active progressive programs. We need to educate our society from childhood through adulthood. We need to remove discrimination due to ignorance and misunderstanding. We need to move into a pluralistic Canadian society on the basis of equality of opportunity for all, and have access to jobs based on skills and competence, irrespective of race or creed. That is one of the thrusts that is needed and is missing in terms of action guidelines.
That brings me to the legislation that we are now considering. If we are to achieve the true spirit envisaged in this Bill, we must find concrete ways for many ethnic communities to participate fully in Canadian society, rather than remaining on the fringes as is so often the complaint. Song and dance as part of the over-all practice is only one aspect of a full multicultural philosophy which is the reality of the Canada in which we live. Private and public institutions should reflect the true make-up of the population.
This is not reflected on the screens of this land, either on television screens, at the boards of directors, and certainly not in the films that we see in the theatre. Unfortunately Bill C-93 does not go far enough to actively strengthen and ensure the visibility of all ethnic groups in Canada.
This is not only the view of those of us in the Official Opposition. Mr. Lewis Chan of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council has called Bill C-93 "a shining symbol, and certainly a step forward, but it is a symbol without substance". How can it be otherwise for its goals are couched in general principles and objectives in cautious language terms. We see words like "should", "may", "facilitate", "encourage", but there is no enforcement mechanism, much like Bill C-62 which includes all the correct words around employment equity, but has no action, no mandatory or obligatory forward movement in the Bill.
There are more complaints. The Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship has criticized the Government's decision not to establish a full-time ministry of
March 22, 1988

multiculturalism. They find it "unacceptable and it demonstrates the lack of leadership commitment for multiculturalism as a fundamental goal for Canada".
One of the biggest problems in this Bill is its lack of true enforceability. As I stated, my Party is only one of the many voices expressing this concern. We support the steps this legislation suggests "should" be taken by the Government to enhance Canada's multicultural life, but we believe it should state "shall" take those steps. It lacks specific implementation and enforcement provisions. That is the serious deficiency of this proposed Act.
I return to make the point I made at the beginning of my comments today. This Bill will be judged on the extent to which it actually enhances multiculturalism across the country. That is what Canadians are looking for-action and not promises. It does not take the bold step forward that we need. It does not require government action to implement the very policies it seeks to provide in this legislative framework. In the Bill the gap between policy and implementation is evident. I hope it is not a lack of good faith and goodwill. I hope we see the mechanisms to improve this Bill when it goes to committee.
There is no designated full-time cabinet Minister. There is a failure to do so, which will do little to open the doors of the federal Government to Canada's ethnocultural communities. This change would have gone a long way to improving dialogue between government and Canada's ethnic communities, giving them the attention that they deserve. Right now we are living in a time of great stress. It is very important that we reduce racial tensions, as we look at what is going on in society, and improve the general atmosphere. It is a very important concern.
As a nation, if we are going to take that large step forward that we require, which means encouraging all our ethnic groups to take pride in their Canadianism, which we would hope they would do while still retaining their attachment and pride in their own roots, this is absolutely key and fundamental. It is important that we encourage peoples of a variety of cultures to grow and retain their own identity while joining and enjoying celebrations with Canadians of different ethnic origins. Canada's collective identity would be enriched and reinforced.
While Canada is officially bilingual, that is, it has two languages, its cultural is multicultural. In Montreal this past Sunday I was struck at the time of the St. Patrick's parade that the crowd was very mixed. It reminded me of a festival parade last summer organized by the city's Caribbean black community in which I was actively involved. The crowd was also very varied. These celebrations by the very diverse ethnic cultural minority communities have become part of the pluralistic community celebrations of the Canadian mosaic. People of all ethnic minorities gathered around, joined in, showed tolerance, understanding, and appreciation of Canada.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
They thought of this as a normal relationship in the pluralistic society that is the reality of Canada today.
Because of the growing racial tensions that we are also feeling, there needs to be the legislative cadre in order that we can truly move forward. Bill C-93 is a fairly short piece of legislation. Clause 3 is a statement of the proposed multicultural policy, but it is largely a reiteration of the types of policies which were enunciated by successive federal Governments. It represents no dramatic breakthrough.
Another difficulty is that Clause 3 contains a number of intentions with regard to multicultural policy, but the good intentions are in no way followed through by commitments to actions. In effect we have a Bill which represents a statutory declaration of policy. It does not legislate any call to action by the Government.
As was indicated by the largest coalition of ethnic organizations, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the word "should" is one of the weakest aspects of the whole Bill. A commitment would be indicated by "shall" or even by "must". The word "should" leaves it totally optional with regard to whether various federal institutions will do what they are called upon to do.
The Bill respecting the Official Languages Act is an example of the way in which the multiculturalism Bill could have been drafted to ensure action by the federal Government. In so doing it would have given much more hope to Canada's many ethnocultural organizations. Instead, the Bill simply places into law mere suggestions of what Governments could do to build and strengthen the multicultural fabric which is our reality.
In conclusion, while we all applaud the initiative of the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) and favour the principles of multicultural equality which the Bill embodies in spirit, the fact is that many members of the Canadian ethnocultural community find, as do we in the Official Opposition, that the Bill does not meet the test. We want to ensure that our multicultural society is just a normal fact of life. We need the kinds of actions which will build a strong and meaningful multicultural Act and will provide the kind of tolerance to move our multicultural society and its communities into mainstream Canadian life.
I suggest that we do not just want promises to be legislated, we want the eventual goal of true equality for all. Let us not promote another Bill of missed opportunities. The employment equity Bill, which was to address discriminatory practices but had no teeth, was a lesson. Let us learn from that mistake and demand that Bill C-93 become a proactive Bill so that it will give substance to and enhance the basic fabric of our society- multiculturalism.

March 22, 1988
14000__________________________________________
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
[ Translation]


Mr. Della Noce:: Mr. Speaker, I rose in my seat earlier to comment on the speech by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). Unfortunately, I think you do not see me.
First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague and also the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) for a very interesting speech, and I may add I was most interested in what he had to say about multiculturalism and the aboriginal people especially, because I had the pleasure of spending part of last week in that beautiful part of Canada we call the Yukon.
Mr. Speaker, if you have no objection, I would also like to correct and in fact respond to a false impression given by my socialist colleague of the New Democratic Party from Vancouver East, and I quote: "That aboriginal people are considered as ethnic groups." Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to correct this statement for the benefit of the House.

I agree that the culture and languages of the Canadian aboriginal peoples are rooted in this land. They are a living expression of an age old tradition. However, she seemed to feel that the new legislation could be interpreted as relegating Canada's aboriginal peoples to the status of just another ethnic group. Nothing could be further from what we intended.
The preamble to the Bill refers to the constitutional recognition of the rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples. It is our belief that the cultural and racial diversity of Canada is our greatest national strength. We did not want to make it appear-


Sheila Finestone: Is this question for me?


Vincent Della Noce: I will get to it. I just wanted to make some points for clarification.
This is why the reference is therefore intended to send a message on the unique position of the aboriginal peoples of Canada in the context of diversity.
I visited the Yukon this past weekend. I want to ask my colleague whether she agrees with the Hon. Member on the following issue, and I will quote her again:

... "aboriginal people are considered as ethnic groups". So I want to ask the Hon. Member whether or not she thinks there is a difference between ethnic groups and aboriginal people. I want to ask the Hon. Member whether we were right to correct her.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member finally got to me. I was wondering whether he would address some of the issues which concern me. Nevertheless, I will address the issue that seems to be concerning him.
As I said at the outset of my remarks, the fabric and tissue of Canada is the warp and the woof which form Canada today-its multicultural constituencies.
I would say that there are no majority groups left in Canada, not the Wasps, the Anglophones, the Francophones, the Quebegois, the Indian peoples, the aboriginal peoples, or the Eskimos, as we used to call them, or the Inuit, and I would say this of the Ukrainians in the West and the Italians in the East. No matter what group the Hon. Member would care to identify, we are all minorities within the majoritarian society that is the Canada in which we are building toward a tolerant, wonderful, and understanding society.
It is not a matter of isolating the aboriginal peoples who were among the founding nations of the land, nor is it a matter of isolating the English and the French who came here to share this beautiful place; I would say that all those who came, whether it was the Hon. Member's Italian ancestors or my Jewish ancestors, are all the same. We are building toward a fine future together.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, let me just observe, partly in defence of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), that the Parliamentary Secretary has made a vital mistake in being critical of labelling any group as "ethnic". The point he misses is that multiculturalism recognizes diversity in the country including the aboriginal peoples. Respect for their rights and their desire to maintain communities on reserves, in bands, and through self-government can easily be seen as part of the advance of a multicultural society in Canada. I wish that he and his colleagues in government would recognize that.
Referring to the fine speech made by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), I should like to deal with something that should involve us these days. Let me break the silence in the House on the shooting of a young black man in Montreal, something about which we should have spoken earlier. I want to do that now and ask her, in the moment before we rise, whether she would have any thoughts about how the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada could be involved in a particular matter which strikes so many people. Despite the findings of an inquiry, or perhaps a jury trial, it strikes one that there are still dimensions of race to the issue.
What could we in the Parliament of Canada do to try to transcend these feelings in our country, particularly about this tragic situation in the City of Montreal?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, this was a tragedy for the family. The loss of a child or any member of a family, irrespective of circumstances, always causes heartache. In this instance, where we had what was perceived to be racial discrimination, the situation was even more difficult. The police officer in question was found not guilty.
To be in a position where one is perceived as dominant and uncaring as a result of whether an act was pre-thought or not
March 22, 1988

is not the issue. We are living in a society with racial tension, not just in Montreal but right across the land. Visible minority groups are subject to discrimination in a much much more overt way. That is why I spoke to education in my remarks about the need for tolerance in our society. We have not had the degree, number or right mix.
Thirty different ethnic minority groups live in my riding, from five or six very distinct visible minority differences. Policemen on duty, the Armed Forces, everyone has to learn how to live in a far more sensitive way in this environment. We have not learned that sensitivity to the same degree. We have not changed our approaches in the kinds of ways that we must. Even to the way we recruit recruits we use the wrong kind of criteria. We need to see all these minorities reflected in our society at every level. If people do not see them reflected, and if people do not become role models and others have no one to identify with then they feel oppressed. That is what is happening in Montreal. There is a feeling of oppression because people do not see themselves reflected at all levels of society. It is sad and we must do something about it. This Bill does not move constructively enough in that direction.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.
The result, according to Mr. Taylor, is a situation that no Canadian can possibly accept: decreased social services, decreased health care, decreased social opportunities, more homeless and more hungry.
Surely the answer to the problem is not to try to soften corporate hearts but to treat corporations just as the Government treats individual taxpayers. Make them pay their fair share.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the new air transportation policy of the Government of Canada, embodied in the National Transportation Act, appears to be an unqualified success. Deregulation has resulted in more convenient services at reduced prices. The air traveller has been the big winner.
However, in the North of Canada, regulation, albeit reduced, still applies. Why can northerners not reap the same benefits as southern Canadians? It is time deregulation and freedom to move applied equally across the whole nation.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Allan Taylor, Chairman of the Board of the Royal Bank of Canada, has provided a most remarkable and convincing rationale for a significant increase in corporate income taxes. Mr. Taylor, in a forceful speech to the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, noted that when it comes to financial support to meet social and community needs, Canadian companies are falling down.
He said that Canadian companies give less as a percentage of pre-tax earnings than they did 20 years ago, and that 90 per cent of them give nothing at all. In 1969, corporate donations as a percentage of pretax profits were just under 0.8 per cent. In 1985, the figure had slipped to 0.5 per cent. Yet the need for corporate giving has increased because of spending restraints by Governments, he said.



INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I offered a few words in commemoration of the Sharpeville massacre of 28 years ago. I did not mention that the anniversary of that event had been declared by the United Nations as International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Although Canada, in observing that event, can be proud of the progress it has made in this respect, we still have much to accomplish. This was dramatized by the protest demonstration in Montreal last Saturday where 1,000 Canadians marched in memory of Anthony Griffin and demanded that the Province of Quebec act with dispatch to end discrimination and to ensure equality of treatment for all racial minority groups.
It is important that no province be allowed to override the Charter provisions ensuring racial equality, and it is important too to insist that no province, however distinct, fail to implement the guarantee that Canada provides only one kind of citizenship, and that must be first class.

March 22, 1988



WORLD JUNIOR CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP WON BY CANADIAN RINK

Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, Jim Sullivan, Charlie Sullivan, Craig Burgess, and Dan Alderman are four of the greatest ambassadors Canada has ever had. Highly respected young men of great ability, they worked hard and prepared themselves for the task of competing with the best in the world.
On Saturday, March 19, 1988, these four young Canadians won the World Junior Curling Championship for Canada. These young men are worthy champions and great ambassadors for Canada. They brought great distinction to themselves and to their country. They come from Fredericton, New Brunswick, the city that is fast becoming recognized as the centre of excellence in curling and in good sportsmanship.

[ Translation]



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning I had the pleasure of meeting with several senior citizens clubs from the riding of Montreal- Sainte-Marie, and also with a group of workers between the ages of 40 and 65. These people are disappointed and find it unacceptable that the Conservative Government has abolished the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, under which workers in the textile, footwear and apparel industries between the ages of 55 and 64 were entitled to take early retirement.
Unfortunately, in November 1986 this Government abolished the program in favour of a new program, but so far, nothing has been settled.
Mr. Speaker, I would therefore urge all Conservative Members to do their duty and put pressure on the Minister of Labour to reinstate the Program for Older Worker Adjustment as soon as possible so that all older workers in Canada will get a fair deal.



CHEMICAL WEAPONS


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a dangerous escalation in the Iraq-Iran war. Strong
evidence has emerged that confirms the use of chemical weapons. Such an escalation will lead to heavier casualties as well as increased terror among the innocent civilian population.
Chemical weapons were internationally banned in 1925 after their initial use in the First World War, due to the horrible effects these agents had on their victims. In addition, today's chemical weapons are complex chemical derivatives.
The use of these chemical agents raises the possibility of a future biological catastrophe for the region and perhaps for other nations which are not involved in this conflict. We in this House must use all the means at our disposal to prevent any more chemical weapons from being used and to see to a speedy end to this tragic conflict.



DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, just after the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, I want to take up questions I asked three weeks ago regarding the actions of the External Affairs Department.
The Minister (Mr. Clark) and the Department of External Affairs have been interfering with the freedom of association and expression of Canadians. They have done this recently with regard to communities of Asian and Middle Eastern origin which are intensely concerned about the human rights of their compatriots in other countries.
It would appear that the Department of External Affairs has little regard for the freedom of association and of expression in our country when it comes under pressure from foreign Governments. Its preoccupation with trade opportunities leaves the Department dangerously open to pressure from these Governments to ostracize organizations and silence critics.
Canadians expect the Department of External Affairs to defend our interests. The protection of our ethnocultural communities and the advance of human rights everywhere are among our most vital national interests.
I call on the Minister to recognize these realities and to reform the way the Department of External Affairs responds to pressure from foreign Governments.
March 22, 1988



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, in recent months we heard the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of Canada saying that if they were running this country, they would be able to guarantee Canadians a full employment policy. We must remember it was because of the socialist and nationalist policies and the disincentives promoted by the New Democratic Party of Canada and implemented by the Liberal Party that this country experienced record unemployment levels in the seventies and the beginning of the eighties.
The people of the Quebec City area, especially those in the riding of Quebec East, are more than capable of implementing the proposals of the Conservative Party for dealing with this legacy of instability from the previous Liberal Government.
Employment is a priority for the Conservative Party, but we must also stress the creation of more stable and more gainful employment.
A return to greater reliance on the public sector as urged by the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of Canada would mean accepting unemployment as a necessary evil and leading this country into an era of social indifference, something Canadian men and women do not want.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring up once again the issue of preretirement leave at Cape Breton Development Corporation. The Devco PRL plan was designed to lay off workers before their normal retirement age of 65 so that some type of continuing remuneration could be offered to displaced workers. This meant, in effect, that these workers were still engaged under a contract of service to Devco and could therefore continue to earn entitlement to Canada Pension Plan benefits.
Since the PRL plan of 1971, many miners have now gone for a compassionate disability pension and programs under the Labour Adjustment Program. Under these programs, individuals were not being requested to pay unemployment insurance premiums. I asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) to change this unfair and discriminatory deduction. A change would result in substantial savings for the workers involved.
On March 15, I received a response from the Minister. In it he states that this ruling will remain in effect until such time as Devco chooses to amend its plan. He then warns against Devco amending this plan because an amendment might jeopardize their continued entitlement to Canada Pension Plan benefits. Thus, the situation will remain as it is. The Minister and the Government have once again decided to do nothing, to the detriment of all the workers eligible for this plan at the Cape Breton Development Corporation.



TOURISM


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my constituency of Sarnia-Lambton is located on the shores of beautiful Lake Huron and the St. Clair River. We boast miles and miles of sandy beaches and are known throughout the area as "Blue Water Land".
We have acres of parkland and conservation areas, and are joined with our American neighbours by the Blue Water Bridge and the railway tunnel. For these, and a multitude of other reasons, my constituents and I are working hard and tirelessly to develop the tourism potential of our community.
As Sarnia-Lambton is within a day's travel of more than half of the U.S. population, much of our efforts have been directed toward the attraction of this tourist market. Similarly, the Government of Canada has recognized this huge potential market and is directing much of its tourism advertising budget to the United States.
Consequently, it was with great dismay that I discovered from the President of VIA Rail that the company has a policy of limiting the number of seats available for sale to American wholesalers.
I wonder whether the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) is aware that, while we are expending tremendous effort to attract American visitors to Canada, VIA does not have enough equipment to carry all who wish to travel by rail at the times they wish to travel.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, for years many Canadians have asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to permit their sons and daughters to enter Canada as family class immigrants even

March 22, 1988
after age 21 because family ties are very important in our culture.
At last the Minister agreed, on August 11, 1987. Further, on October 31 the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) promised to admit unmarried sons and daughters of any age as family class and to give five extra points to married children and brothers and sisters applying as assisted relatives. Yet, to this day, the Minister has neither kept his promise nor told us when he will.
In the same way, the former Minister of Justice promised two years ago to eliminate the unfair difference between citizens and permanent residents so that both groups would have equal rights to sponsor parents of any age. Yet to date the Government has not kept this promise.
I call on the Government to stop playing on the family loyalties of immigrant Canadians and bring these two promises into law.



DESJARDINS MOVEMENT


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the Desjardins Movement's annual meeting held this week in Montreal, I have the privilege, as a Member of Parliament whose riding includes the headquarters of that tremendous financial co-op, to congratulate the 4,200,000 Quebecers who are members of the Desjardins Movement, to recognize the excellent work of the 28,500 Desjardins employees and to thank the 18,330 voluntary directors.
All members of that team are helping bring about every day a higher return for the Desjardins Movement's assets which are totalling $34 billion. Let Desjardins keep up the good work!



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, 1981 was designated the International Year of Disabled Persons to focus attention on the needs, hopes, and talents of disabled people. A committee of Parliament produced a report entitled "Obstacles" with over 100 recommendations. That year also saw physical and mental disability prohibited as grounds of
discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The 1984 report of the Commission on Equality and Employment and the 1985 report of the parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights were followed in March, 1987, by another parliamentary committee report called "Challenge-Putting Our House in Order".
Many recommendations of all these reports, going right back to the "Obstacles" report, have yet to be implemented and a great deal of work remains to be done in integrating disabled people into the community. The Government should make this issue a priority and encourage all groups in society to take similar action.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to take this opportunity to speak on the contribution of the various ethnic groups in the development of Canada while Bill C-93 is being debated.
I would like to inform the House that my riding of Timmins-Chapleau has 14 ethnic groups living in it and they all get along well. In fact I believe the various communities within the riding serve as an example for all of Canada when it comes to tolerance, co-operation, and contribution by all toward an improved quality of life. These 14 groups have created a social fabric which is a role model for the nation.
Just as Bill C-93 recognizes in an official way the multicultural society in which we live, the communities in my riding have recognized and honoured those groups which have made such significant contributions toward their development. We are happy that Bill C-93 recognizes, preserves, and enhances the cultural and racial diversity of our great nation.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, today is the fourth anniversary to the day of a speech by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), who was then the Leader of the Opposition, to the Chamber of Commerce in Montreal. On March 22, 1984, the Prime Minister said: "We are going to double our collective national commitment to research and development within the life of our first government mandate".
Not only has the Prime Minister not doubled our commitment, but research and development spending has gone down
March 22, 1988

as a percentage of gross national product. The Prime Minister of Canada should explain why he has failed so miserably to make progress toward that important goal which affects our ability to compete in world markets.
Not only has R and D spending gone down, but the Government has abandoned the goal about which the Prime Minister so eloquently spoke in 1984. The Prime Minister should explain why the Government has refused to commit itself to a target and a timetable for increasing research and development spending which means so much for jobs, for the competitiveness of the Canadian economy, and for the health of our whole country.



THE YUKON

Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, last week I had the pleasure of visiting a great region of Canada, the Yukon, along with five of my Conservative MP's for constituencies from Quebec to British Columbia. We toured more than 26 communities in the Territory, from North to South, from East to West. We were privilegied to meet Yukoners, with whom we talked and consulted. We listened to them, we found points in common with our beautiful Quebec. To sum it up in one word, it was love at first sight on that first visit-proud people, progressive people, people who take risks, people who are developing the Territory.
Yukoners are urging for a settlement of the land claims issue. Yukoners are urging free trade, with its mining and territorial benefits. Why is the Territorial Government pussyfooting on that matter?
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed at the lack of leadership from the Territorial Government, and the lack of clarity and the truthfulness in the news coming from the CBC, better known in the Territory as NDP North. We were sad to leave that beautiful area, but we intend to go back in order to better know their concerns.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that yesterday a working group of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs released an extremely important study on the future of Canada's North. The group comprises a very distinguished number of first-rate Canadians.
The Prime Minister will also know that we on this side of the House took exception to the deal his Government signed with the United States permitting passage of American vessels through Canadian Arctic waters. We felt it was a weakening of Canadian sovereignty and our claims to Canadian sovereignty over those waters.
How does the Prime Minister respond to a conclusion on page 44 of the study of this working group which says: "the working Group is unable to agree with the opinion of the Prime Minister ..." that 'What we have now significantly advances Canadian interests'". How does the Prime Minister respond to this group of eminent Canadians who contradict him on the effect on Canadian sovereignty of the recent agreement signed with the United States?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are free to disagree with the position of the Government. I do not have to tell the Leader of the Opposition about freedom to disagree. He is acquainted with it every day in his own Party and in his own caucus.
With respect to this very serious question, I have received, and I am considering, the report to which the Right Hon. Member refers, which was indeed made by eminent Canadians, some of them with a long interest in the Canadian North. The Right Hon. Leader will know that their view continues that: "-if a prior consent is required on a case by case basis-", and that is the case, "-there will be no damage to the Canadian position. Indeed, it should be normally affirmed by practice".


John Napier Turner: Needless to say, in responding to the right hon. gentleman's personal remarks, I am not taking him as a role model.


THE GREAT NORTH-CREATION OF INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, through his own Secretary of State for External Affairs, did not respond to my suggestion

March 22, 1988
Oral Questions
that a new international regime be created for the Arctic, and the Minister of National Defence did not react constructively to the proposition made by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbatchev.
What is the response of the Prime Minister-or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if you will-to the recommendation made by this Canadian private sector group of experts that Canada should take the initiative of convening all countries interested in the Arctic with a view to creating an international council to settle questions related to the nordic regions? Would he admit that his Government is taking the wrong approach by always refusing to endorse such an international regime in an attempt to reconcile our world-wide interests, towards the North, on this planet?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an interesting, serious and important recommendation concerning co-operation in the North, co-operation with other Arctic countries. Indeed our Government took a number of initiatives and, for the first time we took the position that we ought to establish Canadian sovereignty in the North. We as a Government are prepared, for the first time-I cannot make the same comment about the administration of the Right Hon. the Leader of the Opposition-to recognize the jurisdiction of a world tribunal with respect to our sovereignty in the North. He is talking about cooperation with other countries involved in the Arctic. As he would know, last November I attended a meeting in Tromso, in Norway, to discuss and take the very kind of initiatives that have just been suggested.
Mr. Speaker, for a long time the North was ignored by Liberal Governments. This Government has established a strong sovereign Canadian interest in our North.


INTERDEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to do anything more than recite the gentlemen who contributed to this particular report in rebutting the statement just made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
On this side of the House we have always stressed the need for a co-ordinated federal approach, that is to say, a closer coordination of federal Departments in dealing with the North and with the people of our North.
The Prime Minister, despite our pleas, has always argued that there has been sufficient co-ordination to that purpose under his Government. Would the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs be willing to comment on a statement found in the Canadian Institute of International Affairs Working Group's report found on page 66 which states:
-developments in recent years have been and continue to be in the reverse direction, with a weakening and loss of mechanisms to ensure a comprehensive
information base for northern policy and for its implementation. The Working Group strongly urges that immediate attention be given to establish effective interdepartmental co-ordination without which a coherent total policy for the Arctic will not be possible.
Those words are clear enough for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to respond in explaining why it is that his Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has failed to develop a co-ordinated approach to our northern problems and to our Arctic.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister has shown a more active and constructive interest not only in the problems of northern Canadians but also in Canada's sovereign claims than was the case with former Governments.
We do that in a variety of fields. We do that in defence policy. We do that in northern affairs policy.
A moment ago the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was talking about a proposal put forward by Mr. Gorbachev. It is an interesting proposal. We are looking at it. But we have noted that proposal which seeks nuclear-free regimes in some parts of the Arctic is a proposal that excludes that part of the North where the Soviet Union itself has its major concentrations not only of nuclear power but of nuclear-armed submarines and other weapons. We think that if there is to be an agreement in the North it has to be an agreement that applies with equal vigour to the Soviet Union as well as to others.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the interest rate policy of the Government.
Confused signals are coming from the Government as to the conduct of this country's monetary policy and, more specifically, the future direction of interest rates and the value of the Canadian dollar.
This morning in an article on the Bank of Canada's report tabled yesterday The Gazette printed a headline which states: "No relief from high interest rates". The Ottawa Citizen in a headline stated: "Crow softens stand on interest rates". These are contradictory statements.
I ask the Minister of Finance to clarify the policy of the Government concerning the conduct of its monetary policy, the level of interest rates, and the level of the Canadian dollar. Can he send out a clear signal once and for all to Canadians?
March 22, 1988


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last person to try to interpret headlines for opposition Members. I think that in Mr. Crow's press conference after the release of the Bank of Canada report yesterday he made it quite clear what the policy of the Bank of Canada is, a policy which is supported by the Government of Canada.
If the Hon. Member has any specific questions that he wishes to put to me, I would be very glad to respond to those.


MONETARY POLICY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple. Since the Minister is claiming that the signal is quite clear, my question is this: Which of the two newspaper articles reflects the policy of the Government? Should we expect the Canadian Government monetary policy to endorse lower interest rates and a Canadian dollar value more consistent with the needs of our exporters, or should we expect a high interest rate policy?
Mr. Speaker, you will remember that on March the 3rd the Minister of Finance himself announced to our exporters that as soon as inflation would reach 4 per cent, interest rates would come down. My question to the Minister is this: Which of the two newspaper headlines is right, and now that inflation has reached 4 per cent, are interest rates going to come down and reflect a slightly devalued Canadian dollar?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear, and the Governor of the Bank of Canada has made it quite clear that there are some signs of inflationary pressures in the economy today. He and I have both said that we believe it is important that we address those pressures before they become too strong and lead us into the problems that we experienced in the 1970s and early 1980s.
I have made the comment that it is a case of some preventive medicine now to avoid those problems. We have a strong economy. We have an economy that, in the last quarter of 1987, experienced the strongest growth of the year. We have seen investment intentions up over 17 per cent for 1988. We have seen job creation continue strong into 1988.
In the context of the strength in the economy and those inflationary pressures, it is important for us to address those pressures in the context of monetary policy.


RATE OF INFLATION-INTEREST RATE LEVELS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. I would like to pick up where he left off. Yesterday he stated in the House that he gave strong support to the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He thought that his virtual exclusive preoccupation, in my judgment, with the problem of inflation was, in the Minister's words, "very realistic".
Oral Questions
In the United States today inflation is about the same level as it is in Canada. Since a year ago the difference between the spread in interest rates in the United States and Canada was about half of what it is today, could the Minister tell us why we continue to have this almost virtually exclusive economic focus on the problem of inflation? Why is it that Canadians are paying unnecessarily high interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Hon. Member had read the annual report of the Governor of the Bank of Canada he would have seen it very clearly stated in that report that the preoccupation of the Governor of the Bank of Canada is with the over-all health of the Canadian economy. He states that at the start of the preamble to the report in the first five pages, and he states it at the end of that preamble. That is very clear.
The Hon. Member states that the spread between interest rates in Canada and the United States is too wide. The normal spread over the past four or five years has been about 1.5 per cent. The spread now is 1.75 per cent. 1 think that those numbers speak for themselves.


CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES INTEREST RATE LEVELS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows with that type of comparison one can make all kinds of arguments, many of which are misleading.
A minute ago the Minister stated in reply to an earlier question about the concern with over-all economic development and performance and so on that that is his focus.
The point of my question is that the rate of inflation in Canada today is exactly the same as it is in the United States. However, the spread between interest rates in Canada today compared to one year ago has gone way up. When we have made this progress with inflation, why do we continue to focus on that at the explicit cost of jobs in western Canada and Atlantic Canada? Why does the Minister not have some overall economic commitment to growth in jobs and not only a concern with the question of inflation? That is the issue.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time following the logic of the Hon. Member.


John Edward Broadbent: That was evident from your answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think that the policies of the Government of Canada over the last three and a half years speak for themselves. The bottom line has been that we have had the best growth record for that period of time of all seven major industrialized countries.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 22, 1988
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have had the best job creation record of those same countries. We have also had one of the best performances in productivity.
While the Hon. Member can poke away at this or that little indicator, I think it is quite clear that what Canadians will be most concerned about is the over-all success we have had, and that success is undeniable.


POSITION OF QUEBEC PREMIER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, over-all success does not please those who are looking for jobs in western Canada or in Atlantic Canada.
Will the Minister look at the report of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, because it is in that report that the Governor points out that there have been continuing disparities in job growth among the regions of Canada? For example, it indicates that British Columbia has almost 5 per cent higher levels of unemployment today than it had at the pre-recession level of 1981, and that Newfoundland has 5 per cent higher levels of unemployment today than it had at the pre-recession level of 1981.
I say to the Minister that there are real problems in the region.


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


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, Mr. Bourassa, the Quebec Premier, stated openly in no incertain terms that his Government was against this interest rates policy . ..


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! The Hon. Member will ask his question immediately, please?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister reply to this criticism from the Quebec Premier?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that question went on for such a long time maybe the Hon. Member would like to put down an opposition day motion and I would be quite happy-


John Edward Broadbent: I would love to. Just answer it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member talked about job creation in various regions, during the preamble to his question. In each province of Canada the unemployment rate went down last year. That is a-


John Edward Broadbent: Big deal.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says: "Big deal".


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, I said: "Big deal".


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is. It is a very important element of economic policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It seems to me that the last time we had an exchange on this, the Hon. Member said: "If you go and do that, the unemployment rate is going to go up and 100,000 jobs will be lost", and-


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -the Hon. Member knows full well that that did not happen.


CLOTHING AND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance about the measures he announced today to provide some relief to the apparel industry of Canada for the disadvantages caused by the Canada-U.S. trade agreement.
The Government promised a mountain, and the Minister has come forward with a mouse.


Mr. Crosbie:: Author, author!


Lloyd Axworthy: In fact what we have before us is a 30 per cent solution, 30 per cent of what is needed by the industry to meet the kinds of major inequities caused by the Canada-U.S. agreement, with some industries like the woollen industry totally neglected in the package.
Why did the Government cave in to a U.S. lobby interest and not provide the Canadian apparel industry with proper measures?
Is this the way that we are to provide support for Canadian industry in future, by the pressure of U.S. lobby interests in Washington? Is that the sign of the future that we see in these measures?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, certainly not. We have provided in this package, which is a good, balanced package of support for the industry, some duty remission. I think there are five programs of duty remission; some immediate tariff reduction, which will help the competitive position of the clothing industry; and, third, a reference to the new trade tribunal which will address the question of further declines in tariffs. It will help the industries about which he is most concerned.
An industry about which he is not concerned is the textile industry. The Hon. Member would like to have us do all sorts of things in favour of the apparel sector and ignore the impact
March 22, 1988

of all the new, low-cost imports that would come in as a result, on the textile sector.
The Hon. Member should realize that many, many jobs are represented by the textile industry in Canada. This is why we have had a balanced approach to the whole question of support for these two industries.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Government has not provided a balanced approach. It has provided major tariff reductions and duty remission schemes for both fabrics and garments from the United States, not from other countries.


TREATMENT OF OTHER COUNTRIES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. Why has the Government abandoned the basic fundamental principle of universal treatment for all countries, the most favoured nation treatment that has been the basis of our trade policy for 40 years, in favour of a program that discriminates in favour of the United States and discriminates against Third World countries which need the help a hell of a lot more than does the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that Hon. Members will refrain from using that kind of language.


Lloyd Axworthy: A heck of a lot more, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anybody is going to be impressed by the type of language the Hon. Member is using in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Poor, little Michael.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we will all be impressed by the answer which the Hon. Minister will give.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We will send a bar of soap across the aisle for him, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member used the word "balanced" in the preamble to his question. Let me just make one comment in response to that.
I spoke with the President of the Apparel Manufacturers Council of Canada just before I came to Question Period today. He said that this was a balanced and equitable program, that it was fair and substantial and covered a broad cross-section of the industry. I think those words speak for themselves.
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


REQUEST THAT INTEREST RATES BE REDUCED
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. He will realize that Canadians listen very carefully to his words in terms of understanding government policy.
On March 3, at a meeting which he had with the Canadian Export Association, the Minister suggested that once Canada's inflation rate hit 4 per cent interest rates ought to be lowered.
The Minister now knows that inflation has in fact hit 4 per cent. Does he now plan to live up to the commitment which he made on March 3 and take steps to lower interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first I would suggest that the Hon. Member contact the person who said that I made that commitment, and I think he will find that he was misinterpreted by the media.
The point which I think the media were drawing from that comment was probably too precise. The statement that I made just now on monetary policy, in the context of the economic strength which we are enjoying in Canada today, still stands. I do not have anything to add to that.
We are carefully watching inflationary pressures. In those sectors of the economy outside food and energy there is still an upward movement in inflationary pressures. Those are things of which we must be mindful in the conduct of monetary policy.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. He will know that lower interest rates would assist farmers who qualify today for operating funds for spring seeding and would result in savings of hundreds of dollars to mortgage holders across the country. They would assist small businesses and put them on an equal footing with those in the United States, if our interest rates approximated those in the U.S. Could the Minister of Finance explain why he feels it is necessary to keep a policy that maintains our interest rates in Canada above those in the United States, month after month after month?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am very mindful of the effects of lower interest rates on an economy. We have managed to get interest rates down in this country by 3 to 3.5 percentage points in the last three years and that is one of the key reasons that we have had the economic performance we have had.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What I will say to the Hon. Member is that if we have some upward movement in inflation, that that will lead to higher interest rates. Those interest

March 22, 1988
Oral Questions
rates will be there on a longer term basis and they will also, with the increase in inflation, have the long term impact of undermining the competitive position of the Canadian economy. That would cost us jobs and that is what we are trying to avoid by the monetary policy that we are following.


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Government has offered $4.5 million to acquire 51 per cent equity in Ginn, a school textbook publishing company, from the American conglomerate, Gulf and Western, which set as a condition of sale the right to maintain 50 per cent control on the board of directors.
Is this how the Government safeguards control of the Canadian book publishing industry? Could the Prime Minister explain what business will buy such a deadlock or a stalemate? Is this what the Conservative Government calls a good business deal? Or is the Government satisfied with just 50 per cent membership on the board of directors?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which of the half a dozen questions I should answer first.
When Gulf and Western acquired Ginn it had an undertaking to divest itself of 51 per cent of its interest in Ginn Canada to Canadians over a two-year period. The Government of Canada undertook to make sure that Gulf and Western would respect that specific undertaking. We advised Gulf and Western accordingly. The deadline was March 12. Gulf and Western was advised accordingly that the Government of Canada would act in the interests of Canada to make sure that 51 per cent of the shares of Ginn would be held by Canadians by the agreement date of March 12.


TIMEFRAME FOR COMPANY TO RESPOND TO OFFER
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to know what kind of control, having spent more for equity and not having representation on the board, is in the view of this Government a good deal?
What is the time frame actually for the decision by Gulf and Western to respond yes or no to the Government's offer?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can be very, very clear on that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: They are applauding, Mr. Speaker. More.
Under the agreement that was signed, Gulf and Western had until March 12 to divest itself of 51 per cent of the shares of Ginn to Canadian investors. We indicated that as the company apparently had not done so in the week before March 12 we would exercise the option to have the CDIC take over 51 per cent of the shares to be resold to Canadian interests. That process is ongoing.
I think it is premature right now to disclose any of the conversations that are taking place. It is a due diligence type of process. Our intention was indicated very clearly before the deadline was reached.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue.
The Principal Group fiasco continues. People who have lost their entire life savings are now being made to pay taxes on interest which they have never received. How can the Government in all good conscience ask these Canadians, many of whom are retired and living on fixed incomes and have lost their entire life savings, to pay taxes on money which they have never received?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it will depend to some extent on whether these tax filers are on the cash or the accrual method. If they are on a cash method and receive no interest they will not have to pay taxes because they will have received no cash.
If they are deemed to have received income then the Income Tax Act makes provision for them to deduct it in subsequent taxation years.


REQUEST THAT DEMANDS FOR PAYMENT OF TAXES BE STOPPED
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, contact with the trustee informed us that thousands of T5 forms have already been sent out.
My supplementary question is for the same Minister. Last week the Minister of Finance indicated that the Government will not be paying interest to most Canadians who are overpaying on their deductions for the first part of this year as we move to tax reform, yet the Minister of National Revenue is prepared to collect taxes on interest from those Canadians who have lost their life savings in the Principal Group.
Is the Minister prepared to put a stop to these outrageous demands on people who have already suffered so much?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a lot of rhetoric in that question.
March 22, 1988

I have already explained to the Eton. Member, and I appreciate his concern, that no one will be penalized because of the situation that he has described.
If he is mixing apples and oranges and talking about the issues raised in committee with regard to the matters on which my colleague, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, was quoted, he knows it is because of administrative complications that we cannot make the necessary adjustments for the first part of this year.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
A week or so ago it was announced that stabilization would be paid to potato producers across Canada. At that time we were advised that all the acreage on PEI would be covered, including the diverted acres.
When can we expect the cheques to be in the mail?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and compliment the Hon. Member for his continuing interest on behalf of the potato growers in Prince Edward Island. It is obvious by the way he has framed his question that his understanding and knowledge of the industry is far-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The question was "when".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: Perhaps I should take that as a warning and respond directly to the Hon. Member by saying that the cheques will be in the hands of producers before Easter, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Government allowed British Gas to purchase 33 per cent of Bow Valley Industries. What the Government
Oral Questions
refuses to understand is that British Gas also has a majority of the seats on the board of directors thereby giving British Gas effective control over Bow Valley Industries and, by the Government's own Investment Canada Act, making Bow Valley Industries a non-Canadian company.
Why is the Government plotting with foreign corporations for the take-over of Canadian companies which its own watered-down legislation will not allow?


An Hon. Member:: A very clear answer.


Robert René de Cotret: Yes, a very clear answer, Mr. Speaker. I have two comments. First, there is no applauding. Second, it was done according to the Act. There was nothing contrary to the Act under that decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, a short supplemental.


CANADIAN CONTENT-APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, Section 26 makes Bow Valley Industries a nonCanadian company. Legislation that was brought forward to protect Canadian ownership in the very valuable energy sector is being circumvented by the Government that brought in the legislation.
Why is the Government ignoring all of the guidelines put in to safeguard Canadian content in the energy sector?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we are not ignorning any, any, of the elements of the Investment Canada Act. All of them are being respected. They are being respected in the best interests of Canadians to attract more and more investment in Canada.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that investment in this country since the Investment Canada Act was brought in not only developed our industry and economy but created hundreds of thousands of new jobs.


SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs is in relation to the International Affairs Working Group Report tabled yesterday.
The group concluded that renewed efforts to reach agreement with the United States on Canadian sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic archipelago are essential to the effective

March 22, 1988
Oral Questions
protection of the national interest and of the Arctic environment and marine wildlife. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs yet undertaken or on what date does he plan to undertake such negotiations and discussions with the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, not only are we involved in discussions with the United States, but the discussions that have been undertaken by this Government have been far more productive with regard to the assertion of Canadian sovereignty than those of preceding Governments. The Hon. Member will know that prior to the election of this Government and prior to the actions we have just taken, there was question about our ability, as a practical matter, to assert our sovereignty with regard, for example, to the passage of ice-breakers. We have resolved that question and we have resolved other questions. We are continuing discussions with the United States to continue to assert Canadian sovereignty in our North.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the group conclude that it is necessary to have further negotiations with the United States in order to protect the national interest. I hope the Minister is indicating that that is what he is pursuing.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF ARCTIC BASIN COUNCIL
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is in relation to another conclusion released by the group, its endorsation of the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, and the task force report, Canada and Polar Science, on the possibility of establishing an Arctic Basin Council. Since Canada is one of the few nations in the world, and certainly the only one lying between the two superpowers, that could perhaps lay the groundwork successfully to put together an Arctic Basin Council to deal with questions such as the greenhouse effect and other major international matters, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs undertake to lay some of that groundwork that would bring the Soviet Union, the United States, and others into such an important council?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is yes, we will continue to do that. It may well be more productive for us to start with what the Hon. Member calls the others. There is a very real interest on the part of Arctic nations that are not superpowers, a much more common interest that can be approached more directly than might be achieved by proceeding through the superpowers. That is a matter that has been discussed by my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and by myself.
The Prime Minister had an opportunity in Brussels, not long ago, to meet directly with Prime Minister Brundtland. We will be continuing those kinds of discussions. The commitment of the Government to the assertion and extension of our control
over our Arctic is clear, and we intend to continue to pursue it vigorously.


FISHERIES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Developing sound public policy with regard to the fisheries requires that the federal Government be sensitive and demonstrate a capacity to respond to one of the most important elements in the process of fisheries policies namely, the representatives of fishermen. The Minister will know that not one, not two and not six, but 14 out of 15 representatives on the Minister's own lobster advisory board have resigned over the granting of new lobster licences.
I wish to ask the Minister to explain the rationale for even having a lobster advisory board if the Department will not abide by its advice, particularly in view of the fact that overwhelmingly these individuals have gone against the Minister and have now placed their resignations before him?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries is not here today, as the hon. gentleman must know. Therefore, I have to do my poor best to answer that question.
The Minister of Fisheries, based on advice received from the experts in his Department and from the people who advise the East Coast on the lobster fishery, issued four new offshore lobster licences in Nova Scotia. An advisory committee is exactly that, an advisory committee, but the Minister must make a decision in the best interests of the fishery from all the advice he receives. He chose to follow the advice of his experts in the Department and he issued these four licences.
Current scientific information indicates that it is unlikely that there is any interaction between inshore and offshore lobster in these areas, and the decision appears to be a sound one. However, I will carry the representations of the hon. gentleman to the Minister when he returns.


MINISTER'S DECISION ON GRANTING LICENCES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I think the only expert advice the Minister has acted on is that of the Tory fundraisers in the Province of Nova Scotia. In view of the fact that this group overwhelmingly objects to the Minister's decision, that the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia objects to these new lobster licences, and that the Minister of Fisheries in the Province of Nova Scotia objects to the granting of these new lobster licences, pray tell, would the Minister explain to the Canadian people and the fishermen of Atlantic Canada why he granted these
March 22, 1988

lobster licences and continues trying to portray Canadian policies on them?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as usual the hon. gentleman demonstrates the irrationality of his thought processes. In the introduction to his question he said first that this has something to do with Tory fundraisers, which of course it has nothing to do with. Then he went on to say that the Tory Government of Nova Scotia opposes it and the Tory Minister of Fisheries of Nova Scotia opposes it. He cannot have it both ways. This was an impartial decision made in the best interests of the fishery and has nothing to do with Tories in their glories.


CHEMICAL WEAPONS
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There has been a very dangerous escalation in the Middle East Iraq-Iran war with the use of chemical weapons. Will the Minister investigate this very tragic turn of events, and if it is true will he communicate Canada's objection and concerns to the warring parties concerned?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the war between Iran and Iraq is of great concern to all Members of the House. The recent reports only deepen our concern.
It is hard to secure detailed information, but I agree with the Hon. Member that we have to do our best to try. It is our view that there should be an expert investigation. We believe that it would best be conducted under the United Nations, and we would recommend to the Secretary General of the United Nations that he put in place such an expert investigation.


IRANIAN REQUEST FOR CANADIAN MEDICAL HELP
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that just recently in this war 5,000 people were killed and 4,000 injured by chemicals, my understanding is that the Charge d'Affaires of Iran has asked Canada for medical help. Could the Secretary of State indicate whether such help is forthcoming, and can he assure the House that there is no Canadian content in this chemical warfare?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, there is no Canadian content in that chemical warfare. I use that phrase simply out of normal prudence. I think there is no reason to believe that there is any Canadian content in that chemical warfare.
Oral Questions
The question asked by the Hon. Member relates to representations made by the Charge d'Affaires of Iran regarding the treatment of foreign nationals in Canada. That is a complex problem that requires co-operation between federal and provincial Governments. We are looking to see if there is a way in which Canada can respond positively.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since the beginning of this year there were three serious incidents involving oil tankers in Placentia Bay. Five hundred barrels of oil were spilled from a tanker earlier this month, and last week another tanker ran aground on the way to the Come-By-Chance oil refinery because of inadequate pilotage regulation.
Is the Minister aware of the most serious of all incidents which occurred when the tanker Rosario Del Mar was in danger of breaking up on the way to Placentia Bay in early January with nearly 100,000 tonnes of crude oil aboard, all of which had to be removed for the sake of safety? What special measures is the Minister prepared to undertake to ensure that this serious pollution threat is eliminated?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as usual, I am well ahead of the hon. gentleman. These matters which the hon. gentleman is trying to put a very alarmist feature on are naturally being looked into and I have-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Are members of the NDP interested in the answer or are they just interested in making noise?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: The answer, not blarney.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Minister is ready to answer the question.


John Carnell Crosbie: I can hardly carry on if I am to be accused of blarney, Mr. Speaker.
As a result of several incidents including the one involving the motor tanker South Angela in which there was an oil spill of about 500 barrels, cleaned up, I might say, by the Coast Guard with great efficiency, and the vessel, by the way, has had to put up heavy bonds and charges have been laid under the relevant legislation, and the motor tanker Filiastar, I have taken the following action. I have requested the Atlantic Pilotage Authority to conduct an immediate review of existing pilotage regulations including the compulsory pilotage zones. I have instructed departmental officials to conduct an immediate review of the navigation safety regulations and procedures

March 22, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Epp
applicable to this area including a review of the traffic separation scheme, the adequacy of vessel traffic services, the adequacy of soliciting aids to navigation, and the adequacy of current regulations governing tanker traffic in Placentia Bay.
A safety notice has been sent out reminding all mariners and ships' agents of the procedures and regulations that apply in the bay.


Jack Harris: A fleet of aging tankers is sailing around the oceans. In January the Coast Guard was advised that this particular ship was within two hours of foundering.


ABILITY TO RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether the ability of the industry and the Government to clean up any spill or respond to an emergency will be upgraded? That is the question to which I want the Minister to respond.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the preamble to that question is totally wrong. It is a
132,000	DWT Spanish registered tanker. That means dead weight tonnage. The hon. gentleman would not understand that.
She approached Come-By-Chance on January 2. She reported that she had a crack in her No. 2 port wing ballast tank, just as the hon. gentlemen opposite do.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the remainder of the question could be answered by way of Order Paper questions.


IMMIGRATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the issue of the Turkish claimants in Canada. There are an increasing number of reports today that the provincial government of Quebec is perhaps willing to accept these claimants under the Quebec-Canada immigration agreement.
Given that the Quebec Minister of Immigration will momentarily make a statement on this issue in the Quebec Assembly, will the Minister provide a full update on this issue for the benefit of the House? Has the Province of Quebec made a request to accept these claimants in Quebec? Is the Minister prepared to accept a humanitarian compromise in order to settle a very emotional human dilemma?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is right: the Quebec Minister for Cultural Communities and Immigration is expected to make a statement in the National Assembly today at 3 p.m.
I think we should wait for her statement to know exactly what is Quebec position which, according to the Cullen-Couture Agreement signed under the previous Government, has the power to issue permits. I suggest again that any reaction on my part, before knowing exactly what is the Quebec Government's position, would be premature.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, that is the last question. I know that the Hon. Member is very serious about this matter, but I must end Question Period.


PRIVILEGE
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the pursuit of my responsibilities as New Democratic Party Caucus critic for multiculturalism. Citation 16 of Beauchesne states:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions...
It goes on:
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers'. They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members;
My abilities to carry out my services to the House have been impeded by the refusal of the Government to allow the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to travel to other parts of Canada to hear witnesses and consider their reactions to the committee report that was tabled in the House at the end of June. We are unable to be properly informed as to what the people of Canada think of the report and of the proposals made by the committee for the advancement of multiculturalism and those concerns provided for in Section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
These responsibilities are not simply those of ordinary Members, but responsibilities of a critic who must watch what a particular Minister of the Government does and deal critically with the proposals of the Government to ensure that what it does is genuinely responsive to the needs of the Canadian people.
March 22, 1988

The committee's report was tabled in the House and presented to the media, particularly in Toronto, in early June. The committee fully expected that ethnocultural communities and multicultural organizations throughout the country would have an opportunity to respond to that report and indicate which aspects of the report were well advised and which aspects deserved particular emphasis. Members of the committee fully expected to be able to obtain the informed advice of members of communities and organizations across the country in order to advance multiculturalism in this country.
The committee held hearings in Toronto on December 7 and December 8. They were two good, long days in which there was support for various recommendations and critical reaction from some of those appearing before the committee. They were two days that underscored the importance for the standing committee to travel to various parts of Canada to consult with Canadians about the advisability of various policies.
As a member of the committee, I expected that it would travel to Montreal and would visit one or more centres in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me advise the Hon. Member that the Chair has the point. The Hon. Member says that the committee would have expected to be travelling more than it has and that permission has not been given by the Government, which, according to the rules, the Government has the right to withhold.
There may be other Hon. Members who could assist the Chair in this matter. I would hear from any other Hon. Member who might want to rise.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I may be a little more confused by your comments than those by the Hon. Member, but I have searched the rules of the House and cannot find anything that would give the Government the power to stop a committee from conducting its investigations in whatever manner it chooses.
Committees have the power to call witnesses and bring people to Ottawa. There are provisions in the Standing Orders for payments to reimburse people who come before committee hearings. It has been a long established practice of the House that from time to time committees seek permission from the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I have inadvertently incorrectly stated the situation. It is the House that has that power to grant or withhold authority to travel, not the Government. I want that corrected.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I originally intend to rise because the Member opposite was accusing the Government of muzzling a committee. That was the net effect of what he was
Privilege-Mr. Epp
saying when he rose on a question of privilege. The Government is not attempting to muzzle the committee by stopping it from travelling or anything else.
The Government is very interested in the debate which is occurring today. We are very hopeful that the Bill will go to committee. Many Members who sit on the standing committee will sit on the legislative committee where we hope the Bill will be thoroughly examined, quickly, and reported back to the House so that we can move it through report and third reading stage and to the Senate, following which the Bill will become the law of the land.
There may be some predisposition on the part of Members throughout the House to say that that is a priority activity. I would not want to prejudge the decision of the House if the committee comes forward in some way and asks the House for its wisdom as to whether it should be travelling in dealing with the multicultural Bill.
However, I want to make it very clear to the House that the Government has no power and no wish to have the power to determine how a committee conducts its mandate. The Standing Orders are very clear, that the committee can investigate anything within its mandate in any way it chooses and can bring before it any witnesses it chooses. When it seeks to take Members away from the House it must seek the advice of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon could help the Chair. Has there been a request to travel made to the House by the committee of which he spoke?


Abram Ernest Epp: Subject to further comment by the chairperson of the committee who is present, the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), I know that the committee planned to travel and sought permission to do so, and that that permission was not achieved in December or in the new year. The explanation which I, as a member of the standing committee, was given was that the government Whip was opposed to the committee travelling.
In that context I want to note that a variety of committees have travelled. The Finance Committee has returned from New Zealand. The Transport Committee has visited Europe. The Fisheries Committee has been in Norway. The Agriculture Committee is travelling. The Justice Committee is visiting various penitentiaries. There is no shortage of committees which are travelling but this was denied to us.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has raised a matter which is indeed probably more along the lines of a complaint. However, I will consider very carefully the Hon. Member's representations. I must look to whether or not the committee has in fact put a request before the House.
As I said before, although I made an error and have corrected it for the record, it is not a government decision but

March 22, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Hawkes
a House decision. The House decision cannot be made unless there is a formal request from the committee. I will look into this matter and come back to the Hon. Member.


POINT OF ORDER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) had to leave the House but asked me to make a correction on his behalf to page 13960 of Hansard. In his response made on March 21 the words "16 different tables" appear. It should read "seven different tables".


Mr. Speaker:: This time I have no comment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crombie that Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate we have heard Members of the Opposition relate certain facts about the history of multiculturalism. However, since their interpretation was a very personal one, it may be misleading for some of our colleagues. That is why I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to summarize the main points of this history on a strictly factual basis, remaining as objective as I possibly can.
As we all know, the policy on multiculturalism was adopted in 1971 by a unanimous resolution of Parliament. The following year, the Government created the position of Minister of State (Multiculturalism), and in 1973, the Department of the Secretary of State implemented its first multicultural grants program.
During the next ten years, the policy on multiculturalism remained practically unchanged, although the concept has changed considerably, especially in recent years. At the time, the policy was seen as a set of programs that were specifically and exclusively concerned with what was called, with some condescension, the "ethnic minorities", and their purpose was to help these minorities integrate harmoniously with Canadian society, while preserving their heritage.
Fortunately, this perception has gradually faded, and I think there are two reasons for this. We have had two major constitutional accords since then, and furthermore as we shall see, the Government in recent years has clearly shown its firm political will in this regard.
In 1982, the Parliament of Canada adopted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provides: "This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians." Thus, multiculturalism was incorporated in the Constitution of Canada.
Last June, the First Ministers signed the now famous Meech Lake Constitutional Accord. Essentially, the Accord, which as you know, was approved by the Leader of the Official Opposition, recognizes that Quebec constitutes a distinct society within Canada, considering the French-speaking majority in this province.
The First Ministers insisted on reaffirming, in the same Accord the concept of multiculturalism set down in the Charter.
As the Prime Minister indicated last fall when speaking to the Canadian Ethnic Press Federation: "Nothing in the distinct society clause reduces or diminishes in any way the already recognized and established multicultural nature of the Canadian nation."
If our perception of multiculturalism has come a long way, it is also in large part due to this Government's efforts and, more precisely, to the Multiculturalism Program of the Secretary of State. As a matter of fact, when the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek), the present Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, was appointed Minister of State for Multiculturalism in 1984, he set himself the goal of putting multiculturalism in the maimstream of Canadian society.
The Minister decided to give a new direction and a new perspective to our multiculturalism policy when he recognized a very simple fact, which is that all Canadians are immigrants or descend from immigrants. We are all proud to be Canadians but we are also proud of our roots and of the language, culture and traditions of our ancestors. From that perspective, we can all see that multiculturalism is everybody's concern and not only that of so-called "ethnic minorities".
In July 1986, when the Prime Minister appointed our colleague, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) to his present position, he decided at the same time to merge the Secretary of State's responsabilities, which include Canadian citizenship, with those of the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism, in order to replace multiculturalism in the mainstream, at the heart of Canadian citizenship.
This extension of his mandate led the Minister to rethink our multiculturalism policy and to bring forward this Bill. Thus, for the Minister-and this is one of the basic ideas
March 22, 1988

behind Bill C-93-multiculturalism is a distinctive feature of our identity as Canadians and as a unique nation.
There are in fact, from the Minister's point of view, if I may be allowed to summarize his thoughts, three great pillars which shore up our originality and our identity as a nation. They are the following: multiculturalism, for the reasons which I have just outlined; also, our two official languages, French and English, which are among the most prestigious in the world today and which distinguish us clearly from other nations, and particularily from our neighbours to the South; and finally, Canadian citizenship, so admired and envied abroad, and which opens wide the doors of hospitality to Canadians who travel in other parts of the world.
For the government, this vision of Canadian identity is much more than theory. It is far more than rhetoric. In fact, each of these three components of our national identity is presently the object of legislation before Parliament.
On June 25 last, as you know, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) announced a renewed committment to official languages policy by presenting a Bill to amend and reinforce the Official Languages Act. Up to now, this Act had not been amended since it was adopted in 1969.
Also, the Secretary of State will soon present a bill to update the Canadian Citizenship Act. You will recall that last year the Minister issued a dicussion paper on the various aspects of the subject and invited Canadian citizens to share their opinions and comments with him.
Finally, of course, we have the Bill on multiculturalism which was introduced last December 1st by the minister responsible and which we are discussing today.
In essence, what the Government is trying to do is create a legal framework which would serve as a foundation for a much too fluid Canadian identity, which would solidify the constitutional guarantees related to official languages and which would also enhance our cultural heritage and equality of rights among all citizens.
I urge all Members as well as my colleagues to consider this Bill outside of political partisanship, I call upon their sense of pride as Canadians, to allow our country to take another step forward and turn a new page in our Canadian history.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: March 22, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
examine hiring methods and to carry on recruitment campaigns specially targeted for visible minorities. The RCMP has also established an intercultural training program and has involved some of its senior members in efforts aimed at gaining a better understanding of ethnocultural as well as aboriginal communities.
It remains to be seen what effects those measures will have. Certainly, other initiatives have already produced very convincing results. As Hon. Members know or should know, small business is the cornerstone of Canadian economy and the major creator of new jobs since 1984. Our multicultural communities are driven by a strong entrepreneurial spirit and we can certainly say that entrepreneurs in these communities are among the most progressive, indeed the most dynamic in Canada.
In order to recognize that fact our government organized, in April 1986, a conference called Multiculturalism Means Business which was successful. It was the product of the joint efforts of the Secretariate of State, the Federal Business Development Bank, private sector business groups and community organizations.
Following that conference, the Ontario Office of the Federal Business Development Bank even established an ethnocultural advisory committee responsable for maintaining liaison between the various branches of the Federal Business Development Bank and the ethnic community small entrepreneurs.
Because of the direct action program of the Federal Business Development Bank, we can see today a large increase in the loans made by the Bank to members of cultural and racial communities other than those of our two founding nations. Other major centres have followed the example set by Toronto and I am convinced that their initiatives will have the same success.
Mr. Speaker, this first conference, which emphasized the contribution of multiculturalism, and the new Canadian Multiculturalism Act, which we have introduced, have something in common. Both recognize multiculturalism as one of the underpinnings of our Canadian society and believe in its major contribution to the prosperity of Canada. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, are a product of this multiculturalism, which is not only tolerated, but also encouraged in Canada as it brings to all of us a new cultural dimension, and is even financially profitable.
As the Hon. Members are certainly aware, federal efforts to revitalize and strengthen multiculturalism in Canada have been extremely successful. Indeed, our Government has already begun to apply the principles contained in this Bill and to keep the promises made in 1984. The adoption of Bill C-93 can only strengthen the commitment made by all our Departments.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a few of the profitable initiatives undertaken jointly by various Departments in
compliance with the open-door multiculturalism policy of the federal Government.
Hon. Members will recall that, early in 1986, the Ministers responsible for Tourism, Communications and Multiculturalism decided to co-operate more closely by looking for means to harmonize their respective activities in their effort to reach a common goal. Next April, these three Departments will sponsor a conference on tourism, culture and multiculturalism, a first in Canada. This conference will examine the active role which our multicultural heritage can play in promoting Canadian tourism.
In addition, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Senior Citizens (Mr. Hees) are now organizing a major national conference on ethnic groups and their impact on our aging Canadian population.
Mr. Speaker, other federal departments have recognized the need for cultural diversity in our Canadian nation. For example, Parks Canada published information material and to make guided tours and diaporamas available in foreign languages; for example, in the Lachine Park, near Lasalle, Italian shows are available throughout the Summer.
Mr. Speaker, Parks Canada even conceived a very efficient marketing strategy by producing pamphlets in several language which were distributed during the 1988 Olympic Games in Calgary, where whe could welcome about all the cultures represented in the world.
In the same vein, Mr. Speaker, several initiatives focussing on the exchange of information are already bearing fruit. Just as an example, Elections Canada's booklet, Voting in Canada/Le vote au Canada, published in 16 languages, is now distributed across the country during citizenship swear-in ceremonies , which we had the opportunity to attend recently in Montreal and one of which was in LaSalle, for the 75th anniversary celebrations of our town.
I would also like to draw the attention of this House to the Fall 1987 issue of Reportage Canada, a quarterly published by the External Communications division of the External Affairs Department. As a matter of fact, this special issue on multiculturalism in Canada was distributed to some 60,000 opinion leaders across the world namely in the private sector, in the media, in educational establishments and to various Governments.
Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of our current initiatives.
I could single out others concerning multiculturalism, education, the preservation of ancestral languages, the growing awareness of medical and social services to the multicultural reality, and the establishment of guidelines on the image of minorities conveyed in federal communications.
Image, information and commitment are undoubtedly the key words of the new concept of multiculturalism and its contribution to the social, economic and cultural life of all Canadians.
March 22, 1988

Mr. Speaker, as I said even before Bill C-93 on multicultur-alism was first introduced, we had made considerable progress in our attempts to tailor Government programs to the requirements of the private sector, and these efforts also involved the federal public service.
In June 1986 our Government launched an affirmative action program designed to increase the representation of visible minority group members in the public service. More recently the Ministers involved with Treasury Board approved the establishment of quantitative goals in this respect so as to implement a real program, more than draft or theoretical projects shrouded by proposed legislation or pious wishes.
Still I should like to point out to Hon. Members that our Government did not saddle itself with a quota system, as some people had recommended. The quantitative goals set by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski) are based on accurate Public Service Commission calculations. The Government is intent on reaching these goals through a recruiting and selection process whose only standard is the merit principle. Mr. Speaker, the idea is not to offer handouts to ethno-cultural communities, but to recognize their true value, both quantity-wise and quality-wise.
I believe that we all agree the best ways, respecting our Canadian ideal, to develop the wealth of our cultural and racial diversity are persuasion and representation rather than constraint and coercion, as was the case under the previous governments. This Bill on Multiculturalism is based on partnership and co-operation between the federal and provincial administrations on the one hand, and between the Government and the private sector on the other. It emphasizes participation, a participation of all individuals and cultural groups in our great country.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act now before you is directed at the whole Canadian society, without consideration of racial or cultural origin. It involves, therefore, all federal Departments, Ministers, business entities, community organizations and all Canadians. It enshrines the basic objectives of the Government's multicultural policy and ensures a solid legislative base for the programs aimed at implementing it.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation on multiculturalism describes the duties of the line minister and makes sure that Federal Departments as a whole meet their commitments and report to Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, it is for me a real privilege to be able to make these few remarks, as a representative of a riding where the majority is the sum of all minorities. In my riding there are Italians and Greeks. There is also a significant Portuguese community. We have Irish people who did put on a great show last week. There are French Canadians. There are people of British origin. There are Chinese. Recently, I had an opportunity to attend an ethno-cultural show presented by all the Francophone groups from Asia. I was quite surprised to hear
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
the great many people from Vietnam, especially among the older generation, talking about Indochina.
Mr. Speaker, multiculturalism is here. We must live it and stop thinking that it is an act of Government generosity. Our Government is involved. We accept the principle of Canadian multiculturalism by enshrining it in a legislation.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I note the Hon. Member has left.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I made my exit too hastily. I did not expect any question. Could the Hon. Member repeat her question? I rushed back.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I have a question for the Hon. Member who spoke at some length in praise of this Bill. We certainly agree with the whole principle of multiculturalism. As the Hon. member probably knows, the criticism made by many groups, and which we would make, is that it is one thing to talk about principles and another thing to have ways of implementing those principles in solid programs with some real substance to assist multicultural groups in their efforts and also to effect government programs that are needed.
I wondered what the personal views are of the Hon. Member on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to have a department of multiculturalism with a full-time Minister, Deputy Minister, and a commissioner of multiculturalism to advocate programs that are needed and put some teeth into this in order that we could have much more substance to multiculturalism in Canada. What are the views of the Hon. Member on the question of having a department of multiculturalism with a commissioner, with research, and with all the things needed to really do a job in this field?


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 dealt with that in the main part of my speech. What we want is to go beyond lip service, statements of intent, by drafting legislation on which all Canadians will be able to rely to establish regulations or have solidly based recourse.
Secondly, we do not want any police. Why should we now consider the faults of multiculturalism? We should rather be promoting it.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is an old way of thinking. It was the same in the business world. Capital investment was limited instead of being encouraged. We plan to invite co-operation between people, not to police that co-operation through enforcement to coerce people to accept multiculturalism. Instead, we will help Canadians think it can be profitable, that there are business as well as cultural enrichments in multiculturalism.

March 22, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
So I think the legislation as proposed only sanctions what exists now, and I believe the Minister for Multiculturalism, who is accountable to this House, already has a monitoring role and will be quite free, about his department, to report to Parliament which remains the final enforcement authority in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mitges):: Before we return to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), I would like to give the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) an opportunity to ask his question. We will then return to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


Sergio Marchi: The Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) talks about the key word "enforcement" and translates that into what he would classify as policing. I wish to clarify that word, because it seems to be working itself into the Conservative vocabulary with increasing frequency.
The Member comes from a province that is obviously very sensitive to our official bilingualism policy. This Parliament is now engaged in updating official language legislation. Back in the 1960s when it was started by the then Prime Minister Trudeau, the centre-piece of official bilingualism did not only talk about bilingualism, did not only give us a beautiful, colourful, meaningful language that talked about this abstract notion, but he and his Government did something very profound about it. One of the things they did was to provide Parliament and the country with the very tools and mechanisms that would not only talk about bilingualism but that would deliver bilingualism.
Therefore, we did receive the bureaucratic structure that was able to meet the linguistic needs of our country. We did receive the appropriate Minister and Cabinet to talk with force. We established the proper enforcement mechanism, which consisted of the Commissioner for Official Languages, who made sure, without political constraint, that the commissioner would go through the federal bureaucracy and ensure that bilingualism was lived up to. If it was not, it was the duty of the commissioner to report to Parliament, not to the Government of the day, or to the Minister of the day who comes and goes, but to Parliament in order that all Canadians may see both the success stories and the warts within the system, and particularly, with regard to the latter, to encourage Governments and Parliaments to do something about it. If the Member supports the mechanisms that guaranteed official bilingualism in this country, such as a Commissioner for Official Languages, why is he so vividly opposed to trying to put in place similar mechanisms such as a commissioner in order that multiculturalism will not only be talked about but in fact lived up to and respected by Governments and institutions across the country?


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, these are two completely different problems. The problem of multiculturalism is not the same thing as the legislation on bilingualism. The latter was so drafted as to include a Commissioner of Official Languages, the system has been tried and tested, and it fully meets the expectations of Canadians. Multiculturalism is an altogether different proposition. We had some difficulty trying to make people understand that the basic Canadian biculturalism and multiculturalism, or the enrichment we derive from ethnocultural circles, represent two systems or two entirely different notions. This is why we have two solutions to these two problems. Biculturalism as a solution does not apply to multiculturalism. First of all, they are two separate problems.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, again I stress that the basis of this Bill-and of all Bills introduced in the House, for that matter-is that people are expected to co-operate, they are invited, they are encouraged, and that is a far cry from the hard-line coercion and confrontation approach of the previous Government. And we all saw the ensuing mess. Mr. Speaker, our Government would rather urge Canadians to respect the law, we do not want the kind of negative legislation which tell them: Listen now, we are appointing a police force with which you will have to deal if you fail to do as we say. On the contrary, we will have people to urge Canadians to get involved and share in the wealth of multiculturalism. We in this Government are now determined to stress the positive rather than the negative aspects of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mitges):: I regret to inform Members that the time for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on Bill C-93, a long awaited Bill on multiculturalism. I suspect that this policy is something that all Canadians now approve of very heartily. Increasingly Canadians see that it is important to enshrine in legislation the policy we have had with us for a long time, the promotion of the cultural identity of people from all origins who make up Canada.
We think of the comparison with the United States where it has been said to be a melting pot. In Canada the late John Porter identified Canadian society as the vertical mosaic, that the different ethnic groups were part of Canada, they did not melt away in the melting pot as they did in the United States, but they were ranked, and some were more equal than others. Of course, that is unacceptable. What this Bill attempts to do, and what we all want to see done is to say that neither is right; we do not want a melting pot nor do we want the disappearance of the ethnic groups. We want the strength and richness in Canadian society of the contribution of different ethnic groups. However, we do not want ethnic groups to be ranked so that some people are below others or people from some
March 22, 1988

groups do not have the same chances as those from other groups. We want all Canadians to have equal rights. We want to see equality rights enshrined in the Bill.
I think the Bill addresses equality rights. All Canadians are equal and there ought not to be discrimination. We have nondiscrimination measures in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which are referred to in the Bill. Indeed we see that there are measures to strengthen them.
On the positive side we need to protect individual rights but also to promote the collective right, the survival of cultures. We need to do so because as it happens it makes us a better country and a better part of the world. It gives us links with other parts of the world if we maintain the different cultures.
My riding of Broadview-Greenwood is a well-known area. It is the heart of the Greek community of Toronto. It is a very desirable place in which to live. It is a very lively part of Toronto. We enjoy the opportunities to celebrate religious and national festivals. Indeed people who are not Greek Canadians join in these celebrations and find them to be a very attractive and important part of life in Toronto. We have a growing Chinese Canadian community. It is now attracting people of all communities to come there to shop, to enjoy restaurants, and so forth. It is developing in a very positive and desirable way as a part of Toronto.
We share the concerns of people who want to preserve the cultures which they bring with them to Canada. However, I must say that not everything is quite as rosy as we would like it to be. Discrimination still exists. There is discrimination on the basis of race against ethnic minorities who are visibly different. They experience more difficulties in obtaining jobs, keeping jobs, and getting promotions. We know about difficulties in policing and all kinds of difficulties which members of these groups experience.
The Bill does not go very far in this respect. There are other measures which try to deal with racism, but I should like to refer to a measure which is in Clause 5(g). It indicates that the Minister shall take such measures as he or she considers appropriate to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada, specifically to "assist racial minority communities to conduct activities with a view to overcoming any discriminatory barrier". I note that it is not very high on the list and that it is fairly vague. It indicates that the Minister will help groups to overcome these barriers. It is a very modest step, but it is in the right direction. I welcome it, but I regret to say that much more is needed. We need to rely on the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the human rights commissions of the various provinces to defend victims of discrimination. In many cases they do not even get to the human rights commissions, because people must complain on an individual basis and they are afraid of retaliation. We still have a long way to go to make for improvements in this regard.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
I should like to refer to an area in which I think some progress has been made. I am sure that anyone who supports Bill C-93 would be very glad about it. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, in its sixth report, contained proposals for a new Broadcasting Act and was very specific in recognizing multiculturalism. For example, recommendation No. 24 indicates what should be in the objectives part of the new Broadcasting Act. It says that the programming carried by the system should provide a balanced representation of Canadian society, reflecting its multicultural and bilingual realities, its aboriginal peoples, and the composition of its population in respect of sex, age, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, and mental or physical handicap.
The message it gives is absolutely consistent with Bill C-93. It says that Canada is comprised of many different kinds of people and because broadcasting uses the public air waves it must reflect this diversity. It would be wrong for only one or two groups to dominate, to exclude, or to minimize the reflection of other groups by ethnicity and other criteria.
I think it is important. I hope the Government acts on it. If so, it will be for the first time that such a provision would actually be in the Broadcasting Act, and I think that the Broadcasting Act needs it.
There has been some improvement. CBC is showing greater diversity by using people of ethnic origin to do reporting and so forth. This is very healthy. It is realistic and it reflects Canada much more accurately. I welcome the steps which the CBC has taken. We have seen it as well in private stations.
Also the report on broadcasting recommended that appointments to the boards of the CRTC and the CBC should reflect ethnic diversity, going away from the vertical mosaic with British and French groups at the top and other groups underneath. Roughly a third of Canadians who come from groups other than the English and French ones ought to be well represented in official appointments. It is important that they be so represented in terms of broadcasting, and I think that it should be the case for all kinds of official appointments.
I hope the Government gives up its practice of patronage appointments and appointments on the basis of association with the Party in power and instead uses other criteria of merit.


Mr. Friesen:: Like Stephen Lewis.


Vincent Della Noce: Yes, like Stephen Lewis?


Benno Friesen: What about Dennis McDermott.


Vincent Della Noce: What about Ian Deans?


Lynn McDonald: My hecklers are pointing to very good appointments, but they are one in a thousand. One swallow does not make a spring, and I am afraid that one Stephen Lewis does not destroy the charge of patronage. It is a sporting try, but I am afraid that I remain unconvinced.

March 22, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Much more could be done. Multicultural groups have recommended-and the New Democratic Party has very actively supported them-a couple of specific measures which we think would be more effective than some of the measures in Bill C-93. One would be the proposal that the multicultural bureaucracy report to a full minister and deputy minister. In short, it is asking for a department of multiculturalism, not just a sub-department of some other ministry. This would give it higher status. Bureaucracies, ministers, and deputy ministers acquire their status through how much authority they have. It need not be a large department, but a separate department would say that we consider the matter important enough to have its own minister and deputy minister. I think that that would be a good move.
Another area in which I think there could be improvement would be to have a parliamentary commission on multiculturalism and a commissioner in charge who would report to Parliament. In short, the commissioner would report to all Parties and have some independence. The department or the sub-department, as the case may be, will of course report through its minister, through a political channel. If things do not go too well, they can be covered up through that kind of process. However, if we have an independent person, such as we have for official bilingualism, we would have a commissioner who would be in charge and would be a servant of Parliament. It would be a better and fairer structure. It would ensure that the watch-dog function is carried out properly. If the Government has nothing to hide, it ought to welcome this approach. We would ensure that its functions were properly carried out by ensuring that Parliament's own appointee is there.
Bill C-93 largely reflects policy that is already in existence. It begins with a very long preamble. This may or may not be a good thing. In fact, the preamble is practically longer than the Bill itself. It asserts very high-minded principles and refers to the Charter of Canada, the Constitution, the Official Languages Act, the Citizenship Act and all of these sorts of things. Of course, a preamble does not have any force of law and so much of this has to be reworded into the principles within the Bill itself. This Bill largely puts down on paper decisions that have been worked out over the last couple of decades which have very broad agreement across Canada and across all three political Parties.
Clause 3 declares it to be the policy of the Government of Canada to:
(a)	promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve and share their cultural heritage;
No one would disagree with that but it had not been stated in so many words before. We have just the beginning of recognition in the Constitution. This Bill flushes it out somewhat more when it states:
(b)	promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a basic element of the Canadian heritage ...
(c)	promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to such participation.
This is fairly vague language. They are high sounding principles which perhaps do not reflect the urgency that there is not this equality yet and that discrimination still exists. It is important that we reflect our concern with that ongoing discrimination and barriers which are not right. They are not what we want in our country. We want access for all people to find their own place in society and to make their own contribution. Clause 3(d) reads:
recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
I like this aspect of the Bill and this recognition that our concerns are not just with individual rights. Yes, there is a concern for individual rights and we must be vigilant and protect and enhance individual rights, but we must also ensure that communities be part of Canada. We are not a bunch of isolated atoms. We live in communities, and distinctive communities have their own contribution to make. I very much welcome this aspect of the Bill. I think it is important to our understanding of Canada as a community of communities.


Charles Joseph Clark: Hear, hear!


Lynn McDonald: And then, showing this balance from communities to individuals, subparagraph (e) reads:
Ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity.
There is a balancing act to be performed. Clause 3 has subparagraphs (a) through (j). Quite a number of these generalities reflect what is either existing practice or the policy and desire of Canadians to see that these matters be part of our Canadian society.
We might be a little critical at this stage and point out that these are vague and high sounding principles. So far there is nothing requiring action. The Minister is supposed to support these various things in some fashion or other. I think the criticisms which have been given by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, for example, are quite germane. The Minister is not required to act. The Government is not required to do anything in particular to ensure that these objectives are actually put into practice. We get into another section of the Bill. Subclause (2) reads:
It is further declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada that all federal institutions should-
We go from the general policy to actual institutions, government boards, commissions, agencies and so forth. Again the paragraph talks about equal opportunity:
-to obtain employment and advancement in those institutions;
March 22, 1988

(b) promote policies, programs and practices that enhance the ability of individuals and communities of all origins to contribute to the continuing evolution of Canada.
We have the need, however, not just to talk about this in some vague fashion, but there are areas where we need to encourage it very specifically in hiring practices and training practices to see that the old barriers are changed. This is true for members of visible minorities, women, native people and the handicapped. We need particular programs to overcome the prejudice and discrimination of the past and the lack of experience because of that discrimination to see that those barriers really do go down and people have a chance to make their way and get some assistance in moving past those barriers that were erected and still exist. The wording of this statement is very vague. Unless there is government action by way of employment equity programs, of positive hiring practices to ensure that people in different groups hear about opportunities and have a chance to reply, to have their merits taken seriously, and unless there are particular ways of achieving it, it will just remain a high sounding principle and will not help anyone to overcome the barriers of the past. Subparagraph (c) reads:
Promote policies, programs and practices that enhance the understanding of and respect for the diversity of the members of Canadian society.
The broadcasting example I gave a few minutes ago is a practical example of what another committee is already doing with respect to the same principles. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture is dealing with the broadcasting aspect. We are looking at advice to give to the Government for a new Broadcasting Act which we have not yet seen. We have been promised it for a long time and we rather expected it would be here. I hope we will see the Minister bring in a Bill that will enshrine that important symbolic area of broadcasting.
People spend a lot of time watching television and listening to radio. The images people see on the screen help to give them an idea of what Canada is all about. It is important that those institutions of broadcasting be honest and realistic in their reflection of Canadian reality, avoid negative stereotypes, show opportunities for people and show positive models for people to follow.
This will not just be words on paper that look great but do not mean anything in reality. It will require many institutions, if not all under a federal regulation, to act in their own particular way to see that multiculturalism is actually respected within their own framework.
In subparagraph (d) we read:
collect statistical data in order to enable the development of policies, programs and practices that are sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada;
If we do not have the statistics, we do not know if we are making any progress. For people who have been discriminated against we need to see where they are in the system, at what level and what income gaps there are. We would like to see
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
clearly over time that those differences in income, salary, wages and so forth, percentages in different levels of our different federal agencies in the different jobs, are reduced over time. We know that talent exists in all these different groups. If people are not well distributed through the system, we have to suspect it is not lack of talent on the part of any particular group but perhaps lack of opportunity or some kind of either deliberate or inadvertent barrier. Clearly collecting appropriate statistics is important to see if we are actually making progress in being fairer to people.
The next subparagraph reads:
(e) make use, as appropriate, of the language skills and cultural understanding of individuals of all origins;
Let me briefly refer to this as I know I have to wind up. The language skills that people from many different cultural groups bring to Canada are important for Canada. We belong to the United Nations and to an international trading community. It is important that language skills be retained and developed so that Canada can play its part in the developing and in the trading world. These are assets which people bring to us from their own culture. We should be glad we have them and we should work actively to promote them.
Since my time is up, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am pleased to take part in this debate to support the measures that are here already. The work is not over. We still need some other measures. I can assure you that my Party will be working to make these practicable, to see that they are realized and to see that we take the next steps the next time we work to improve and to ensure that we have a good statute on multiculturalism for Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mitges):: This is the 10 minute question and answer period. If there are no questions or comments, we will resume debate. The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer).


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in rising in this House to add my voice in support of Bill C-93. I applaud the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and all those who have worked with such diligence and devotion to prepare this legislation.
The message of this Bill is strong and clear. It affirms the multicultural and multiracial reality of our society. It affirms that cultural diversity enriches all Canadians. It affirms that our multicultural reality makes us more open and compassionate people while providing opportunities for our future prosperity in a global economy.
However, multiculturalism is more than a recognition of contemporary social realities. It is more than the retention of heritage, culture and languages, and it is more than freedom of

March 22, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
cultural expression and a fostering of equality. Multiculturalism is a dynamic force in our society which will not only propel us into the future but will also define what our future will be.
Multiculturalism is such a force because we recognize that it lies at the heart of our national identity, of our sense of being Canadian. Multiculturalism has meaning both for individuals and for the country as a whole. It is a way of creating a dynamic composite out of the many different elements which make up the Canadian way of life.
One of Canada's unique qualities has been an ability to build from diverse linguistic and cultural origins. Being Canadian means belonging to a united, bilingual, multicultural country. Being Canadian also means that 25 million people live in a free society which seeks constantly to adapt to changing social, economic and political realities, both at home and in the international sphere.
Bill C-93 is a vital part of that process, of the evolution of our nation. This Bill recognizes the strengths and benefits inherent in our pluralistic society. It recognizes our unique resources of skills, linguistic abilities and cultural knowledge which enrich our country at home and increase its international stature.
As Hon. Members are aware, the multiculturalism sector of the Department of Secretary of State administers a number of world-class programs designed to help retain the cultural richness inherent in our multicultural reality. These programs assist with research into cultural histories and fund theatre and the visual arts. They provide chairs of ethnic studies at many of our universities, and they generally help people give expression to their cultural values and ways of interpreting them. In so doing, of course, they also help to create a feeling of pride and self-worth.
Cultural retention, cultural pride and cultural communications are all essential ingredients if all Canadians are to achieve an active citizenship and a full involvement in this country. Fostering this spirit of active, involved citizenship is a major priority of this Government. It involves strengthening the sense of community that binds us together as a nation and it involves making our multicultural character understood and appreciated throughout Canada and the world.
Our record still needs improvement. We must continue to reduce the barriers to the full economic, social and political participation of all groups in our society. We want to educate Canadians on their own terms as to how a multicultural society contributes to a better life for us all.
It has been said that the best antidote to prejudice is education. That is why the Department of Secretary of State is promoting human rights education in the schools and the teaching of concepts of citizenship which include the recognition of multiculturalism in Canada. The need for this kind of education also produced the court challenges program administered by the Canadian Council for Social Development.
As Hon. Members are aware, this program supports challenges to the courts based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The aim is to help define how those freedoms apply in practice and to educate people about the nature of their rights.
Another government priority is a more complex and sensitive one. It involves changing attitudes to make people and institutions more sensitive to our multicultural reality and more responsive to its requirements.
Changing immigration patterns have greatly altered the demographic make-up of Canada. Census data from 1981 and 1986 show that the proportion of non-British and non-French groups has increased to the point where people with origins other than French or British represent over 37.5 per cent of the Canadian population. Collectively, these groups form the majority in Toronto and Vancouver and account for a significant proportion of Montreal's population.
More than one million Canadians are members of visible minority communities. Studies show that by the turn of the century, visible minorities will approach 10 per cent of the Canadian population. This trend presents new challenges for a society and its institutions. The challenge will be how to accept and interact with all cultural and racial groups so as to encourage their full participation as productive citizens.
The legislation proposed in Bill C-93 speaks to all Canadians, their communities and their institutions. It will give full legislative recognition to our cultural and racial diversity. However, because the Canadian Multiculturalism Act will accommodate the realities of tomorrow as well as today, it provides the basic elements of a race-relations strategy designed to encourage tolerance and understanding among all members of our society, now and in the future. This strategy will stress the need to promote public awareness, it will help combat racism and it will encourage institutions to adapt their policies and practices to ensure equality and accommodate racial and cultural differences.
As the custodian of many institutions, the federal Government will be challenged to provide leadership to ensure that discriminatory action or ways of thinking are discontinued and that federal institutions protect a vibrant image of Canada's cultural and racial diversity.
Bill C-93 will enhance Canadian citizenship. It will broaden the reach of Canada's two official languages and it will establish in law an affirmation of Canada's multicultural character. The Bill seeks to provide a legislative base, a statutory declaration of policy for what up until now has simply been a discretionary commitment by successive federal Governments.
As it now stands, the multicultural program could be either drastically reduced or fundamentally redirected, possibilities which worry many ethnocultural groups. A statute, on the other hand, will provide a specific vehicle for preserving and enhancing the multicultural heritage of Canadians as promised
March 22, 1988

in the Constitution. By officially recognizing the historic and future contributions of multiculturalism to Canadian society, the Bill will strengthen the sense of national unity among all Canadians and ethnocultural communities.
Perhaps an even greater asset of Bill C-93 is its determination in the pursuit of social justice. We as a nation have a long parliamentary commitment to social justice and human rights. Even before Confederation, Sir Hector Langevin declared that the Government should ensure justice to all races, to all religions, to all nationalities and to all interests. That was written in 1865. The far-sighted Sir Hector went on to become Canada's first Secretary of State.
Our approach to human rights and to a multiculturalism policy for Canada reinforce each other. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the 1982 constitutional Act is one of the strongest declarations of human rights anywhere in the world. These legal commitments are backed up by a strong judiciary, an active citizenship and a sensitive and responsive Government.
I believe that the multicultural nature of our society helped shape the kind of collective will which led to such a strong declaration of rights in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That document guarantees rights for our aboriginal peoples, rights for the disabled, rights for women, rights for people of all races, colours and creeds in this country.
Multiculturalism is also a key element in Canada's profile abroad. Our determination to ensure cultural and racial equality provides a strong model for other plural societies, a model that has received international accolades.
I was pleased to learn that Sweden has indicated an interest to come to Canada to study and evaluate how our multicultural policy is working, with the hope of adapting a similar model in Sweden.
The image of Canada as a country that believes in cultural equality and human rights, and acts on what it believes, bolsters our credibility when we take a stand on international issues. It gives us a unique advantage in international diplomacy, especially on human rights issues.
Our commitment to multiculturalism as a force for change and growth within our society can have an impact on improved international relations. We have expertise and language abilities to tap in our culturally diverse society which can give us a unique advantage in world trade opportunities.
International trade is one means of binding together the world community. We become mutually dependent on each other and good social and political relations are almost inevitable outcomes of good economic relations.
Quite apart from using our multicultural expertise in the world community, we must nurture and safeguard the vast
Royal Assent
potential of multiculturalism within our own borders. This is an increasing realization that the future building of our nation will be dynamic and harmonious only to the extent to which it fully recognizes and includes all Canadians from every origin.
Bill C-93 acknowledges our respect for this country's racial and cultural diversity, and establishes our commitment to equality of access for every member of the Canadian family.
Our diversity is one of our greatest national assets. It has brought us enormous economic benefits and increasing international respect. It has attracted people to this country like a magnet from all corners of the globe.
Rather than diminishing our sense of a common identity, this collective diversity has enhanced our definition of being Canadian and has created an image of Canada as the world's first international nation.
This Government has clearly defined its vision of our Canadian identity as rooted in our citizenship values, our two official languages and our multicultural reality. Multiculturalism is a policy that promotes national unity and cultural harmony. It improves the quality of our daily life and offers important opportunities for the country's future prosperity.
Bill C-93 is based on these beliefs and on the conviction that all Canadians must have an equal chance to contribute to the dynamic multicultural evolution of our nation. By respecting the traditional diversity of our society and by looking to the future with a sure sense of the past, we have a stronger sense of ourselves. We know who we are and therefore we can better determine where we will go.
Bill C-93 is an affirmation of our Government's forwardlooking strategy. The passage into law of Bill C-93 will mark the start of a new era. Our children and grandchildren will look back on it as a symbol of our new maturity as a nation, a nation committed to fairness, equality and partnership among all Canadians.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lanthier):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received from the Senate to the effect that it passed without amendment Bill C-109, An Act to provide borrowing authority.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

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

March 22, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act Government House
Ottawa
March 22, 1988 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald Eric Le Dain, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 22nd day of March, 1988, at 4:45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold Amyot
Secretary to the Governor General



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crombie that Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for my colleague for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer), who stated he was very proud of the multiculturalism program in this country. He worked hard on the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, which recommended that the Government introduce a multiculturalism Bill to strengthen multiculturalism as a national program.
The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park, as a Government member, took part in the committee's work and added his name to the unanimous report.
I would therefore like to ask my colleague for Toronto, when he considers the reaction to our committee report, how does he feel about the many recommendations that were not accepted by the Government? And I know, Mr. Speaker, I did not expect that the Government would accept all recommendations. But it certainly was my hope that the Government would accept the two or three most significant recommendations in the report, the one about the Department of multiculturalism and the two recommendations by the co-sponsor. Mr. Speaker, they are really significant in that they ensure the success of this policy on multiculturalism.
I respect the Hon. Member's word and I know he worked a lot on that committee. However, 1 would like him to answer this question and give this House his own view.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lanthier):: Congratulations to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) for his magnificent French. This is a commendable effort.
The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) may now answer.


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that we are now debating the principle of the Bill. I hope members of the standing committee will have an opportunity to examine this Bill carefully at committee stage and come back with recommendations to the House. The Hon. Member will know, as someone who has been close to this subject since as far back as the mid 1970s, that the progress we have seen in multiculturalism in this country has come in small steps. In multiculturalism, as in other areas of government, we do not achieve and accomplish everything we want in one day or one week.
The Member was present in Toronto at the hearings of the Committee on Multiculturalism and will know that the report to which he refers received a wide variety of reaction and opinion. There were those who thought that the report was right on. There were those who thought that the report went too far in making its recommendations. Of course, there were those who thought that it did not go far enough. Therefore, to suggest that there is unanimity in support among the ethnocultural communities on either the Bill before us or the report tabled by the standing committee would be inaccurate.
I hope that during the committee stage we will have the appropriate time to examine the existing legislation and perhaps improve it where required. However, and this is important to note, I have not heard anyone during this debate indicate that the introduction of this Bill is not a significant step in taking multiculturalism forward in Canada. It is to that aspect that I address my remarks today.
[ Translation]


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Hon. colleague's feeling. I agree that the multiculturalism program, in the history of this Parliament, had a degree of success in furthering a just society.

I realize that while the report was unanimous among the committee members of all three political Parties, there was not unanimity of feeling throughout the country with regard to all of the recommendations. I did not expect that there would be.
However, surely one of the recommendations ought to have found its way into the text of this Bill. I agree with the Member that no one is arguing that the presentation of the multiculturalism Bill, which would offer a legislative framework to any program or policy, is negative. We all concur with that.
However, we cannot allow ourselves to applaud simply because a Bill was introduced in the House. Rather, we must scrutinize the Bill to see how the legislation advances the cause. I was somewhat disillusioned by the fact that this Bill does not reflect the hopes of those in the community that, while this would not solve the world's ills at one swoop, it
March 22, 1988

would be an opportunity to push a few more things through the window.
I hope that the Member will agree with me that from that vantage point the Bill is in need of amendment. One recommendation which received unanimous consent in the community and at the hearings was the one regarding the commissioner position. It is felt that a commissioner would try to resolve the dilemma by talking about the realization of a certain objective and then actually realizing it. The establishment of a commissioner's position would be one step toward, not by command and control, but by enforcement throughout the civil service. This would not be done in a coercive manner, as some Members have suggested but, similarly to the responsibilities of the Commission for Official Languages would ensure that that to which we subscribe as a firm policy and tenet of the country in this Chamber is not ignored once the lights are out and the debate is over but that every day of the working week the Government of Canada starts with its own house and ensures that, through its departments, agencies, and crown corporations, multiculturalism becomes the rule rather than the exception.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lanthier):: I am sorry to advise the Member that the answer must be much shorter than the question. He will have two minutes to answer.


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, I will try to confine myself to two minutes, albeit with some difficulty.
My colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), asked an important question. He referred to two specific issues which are critical in any Bill. First, he said that the mere introduction of a Bill is not that significant. The important thing about this Bill is that it puts into law something which to date has been at the whim of the government in office. That is an important distinction.
Second, the Member leaves the impression that there is no monitoring function. That is not the case. The Bill provides for the Minister to report to Parliament, on the fifth sitting day after January 31 of each year, his progress on the implementation of this Bill and, second, provides for the review of that progress by the House of Commons Committee on Multiculturalism.
Therefore, although the Bill may not have all of the requirements to which the Hon. Member referred, it would be inaccurate to leave the impression that it contains no monitoring facilities.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I realize that there is only a short time before we receive Royal Assent, but I would like to say a few words on this very important Bill dealing with a very important subject.
I would ask the House to indulge me for a moment while I wallow a little bit in nostalgia. I grew up in the north end of Winnipeg, the society of which is a source of perhaps the majority of gag writers in Hollywood and senior bureaucrats in
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Ottawa, which is a rare combination. It is certainly one of the parts of the country which combines the most interesting mixture of cultural groups; Ukrainians, Jews, Germans, Poles, even the odd Welsh Canadians, such as my family, which are in some ways the most ignored cultural minority in the country, aside from Liberals in western Canada.
I recall very vividly that one day in high school a good friend of mine by the name of Sawchuk came to school and announced that his name was no longer Sawchuk but was now Saunders. When we inquired as to why that was, he said that his father, who worked for one of Canada's largest department stores, had reached the point where he was looking for a promotion but that the condition of his promotion was that his name be changed.
At that age perhaps we did not have quite the same understanding of what that meant in terms of the indignity that was being imposed upon my friend and his family of having to deny their roots, their culture, their language, their heritage, and their history for the sake of getting a small promotion in one of Canada's largest companies.
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, because to me that is what the multicultural policy is all about. It is an attempt to respond to the second class citizenship which has been imposed on far too many Canadians. Simply because of what they are, not who they are, they are labelled, and because of name, language, or culture are stereotyped or type-cast and not given the same rights or recognition as are those who have had a longer history in this country or have the name of a French or English antecedent.
There is no doubt that we have made a lot of progress since then. There has been a lot of accomplishment, and even in this Chamber today we can see examples of Canadians who have come from non-French or English backgrounds who now exercise prominent roles of leadership in politics. The same is true in business, the arts, culture and professions throughout the country.
However, it would be wrong to say that we have reached a satisfactory state. I think we are a long way from that. We are, to my mind, as I understand it from my own community of Winnipeg, at a very important juncture. The sense of accomplishment and aspiration of a large majority of Canadians, about whom the Hon. Member from High Park was talking, is still restrained, still circumscribed by sometimes real discriminatory actions. I still think that is at the forefront of the multicultural issue.
There is the example of a young Vietnamese couple who came to this country when I was Minister of Immigration. Their children are about ready to enter university but do not have the money to go. It is simply an economic fact of life that they are not able to acquire the means to send their very bright and able kids to university. That is a form of discrimination.

March 22, 1988
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
The same thing we faced back in the 1940s and 1950s is there for that newer group.
I spoke to a Ukrainian business and professional group a few weeks ago. They have a great sense of still trying to search out their roots and language back in the Ukraine. They have a sense of denial. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), who is sitting opposite, knows of the problem of Ukrainians in the Soviet Union feeling that as a Government we must do more. I do not in any way take away from the efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs because he has made great efforts. But there is still a feeling of uncertainty, of a tentative acceptance. There is a feeling that they are still not fully, 100 per cent, guaranteed all their rights.
That is why, I think, my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has argued the need for a strengthened structure in this country, a more effective commissioner of multiculturalism, for example, to give strong, effective leadership in weaving that fabric together in a more effective way, of having in the federal apparatus individuals who, by way of their office, can provide further leadership.
A very important victory was won with Article 27 of the Charter which recognized the multicultural fact of Canada. It is important to note that recently a group of legal experts gathered together to determine the meaning of that article and said it is still an open question as to how it can be incorporated into the fabric of the rights of Canadians. We need someone to give initiative to this particular Bill to ensure that the right challenges are made in the courts and to ensure that Article 27 is given life and meaning.
Without that apparatus, without that ongoing watch-dog role, initiative role, I am afraid it will not happen. That is why the argument we are making is not against the principle of the Bill and not against the philosophy of the Bill. We are simply saying that it could be a lot more. The time and age calls for it. There is a certain kind of mustiness about the Bill. We are not going back to the time when one had to change one's name, but it is not the kind of Bill that will deal with the realities of today and, certainly, tomorrow.
The role of the federal Government, I believe, in this area, as in all areas of human rights, is to provide leadership, to show the way, not simply to follow. That is why the argument that we are making is that this Bill, as strong as it may be in philosophy, is weak in implementation and structure. It is weak in the real hard-nosed organizational ability which is required to make any bureaucracy or large organization work.
I will conclude my remarks because I know the royal presence is near and I do not want to frustrate that. We argue strongly that the Bill should be amended to take into account that leadership role in making the multicultural fact not just a philosophy but to bring it to its full fruition as a reality. That is why we hope government Members will be prepared to consider the kinds of amendments my colleague will bring forward.


Sergio Marchi: Can the Chair clarify the procedure? Some Members are saying that I can ask a question of my colleague, although he has only completed five minutes of his 20-minute speech. Can we have a clarification on what is happening?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has asked for clarification. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod has not arrived. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) still has the floor.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, this is called "ragging the puck", is it?


Charles Joseph Clark: It is the only time we would encourage you to speak, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: I thank the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs for that warm endorsement.
As I was saying, one of the reasons for this kind of Bill is to give that leadership. Let me point to another example that triggered my interest when the Member from High Park was speaking. I believe he touched upon a very important aspect of multiculturalism, one that has not been properly developed, that is, the utilization of part of its characteristics, as a way of extending ourselves to the rest of the world. I do not think there is any argument that we live in a time when all of us must realize we are going to have to be much more competitive and effective in terms of our international economic and political relations.
I was struck again by that thought three or four months ago when I was at a hearing in Edmonton. A coalition of ethnic leaders appeared before our trade task force and pointed out that very limited development takes place in terms of the use of our cultural heritage for trade promotion or development in terms of learning other languages, learning about other cultures and using the strengths so many of these groups bring to our country. We are not properly exploiting them. 1 address this point to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He knows I have other grievances about the cut-backs on promotion and development work.
It would seem to me that a very major role would be to utilize, through our universities, colleges and schools, the kind of strength that can arise out of this emergence of multiculturalism. Let us talk about the Pacific Rim, for instance. There is an incredible richness of the Indo-Chinese population in Canada in terms of opening up avenues of understanding for the rest of Canadians.
We can also use that as a ways of developing our opportunities abroad. That seems to me one of the aspects of multiculturalism I have talked about, the new fabric or new reality. These people are saying: "We are here. We have skills. We have now reached a point in our own maturity. Use us. Put us to work". But we need some support in doing that. I do not have a perfectly calculated formula but, I think the objective is worthy. I think what should be looked at is how the federal Government can work out the proper means and mechanisms.
March 22, 1988

That comes back to the basic thesis we have followed in this debate.
We do not believe this Bill enables us to do that. We do not believe there is sufficient presence of the multicultural fact in the federal Government, either at the ministerial or departmental level or at the commissioner level, to give us the capacity to wield our influence and to bring about those kinds of judgment calls that are required.
There are two very different areas, one is the case of the prosecution of Article 27 of the Charter, extending it over to basic economic fact in the area of trade. There are two ways in which we could substantially exploit and develop the new reality of Canada, something we have not done. We ask, why not? Part of the reason has been the way the multicultural issue has got stuck in a time warp at the federal level. I think this legislation is partly a reflection of that. We have become perhaps too used to the conventional ways of doing things and we have not attempted to go beyond those things. We have not opened up our opportunity for further development in this area.
Let me point to yet another area where I think we must develop the multicultural fact where federal leadership will be required, that is, on the side of immigration that does not deal with people coming to this country. It is what happens when people get here. There has been a long-standing argument and debate between federal bureaucracies, between the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Employment and Immigration, about their role in the settlement and development of immigrants once they arrive, to say nothing about the debate between the provinces and the federal Government. That is still a debate that is unresolved. It has still not been given the kind of clear direction it requires. Yet we see all kinds of examples, whether it is in the area of the development of language skills for immigrant women or whether it is with respect to training skills for people who are in the refugee stream. In these areas it is still somewhat of a patchwork arrangement.
Once again, it seems to me that if there were somebody, both in terms of a department with a clear interest or even a commissioner of multiculturalism, then that would be a cause that they could take up. They could provide the focal point within this type of vast apparatus around Ottawa to try to bring it all together and to get the factions and the departments which are each fighting for their turf to say, "Wait a minute. There is a very important issue happening here".
Once again, I do not see it happening. Part of the reason is the vacuum. That role is not being exercised as it effectively should be exercised.
I offer that comment as a demonstration of the case made by my colleague about the need not only to think forward but to have the means and organizational strength at the federal level to do so.
Royal Assent
I also bring up this point concerning the area in which we relate to other jurisdictions, particularly to the provinces but to the municipalities as well. I do not have the latest account, but I have been intrigued by the number of cities which have had to set up race relations commissions. In Toronto and in my own city of Winnipeg this has been done. These commissions play very important roles because they are dealing right at the ground level with problems of discrimination in hiring practices. In some cases they are dealing with actual conflicts between different cultural or racial groups.
There was an example just recently in the case of police relations with cultural groups. This is something which is becoming far too common, unfortunately so, in our cities. The question I asked and one which I pose again to members of the Cabinet is this one. Who is responsible at the federal level for relating to that real issue that is taking place in Vancouver, Toronto and Winnipeg? Who is working with those very important grass-root racial commissions to see what might be done to try to co-ordinate, whether it is employment programs or the immigrant development programs about which I spoke?
There may be individual Members of Parliament doing it. But they do it in a piecemeal fashion. Some may go to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). As I recall, the commission in Toronto came to me when I held that post to say that there was an emergence up in the York area of some real gang problems with young visible minorities. Kids were running into real problems and conflict on the streets. I was asked if I could help with a couple of employment programs in that area.
That was but one piece of the puzzle. The problem is, who do we go to at the federal level to organize the entire issue for us all? I do not think there is that person there right now.
I use those examples simply by way of argument to show why it is important that this Bill be strengthened substantially and that the proper and useful principle that it espouses be given a much more effective form or structure by the time we debate this Bill at third reading.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I was genuinely interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). 1 know that he is speaking not only from his experience as a Minister and a parliamentarian but also as a citizen of a very multicultural city-



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
[Stage Direction]
March 22, 1988
Statue of Monarch
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
['It being 5.14 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour, the Deputy to Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-91, an Act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act-Chapter No. 4.
Bill C-96, an Act to validate certain customs duty orders relating to fresh fruits and vegetables-Chapter No. 5.
Bill C-99, an Act to amend the Currency Act-Chapter No. 6.
Bill C-109, an Act to provide borrowing authority-Chapter No. 7.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the considerations of Private Members Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 4, 1988, consideration of the motion of Mr. Tupper:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of commissioning the structure of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, to be placed on Parliament Hill in commemoration of the thirty-fifth anniversary of Her ascension to the Throne.
Mr. Speaker:: When the motion was last before the House the Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Binns) had the floor. On debate, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry).


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to add a few remarks today to the remarks of many of my colleagues in the House from all three Parties concerning the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) that a statue be erected to commemorate the contribution of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, to Canadian society.
The suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) that a commission be established to look into the number and nature of statues to be erected on Parliament Hill is a good one and worth following.
Most of us in the House have lived most of our lives in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. The contributions of this monarch
have been very considerable to Canadian society, to the society of the Commonwealth, and to the society of Great Britain where she customarily has her residence. The parallel has been drawn between Queen Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria. Those two monarchs have reigned in Canada for 100 of the last 161 years. That reflects the contribution of two great women, according to the lights of their own belief and the values of their own time, to the development of Canadian society and indeed to the development of the Commonwealth as a whole.
The ascension of Queen Elizabeth II to the Throne is a day that is very fresh in my memory. Her father, the late King George VI, died on my sixth birthday. Thus, since my sixth birthday, both in Great Britain and here in Canada, I have only known Queen Elizabeth II as the reigning monarch. Therefore, I think it fair to say that my formative years, my maturing years, and the years of my adulthood and political career have been spent under the reign of Queen Elizabeth II.
She has surely seen some changes in those 36 years. After all, in 1952 when she acceded to the Throne, the Commonwealth was by and large made up of colonies which were in some form of tutelage or subordinate relationship to Great Britain under the British Crown.
Now I believe that we can truly say that the Commonwealth is a commonwealth of nations where all, despite differences in size, prosperity, and influence within world society, are rightly and correctly treated as being equal within the framework of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth has not been an institution merely for the preservation, the spread, or even the development of British culture. It has become a forum where nations that share a common heritage, particularly in terms of their institutions as well as the English language, can discuss matters of world affairs and can, when the spirit moves them, exercise collective influence on those world affairs.
Having set the historical context, and turning to the matter of the statue, it seems to me that one of the practicalities in such an initiative would be to ask Her Majesty if she would like to see a statue erected on Parliament Hill within her lifetime. It has not been the practice in Britain, although it is in some countries, to erect statues during the lifetime of the person commemorated or represented by the statue. It is still not something about which many of us who have British heritage feel particularly comfortable.
Many excellent suggestions have been made in this debate concerning other people who might be commemorated. I do not feel it demeans or derogates in any way from Her Majesty the Queen and Her achievements to discuss that in the context of this motion. After all, the opportunity to discuss such a topic, important and interesting as it is, does not come regularly or frequently to us by way of any other opportunity. This is not to establish any form of comparison between Her Majesty and other people who might be commemorated, but to suggest that not only the political history, political traditions, and political life of Canada should be commemorated by way
March 22, 1988

of statues on Parliament Hill, but many other integral and fundamental Canadian values, Canadian activities, and Canadian achievements should also be considered in the erection of statues.
Because we are an extremely far-flung federal nation, we should consider whether we should concentrate our efforts, energies, and attention on the statues which should be erected on Parliament Hill or whether we should set our scopes wider and look at other strategic or historic locations where statues might be erected.
Of course the matter of partisanship must always be avoided in the consideration of the erection of statues. It does not come into the consideration of the present motion since the Queen and the institution of the monarchy historically, and certainly
Statue of Monarch
today, have been above the level of political partisanship and political fray.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lanthier):: It being 5.14 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.14 p.m..
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, March 23, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers