1989-06-22

Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 150(1) of the Financial Administration Act and Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the first annual report of Emergency Preparedness (Canada).


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eleventh report of the Striking Committee. If the House would give its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later. We would ask that at that time that we dispense with the usual reading by the Clerk as it is simply membership changes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


FINANCE-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to Canada's monetary policy.

The Finance Committee therefore recommends:
1.	That the Bank of Canada moderate its monetary policy and not resist downward market pressure on interest rates, whatever the consequences for the value of the Canadian dollar abroad.
2.	That the Government consider the advisability of relying less on short-term debt by considerably modifying its debt structure in favour of the longer term, as market conditions permit.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS ACT
Hon. Frank Oberle (for the Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-29, an Act to establish the Department of Forestry, to amend the Forestry Development and Research Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to grant the Minister leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


JUDGES ACT
Hon. Doug Lewis (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Judges Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to grant the Minister leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

Petitions


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion to be put immediately and voted upon without debate.
I move:
That immediately upon adoption of the motion to concur in the Supplementary Estimates (A), for the fiscal year ending 1989-90, the Appropriation Bill based thereon shall be introduced; and
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said Bill may be advanced through two or more stages in the same sitting; and
That, no later than two hours after the introduction of the said Bill, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then under way, and every question necessary to dispose of the then remaining stage or stages of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively without debate or amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the house to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty and my pleasure to present a petition duly certified by the Clerk from over 200 people in Trinity-Spadina and other parts of Toronto who are concerned about what may happen to over 120,000 people now in Canada who are in the refugee backlog from previous years because some of them do not have work permits with which to maintain themselves or they want to work. They will all be examined in a way that may be unfair or inadequate on humanitarian considerations, the grounds of humanitarian or compassionate consideration to include the presence in Canada of relatives and the successful establishment of refugee claimants in Canada. They want special consideration for those refugee claimants from war zones, under oppressive Governments and affected by natural disasters.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, relating to the consent earlier given by the House, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), that the eleventh report of the Striking Committee presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of tabling today, on behalf of many constituents in the riding of Papineau-Saint-Mi-chel, a petition signed with great enthusiasm, at the request of our colleague, the Hon. Member for Lauri-er-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). The undersigned are asking the Canadian Government to increase payments to the provinces to help finance hospital care, and more specifically, to earmark $4 billion for research on cures for AIDS, cancer and heart disease and to help Canada's hospitals acquire the equipment and instruments they need to alleviate the suffering of their patients.

mm
June 22, 1989


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which it is my privilege to present on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Papineau-Saint-Michel, who signed this petition at the invitation of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). The undersigned believe that the Government of Canada erred in its proposals to make considerable cuts in unemployment insurance benefits, to impose stricter conditions for eligibility and to reduce the benefit period.
The undersigned are particularly incensed that the Canadian Government will stop paying its share of $2.9 billion into the unemployment insurance fund, leaving the program's financing up to workers and their employers.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from constituents of Ottawa-Vanier and from many communities within that riding to the effect that they consider the National Arts Centre Orchestra an excellent world-class orchestra which has brought fame to Canada and its capital city.
Whereas the petitioners believe that the NAC orchestra is in imminent danger of being damaged or even destroyed, and whereas they consider the present management to have proved itself to be incompetent and inadequate in artistic matters, the undersigned petition this House that, as a matter of priority, to ensure that the National Arts Centre maintain its orchestra at its current size and present standard of excellence, and ensure that sound cultural credentials be the main criterion for any new appointments to the NAC board of trustees.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition signed by more than 4,000 people from Montreal, asking the Government to do something about the terrible situation in Lebanon.
Petitions
The undersigned are worried about their relatives and friends who are still living in Lebanon, in these difficult circumstances.
For Lebanese citizens, life is a daily struggle. A shortage of medical care, electric power and even drinking water makes life very difficult and sometimes intolerable.
The undersigned are asking the Government to bring pressure to bear to stop the useless killing in Lebanon and to demand the immediate withdrawal of all non-Lebanese armed forces and militia from Lebanese territory.
I wish to join the undersigned in asking the Government to show support for the independence of Lebanon and the security of its citizens.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to present a petition containing 3,370 signatures certified pursuant to Standing Order 36, which are to be added to some 53,000 already submitted by other Members of this House.
The petitioners behind these thousands of signatures call upon the Government of Canada to revise its extradition laws in order that we may prevent Canada from becoming a haven for escaped convicts, convicted murderers and those charged with a commission of atrocious crimes in the United States.
The petitioners humbly pray that the Government of Canada address the problem immediately.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, considering that today there is a massive rally taking place in British Columbia against the logging of Carmanah Valley, I think it is appropriate that I present this petition on behalf of a number of British Columbians who are also concerned about another environmental issue, namely, the exploration and development of oil and natural gas off the West Coast of Canada. They are calling upon Parliament to do whatever we can to encourage the Government to prohibit any type of exploration for these kinds of activities off the West Coast.

June 22, 1989
Point of Order-Mr. Heap VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker,
I am very honoured today to rise in the House under Standing Order 36 to present a petition supporting the victims of violence. My petition represents signatures of 1,267 residents from across Canada who call upon the Government for tougher laws under the criminal justice system.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add to the already hundreds of people who have pleaded with the House to pay close attention to what is going on with the National Arts Centre orchestra, a world-class orchestra which has brought fame to Canada and its capital city. I would remind Hon. Members that the orchestra was created at the instance of the House and belongs to the people of Canada.
Whereas we believe that the National Arts Centre orchestra is in imminent danger of being damaged or even destroyed, and whereas we consider the present management to have proved itself to be incompetent and inadequate in artistic matters, the undersigned add their names, and ask that as a matter of priority, we ensure that the National Arts Centre maintain its orchestra at its current size and present standard of excellence, and they wish that we ensure that sound cultural credentials be the main criteria for any new appointments to the National Arts Centre board of trustees.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would ask your assistance in clarifying a point concerning
what happens at the closing of debate under closure, Standing Order 57, which says that no Member shall rise to speak after one o'clock.
Last night, I rose to speak at about two or three minutes to one with the understanding that under that Standing Order, I would be able to complete my 20 minutes. Some of the rowdies on the Government side were yelling time, time, time. The Speaker caught my eye and was making wind-up motions with his hands, so I asked him how much time have I left. He did not answer me but he spread his hands as much as to say, you know, no more. So foolishly, I sat down rather than force him to stand up and answer my question.
I would like a clarification for myself and for others who may be debating close to the one o'clock hour during closure as to whether it is correct to interpret that as meaning that I could have finished and should have been told by the Speaker that I could finish my 20 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: First, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadina (Mr. Heap) for letting the Chair have notice of this matter. I have, as I am sure others have, looked at Hansard and what the Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadina relates does not show up in Hansard. However, I have made inquiries this morning and I understand that the question asked by the Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadina with respect to whether he had more time or not does come through on the tape.
The point the Hon. Member makes is an important one. I would ask his co-operation to let the Chair consider the matter, and I will report back very quickly with respect to the situation.
I also want to point out to Hon. Members that I thank the Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadina for the way he has put his point of order. He is asking for clarification, and I am grateful that he is not putting the Chair in the position of having to contemplate whether or not the vote that followed is invalid. I think I can advise Hon. Members that the vote would have to stand, but I appreciate the way the Hon. Member has put the point of order, and I will come back very shortly with clarification.
June 22, 1989



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-24, an Act to amend certain legislation respecting superannuation and other pensions, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce the second reading of Bill C-24, a Bill that proposes to remove from a number of Public Service superannuation laws, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Pension Act as it applies to disabled veterans, certain restrictions on survivors' benefits based on age and marital status.
First of all, I would like to point out that the tabling of this Bill at the beginning of the second session of Parliament testifies to the Government's sustained interest in and commitment to the reform of our pension legislation.

Bill C-24, entitled the Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act, would amend the superannuation plans for federal public servants, members of the armed forces and the RCMP, certain non-career diplomats and Members of Parliament. It would also amend certain provisions of the Pension Act which apply to disabled veterans. Because the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Merrithew) will speak to the effects of this Bill on veterans' pensions, I will confine my remarks to the changes the Bill proposes for the Public Service plans.
The first change proposed under the Bill would remove the provisions which suspend or terminate a surviving spouse's allowance in the event that the surviving spouse remarries. Removing this provision would confer lifetime entitlement to a survivor's pension on an eligible recipient.
Second, the Bill removes in four of the Public Service plans provisions calling for a reduction in the amount of a surviving spouse's pension when a survivor is 20 or
Superannuation
more years younger than the plan member. Third, the Bill removes the provisions which disentitled the child of a deceased plan member to a student allowance if the student is married after reaching age 18.
A fourth change which has very limited application removes the provision under the RCMP Pension Continuation Act and the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act that a son's entitlement ceases at age 18 whereas an unmarried daughter retains benefits until age 21. The Bill provides that the children's benefits continue until age 21 regardless of marital status.

Under these pension plans, some surviving spouses elected, when they remarried, to receive a lump sum instead of having their benefits suspended. Since these benefits will now be reinstated, the lump sums paid will have to be paid back to the pension fund accounts. I can assure Hon. Members that everything will be done to ensure that the reimbursement process is handled with sensitivity and compassion. We would like to see the regulations provide for a reimbursement process similar to that being used now to recover overpayments from other survivors. This means that 10 per cent of the reinstated pension would be collected to pay for the lump sum payment, and there would be no extra charges. However, individuals may opt to increase or decrease this percentage, depending on their financial circumstances.
The Government estimates that about 2,200 surviving spouses will benefit from the elimination of the provision on remarriage which was part of the Public Service plans. The other changes will affect a smaller number of people. There may be as many as 500 surviving spouses receiving reduced benefits on the basis of an age difference of 20 years or more. The Government estimates that the additional benefit payments to be paid annually as a result of these changes will total $11 million.
Mr. Speaker, I believe all Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that the Bill provides, as of the effective date of the legislation, for the reinstatement of suspended or reduced benefits in the case of individuals who were affected by these provisions. I would like to point out to the House that those responsible for operating the pensions plans in question will make every effort to find every individual whose benefits were

June 22, 1989
Superannuation
suspended, reduced or terminated as result of the provisions that the present Bill is supposed to eliminate.
It is a pleasure to present a Bill of this nature which complements other major pension reforms that the Government has brought into being through substantive amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the Canada Pension Plan, and the Judges Act.
On a final note, I am aware that there are number of outstanding and important pension issues which need to be addressed in the public service plans. Agreement on some of these matters has already been reached with plan members, while other matters need further consultation. The Government will resume, where it is appropriate, consultations with plan members, their representatives, and pensioners. Public service pension reform is a priority matter with me, and I look forward to returning to the House with a comprehensive pension Bill in the not too distant future.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning to extend my compliments to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) for doing the honourable thing for the widows, widowers, and children of federal pensioners.
After four long years, he has managed to overcome the inertia of his Government and table a Bill that is a first step toward bringing federal pensions in line with the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At last, the survivors of those who worked for the people of Canada will not have to choose between "living in sin" to continue receiving income they relied on for their retirement years, or remarrying and forgoing a pension to which they are entitled.
In 1985, the report Equality for All recommended that federal superannuation legislation be amended to remove the discriminatory provisions that offended Section 15 of the Charter, on the basis of marital status, gender or age.
Specifically, the report recommended the repeal of provisions terminating pension benefits for a surviving spouse who remarried, for surviving children who married, or reducing pensions to survivors more than 20 years younger than the pensioner, the so-called "sugar daddy" clause. These are the recommendations the Bill before us today finally implements.
In its response to the report in 1986 entitled Towards Equality, the Government stated that it was studying these amendments as part of the public service pension reform process then taking place. In fact, for other pensioners, it did implement those changes. The Canada Pension Plan was amended effective January 1,1987, and the Pension Benefits Standards Act of December 1985 covering agencies under federal jurisdiction also ensured the continuation of benefits upon remarriage.
Yet when the report on public service pension reform was tabled by the Minister in June 1986, it left the discriminatory features in federal superannuation legislation for future consideration by a yet non-existent pension management board. Future consideration may be acceptable in trading hockey players. It is not acceptable when dealing with people's livelihoods.
The next stage in this saga was the introduction of the infamous Bill C-33 to reform public service pension legislation. It removed guaranteed indexing from federal pension plans, but did nothing to remove glaring inequities based on marital status, gender, and age. That Bill died on the Order Paper two years later as the Government faced an election and the wrath of a quarter of a million public service employees across Canada.
In bringing forward this Bill today for second reading, the Minister is doing more than correcting contraventions of the Charter. He is also saving the taxpayers of Canada a very hefty legal bill. Lest anyone believe that this Bill is motivated by a new spirit of generosity or concern for the deprivation of widows, widowers, and children of federal pensioners, let me draw the attention of the House to the more likely motivation. A court case was launched on April 13 of this year by the Federal Superannuates National Association.
The association has applied to the Federal Court of Canada for a declaration that the termination of pension benefits based on marital status is unconstitutional. In the case of the particular plaintiff, the application seeks reinstatement of the pension, reimbursement of lost

pension benefits, costs, and "such further and other relief as the honourable court deems just".
The Minister has moved wisely and quickly to avoid a lengthy legal battle that would be both costly to the Government, embarrassing, and could have had even more far-reaching results than the Bill before the House today. A guarantee of fairness is an essential element of a good pension plan. Bill C-24 is a long awaited and positive step in that direction.
No one can disagree that those changes are necessary, long overdue, and deserve to be passed without delay. After so many years of inaction, surviving family members are finally getting the benefits to which they have been entitled for so long. They are finally being treated with fairness and without discrimination.
Another change which may not elicit as much attention, but is nonetheless welcome, is the removal of gender based language in the Acts. The law will now recognize that pensioners and survivors may be either men or women, that a child may be either a son or a daughter, and should be treated equally regardless. It will recognize that even Senators-heaven forbid-may be survived by a spouse who is not necessarily a widow.
However, I have several concerns I wish to raise which prevent me from heaping too much praise. First, there is no retroactivity provision in the Bill before us. Benefits will be reinstated from the day the Act comes into force with no compensation provisions for the time benefits were suspended. This means that a surviving spouse, regardless of whether he or she was without benefits for 20 months or 20 years, will get no restitution for past injustices.
Conversely, where a lump sum payment was arranged for survivors in lieu of ongoing benefits, that money will have to be entirely repaid either in a lump sum or by regular monthly deductions, again with no compensation for how long the discriminatory effect was experienced.
I have sought and received the assurances of the Minister, and I am pleased to hear them repeated today, that the regulations to be introduced will allow beneficiaries a wide choice of how they can make the repay-
Superannuation
ment, so that it will not be an onerous obligation, eating away at their restored income.
There are other inequities that still need to be addressed, including the status of common law spouses, discrimination based on age at the time of marriage, and different levels of benefits among different groups of pensioners.
Another essential to survivors' benefits pension reform is the one basic, long awaited change, still unfulfilled-an increase in benefits. Survivors of superannuants in Crown corporations have, for several years now, enjoyed an increase in their pensions to 60 per cent while those of federal pensioners still receive only 50 per cent.
This can perhaps be likened to the story of the shoemaker who provides customers with high quality footwear and careful service while the employees work barefoot. It is all too easy to be cynical about this omission and to believe that the Government is holding this basic entitlement back as a bargaining chip for future pension reform measures which may not be as well received.
If the world were a predictable place with all trends, economic and otherwise, following a clearly defined pattern, then pension plans would be relatively simple and non-contentious. However, many of us in this House know all too well that things do not always go the way we expect them to go. Pension plans by their very definition are the means to guaranteeing a secure future for ourselves and our families when we retire.
Given the unpredictability of our world, this process involves a delicate balance of understanding past trends and educated crystal ball gazing, all the while keeping in mind the best interests of all the contributors and remembering that they have bought and paid for the benefits accrued from their investment. Certain guarantees must be built into any plan to ensure it does not become simply a forced saving with no worth-while investment value. Thus I would like to reiterate some basic principles which must be guarded jealously in future pension reform.
First, the terms "indexed" and "pension" can never be far apart in a discussion of pension reform. We in the

June 22, 1989
Superannuation
Official Opposition believe that an unindexed pension is no pension at all. Without indexation the investment value is simply an illusion for contributors.
Second, the federal pension plan must be credited with a rate of return at least comparable to the best managed private pension plan. This is not the case now. Existing rights and benefits must not be forfeited in exchange for equity and return on investment.
Last, the pension fund must be managed jointly by the employer and the contributors. This will ensure the recognition that all parties "own" the fund.
Bill C-42 is a positive first step on the long road to federal pension reform. I commend the employees and the pensioners for their persistence in seeking equity. I also commend my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his unwavering support of their cause, and the Minister for acting before the courts forced it upon him.
However, I must remind the House that this is an area in which the Government has a long way to go towards properly providing for its own employees. The shoemakers are far from taking proper responsibility for their employees and for paying proper attention to the needs, wants, and working conditions of their workers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, first, it is a pleasure to speak in a positive manner from the opposition benches on this Bill. The Government is to be commended for bringing forward these long overdue provisions to ensure that surviving spouses are included.
This long overdue reform restores benefits to about 6,700 surviving spouses of public servants whose benefits have been discontinued upon their remarriage. Reform to survivors' benefits is especially important to women in Canada. Some 60 per cent of women in Canada aged 65 and older live below the poverty line. A majority of these women, approximately 70 per cent, live their final years alone. The reality is that women are most often the recipients of survivor benefits, and women have the most need for legislation to protect those benefits.
In its 1985 report, the parliamentary committee on equality rights recommended the repeal of the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan and federal superannuation plans which required the termination of benefits to surviving spouses upon remarriage, and the reduction of benefits for survivors 20 or more years younger than the deceased contributor. To terminate benefits for survivors who remarried and to reduce benefits for survivors more than 20 years younger than their spouses clearly discriminated on the basis of marital status and age in violation of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In its response to its report the Government indicated that these changes would be introduced to the Canada Pension Plan to take effect in January 1987, and that they would be studied in the course of the public service pension reform process. It has been almost four years since the committee on equality rights first tabled its report, and more than a year since the recommended changes were introduced to the Canada Pension Plan. While the reforms contained in Bill C-24 are certainly welcome, we must not forget the frustrating period of delay which preceded the introduction of this Bill.
The frustrations of the delay prompted action. In April of this year the Federal Superannuates National Association, which represents 250,000 Canadians who receive federal pensions, launched a Charter challenge based upon discriminatory provisions of the survivors' benefits legislation. The FSNA should be congratulated for its hard work on behalf of federal superannuates and for launching a challenge which provided an impetus for the legislation now before the House.
It is important to note, however, that in the statement of claim filed with the challenge, the federal superannuates asked not only for reinstatement of survivor benefits which had been terminated upon remarriage but also for full payments of all benefits lost as a result of the disentitlement. I refer specifically to the case in the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, Nona Horswill v. Her Majesty The Queen in the right of Canada.
In the statement of claim, specifically paragraph 8(d), judgment for such amount of the annual allowance as the plaintiff has not received as a result of the payment having been suspended is asked for. In other words, in that particular case retroactivity is being asked for. Bill C-24 makes no provision for such retroactivity. If we are to recognize the entitlement of remarried survivors to future benefits following the passage of this legislation,
June 22, 1989

we must also recognize their entitlement to past benefits denied by the present legislation.
It is disappointing that the Bill does not provide retroactive payment of benefits. It is also disappointing that the Bill does not address the other issues of concern to federal superannuates.
Another recommendation of the parliamentary committee on equality rights was to repeal the provisions of federal superannuation plans disentitling surviving spouses to benefits when the marriage took place after the contributor's retirement or, in the case of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Forces Superannuation Acts, after the contributor reached 60 years of age. Again, these provisions are clearly contrary to the Charter, I would suggest. Where survivor benefits are provided, they should be available regardless of the date of marriage.
Bill C-24 does nothing to adjust the rate of survivor benefits. Amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which took effect in January 1987, require the provisions of survivor benefits equal to at least 60 per cent of the contributor's retirement benefit. While the Canada Pension Plan was amended to reflect this requirement, federal superannuation plans provided a survivor benefit equal to only 50 per cent of the contributor's retirement pension. It is time that the Government brought federal superannuation plans in to line with the Pensions Benefits Act.
Further, this legislation does not address the plight of common law spouses. Some superannuation plans allow Treasury Board full discretion in awarding a survivor benefit to a common law spouse. This means that a survivor benefit may be denied to a common law spouse of a contributor, even where there is no other person claiming to be the spouse.
As required by the PBS A, superannuation legislation must be amended to recognize common law relationships. Both common law and legal marriage must be fully recognized as giving rise to spousal pension rights, such as the splitting of pension credits and entitlement to survivor benefits.
The splitting of pension credits is another important issue which must be addressed. Ex-service wives are especially disadvantaged by the present discriminatory provisions of the Canadian Forces superannuation plan.
Superannuation
Ex-service wives often find themselves in situations of dire poverty even if their ex-spouses agree to full diversion of pension credits. Unlike the PBSA, there are no provisions currently in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to enable a splitting of pension credits to take place upon marriage breakdown.
The wives of Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel may also find themselves without a survival benefit upon the death of their spouse because the original legislation did not provide for survivor benefits.
While a separate fund was established to allow members of the RCMP to contribute to the provisions of the survivor benefits, there is no mechanism to provide survivor benefits to the survivors of RCMP members who either did not pay into the fund or who withdrew their contributions to the fund.
While the Pension Benefits Standards Act covers workers in federally regulated industries throughout Canada, the largest federal employer in the country, the federal Government, is yet exempt from its provisions. The PBSA deals with important pension issues, including portability, vesting, locking in, pension splitting upon divorce, and early retirement. Treasury Board has responsibility to address these issues in any superannuation legislation it introduces.
The PBSA requires that both full-time workers have access to pension plans after two years of employment, and part-time workers with earnings above $9,000 per year. The right of workers to participate in a pension plan is an important right which must be fully protected. However, all workers should be entitled to participate in a pension plan regardless of their annual level of earnings.
The PBSA requires that benefits be vested after two years participation in a pension plan. Government has a responsibility to ensure that employers honour their pension obligations by vesting pension benefits. The vesting provisions of the PBSA are important ones which must be thoroughly applied to public service pensions.
Bill C-33, which died on the Order Paper in the last session of Parliament, was to address some of these issues by establishing a joint pension management board. However, Bill C-33 empowered Treasury Board to override the decision of the board. It also included the

June 22, 1989
Superannuation
abolition of guaranteed indexing for public service pensions.
Reform of public service pensions is long overdue. Reform must address all of these issues through a system of joint management with equal representation from employees, present retirees, and management. However, it must make no attempt to deny or withhold full and guaranteed pension indexing for all present and future public service superannuants. On the whole this Bill before the House is desirable, but in my remarks I have attempted to show some of the matters we should look at in the future.


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not my intention to hold up unduly the debate and timely passage of this Bill today, but I want to thank my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), and indeed all my colleagues for their co-operation in ensuring that a number of spouses of veterans will also benefit from this welcome legislation.
The House will know that pensions are paid to veterans and their survivors as compensation for death and disability incurred during wartime service or as compensation for the time spent as a prisoner of war. As is the custom in a number of programs, remarriage causes surviving spouses to forfeit ongoing pension rights. In the case of our veterans, we are more generous in that we give a one year lump sum to the surviving spouse before the pension is terminated. Of course, this was a special privilege awarded to survivors of that very special group of Canadians, our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments made to the Pension Act by Bill C-24 will not only help surviving spouses but will also protect the pension rights of children, brothers and sisters under 25 who choose to marry.

We estimate that an average number of 100 surviving spouses of pension veterans remarry each year. In addition, those who have lost their pension over the years through remarriage will, of course, be eligible to apply for reinstatement. We estimate there are some 4,500 surviving spouses in this position. Once this legislation is passed we will do everything we can to let them know the good news. We estimate the cost to be approximately $28 million annually.
In conclusion, I very much the appreciate the co-operative gesture that has been made by both opposition Parties so that we will have swift passage of this piece of important legislation. It will certainly give great comfort to our veterans and indeed to other retired members of the Public Service.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand from discussions that if you were to ask you would find unanimous consent to have this Bill referred to Committee of the Whole House immediately upon completion of debate, and officials could be invited to appear before the House at that time. Possibly the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier could indicate whether that is his position.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we agree to proceed with all stages of this Bill today, including third reading.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we encourage support of that suggestion. We have a number of questions to put to the Minister, so I think it would be in order to move to Committee of the Whole as soon as possible.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. As was just said, an Opposition Member does not often have the opportunity to say that legislation under consideration is good, that we support it without any reservation and that for once the Government is presenting legislation that we think corrects existing inequities in the laws and that perhaps it should have made these corrections years ago.
I think this Bill C-24, after too much delay, rectifies some discriminatory sections in the pension legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the allowances now paid to surviving spouses of government pensioners, whether they were Public Service employees, veterans, Members of Parliament, Senators or members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, cease when they remarry; allowances paid to surviving children aged 18 to 25 who are students cease when they (re)marry.
In some cases, the allowances paid to the surviving spouse are reduced if the surviving spouse is more than 20 years younger than the contributor. The Bill before us corrects these inequities. Bill C-24 eliminates these sections. Allowances will continue to be paid to a surviving spouse who remarries. Surviving children aged 18 to 25 who are full-time students in a school or university continue and will continue to receive the allowances to which they are entitled, even if they marry.

And third, the allowances will not be reduced for surviving spouses who are more than 20 years younger than the contributor.
Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat unfortunate, though, that the Government did not choose to bring in these amendments at the same time that it presented a similar law which we passed in 1987, Bill C-88 for the surviving spouses of judges. As we know, the Bill resulted from a recommendation of the Guthrie Commission in 1986, whose mandate was to study the salaries and benefits of judges.
In this report-and to clarify somewhat the Minister's statement that the Government is making this amendment as part of an overall plan, let us say frankly that constitutional considerations forced the Government to meet its obligations. I just want to quote a paragraph of the Guthrie Report: failure to amend the Judges Act (judges were the issue, but it can apply to federal civil servants) to permit continuation of survivors' benefits upon remarriage may raise serious legal questions involving equality rights. We therefore recommend the repeal of subsections 25(3) and 25(3.1) of the Judges Act.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Government did. In my opinion, what was good for the judges, as I said in the debate then, is also good for public servants, military people, RCMP officers and all the other servants of the state who I think were considered second class citizens, because nothing was done for them.
That being said, I am for passing this Bill because it will finally bring our laws into line with section 15 (of the Charter) and also satisfy the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee in Towards Equality, a report published in 1985 on the subject. I will not read all the recommendations, but anyone interested can refer to the document. It contains a whole series of recommendations that the Government bring the pension legislation into line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which took effect, as we know, in 1985.
Superannuation
I shall come back to that shortly, because I think that the Government was at fault in refusing to make it retroactive to the proclamation of the Charter in 1985.
Mr. Speaker, on examining these pension plans, we see many deficiencies, inconsistencies and rather disturbing features still in the legislation.
I admit that the Minister told us that a more thorough and complete study of pensions would be done and that more comprehensive legislation might be presented in the fall.
I would like to draw to the attention of Members my preoccupation, and that of some of my colleagues on this side of the House, with certain other laws before us today to be amended in regard to re-marriage and the rights of the children of a married pensioner. There is a section entitled Pension de retraite des Forces canadiennes. I guess it is called The Armed Forces Superannuation Act or some wording of that nature.

Clause 33 contains provisions which I find absolutely unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
In the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act- [English]
I will read the Superannuation Act concerning military personnel, Section 31(1), because I think this is something that Members will want to correct. Section 31(1) deals with marriage after 60 years of age.
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the surviving spouse of a person is not entitled to any annual allowance under this Act if that person was over sixty years of age at the time of his marriage, unless, after that time, that person became or continued to be a contributor.
Another section that bothers me, Section 31(2), says:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, except as provided in the regulations a child who was bom to or adopted by a person or who became the stepchild of a person at a time when that person was over sixty years of age is not entitled to any annual allowance under this Act, unless, after that time, that person became or continued to be a contributor.

June 22, 1989
Superannuation
Those two amendments are required to get away from these regressive and absolutely unacceptable Sections which fly in the face of constitutional rights that Canadians have.
Section 15, as we all know, came into force in 1985. Yet today we have a Bill that says that one could discriminate because of age, or marital status, and discriminate even though a person may be 60 years old and have a child from a marriage following retirement or following the death of the eligible contributor. However that child is not entitled to receive any benefits of the pension.
I believe that the Minister should really look at the possibility of amending that Act when it comes before us. There are divorce laws in this country. We have in Ontario the Family Law Reform Act which deals with separation. Any obligation incurred to support the children remains. In the Divorce Act of Canada it is mandatory that both parents contribute to maintenance, according to each person's ability to pay. The obligation cannot be wiped out. Every relevant piece of legislation that I looked up, for every province, has as a prerequisite that the best interest of the child is of paramount concern. As it should be. Why do we allow inequities to stay on the Statutes of Canada? We know that in some provinces there are laws dealing with the Family Law Reform Act, et cetera. Yet inequities are still maintained.
I would like to ask the Minister to look at all these pension laws. I focused on only a few here because I did not have enough time to research the whole spectrum of pension entitlements. But I know that when the Government came before the House in 1985 with amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, they corrected all those things for Crown corporations. It made sure that the 60 per cent entitlement to pensions for the spouse was included. We still do not have that for the Public Service, the RCMP or the Armed Forces, et cetera.
I am saying to the Government, if we all accept that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force in 1985, why not allow retroactivity for those who were hurt, possibly severely, through no fault of their own, by a lack of concern on the part of the employer? Why do we not allow rectroactivity to at least start with the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1985. It would not seem to me to be veiy costly, to be
somewhat considerate and understanding of the need to go back and provide retroactivity.
I have correspondence from the Superannuation Association. I have letters that I could read to the House concerning people who have lived through these difficult situations. For example, I have a letter here from a pensioner who tells me that if he lived common law, he would have been able to transfer his entitlement to his surviving spouse. However if he marries, no, he is not entitled to it. It does not make any sense. So let us look at these things and make sure that we deal with them in the Fall.
I just want to touch on one last item. Because of the aging population of Canadians, a lot of people in Canada have federal pensions. They will go to their lawyer and the lawyer will say, "Give me power of attorney over your pension in case you fall sick, or need some assistance, or need to have some expenditures looked after while you are indisposed." You cannot do that in this country. A lawyer cannot have a power of attorney over a federal pensioner's pension. There are arguments for and against, but I think we need to have a debate in this House because our population is aging and we need to look at the rights of these people. Perhaps we should have less bureaucracy and more understanding as to what we can allow in terms of having pensioners give power of attorney to their lawyers, such lawyers as they trust and who would operate under professional standards.
Having said all that, I congratulate the Government for its effort on the question of Bill C-24, wanting to correct some anomalies and some inequities. There are still lots of things to do. We have done a bit. We have gone a short way down the road toward parity, equity and justice, but we have a long way to go yet on many of these Bills before we reach equity and justice for all Canadians who receive pensions from the federal Government.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask you to now seek the unanimous consent of the House to move to Committee of the Whole and permit officials to be present so that we can now proceed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
June 22, 1989


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I just want to make a correction. In my speech I said that the Charter of Rights came into effect in 1985.1 meant that Section 15 of the Charter of Rights was proclaimed or came into effect on April 15, 1985.1 think I may have over-stretched it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-24, an Act to amend certain legislation respecting superannuation and other pensions.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On Clause 3-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Clauses 3 and 4 are the two operative clauses of the Bill. Both of them, if I am not mistaken, do away with the discrimination under Section 15. Am I right?


Howard Edward Crosby: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Not to mislead the Member, if you put all the clauses together, the net result is that the prohibition with respect to remarriage is eliminated and the consequential provisions are removed so that in the result the prohibition is terminated. And this is repeated throughout the Bill with respect to the other legislation involved.
Clauses 3 to 22 inclusive agreed to.

On Clause 23-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary why in all our legislation, including the retiring allowances for Members of Parliament and defence services and Canadian Forces pensions, the provision dealing with the rights of children still contains the following:
is eighteen or more years of age but less than twenty-five years of age and is in full-time attendance at a school-
In Clause 23, we see that-
Superannuation

-Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Contribution Act, we have changed it. It is 21 years of age or more for the RCMP but less than 25 years. Why 21 years for RCMP and 18 for all the others?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if I can answer the question in exact terms. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Continuation Act, to which the provision relates, is an Act of very limited application and it goes back in time. I cannot account for all the cases involved, but basically it applies to RCMP personnel who were recruited before 1949. My mathematics are not that great, but if you work it out from there I think you come up with the answer, and if you don't, let me know.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am going to let him know that I have not come up with the answer yet. Maybe he is a better calculator than I am. Please tell me the answer. Why is it different for them than for the others?


Howard Edward Crosby: It is simply that it goes back to 1949, the provision was in force in 1949 and there is no particular reason to change the age provision. It is proper to say that it would not apply to anyone. I do not know if it could even in theory.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know why a benefit continues for a child who has been in university continuously since the death of a parent, but not to someone who goes back to school six months hence or a year hence. Did the Government look at that provision at all and consider changes to it or is it part of what will be considered in future reform?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, the question is valid. The policy was simply intended to gather in as many as possible, bearing in mind the balance of the grant of rights, or restoration of rights if you prefer, in relation to the expenditure that would accumulate. The group that is in university at present, in a sense, can be identified and targeted. If we were to permit persons to return to university we would have a group of indefinite number which might cause people to take a course of action which they are not now pursuing.
I recognize that that may well be a valid consideration but it will have to await a broader-based reform of the pension law when more investigation is available and more specific documentation of the potential liability can be ascertained.

June 22, 1989
Superannuation


Marlene Catterall: May I have further clarification Mr. Chairman? As I read this section, in fact we may have two surviving children in university, one of which was out of university perhaps to support the family while the parent was in a last illness, and is now back in university. That child is ineligible for a pension, but another child who never took that year away and went straight to university from high school is eligible. Is that the case?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is yes, that situation could arise. I have already indicated that it is a matter being considered and would be part of a further pension revision. At the present time, the President of the Treasury Board and the Government are simply trying to extend the benefits as far as they can, knowing the obligation which might be incurred. We appreciate the Member's attention and I am sure it will be noted for the future revisions.
Clauses 23 to 29 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 30-


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Chairman, my question probably should have been posed on an earlier Clause. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell me why there was no particular action taken, back in 1984, and again in 1987, when we had a commitment from the Solicitor General and the President of the Treasury Board that Canadian Correctional workers would be allowed to retire after 25 years of service. It was a bit of housekeeping. It was not in Bill C-33. Consequently, it was going to be brought in as an amendment to Bill C-33 but we know what happened to Bill C-33. It would have fit in this kind of an Act. I just wonder why it is not in there, particularly.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the President of the Treasury Board and the Government would want me to indicate that the purpose of the Bill now before us is simply to correct what is now regarded as unfairness in past legislation with respect to the disqualification because of remarriage. While it is amending legislation, it is only intended to deal with that specific situation. The concerns of the Member are noted.
I understand the specific concern which he raises about prison workers and members of the Correctional Service. It will be taken into account in future proposals for pension reform. The Government and the President of the Treasury Board is certainly aware of the commitment mentioned by the Member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. It is now part of the record, so there is another reminder on record.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
On Clause 32-
Jean-Robert Gauthier: On this question of recovery of lump sums pursuant to appeal provisions, if I understand the Clause:
A spouse or other person was paid an amount as a final payment
pursuant to Section 59-before the coming into force of this section,
the Commission may retain that amount by way of deduction from
any subsequent payments on account-
Any lump sum amount paid to a person as a settlement, because of his or her ineligibility to receive the spouses' allowance because of the remarriage, does that mean that that amount itself will have to be collected in total, that is, all of it, or it will be spread over a period of years?
Could you tell me if the repayment of the sums of money would be based on an actuarial formula, or will it be strictly pay-up and that's it. Because, if it is pay-up, whatever one got eight or nine years ago, I am sure a lot of those people would not be able to cope with it. I am just asking the Parliamentary Secretary what kind of message he will give these people to satisfy, I would think, an element of justice and equity?


Howard Edward Crosby: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier's question relates to the Pension Act which deals of course with veterans. The Minister of Veterans Affairs will address that particular concern.
In broader terms, as it relates to the restoration of other pension benefits in the other legislation, there will be a provision for part repayment. That is to say, the repayment of the amount previously received will be spread over a timeframe and that will be the subject of regulations or ministerial directive.
The intention is that the amount that was paid out will be repaid, interest free, at no extra cost to the recipient of the pension benefits over a timeframe. I think the timeframe will be extended so that it will not be a great burden.
I asked the officials before to give us an average, and I understand that the average benefit that will be paid out on it on an annual basis will approximate $4,900. The average payments which will be required will be, on
June 22, 1989

average, $800, just to give you a ratio of the benefits to be received.
Sorry, I made a mistake. The benefits on average to be received are in the nature of $4,900 annually. The repayments to be retained, that is to say, previously paid out and now recovered, will be in the area of $1,800 on average. There will be no interest. You can see from that that it is a pretty good deal.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I just want to be reassured. Will it be based on an actuarial form? In other words, if the person is 75 years old, will you be requiring him or her to pay more quickly than someone who would be 62 years of age or 63 years of age, whose life expectancy and capacity to meet and cope with that may be longer. Will there be any consideration given to that?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Perhaps I could comment on this. This refers essentially to the benefits for the veterans and their survivors. One should understand that veterans have always had preferential treatment under the Pension Act. While the benefits to surviving spouses would cease immediately, with many of our other pension programs, veterans are given a lump sum payment for the following year. I realize this calls for repayment of that.
I think your question is, will it be demanded of them in one lump sum payment. No. It will be done according to the survivor's status. As you probably know, the Canadian Pension Commission deals with that and the applications go through them. They have always been very caring, very compassionate and very understanding of the personal circumstances of both the veterans and their survivors. Under no circumstances, would undue hardship be impacted upon the survivor.


Marlene Catterall: I have two questions. One is very directly on the last point. My understanding was that, in fact, that pensioners would not have to rely on anybody's compassion or solicitude for their well-being, but that they would have the option as to how they chose to make these repayments beyond a certain minimum. Could I have a clarification on that?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: As I mentioned before, the commission has always dealt directly with the pensioner. They report to this House through me. They are independent. They have always had the care and compassion for the circumstances of the recipient. They do have the admin-
Superannuation
istrative discretion to make arrangements which are in the best interests of the survivor. If there has been an overpayment, it is the duty of the Crown to tiy to recover to what extent it can. We have not had any great number of complaints of the commission being unduly harsh on the repayment schedule required.


Mr. Butland:: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if this is the appropriate timing of this question, but I have been approached by several public servants in the community of Sault Ste. Marie with regard to whether there has been any consideration at all of some window in time, as in other professions, to offer some incentive for those to take an early retirement, given the fact that there has been reduction in the Public Service in the past. I understand that trend will continue in the future. For instance, for someone at age 54 with 27 years service, the penalty is 15 per cent. Has there been any consideration at all to opening this window of time without such an onerous penalty?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Member's concern. It is beyond the immediate scope of this Bill which as I have said and repeat deals with the restoration of rights lost as a result of remarriage.
I may respond in two ways: first, the President of the Treasury Board and the Government are well aware of similar programs utilized in other provinces and places. One of the views that has been expressed and bears merit is that the federal provisions are already fairly generous. They permit retirement at age 55 with 30 years service. I can speak from experience that 55 years of age is pretty young to retire. I hope that it is, otherwise I would be out of here. It will be looked at in terms of a broad pension reform. Early retirement certainly has its merits, and I am sure it will be given consideration.


Mrs. Stewart:: Mr. Chairman, I have a concern that I would like to express on behalf of one of my constituents who is a widow of a war veteran. She understood about a year and a half ago that she would be able to remarry and still claim her widow's pension. She remarried without notifying Veterans Affairs. She has now found out from Veterans Affairs that she was receiving payments "illegally". This woman of strong moral value and conviction had a hard time remarrying. Now she is going to divorce

June 22, 1989
Superannuation
because she and her second husband cannot afford to survive without her receiving this veteran's pension.
Will the Minister review her, case and assure her that the Department will not claim the payments that she received which unknown to herself were considered "illegal"? I find this such a difficult case to deal with that I think it deserves compassion.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: I am not sure whether I completely understand the point made, Mr. Chairman. I understand the widow married and is now going to divorce and I suspect to continue living common law.


John B. Stewart: I don't know.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Nobody knows. Uniquely in veterans' pensions if the second marriage failed there was always a provision whereby the surviving spouse could reapply for the survivor's benefits, so she will be covered at any rate. If I can have more details I will be glad to give a very specific answer.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister. I will forward information to him about this case and hope that he will deal with it compassionately.

Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.

On Clause 34-Resumption of allowances to spouses


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions perhaps dealing with the matter of retroactivity of these clauses.
As I noted in my speech there was no provision for retroactivity or retroactive payments to those who have remarried up until now and have had to forgo their payments under the survivor pension benefits. Is the Government planning to deal with the question of retroactivity? If so, when is it planning to deal with it?
Will the Government be filing a statement of defence in the action to which I have referred, that of Nona Horswill vs. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, dealing specifically with Clause 8(d) with reference to the retroactivity? Has the Government calculated the cost of such a retroactivity of payment provision in looking at this and making a decision?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, let me begin to answer the Member by saying that with respect to the cases now before the courts, I think the Government's position is
that it would be inappropriate to make any comment at all that would have any effect whatever on those cases. I realize the Member is concerned about the eventual outcome of them, but it is not something with which we can deal.
I want to point out to the Hon. Member first of all that in the past cases where remarriage benefits were reinstated there were no retroactive payments. That would be under the Judges Act and the Canada Pension Plan legislation. I would have to say that there has almost been a precedent established that retroactive payments are not made. Governments are always looking at cases, but the apparent view is that retroactive payments are not appropriate in these situations, both for cost reasons and just simply in terms of the balance of rights.
I want to take the opportunity to mention, because the Hon. Member mentioned the retroactive aspect, that there are cases where payment has been made to a recipient requiring repayment of the basic method of recovering, that is, a minimum of 10 per cent of the monthly pension. In cases where that imposed a hardship, a further reduction of 5 per cent would be considered. I want that to be on record.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Chairman, first, I am afraid I cannot accept the answer with respect to the court case. I have not asked for comment on the court case. What I have asked specifically, I believe as a lawyer, can be answered.
Does the Government intend to file a statement of defence? I do not think that jeopardizes the court case or any part of it and, if the Government does, when?
Second, with reference to the problem that was mentioned and with which he has just dealt, it seems to me that there are discretionary abilities within Departments to forgive in the case of hardship. I know of some personally. I dealt with four clients in the past that have been forgiven based on hardship. Perhaps the Minister might have a look at that.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Veterans Affairs may want to deal with the hardship aspect. I understand that a statement has been filed in the case to which the Member refers.
All I can do is repeat myself and say that is not really part of our consideration. I think the Member should know that there will be other opportunities to raise the problems with respect to that case. I am not attempting to cut the Member off at all. I am just saying that I do not

really have the resources to answer to that case. I understand that a statement of defence has been filed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get some clarification on the numbers. How many people are affected or could be affected? What is the amount of money anticipated? Finally, with regard to surviving spouses, in a press release put out by the Minister he said that there are approximately 6,700 surviving spouses covered by the remarriage provisions of the eight Acts.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that indeed that is the number and what is the total output of funds necessary to correct this inequity?


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, I will have to organize myself to get all these statistics. I am not good at these acronyms and whatnot. I know in broad cost terms that $11 million is the estimated cost to reinstate benefits under the legislation, other than the pension benefits to veterans. The cost of restoration with respect to pension benefits to veterans is $28 million, and the Minister may wish to confirm that.
Regarding the total numbers of people who may be involved in this process, for veterans it is 4,500 and those under all the other legislation involved, and I think the Hon. Member knows the specific plans, the figure is 2,200, so it is a total of 6,700 persons involved.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chairman, this relates to provisions in all Acts affected by the Bill, but I would appreciate some rationale for why, if the provisions are not retroactive at least to the time of the coming into effect of Section 15 in the Charter, there is full collection back of a lump sum that was intended to replace benefits to which the person is now entitled and to which, under the Charter, they have theoretically always been entitled.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not want to quarrel with the Hon. Member. She may put on record whatever arguments she thinks are fair and just, but I would put that in the category of double recovery. If the spouse of a pensioner were to receive a lump sum payment at the time of remarriage to compensate for loss of pension benefits and then were to receive those
Superannuation
pension benefits, the spouse would be getting two benefits and some would regard that as double recovery.
Others would say that that is not double recovery because the spouse missed pension benefits for a time, but the decision has been taken, in continuing prospectively pension benefits to persons who have remarried, to offset that with the collection of the past payment. It is as simple as that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 34 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, before you rise to report the Bill, I think all Hon. Members would want me to thank the officials who assisted me and through me them: Ms. Sharon Hamilton of the Treasury Board and Mr. David Steele of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Bill reported.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put on record the fact that in the pension structure this Government and the previous Government made a commitment to the correction workers of Canada for a change. This change has been put off since 1984 or in fact since 1977. I hope that the Government will make a commitment to deal with the concerns of correctional workers.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) made that commitment on March 23, 1987. I hope that the commitment will be honoured.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
June 22, 1989
Museums MUSEUMS ACT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Masse that Bill C-12, an Act respecting museums, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in favour of Bill C-12 which restructures the national museums of Canada into four autonomous arm's length corporations.
Museums are important to our society. They are vital institutions which remind us of where our society has come from and which shed light on where we are going. They are our collective memory with a broad appeal that most do not realize.
As the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) stated just two weeks ago at the parliamentary committee, more people attend museums in Canada than professional sporting events. He stated that 20 million Canadians visit museums. Unfortunately, he is a bit behind in his figures.
According to Statistics Canada many more visit our museums and related institutions. In fact, there are over 90 million visitors each year. Even the Minister's predecessor, Flora MacDonald, was aware of this figure when she spoke just a year ago at the Cultural Tourism Conference in Montreal.
Museums are more than just statistics and people going through turn-stiles. The real impact is on our appreciation and awareness of our society as a multicultural society. As we enter free trade with the United States, we need more than ever institutions which reinforce our sense of place, being and community. That is the unique role of museums. I know this because I have had the opportunity to work in this field. In the mid-1970s, I worked on Canada's Discovery Train, a travelling museum which demonstrated our rich and diverse cultures.
Today, museums in this critical period of our history face enormous challenges to serve a diverse, complex and growing audience. I have a vision of the museum world of the year 2000 which is vibrant, rich and accessible to a broad public, not a limited few.
There has never been a more significant need for museums and for the services they provide, from partnerships with public schools to outreach, to non-traditional museum goers, and to the incredible opportunities to develop exhibitions, collections and educational programs that reflect the depth and variety of our cultural experiences. We have the chance to see museums greatly enrich our society in ways never before experienced.
This is the challenge facing us, both in restructuring the federal museums through this Bill and also in implementing a new federal museums policy to which the Government has committed itself. This a time of change arid it is time to assist these important institutions in their service to our society.
As Dr. Louis Lemieux, former Director of the National Museum of Natural Sciences in Ottawa stated: "Museums, as traditionally defined as institutions devoted to the procurement, care, and display of objects of lasting interest of value, are outdated and inadequate."
Today, we have the opportunity to permit our museums to grow and to serve a wider public, as well as to preserve and study our collections. Bill C-12, and the proposals for a new museums policy will encourage growth.
The first museum in the world was a government institution. It was part of the palace of King Ptolemy in Alexandria which, in the 3rd century B.C., housed the library of Alexander the Great. It was called by the Greek term museion or temple of the muses and was the world's chief centre for learning in its day.
In the centuries that have elapsed since the founding of the Museum of Alexandria, the concepts of what a great museum should be and what it should do have undergone many changes. Fundamentally, a museum is still an institution, not only for collecting and preserving objects, but also for the study of them and the use of them for education and enjoyment.
Almost 1,200 years after the Alexandria Museum was destroyed by war, the National Museum of Canada had its beginnings. In 1842 the geological survey of Canada was established in Montreal and grew into our National Museum in Ottawa. Incidentally, the New Brunswick Museum in Saint John was started in the same year in the Mechanics Institute. From those early starts, museums in Canada have grown steadily so that we virtually
June 22, 1989

now have museums in every community in the country. There are now almost 2,000 museums and related institutions in Canada.
The national museums had precarious beginnings. Indeed, their whole history has been marginal. They have been switched among government Departments, placed in basements or ill-suited buildings, and even in condemned buildings.
In 1981 the then Prime Minister Trudeau announced that proud new homes would be built for two of our national museums, the National Gallery and the Canadian Museum of Civilization. These are the first properly designed homes for these institutions in their histories. For the first time these museums will receive professionally acceptable storage facilities for their multi-million dollar collections and will also be properly displayed. The new home for the National Aviation Museum is also a reality.
Sadly the other national collections remain in inadequate facilities. The National Museum of Science and Technology is in an old bakery, and the Museum of Natural Science is relegated to half of the Victoria Memorial Building, as well as 13 other locations throughout the National Capital Region. The War Museum has actually lost 40,000 square feet of space, and its needs are legendary.
Bill C-12 will not solve those problems, but it will start a process of greater direct control over the management of these important treasures. It will give them far more independence from government, will reduce bureaucracies, and will permit them to retain the funds that they raise. These directions are consistent with many studies, including the task force led by Clement Richard and William Withrow. As well, the Canadian Museums Association held a series of regional meetings in 15 locations which concurred with the Richard-Withrow recommendations. Further, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture supported those recommendations in its unanimous report of January 1987.
The restructuring of the National Museums by Bill C-12 is essentially a housekeeping Bill, but it will result in more efficient operations in their own destiny and guided by their own missions. I am pleased to see the mandates of the museums articulated in this legislation.
Museums
However, I am disappointed that the Government has not yet moved on the other half of reforming museums policy for the rest of the country. The National Museums are all located in Ottawa. I firmly believe the Government has a role in assisting the other museums across Canada. In 1987 the former Minister, Flora MacDonald, pledged that a new policy would be developed. Extensive and extended consultations were held, but the Government has not yet introduced this broader policy, nor has it honoured its commitment to even increase funding by some $2 million saved from the Mobile Exhibits Program.
The grants program for museums has remained static since 1972. The Museum Assistance Program remains unchanged, even for inflation, at $8.5 million. I cannot think of a more neglected yet deserving program. These funds are returned to government via taxes from the economic stimulation created by millions of visitors who attend museums each year in Canada. That is a great return on our investment, but one that I believe can be improved even more.
Our museums, art galleries, historic sites, and science centres contain millions of objects, and for every object there is a fascinating story. We need to tell these stories to more people. Because budgets are so tight in museums, little to no money is available for proper marketing. More money needs to be made available. Other government agencies should become involved such as tourism and the CBC. The rationale for having culture located within the Department of Communications is to see more cultural programming on television, in films, etc.
When was the last time someone saw a show about our museums? On Tuesday, officials of the National Gallery told the parliamentary committee that they approached the CBC to do a show on the gallery at the time of its opening last spring. The CBC declined.
Canada's heritage is not all in Ottawa. It is located in every part of this country. We need a new vision and a new concept so that our national heritage abounds in all museum collections. The artefacts of the Campbell River Museum in British Columbia and of the Yarmouth Firefighters' Museum in Nova Scotia are part of our national patrimony, as are the great collections in the National Gallery.
Finally, I would like to salute the thousands of volunteers across Canada who contribute their time and energy to preserving our great resources of cultural heritage. I make one last plea for greater marketing

June 22, 1989
Museums
support to promote these museums across Canada. I believe that the Government is missing an even greater return on this existing investment because of its attitude toward its lack of marketing support.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for us to continue past one o'clock, through the hour normally reserved for the lunch period, in order to allow us to complete second reading of Bill C-12, the museums Bill, and to complete report and third reading stages of Bill C-6, the radio Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate, the Hon. Member for Mission-Coquitlam.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, today, museums are cutting back on people in the same manner as many other areas of our society. Museums are about our culture and about our achievements. People should be very much a part of our museums. Without people, museums are very much a graveyard of our society. It takes people to bring museums alive. They should be vibrant places of our culture, our history, and places that look to our future.
Exhibits should not only be displays, especially in the areas of science and technology. Items that have been used by generations of Canadians or by generations of peoples around the world should be displayed in such a manner that we can feel them, touch them, and try them, particularly with our new technology. Machines are not made to be looked at. Machines are made to be used and to be handled. Our museums need to reflect those human touches, and for that we need funding and a commitment to the human element in our society.
Many museums remove the human element by having free days on a Thursday or a Tuesday, without consultation with the community or without consideration of when people work and when people are free to attend museums. Therefore, museums are further restricted particularly to those people who cannot afford to go to a museum and would like to have their children exposed to
our culture. Those people need access. Museums have to reflect and consult with the community in terms of accessibility, including those museums located in Ottawa. There is a movement in France which is trying to put people back into museums. It is one which we should be looking at in Canada and trying to emulate.
Free trade has further attacked our culture and our industries. With them already under attack and with museums being a reflection of our culture, then are not museums under attack, too? Some museums are just for a tiny minority of people. They really are not a great reflection of our culture. For example, many museums do not have displays celebrating the labour movement in Canada, which movement helped to make the country what it is today.
Many museums do not have displays which reflect the ethnocultural nature of Canada. Many museums do not have displays which celebrate the environment.
Our museums need to reflect the true strata of Canada, its peoples, the environment and the assets which make Canada great.
In an independent study of the museums' workforce it was found that there are two major sources of inequality that are closely interdependent in the museums. It comes down to who staffs our museums. Museums are gender-based and institutionalized-based organizations with great differentiations in the labour force. Simply put, women make substantially less money working for museums than do men. We have checked and found this to be true even after the major alternate explanations of income differences, controls and all of the other factors are taken into account. In other words, significant income differences remain between the sexes even after education and experience levels are held constant.
Although there are virtually identical over-all labour force participation rates for men and women, over 70 per cent of employees in the relatively disadvantaged and smaller institutions are women. When the Government moved to dismantle or reorganize the largest, most advantaged museums, we learned that those women who had achieved senior positions were, in many cases, shut out of significant positions in the new structure. New Democrats have raised concerns about equality in our cultural institutions for many years. Our national mu-
June 22, 1989

seums have a very poor record, a record which may now indeed be improving but at a disappointingly slow pace.
If I can use the analogy that museums reflect our history, surely their management practices should reflect our present and our future.
The new Museum of Civilization is geared up with many new staff for its opening later this summer. Roughly one-half of its employees are women. However, only four of the 15 top jobs are held by women. It is very hard to believe that there are only four women in Canada who have the qualifications to aspire to and expect to sit in those top jobs. In the same museum we find women in the traditional roles, the pink collar ghetto, but only 26 per cent of the scientific and professional category with average earnings in excess of $35,000 are women. Some 86 per cent of the administrative support jobs with an average salary hovering around $20,000 are filled by women. I think it is absolutely vital that we consider these figures and think about what our policies should be, not only for museums but when it comes to funding these organizations.
It is important that I include here thanks to the museum for so promptly providing me with these figures.
I invite the Government to review these concerns regarding museums and to report to the legislative committee studying this Bill on its plans for remedy.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12 before the House today arises from a recommendation made by the task force responsible for examining federal museum policy, a committee chaired by Clement Richard and William Withrow.
I had the honour and the privilege of knowing the director, the former Secretary General of the Corporation, Mr. Leo Dorais, who at the time objected very strongly to this recommendation, claiming that administrative costs were twice as high as they would be if the task were delegated to the four main museums.
Museums
Mr. Dorais made his mark with his very substantial contribution to the National Museums of Canada as their administrator. Mr. Dorais has served Canada and the National Museums well.
We have now reached a new phase.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate because of the very strong connection with the riding I represent, Ottawa-Vanier. As you know, the National Gallery of Canada is in Ottawa-Vanier. I also have the honour and the privilege of representing several other museums that come under either the National Museum of Natural Sciences or the Canadian Museum of Civilization, and we are very proud of them.
Mr. Speaker, although I am in favour of independent museums, I am also concerned about what will happen to language equality in those museums. It is an issue I certainly want to raise today, and I take this opportunity, since the Minister is here, to ask him once more to give us the assurance that the policies on language of service and language of work will be maintained, even if the museums are decentralized and even if each museum becomes an autonomous entity.
Mr. Speaker, official languages have never been a priority for our museums. A special report submitted by the Commissioner of Official Languages shows that French takes second place in active offers of service. In fact, according to the Commissioner's report, security staff was unilingual and French information material was inadequate. In some museums, publications in French were more expensive, sometimes as much as twice or three times the price of the same publication in English.
As far as language of work is concerned, the situation is even worse. In fact, there is no option. The report shows that English is the only language of work and that in professional circles, Francophones have to draft their reports in English to be understood by their superiors.
The National Museums Corporation took a step in the right direction by signing an agreement with Treasury Board. Now we must make sure the agreement continues to be applied in each museum.
Only the Secretary General, Mr. Edwards, was accountable to Treasury Board for attaining federal objectives for official languages in the museums.

June 22, 1989
Museums
However, section 4 of the Memorandum of Agreement, signed by the Museums and Treasury Board with all the requisite flourishes, provides, and I quote:
If the National Museums of Canada Corporation is dismantled while the Memorandum is in effect, museum directors have the option of maintaining the Memorandum of Agreement, amending it through negotiations or signing a new agreement with Treasury Board.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit this is of special interest to me as the official languages spokesman for my party, and I am looking forward to seeing the results of these negotiations if and when they take place. We intend to monitor negotiations in this area and make sure that the decentralized museums, if we can use that term, implement language policies that are acceptable to all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the other topic which is of some interest to me is the question of marketing these museums.
As Hon. Members would know, the national museums are a basic facet of our community's cultural development because they are the repository of the collective wealth of our people. Whether we talk about founding nations, native people or New Canadians, our museums mirror the history from which future generations will draw inspiration. This is why they ought to accommodate as many visitors as possible and display the exhibits likely to attract them.
Last December 231 wrote to the National Museums of Canada Secretary-General to suggest that a tourist passport be issued, something likely to interest a great many visitors because it would open the doors to all museums without the need to pay an entrance fee. It might also enable NMC management to put some of the less popular museums on a sounder financial footing and, I am sure, make museum tours somewhat less expensive for visiting families.
My contention was that lower entrance fees through a tourist passport giving access to all museums might be implemented. I was glad to learn that the secretary responded by saying that the matter would be considered!
Just recently I got a letter from the head of the National Capital Commission in which she stated that she had endorsed the suggestion and that a tourist passport would be available to gain access to museums
and other National Capital Region institutions, and perhaps to historic sites and other points of interest to visitors.

Our museums are sometimes our best kept secrets. When I refer to the marketing principle, I refer to a method by which our museums are promoted for Canadians to visit and appreciate. While we welcome the revamping of the national museums structure, we need to ensure that more Canadians are aware of then-existence. There should be a good marketing plan to encourage tourism by making the airlines, railway and the media more interested in promoting the great contribution that our Canadian museums can make.
One year ago the Government issued a discussion paper on policy for all museums. This document described the status of museums across Canada in the dawning of the 21st century, and encouraged all interested parties to hold relevant discussions on the future of museological institutions. However, that policy lies dormant in the Department of Communications.
This new policy is needed to revitalize the non-federal museums across Canada, permitting more public programs, exhibitions of Canada's heritage and culture, and conservation of collections. It will make a greater appreciation of Canadian culture available to all regions of our land.
The Government should address this policy of marketing very soon. Our national museums are a source of Canadian heritage, culture and pride. They are a visitor's delight and they enrich our national capital. They make Canadians proud of the capital.
John Edwards, the secretary-general of National Museums of Canada did a good job and I congratulate him on his work in restructuring the museums. I hope Mr. Edwards goes on to his just rewards and I wish him continued success in his career, but I hope that every museum, independent as it will be, will make sure that Canadians, be they French or English, receive adequate service in their language on an active basis. It should be a policy of all museums to offer that service on an active basis.
Second, the Government must address the question of marketing. I hope it sees fit to introduce a good policy on marketing that will make our museums much more
June 22, 1989

interesting and encourage many more Canadians to see them.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments on this Bill. I am pleased also that the Minister is in the House and I hope he will take note of the comments made by Members in the House today about the importance of the museums they have in their ridings as well as the museums here in Ottawa.
Our Party supports in principle the legislation which would provide the museums with a mandate that makes them more independent.
As a Member from British Columbia, I have lived quite far from the nation's capital. Since coming to Ottawa I have had a chance to tour a couple of the museums. Of course, I look forward to the opening of the new museum next week.
I took my mother through the new art gallery and, while she did not think all of it was art, we all have open minds about what is art and appreciate the importance of cultural development in this country through our museums.
I want to expand somewhat on the comments about museum policy made by my colleague, the Member for Mission-Coquitlam (Ms. Langan). One particular area that I am interested in is the need for a policy to clearly state the criteria and responsibility for museums both in the capital and in many of our smaller communities. I am particularly concerned with museums in many of our small communities throughout the country, including some of the many positive initiatives that are taken in my riding. The purpose behind the co-operation between federal and provincial Governments in developing a museum policy is to preserve and understand the history of our country. That history is very important in terms of the artefacts and documents relating to our past.
I remind the Minister of the commitments made by his Government. The museum policy was recommended in September, 1986, but we do not have one yet. I am not too critical of the Government because I think the museum community would be very grateful for an indication from the Government about the direction the Government and the provinces want to take with a museum's policy.
Museums
There are a couple of museum projects in my riding. I am a member of the Prince George Railway Museum, and smaller communities like McBride and Valemount are attempting to save their historic railway stations. We are aware of the legislation regarding heritage railway stations, but it is those kinds of projects that have missed many of the opportunities which we sometimes take for granted when we go between Parliament and the wonderful buildings we have here. Some attention should be given to those in small community-sponsored museums, not necessarily in the form of large grants, but for such things as sewer, water and electricity, or a bit of landscaping. That is the kind of extra help those smaller communities need because in most cases there is considerable volunteer effort given to these projects.
I believe there was an attempt in British Columbia to sign a communications subagreement under the economic development umbrella. I wrote a letter to the Minister on that matter because that is a vehicle to develop some of the co-operative agreements and sharing of revenue that can go toward some of the museums in our province. I would encourage the Government to seriously consider taking advantage of the upcoming expiry of some of these subagreements that we have.
In closing, I want to say that the museum community and all Members of the House would look forward eagerly to a policy from the Minister. We would see from that some specific direction, I hope, in terms of the mechanics of implementing a policy like that. In particular, my message is the concern that a lot of these smaller museums and similar types of operations have across the country. I thank you very much for this opportunity to speak.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the speeches of the last two speakers for the New Democratic Party and I am commenting as my Party's Culture and Communications critic. I too am pleased to see the Minister in the House.

I hope the Minister will be able to attend Question Period.

Museums

A very good point was made by the Hon. Member for Mission-Coquitlam (Ms. Langan), who represents a neighbouring riding to my own in British Columbia. She is a tireless fighter for the interests and rights of women. She pointed out that at the new Museum of Civilization, while half the employees are women, only four of the 15 executive type positions are held by women. We keep repeating the same pattern. One would hope for some employment equity in the federal Government by which we could get women into senior positions if they are qualified for them. There should be some gender balance in these positions.
I would like to comment on some of the remarks of the Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. Gardiner).
If I could describe Ottawa today for people in other parts of the country who perhaps are watching us, it is a very hot, muggy June day with many tourists on the Hill and in Ottawa. We have got some magnificent museums here in Ottawa. The Minister opened one on political caricature cartoonists. No doubt we will all be in that museum. If one has a big nose, one's nose gets bigger in one of those cartoons, or a big chin, it becomes huge in one of those cartoons. The Minister, myself and the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) do not have to worry because we are just ordinary Canadians in that way.


Some Hon. Members:: You're short.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am short.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my good friend from Moody-Coquitlam will understand If I rise on a point of order. First, about these caricatures, when anybody does my nose, believe me, I worry about it.
However, the point of order I would like to make is that it is not often that students are able to travel on cultural programs all the way from northern Alberta to visit this place. I would just like to draw the Speaker's attention to a large group of students from St. Andrews School in High Prairie, Alberta, who are seated in the public gallery.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope they will visit the museums.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That really is not a point of order the Hon. Member raised, but it was well smuggled in. I am sure the students are learning parliamentary techniques from their Member.
Getting back to the museums, it is true that we are opening two magnificent museums. We opened one just a little while ago, the National Gallery, and I believe next week the Museum of Civilization is to open. They are magnificent museums, even though there were some problems with contracts and various things with one of them.
What the Hon. Member from Prince George-Bulkley Valley was saying, is that we need a museums policy regarding museums in other parts of the country as well. We have spent a lot of money in Ottawa to get these two museums going, but let us not ignore the rest of the country. It is not everyone who can come from Alberta to Ottawa. These students are very lucky, and I hope they will visit these new museums. However, let us spread it out. I think that is the message of the Hon. Member from Prince George-Bulkley Valley, and I totally agree with him.


Mr. Masse:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly respond to the remarks and comments made by Hon. Members, for which I thank them. I support all the points they made, especially the need for more women in the administrative, management, research, development and scientific aspects of museums, conservation, and the same point made on the matter of participation by francophones.
Also, a very important item in the legislation needs be emphasized, among others: the leadership that should be exercised by Crown museums. Instead of being a mere administrative and functional structure for the national capital area, they should exercise leadership in the Canadian museum community as a whole. It is my hope that the directors of those museums will take note of the comments made by Hon. Members and ensure that Canadian collections are exhibited throughout the country rather than only in the capital area.
It is clear that we are now reviewing the Canadian museum policy, and hopefully in the near future I will be in a position to complete the review, consultation and discussion process with interested parties and make an announcement.
June 22, 1989

Radio Act
I also believe as I said on a number of occasions that the Canadian Government's financial commitment to museums is not up to the Minister's expectations, which I indicate on behalf of all those who are interested in Canadian museums, and that a stronger financial commitment should be made.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the Hon. Member for British Columbia in his suggestions. I was privileged today to officially open the Canadian Center of Caricature, which to me is a recognition of the excellence of our cartoonists throughout our history. It also testifies to the quality of the freedom of speech and freedom of thought we enjoy in Canada. In these times where the basic principles of democracy are so easily trampled, few governments found a way to honour those who make a career out of criticizing the actions of politicians in the name of freedom of speech. To that extent, it is my hope that the action taken by the Government of Canada in recognizing both the excellence of our cartoonists and the significance of their contribution to freedom of speech, will set an example for other countries to follow and that they will also honour through their cartoonists, the quality of their democracy.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to bring, through you, to the attention of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), how much I would have enjoyed being there to enjoy the caricatures. Unfortunately the orderly disorganization of the House today has kept me here. I hope that we can finish this Bill and see the museums Bill go to a legislative committee.
I would also like to suggest that we congratulate ourselves on the development of an additional museum which will bring great joy and pleasure and I hope a lot of fun as we poke fun at each other in good sense and good judgment here in Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Radio Act and certain other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before we get into the Bill, there are three motions on the Order Paper and Notice Paper offered in amendment to Bill C-6. All are in order and all are standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
The House will now proceed with Motion No. 1.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 1
June 16, 1989-That Bill C-6 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 32 at page 9 the following:
"7.(1) The Governor in Council shall make regulations to require that radio authorizations may not be issued and renewals of radio authorizations may not be granted to applicants of the classes described in subsection (2).
(2)	The classes referred to in subsection (1) are as follows:
(a)	persons who are not Canadian citizens or eligible Canadian corporations; and
(b)	governments of countries other than Canada or of political subdivisions of countries other than Canada and agents of such governments.
(3)	For the purpose of this section, an "eligible Canadian Corporation" is a corporation
(a)	that is incorporated under the laws of Canada or a province,
(b)	of which the chairman or other presiding officer and each of the directors or other similar officers are Canadian citizens, and
(c)	of which, if it is a corporation having share capital, at least four-fifths of the shares having full voting rights under all circumstances and shares representing in the aggregate at least four-fifths of the paid-up capital are beneficially owned by Canadian citizens or by corporations other than corporations that are controlled directly or indirectly by citizens or subjects of a country other than Canada, except that, in any case where, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, notwithstanding the fact that the corporation is one to which subparagraphs (a) to (c) apply, the corporation is effectively owned or controlled either directly or indirectly and either through the holding of shares of the corporation or through the holding of a significant portion of the outstanding debt of the corporation or in any other manner

June 22, 1989
Radio Act
whatever, by or on behalf of any persons, body, or authority of a class described in subsection (3), the corporation shall be deemed not to be an eligible Canadian corporation.
(4)	Notwithstanding subsection (3), a corporation that is
(a)	one to which paragraphs (3)(a) to (c) apply, and
(b)	in the opinion of the Governor in Council, effectively owned or controlled by a corporation to which paragraphs (3)(a) and (c) apply and subsection 3(b) does not, shall, for the purposes of this subsection, be deemed to be an eligible Canadian corporation if
(c)	at least four-fifths of the directors or other similar officers of the owning or controlling corporation, including the chairman or other presiding officer are Canadian citizens; and
(d)	the Governor in Council is satisfied that it would not be contraiy to the public interest to grant a radio authorization or the renewal of a radio authorization to that corporation.
(5)	With respect to any shares of a corporation of a particular class that, according to the relevant records that the corporation is required to keep under the law of the place of its incorporation, are held by individuals each of whom holds one per cent or less of the total number of issued shares of the corporation of that class, the Governor in Council may, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, accept as evidence that such shares are beneficially owned by Canadian citizens, a statement signed by the president, secretary or treasurer of the corporation, or by any other officer or persons thereunto duly authorized by the board of directors or other governing body of the corporation, indicating
(a)	that according to those records the individuals who hold the shares are individuals having addresses in Canada; and
(b)	that the persons by whom the statement is signed has no knowledge or reason to believe that the shares are not beneficially owned by Canadian citizens.
(6)	An applicant for the renewal of a radio authorization that was outstanding as of the date of the enactment of this section may not be granted such renewal, but by virtue of this section shall be deemed, for the purposes of that application only, not to be an applicant of a class described in subsection (2) if the Governor in Council is satisfied that it would not be contrary to the public interest to grant the renewal applied for by the applicant.
(7)	Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the power of the Governor in Council to direct that amendments of radio authorizations may not be granted to applicants of a class described in subsection (2) or that radio authorizations may not be issued and
renewals of radio authorizations may not be granted to applicants of classes other than a class described in subsection (2).
She said: Mr. Speaker, my amendment to Bill C-6 comes out of a deep concern for Canadian control of our communications and cultural industry, particularly with the changing economic environment and international investment patterns which we are witnessing in today's global society. Whether from Europe, Japan, or the United States those investment patterns are very significant, and I suggest that they must be taken into consideration.
Foreign investment in this country should contribute to economic growth rather than to any kind of control of our cultural industries. That was the thrust of the Free Trade Agreement, that we would not touch our cultural industries, and that goes for any other country which wants to come in here, not only the United States.
We have learned the hard lesson. Some 97 per cent of our film industry is foreign controlled, 75 per cent of our domestic book industry is foreign controlled, and 71 per cent of our periodical market consists of imported foreign product. Some 85 per cent of our domestic sales of records and tapes manufactured here in Canada come from imported master tapes. We do not control, as we should, the levers of our economic power that are found in the cultural industries. If we do not control our cultural industries and our telecommunication industries, what will continue to define us as a people?
We have just finished debating the museums Bill. That indicates that we have an historical record. Let us ensure that we have an historical record in the future that is ours, not brought in from the outside.
We do not want a repetition of these foreign ownership realities. Presently Canadians control 80 per cent of their telecommunications and broadcasting industries. This amendment would ensure that we maintain this level of control of these industries. Furthermore, it brings transparency and openness to the Government of the country and it allows for fairness of opportunity. It would require, by law, that those who acquire any radio authorization, that is any licences, be 80 per cent owned and effectively controlled by Canadians.
June 22, 1989

For example, this would require that those who hold licences for cellular telephone networks, microwave links, radio relay stations, paging transmitters, mobile data systems, air and marine radar systems, satellite communications, and citizen band radios would have to be 80 per cent Canadian owned and controlled.
This is a very normal request and a consideration of importance. In this new era of evolving technology the use of our precious commodity, that is spectrum and ownership, must be conserved in Canadian hands. It is part of the infrastructure of Canadian communication strategy. Others may use our facilities or rent our facilities, but they should not and may not own those facilities. I think that is the least that we as Canadians owe ourselves.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications has indicated that ownership of the Canadian communications infrastructure is an important issue. The Bill contains a general enabling power which gives the Governor in Council the authority to make regulations prescribing the eligibility of those who may hold certain kinds of radio licences. These eligibility criteria could include citizenship, ownership or make-up of the board of directors.
It is precisely these issues, that of controlling the eligibility by Governor in Council regulations, that concern me. The process by its very nature is secretive. It is hidden. It leaves many to wonder at times whose agenda is being served. It potentially does not provide all interested players, Canadians, in the game with the same opportunities or with clear rules, and it can allow for manipulation.
By placing ownership requirements in legislation the rules are very clear and, if the rules are to be changed, the process is open and transparent for all. That is why we are here, to legislate the kind of Canada that we want to maintain now and ensure for tomorrow in charge of its telecommunications and cultural industries that include the needed infrastructure found under the management of the Radio Telecommunications Act.
This amendment is modelled from a direction to the CRTC by the Governor in Council under the provisions of Section 22 of the 1968 Broadcasting Act.
The direction we can see in this motion is relatively complex but very precise. It includes as basic require-
Radio Act
ments that broadcasting undertakings be 80 per cent Canadian owned and effectively controlled. This direction resulted in a number of divestitures and today all broadcast undertakings, whether cable or television, are Canadian owned and controlled.
I think that we have achieved a goal of significance. The reason I bring forward this amendment is to ensure that all radio communications infrastructures are so protected through the legislative process rather than through the discretionary use of regulations and Governor in Council directives. This country has enough regulation; this country has enough Governor in Council rights. I think it is time we put into legislation the will of the people, and the will of the people is that we control our cultural levers, our telecommunications levers, and ensure that they are in Canadian hands.
This view has been supported by the task force on broadcast policy which the Minister put in place. The Caplan-Sauvageau task force made it very clear that 80 per cent ownership at minimum must be maintained. As well, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, in its sixth report in May of 1987, Legislative Provisions for New Broadcasting Legislation, made a unanimous recommendation that the key components of what constitutes ownership and effective control, that is 80 per cent owned and effectively controlled by Canadians, be written into new broadcasting legislation.
When the Minister considers bringing broadcast legislation into this House, as he might consider bringing in telecommunications legislation, as he is now revising radio communications after so many years, he must ensure that his vision and the vision that we legislators have for Canada is ownership and control of these sectors. That is what defines who and what we are. No one should control it but Canadians. Anyone else is welcome to rent it, to borrow it, to use it, but never to own it or to control it. I hope that has been made very clear. I would like to have it written into the legislation.
Therefore, I believe that this concept is a logical step for the Radio Communications Act which we are studying right now. I suggest that the cabinet direction to the CRTC, which I have had examined by legal counsel and have had adapted to suit the contents of the Radio Telecommunications Act, has a solid and proven record. It is for these reasons that I believe that this House should give its support to this amendment.

June 22, 1989
Radio Act
This is the first opportunity for the Government, since free trade and the big argument that culture was not on the table, to indicate clearly and unequivocally that culture, cultural industries, and anything else that touches that aspect of our lives are going to be owned and controlled by Canadians, whether through free trade or any other mechanism or market looking for a place to put their money. I would ask Canadians to flex their muscles for now and for tomorrow.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say briefly on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we would support this amendment in that, as the Member said who presented it, the amendment would give regulating power so that these institutions could remain Canadian.
I just want to take up one thing which the Member said about whether culture and Canadianization were on the table at the free trade talks. The Government said that they were not. Of course they were. The film Bill, which was withdrawn basically at the request of the Americans, was a good example.
Last night, the Minister and I and various other people went to see a movie called Jesus of Montreal. It is a great film. One of the big problems is that it will not be seen by most Canadians because, as the member of the Liberal Party said, 97 per cent of film distribution is controlled by foreigners, mainly Americans. This is a great tragedy. We cannot see our own films in this country.
The Government has to have the guts to enact a film Bill with real teeth in it. I would be less than human if I did not suggest my own Private Members' Bill, which was the Government's original Bill. It would put some teeth and guarantee a slice of the market for Canadians. Of course, the Government cannot do that because it has signed a free deal deal with the United States. That will harmonize our industries and there will be non-discrimination clauses. The Government is stuck. It cannot do anything. It is going to Americanize Canada.
That is a longer debate. It is a debate I have consistently put before this House. I am glad the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has now taken up the debate and mentioned all these statistics about how many of our cultural institutions remain essentially in
foreign hands. No country in the world can exist independent, like that. We have fought and struggled in this country to have an independent Francophone culture and an independent Anglophone culture. So far as this amendment assists in that grand battle for freedom and independence of Canadian culture, we will support it.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, my two hon. colleagues stated their proposed amendments very eloquently. I am sure there is a great deal of validity and the points they made are very intelligent. But under the circumstances, we believe that this amendment goes too far and would be neither practical nor useful. The Government still believes that it is better for the regulations to have the flexibility required to meet my colleagues' laudable objectives, Mr. Speaker, so that we must refuse these amendments.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Sheila Finestone: Negatived on division.
Motion No. 1 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-6 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 8 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) mailing it by registered mail to the accused the".
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-6 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 26 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"delivered or mailed, where there is evidence of such delivery or receipt, does not enter a plea".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Both motions are to be debated together.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, if there were not such time constraints, I would have wished the Minister would have been a little more forthcoming on the reasons why he could not accept the first amendment.

With respect to the second amendment, it is a pretty straightforward, simple one. I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, about the potential for erratic mail service. As a matter of fact for those Members who want to read today's business section of The Ottawa Citizen, which has a very fine cover story on Canada Post, I was amused with one comment. Then I thought to myself: "Well, isn't this perfect timing for the Bill in which I am presenting what would seem to me a perfectly logical amendment?"
My amendment essentially states that if you are going to mail me a summons or a ticket that is going to cost me money because I supposedly broke a law, I at least ought to be entitled to a registered letter. That is what I am saying. I just bring to the Hon. Members' attention that Mr. Jim Bennett, the General Manager of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents 80,000 medium and small companies, calls these claims of wonderful productivity and fine new delivery performances on the part of Canada Post a little, hollow victory.
He states: "We are a major mailer. We are having as much trouble as we ever did. The profit is being raised on the backs of consumers and businesses by more than doubling postal rates, not necessarily increasing its efficiency."
If I am going to get a ticket because I have broken a law, which is what the Government has provided in this Bill, I would suggest that the Minister consider-and Motion No. 3 is just a consequential amendment-under the offences listed on page 11 of the Bill, where it can have very serious consequences both on business and on the individual who buys a product or uses a product, the least the person is entitled to is that the information may be laid after the ticket is delivered or mailed. Let us make sure that it gets mailed in an efficient manner. My recommendation for the amendment in a simple word is: "registered mail". With that, I leave it for the Minister to comment.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, again, we believe that those are excellent suggestions. But the Government believes that it would be too restrictive to specify "registered mail" in the legislation, thus implicitly forbidding all other types of certified mail.
Radio Act
The Government might even deprive itself of the ability to use specialized services that have not yet been developed if such a limited expression as "registered mail" were used.
In this regard, the Government feels that the amendment does not take into consideration new services that might be available and it rejects the amendment.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Sheila Finestone: On division.
Motion No. 2 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Sheila Finestone: On division.
Motion No. 3 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


Marcel Masse: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Masse: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, this is the first major revision of the Radio Act in 50 years. This is an instrument which the Department of Communications uses to promote the use and orderly efficient development of radio communications in Canada. In this regard, the Department has three principal regulatory functions: first, planning and standards devel-

June 22, 1989
Radio Act
opment; second, licensing of radio apparatus; and third, enforcement.
Through this legislation interference is controlled as well as the maximum number of users. In addition, it assures users access to the radio frequency spectrum and to all the benefits of radio communications. While Bill C-6 is technical and essentially a regulatory Bill, it goes far beyond a technical systems oriented approach because of whom and what it affects. It is directed primarily to the benefit of the individual in the home or at business. It impacts upon some rather common place devices which everyone takes for granted but which, in fact, only perform properly when they conform to the necessary regulations. Here I am speaking about everyday items such as the radio, television, and telephone to name just a few.
One principle of this Bill is to promote access and enable any individual to enjoy all the benefits of communications technology without one technology interfering with or reducing the benefits from another technology. That sounds pretty fundamental, but it makes sure all things work on their own and in an environment filled with other technologies. It is the kind of thing one has to explain to children and to adults. Although technology and terminology is very complex, it does have a role to play in our lives. What we are dealing with today is very important. It sets out the administrative rights and remedies which enable us to use the system.
In practical terms this legislation permits the Department of Communications to set technical standards where necessary for manufacturers, importers, and distributors of radio equipment to ensure consumers obtain safe and trouble free equipment.
The 1938 Act only allows the Department to act if it finds substandard radio equipment actually being used. Under Bill C-6, the Government will be able to stop the importation, manufacture or sale of substandard equipment. This new power will match regulations in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia.
Buyers of radio equipment will not be the only consumers to benefit from the new Bill. The Bill for the first time deals with electro-magnetic immunity, the ability of radio and non-radio electronic devices to reject
unwanted radio signals and to operate normally in their presence. This is an important change as radio signals can cause malfunctions in such non-radio electronic equipment as heart pacemakers, railway crossing gates, computers, and stereos. We have all heard about viruses. The change is vital and key in terms of what has to be done.
Finally, it is with a great deal of regret that the bureaucratic input has prevented the Minister from using what I consider would have been his good judgment. He would acknowledge that to ensure 80 per cent ownership and control would only have made good sense now for his children, my children, and our grandchildren. It would have prevented for Canadians the kind of history lesson that we have in all the other cultural industries I outlined at report stage of this Bill.
I am really distressed that the Minister was not allowed to use his ministerial discretion in this instance. From my point of view the ability to ensure fairness, openness and to reduce the amount of regulatory procedures by Governor in Council would have been in the interests of all Canadians.
Although I welcome the presence of the chairman of our standing committee who should have influenced the Minister, it is with the deepest regret that I see what the Minister was unable to do because of the bureaucrats.
I have three more minutes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: Don't die, the Bill is going to the Senate. You have been rushing me all morning. I am going to have my last say. Ian, are you speaking?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes.


Sheila Finestone: I will give him one minute, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: To ensuring fairness and due process, the Minister said no. To ensuring openness and transparency in government, the Government said no. To saying yes to Canadians and to 80 per cent Canadian ownership cent, the Minister said no. I regret all that. That is what we have. The Bill has to go, and off we go.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 22, 1989


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, that last minute and a half was the best speech I have ever heard from the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Member should put herself under that deadline more often. I am glad she is allowing me to speak for one minute. She said that I could speak for a minute. I would hate to be one of her children.


Sheila Finestone: They are well bred and well read children.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They must get fairly tough discipline.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am sorry. I said "children", not grandchildren.


Sheila Finestone: I have those, too.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is nice to know. I would never have suspected that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Before I put my foot in my mouth, I had better finish off.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, we are agreed to the passage of this Bill. It is long overdue. We have to update technologically ourselves.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal mentioned heart pacemakers, computers, and so on. I, too, wish that there would be more measures to protect Canadian culture, which I think is in great need of further protection if we are to develop and remain independent as a country. That has to be in another Bill and another place. I hope the Minister will bring the Broadcasting Act back soon to the House.


Marcel Masse: This afternoon?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Not this afternoon, but in the fall. Again we can see that expression of the Minister's commitment to Canadian culture, arts, cultural institutions, and CBC if I dare say that, as well as to the CRTC, and so on. We will look at the Bill to see how much the Minister has changed, to see whether he is still committed to those institutions.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to thank all who participated in the debate in this House and in the committees and all who worked on drafting this legislation with the Department of Communications, in many consultative meetings. In closing, I would like to emphasize the importance of the spectrum management group in the Department. Although it is important, it often does not receive the publicity or discussion that other groups in the Department have, as in the cultural field, for example.
I wish to thank them for their day-to-day work to provide Canada with a very efficient spectrum management service, for the benefit of all Canadians.

Motion agreed, Bill read the third time and passed.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the most toxic poison with which we have managed to foul the environment are dioxins. Their elimination from all sources should be an urgent priority of this Government.
We are threatened by dioxin producing industries such as the Woodfibre pulp and paper mill in Howe Sound. However, what does the Government do in this case? It closes the fisheries, not the polluting mill. The Government chooses to deal with symptoms, not causes.
Yes, the Minister has promised tough regulations on dioxins, but not coming into force until 1990. In the meantime, why does the Minister not use the powers he has and issue an interim order to apply the regulations immediately? The cause of the problem lies with the pulp and paper mills. They should be closed, not the fisheries. To protect fisheries, the Minister must deal swiftly with pulp and paper mill pollution.

June 22, 1989
If Canadians are to take seriously the proclamation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on sustainable development, the Minister must act, for actions speak louder than words.



NATIVE RIGHTS


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, a Canadian Government delegation in Geneva is being accused by native groups from several countries of attempting to undermine an international covenant on native rights.
The 150-nation International Labour Organization, a UN affiliate, is currently meeting to revise its Convention 107 on the rights of indigenous peoples, originally passed in 1957 and now considered outdated. A number of fhe amendments presented by the Canadian Government are objectionable. Native leaders are objecting more precisely to 25 amendments proposed by Canada because they believe they weaken attempts for a strong statement in the revised convention.
In view of Canada's image as a promoter of human rights, surely the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) should review this situation and instruct the head of the Canadian delegation to changes these unacceptable amendments.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham):: Mr. Speaker, on Thes-day, June 20,1 witnessed the profound effect the recent tragic events in Beijing have had on young Canadians when I met with teacher Miriam Smith and her grade 5 class at Raymer Wood Public School in Markham. It is been an especially difficult time for some of the students who have relatives living in China.
The following are excerpts from some of the letters the students wrote as a class project to Chinese Ambassador Zhang Wenpu deploring his Government's actions in Tiananmen Square.
Christopher Reid wrote:
What is your government doing ordering your army to attack innocent people?-all they want is to discuss democracy with the government.
liana Shamoon's letter read:
-the people just wanted a discussion-it wasn't right for him (Mr. Xiaoping) to have them killed.
Anthony Latchman wrote:
I can't believe that your government said to kill people. The students weren't even armed.
Renee Pecham expressed the hope of everyone when she said:
I hope Mr. Xiaoping will come to his senses.
These young students, although 10 and 11 years of age, have come to realize the democratic system we so freely enjoy here in Canada should not be taken for granted but should be cherished and nourished.



FINANCE


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), hides behind the constitutionality question to say that he cannot make the new sales tax visible to Canadians. I see today that constitutional experts are saying that that is nonsense.
Who should we believe? Should we believe the Minister of Finance? He said he would remove the personal surtax, but now he will not. He said he will keep the tax revenue neutral but now he will not. Finally, he said he would make the tax visible to Canadians so that everyone would know exactly how much tax they are paying, but now he will not.
Why should we trust the Minister of Finance? Does he know what it is like to have to worry about the extra $10 or $20 it will take under his new sales tax to buy a new winter coat? The Minister should withdraw his plans for the new sales tax and bury this burden in a black hole where average Canadians would like to see it go.



TRANSPORTATION


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canadians are looking for better ways of dealing with the problems of rail passenger service. The Opposition seems to endorse permanently subsidizing a losing operation. The Government advocates starving

the public monopoly to death while VIA Rail bureaucrats dither over how to ration out their dwindling supplies of cash.
This week in Yellowhead, Preston Manning unveiled the Reform Party's alternative to this situation. Transport Canada should, in consultation with affected communities and labour organizations, prepare public "request for proposals" for operation of rail passenger service on a line-by-line basis. These would be solicited from potential alternative operators including VIA Rail. Contracts would be awarded to the respondent capable of doing the best job most cost effectively. This would be a formal process, free from political interference or political connections.
I would be happy to provide additional information to anyone who is interested.



MEECH LAKE ACCORD


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, as a French-speaking Quebec Member of this House, I will have the great pleasure of sharing with my fellow Quebecers the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day's celebrations.
Yet, this year, I will take part in these celebrations with a touch of concern in my soul. With the Meech Lake Accord, the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, had given back to us, Quebec men and women, a feeling of great pride and satisfaction because he had secured from all provincial premiers the recognition that Quebec was indeed a distinct society.
Now, we feel that this recognition to the effect that we, as Quebecers, are equal although somewhat different as partners, is shifting away from us. Some potential party leaders are even trying to reach the top at Quebeckers' expense.
While the last two undecided provinces still have almost a year to recognize this fact, let me remind you that although a federation is built on compromise, do not ask Quebec men and women to renounce their identity!



S. O. 31 FRANCE BICENTENARY OF REVOLUTION

Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians join with their cousins to celebrate the 200th Anniversary of the French Revolution.
Without it, Mr. Speaker, the evolution of Mankind would have been different. We would not have understood the thirst for freedom of these young Chinese in Beijing, if France had not been the first to abolish racial, religious and social discriminations.
We want the whole world to know that the efforts made by the revolutionaries who stormed the Bastille prison, and by the legislators who worked during the States General to ensure the triumph of the ideal of equality, liberty and brotherhood were not in vain.
Mr. Speaker, we continue this fight and come in a not so distant future, we shall overcome.
I therefore ask the House and all Canadians to join with me in wishing the whole French nation a happy 200th Anniversary!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, the interest free aspect of the advance payments program has been eliminated. A representative of Agriculture Canada reported to producers at a recent meeting on Prince Edward Island that a producer group in western Canada advised the Minister that advance payments impeded the marketing of canola. Out of concern, the Minister axed the program.
This same producer group has advised that it never made representation to the Minister, that its markets were not affected by advance payments and that advance payments actually complemented their marketing efforts. I submit that the excuses Island producers were given are invalid. I further submit that American demands for subsidy free agriculture in Canada are the hidden reasons behind the removal of this program. It seems that the Minister is more concerned with pleasing his American counterparts than with pleasing Canadian farmers.



FAMILY VIOLENCE

[Stage Direction]
June 22, 1989

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women told a family violence conference yesterday that a change in attitudes would stop family violence and that transition homes were not the answer. This sounds remarkably like a justification for why the Government is spending only $10 per year per battered woman. It is waiting for a change in attitudes so that the problem will go away.
Of course attitudes must change, but the Minister knows that one out of two battered women coming to a transition home is turned away because of lack of space. Battered women cannot afford to wait around for attitudes to change as the Government is doing. Battered women need support and services and they need them now.



ST. JEAN BAPTISTE TRIBUTES TO FRENCH CANADIANS

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity at this time-we obviously won't be sitting tomorrow-to say that June 24 is a very important holiday for us French-Canadians throughout Canada.
For us, St. Jean Baptiste Day speaks of our pride in belonging to the two great founding people of this country. For a number of years, we have taken this opportunity to raise our profile in this great country of ours.
I would also like to wish a happy holiday to all French-speaking Canadians. June 24 is a significant day and we have a reason to be proud. Together, we will celebrate throughout the country a holiday which marks our presence in North America for over 300 years. We are here to stay!



REQUEST FOR BAN ON PHARMACIES SELLING TOBACCO PRODUCTS

Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, a recent full-page ad sponsored by Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada reads: "Tobacco kills, smoking is a major cause of disease, disability and the premature death of 35,000 Canadians a year". This is quite true. Then the ad asks people to boycott those pharmacies that sell tobacco products. As well, the Canadian Medical Association last month asked its 46,000 members to send patients to smoke-free pharmacies.
The goal of smoke-free pharmacies is a noble one, and many across Canada have already removed tobacco from shelves. However, the Canadian Medical Association policy is totally inappropriate as long as it says nothing to patients who go to doctors who smoke. I submit that consulting a doctor who smokes is more a contradiction to good health than is buying a product in a drug store that sells tobacco.
I will accept the Canadian Medical Association boycott only after all 46,000 Canadian physicians are non-smokers.



SOCIAL SERVICES


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, in Nova Scotia the allocation of social assistance is the responsibility of the municipalities. Recently, the Halifax City Manager has proposed cuts in the amounts and eligibility for assistance. For example, it will deny the working poor, unemployed with no children, and some single parents basic assistance for food, clothing, and shelter after three or four months; it will deny all special needs assistance to the disabled, single parents, and the elderly; it will deny all special needs except prescription drugs; and it will cut shelter allowance by $50 per month.
The reneging on promised child care funding allocation by the federal Government leaves many parents unable to work because of the lack of adequate, affordable child care. The federal Government has a responsi-
June 22, 1989

bility to ensure that its commitments to child care are met, that the obligations of the Canada Assistance Plan are enforced, and that the poor and the disabled in Halifax and in other Canadian communities are not abandoned in the name of deficit reduction.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Dick) launched his Department's new and dynamic supplier relations promotion program. He also signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Roger Hamel, under which both parties agree to work together to keep the industry better informed of how to sell to the federal Government.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is a network of local Chambers of Commerce and of business and professional associations. It represents over 170,000 members. Mr. Speaker, that excellent program is going to give the industry easier and faster access to Government contracts.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, just over one year ago, the Communications Minister of the day announced that the postal subsidies program would remain unchanged for the next five years.
James Warrilow, President of MacLean-Hunter, said that this announcement ended the uncertainty plaguing the publishing industry. He stated that publishers would be able to plan their distribution costs for the next five years.
However, the recent Budget announced the intention of the Government to reduce postal subsidies by $10 million during 1989-90, and by $45 million each subsequent year.
These measures pose a direct threat to the publication of research and other scholarly works. The Social Science Federation of Canada indicates that this will grievously undermine the dissemination of scholarly publications in Canada.
On behalf of this organization, and the 14,000 researchers who belong to more than 65 post-secondary educational institutions across this country, I call on the Minister to renounce these restrictions on postal subsidies.
This Government should live up to its previous five-year commitment.



NATIONAL ARMED FORCES DAY


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, National Armed Forces Day will be celebrated on June 24. Several bases and stations across the country will open their gates to the public for the occasion. There will be concerts and parades. I encourage all Canadians to visit these military facilities and to meet the men and women who work there.
Once a year, on National Armed Forces Day, we give Canadians the opportunity to thank members of the armed forces who represent us with such distinction in Canada and all over the world. They also work to protect Canada's security and sovereignty. In cooperation with our allies, they help maintain world peace. We are proud of our armed forces and we want to thank them for a job well done.



THE LATE HON. WILLIAM HAMILTON

Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, from 1957 to 1963, the riding in the west end of Montreal named Notre-Dame-de-Grace, was represented in the House of Commons by the Hon. William "Bill" Hamilton. He was an exemplary political campaigner, visiting bus and streetcar stops early and late, and in all weather conditions to meet his electors. As a young Conservative, I was proud to work on his enthusiastic campaign team.

June 22, 1989
Oral Questions
He served admirably as Postmaster General in the Government of Prime Minister Diefenbaker, and as a business leader in Vancouver. He became a member of the Macdonald Royal Commission that studied Canada's economic future.
Following his recent death at 70, all Canadians join with his family in celebrating a life of service, and expressing thanks to Bill Hamilton.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter which I believe is of concern to all Members of the House.
A deduction due to a disability is something that has been in place for a number of years in our tax system. However, the Government has set up a system which makes it extremely difficult for individuals to qualify, and could lead to discouraging people from applying for this very legitimate deduction.
The Government has set up a disability determination section in Ottawa to make decisions on the claims local Revenue Canada officers do not feel are clear-cut. However, I have a large number of files in my office of individuals, some of whom have been waiting a year or more to obtain a ruling on their deduction for disability. When one calls the local Revenue Canada office, it will not give the number for the disability determination office in Ottawa. When I called the Department of National Revenue in Ottawa, a member of the Minister's departmental staff had not even heard of such an office.
I do not think that it is legitimate for Revenue Canada to expect people to wait for a year or more before receiving an answer, thus causing disabled individuals increased stress and anxiety. I urge the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Jelinek) to move immediately to put some speed into this snail-like system and stop penalizing the less fortunate members of our society.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Contrary to his earlier and repeated assurances that the new federal sales tax would be plainly visible to all consumers, the Minister has stated that the Government has now learned that it does not have the constitutional right to make it clear to consumers how much tax they are actually paying.
Yesterday, among others, the Minister of Finance for Saskatchewan stated: "Our constitutional people strongly disagree with that. It is our view that he, the federal Minister of Finance, does have that power".
Would the Minister now state clearly, whose constitutional advice he took, and how he arrived at his remarkable conclusion? Will he table a statement indicating how the Constitution limits the ways in which a federal tax is administered, including the procedures necessary to make it clear at the cash register what sales tax consumers are actually paying?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, one of the principal motives of the Government in sales tax reform is to make it much clearer than it is under the existing sales tax system precisely what amount of sales tax consumers are paying.
Under the proposed system, the goods and services tax, we will be bringing the sales tax to the retail level in order that everyone will know that on taxable goods, they pay 9 per cent tax at the retail level. As I indicated yesterday, that is simply not the case today. People do not know what federal sales tax they are paying. Under the goods and services tax we are taking a major step forward in the awareness that consumers will have of the existing tax.
The Hon. Member asks if we have the legal right to do this. Our legal advice is that we do not have the legal right to require a retailer to impose the tax extra to pricing, or to include it in the pricing. That is an option for the consumer.
June 22, 1989

Under the technical paper that we will be making available shortly, it will show very clearly how the federal Government will encourage the much greater awareness of consumers of the sales tax that they are paying.


VISIBILITY OF NEW SALES TAX
Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has indicated that the greater visibility that he has promised will be in the form of a small sign that will hang in a shop indicating that sales tax will be paid on some or all of the products sold in that shop. In failing to ensure that the new federal sales tax will be clearly visible, he is leaving the provinces with no alternative but to collect their provincial sales tax on top of the federal sales tax. This double taxation will give the provinces a windfall of almost a half billion dollars of taxpayers' money.
Will the Minister now keep his promise to Canadians by taking immediate steps to ensure that the new federal sales tax will be added at the cash register, as it should be, so that one tax is not being piled on top of another tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me expand on my comment which I gave in answer to the first question to illustrate the point that I made.
A study done of the 12 per cent rate-and not the 13.5 per cent rate that is in place right now-shows that the highest effective tax rate at the retail level is 12.67 per cent. Under the same tax the lowest effective tax rate is 6.05 per cent. The consumer does not know whether it is 12.67 per cent or 6.05 per cent, or anything in between.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And he still won't know.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says that he still will not know. He will know that on that product there will be a 9 per cent tax regardless of where he buys it, who he buys it from and what the brand name is. It will be 9 per cent and it will be very clear to Canadians that it will be 9 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED TAX CREDITS
Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows perfectly well that under his present
Oral Questions
plan a consumer shopping in a supermarket will pay tax on certain items in that supermarket and not on other items. He knows perfectly well that that will confuse and obfuscate the collection of taxes at the retail point.
The Minister has promised that the new tax will be clearly visible. It will not be. He promised that it will be revenue neutral. He knows that it will not be. He promised that surtaxes on income tax will be removed when the new tax is introduced. He knows that they will not be.
Can the Minister now assure the House that the substantial tax credits, which he has promised continually to the Canadian people to offset the regressive nature of the new tax, will be in place and will be of a character to ensure that the poorer people in our society are not paying an undue amount of this tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated very clearly on a number of occasions that answers to questions related to the awareness of consumers of the tax, the impact on our revenue position, the impact on low-income people and the benefits to be gained from the refundable sales tax credit will all be very clear when we make available the technical paper.
The important point that needs to be made here is that what the Hon. Member is saying about the hidden nature of the existing tax underscores quite clearly the reasons why we have to move to a new sales tax system and why his Party-and I believe he himself-has supported the fact that we must change from the existing sales tax system to the new sales tax system. I appreciate the support of the Liberal Party of Canada to moving forward to the goods and services tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISASTERS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, four years ago tomorrow, on June 23, 1985, Air India flight 181 en route from Toronto to London was bombed before it reached London. Some 329 people were murdered, most of them were Canadians.

June 22, 1989
Oral Questions
The Canadian Government has bungled the investigation from day one. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police was involved with erased tapes. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has also been involved in some false affidavits.
Today, a new book alleges that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has been investigating and, in fact, investigating at length a link between agents of the Indian Government and the bombing.
I would like to put my question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service investigating this link?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Solicitor General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I understand why my colleague asks the question, in view of the long delay. But I believe that I already informed the House several weeks ago that the RCMP is still conducting a criminal investigation. The Commissioner informed me about it.
You know all that is involved in this affair, Mr. Speaker, and any further statement at this time, while criminal investigations are underway and civil cases are before the courts-Unfortunately, I feel it is completely inappropriate at this stage to comment further any way whatsoever on this case, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, that is nonsense. For four years we have been told the same story. Time and time again the Government of Canada says that the investigation is ongoing and charges are imminent.
We have had a royal commission of inquiry in Canada into the conduct of a Cabinet Minister, Sinclair Stevens. Another one is going on into the conduct of an Olympic athlete. Here we have the most hideous and horrific crime ever in Canadian history. For some reason the Government of Canada refuses to initiate a royal commission of inquiry.
Is the Minister refusing to initiate a royal commission of inquiry because of the bungling of his Government, because of the false affidavits, because of the erased tapes, because of the advance warnings that the Government had? Or is it because of the link with the Indian Government?
I would like the Prime Minister to stand up. He has an obligation to the families of the victims to stand up in the House of Commons and to tell us exactly what was behind the Air India bombing.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, these questions were raised just a few days ago in the Standing Committee. The RCMP Commissioner informed those in attendance that more than thirty RCMP officers were now working on the case. Obviously, it is most unfortunate. Many people died. This type of investigation takes a lot of time to get all the facts.
I was assured by both the RCMP Commissioner and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service that the two agencies cooperated and did all they could to move this investigation forward. It is making progress.
Unfortunately, it seems to me quite inappropriate to raise this issue or to bring up the investigation in the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, we must let the RCMP continue this investigation. It has committed all the available energy and resources required for this purpose.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It refers to a Finance Committee report issued on monetary policy. It was issued this morning.
The Minister is now aware, of course, that we have a national consensus which includes the 10 Premiers, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the small business community, the farming community and the Finance Committee of this House which represents all three Parties, which states that interest rates must come down, and must come down now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In light of the fact that the Finance Committee report states: "Monetary restraint can be too tough and too long" and makes the primary recommendation that the Bank of Canada must relax its stance on monetary policy now. I want to know from the Minister of Finance whether or not he agrees that enough is enough, that it is the time to act, and that he instruct
June 22, 1989

John Crow to bring down the bank rate and bring it down now.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the work that is being done by the Finance Committee can be a useful contribution to the whole discussion of monetary policy.
However, I have to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member the fact that just this week we have had an indication of the tremendous strength in the economy over the past couple of years, and the fact that we have had an upward adjustment in the amount of growth in the economy which puts Canada right at the top of major industrialized nations in economic growth over the past two years. That, together with the ongoing high levels of inflation we have also seen this past week, in face of the increased level of the Canadian dollar and the high interest rates we have been encountering over the past number of months, indicates quite clearly that the Governor of the Bank of Canada, whose position has been fully supported by the Government, has been correct in maintaining the monetary policy he has been following. If we had not followed that policy, we would have had a much more serious inflation problem.
If the Hon. Member needs to be reminded, that is what got us into the mess we had in 1981 and 1982 when we had the most serious recession this country had seen since the 1930s.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister of Finance is sounding more and more like a clone of Allan MacEachen every day.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Mulroney:: How could you stoop so low?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has struck a tender cord.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I suppose I have also insulted the Senator in the other place, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR LOWERING OF BANK RATE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is now eight weeks since the Minister promised in his April 26 Budget to lower the interest rate set by the Bank of Canada. Mr. Speaker, we now have the support of Opposition Members on this side and Government Members on that side for reducing the rate.
Is the Minister of Finance prepared to say this has gone far enough, to do his duty and tell John Crow the time has come to lower interest rates in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, according to the rules of the House, I believe I would have to give you notice at the earliest possible opportunity of a question of privilege after the Hon. Member's descriptions of me in his preamble. It is slanderous and I cannot accept that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says that he would like to see lower interest rates. The Government of Canada would like to see lower interest rates. We believe that we have put in place a Budget which will lead to lower interest rates. That is the position I set in the budget speech itself, as well as on a number of occasions since that time.
However, markets must be allowed to work. The Governor of the Bank of Canada cannot wave a magic wand, nor can the Minister of Finance. Markets have to work to allow interest rates to come down.
If they are brought down artificially, it will result in precisely the problems we went through in the 1970s when the Government of the day ignored the problems of inflation, which led to the mess we got into in the 1980s. That is something that we on this side of the House are determined to avoid, even though the members in the New Democratic Party are quite happy to return us to the mess we got into at that time as a country.


WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED NATIONAL TAX-MINISTER'S POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows very well that one of the problems

June 22, 1989
Oral Questions
with the high bank rate has been the inflation rate, which has been created in part by the taxes of the Government opposite.
The proposed national sales tax will add at least 2.5 to 3 points to the Consumer Price Index. When the CPI goes up, Governor Crow usually responds by jacking up the interest rates.
In light of the pigheadedness of Mr. Crow, will the Minister of Finance make a commitment today to withdraw the proposal for a national sales tax, bring down interest rates, and strengthen the economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Hon. Member is saying that he wants us to withdraw the goods and services tax and return to the hidden tax, that existing federal sales tax and all the problems it has caused. He is also turning his back totally on the tax probe of the New Democratic Party which stated that the existing sales tax is a mess.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me address the substance of the Hon. Member's question about what will be the response of the Governor of the Bank of Canada to that short-term, one time only inflation impact.
The Governor of the Bank of Canada has indicated to me that he just does not look at the nominal numbers of inflation but at the underlying performance of the economy and what is happening to the underlying rate of inflation, to the growth and demand in the economy. He looks at what is happening to capacity utilization and monetary growth rates. All these things form monetaiy policy, not the one single item of the raw figure for inflation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Today's release of the book Soft Target reveals the elaborate and covert operations of the India Government in Canada to discredit and destabilize the Canadian
Sikh community and the manipulation of the Minister and his Department in this scheme.
Given that CSIS has confirmed to the authors that a special investigation was conducted into the behaviour of Indian diplomats in Canada, and that a report was submitted to the Minister's Department in 1986, will the Minister inform the House of the details of that report? Will he confirm or deny that he refused to act on that serious and sensitive report because he did not want to jeopardize a $1.9 billion pipeline deal between Canada and India?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I try to keep up with current literature, but I have not had the opportunity yet to read the book to which the Hon. Member is making reference. I will take a look at that. I will treat his question with the seriousness I usually accord to his questions.
Let me deal with the last implication in his question. That implication is false.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, there are also allegations in the book that officials from the Department of External Affairs knowingly got involved with the Indian Consulate in Toronto that paid informants to spy and oversee the actions of various members of that Canadian Sikh community.
Given the Minister's own track record with this community, the letter to the Premiers, the intervention in Sikh refugee cases, the attempted blocking of the Canadian chair of Sikh studies in Vancouver, and the Minister's refusal to appear before the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to justify his actions, is the Minister concerned about this unholy matrimony between the Government of India and the Government of Canada, when the rights of Canadian citizens of Sikh origin in this country are being violated? Don't you have any respect for their citizenship in this country?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is exceeding even his low standards in some of the allegations he is making. We make Canadian policy for Canadian reasons. We place as a priority of Canadian policy the interests of Canadian citizens.
We also maintain relations with friendly Governments. If those friendly Governments engage in any activities, including intelligence activities which are inappropriate,
June 22, 1989

we deal with them directly, we reprimand them directly, and we require the removal from the country of people involved in those improper activities.
The Hon. Member should not abuse his position as an elected Member of this House of Commons to try to raise these kinds of allegations.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister has stated on several occasions that only 3 per cent of Canadians ride the train, but he has never gone on to say that only 4 per cent of Canadians ride the bus and that only 7 per cent travel by air, while 85 per cent of Canadians travel by automobile.
Why is the Minister so determined to run VIA off the rails rather than support the corporation as he should be doing?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the best way to help a corporation and a country is to ensure that both the corporation's and the country's finances are in good shape. That is exactly what we want to do with VIA Rail. I did not say that 6 per cent of Canadians travel by bus because I was talking about VIA Rail and about the ridership of VIA Rail. However, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the funds allocated to VIA Rail in the last Budget reflect the frequency with which Canadians use this transport mode, and it is on the basis of this information that we intend to apply the present budgetary restrictions.


USE OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister has said that he will use Orders in Council to slaughter VIA Rail.
Why has the Minister decided that democracy in this country no longer matters? When will he stop using the math of the Minister of Finance and the truth of the Prime Minister to deal with this House?
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what I have said, and I repeat it, is that in the budget of April 27 there are many proposals or possibilities to deal with the VIA Rail budget.
One of those proposals could be abandonment of routes. If it happens, we could consider different options. Within the options is one is to go directly, by Section 64, to Order in Council. However, it will be done when we know if there are abandonments. Until that period of time I believe it is just speculation.


CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning Patricia Starr and the Prince Charles Housing Project in Toronto.
The Prime Minister knows the charitable status of this building depends on it being exclusively charitable in the judgment of Revenue Canada. This charitable status was only obtained with the intervention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Can the Prime Minister explain why charitable status has been continued when such needy persons as Mrs. Starr's son and a staff member of Premier David Peterson's office were both residents of this complex?
Why are Liberal and Conservative Party connections the main requirements for tax subsidized housing at Patty's Place?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, let me say first that the National Council of Jewish Women of Canada, the Toronto section, has co-operated fully with Revenue Canada in its ongoing investigation. I think that should be made very clear off the top.
Revenue Canada is conducting an investigation into their operations. We are having co-operation from them. I think we should wait until that investigation is finished before the Hon. Member jumps to some of the totally unfounded conclusions he has jumped to.


PC CANADA FUND
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister.

June 22, 1989
Oral Questions
During the 1988 election, the PC Canada Fund received $2,000 from the Starr charity for dinner for the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister consider himself to be a charity worthy of a $2,000 donation for a meal?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, people buy tickets to events. If any moneys have come into the hands of the PC Canada Fund or Members of Parliament that are not rightfully there, they will be returned.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF JIM DINNING, ALBERTA MINISTER OF EDUCATION
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in our gallery today of the Honourable Jim Dinning, Minister of Education of the Government of Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHANGES IN THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING SEXUAL DELINQUENTS
Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General.
According to an article which appeared this morning in the Globe and Mail, the National Parole Board Regulations will be changed to prevent the premature release of sexual offenders.
Could the Minister explain why these changes were not made before and how they will affect Bill C-67?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member said, this Government adopted Bill C-67 for the purpose of preventing dangerous criminals-this is a very important issue which affects all Canadians, Mr. Speaker.
Canadians are concerned about dangerous criminals and especially about the fact that they might be released
before serving their full sentence. There was still one major point that my predecessor submitted to a task force, namely, the severe harm that might be caused.
I asked officials in my Department, the Deputy Minister responsible for the National Parole Board and Correctional Services, to come up with a more restrictive definition of severe harm, which we did quite recently. As a result, and Canadians will be pleased to hear this, now that we have tightened up the criteria for evaluating severe harm, our system will be able to offer better protection to all Canadians. I think that is good news.


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is for the Prime Minister. He will know that 1,300 employees at the G. W. Martin Lumber Ltd. are some of the latest victims of the Government's softwood lumber agreement which really has devastated the industry in northern Ontario.
The Minister for International Trade has said that he agrees that the export tax is unfair because of the increase in exchange rates and should be removed. Is the Prime Minister prepared to undertake that his Government will end this tax?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is involved in consultations that we hope will allow a regime to be put in place that would remove the necessity for that tax. I am not in a position to give details on the extent of those negotiations.


Bob Wood: I certainly appreciate the Minister's answer.


ALLEGED DOUBLE STANDARD
Bob Wood: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
The Minister for International Trade is willing to go to the GATT to have an unfair U.S. import tax on oil imports removed to help the energy sector, but he is unwilling to stand up to the Americans on the lumber issue where an unfair export tax which we are collecting is costing thousands of Canadians their jobs.
June 22, 1989

Why this double standard? Will the Prime Minister explain this sell-out of workers in northern Ontario?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard. There is certainly no desire to do anything but help workers in northern Ontario and elsewhere in the country.
What is at issue here is the necessity to have in place some agreement between Canada and the United States that will take the place of a tax whose history is well known to Members of this House. Those discussions involving Canada and the United States are going forward, and there are consultations with the Canadian industries affected.


TOURISM
Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for tourism. The Minister has decided not to renew or, rather, abandon the Economic Regional Development Agreements for tourism in particular, and especially for the eastern provinces.
Every provincial Ministry of Tourism in the country has clearly indicated that the Government has no real understanding of the tourism industry, no plans, and now diminishing means to assist in a marketing strategy for the provinces.
Can the Minister explain how his Ministry is so totally at odds with every other tourist Ministry in the country?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the premise in the Hon. Member's question, the Government in fact is coming to terms with modem realities.
We had in the past ERDA arrangements which funded up $246 million with the provinces. They have produced a great deal of product and they have on the whole contributed largely to the regional development of those economies.
However, there were problems with the agreements. They were cumbersome. Decision making was some-
Oral Questions
times difficult. Also there was not enough emphasis on marketing instead of product development.
We are going to put a new regime in place with the regional agencies. I will, in consultation with my colleagues, bring this whole program up to modem standards rather than keep it in the old world.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CALL IN PROVINCIAL COUNTERPARTS
Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, considering what I have heard from most tourism departments in Canada, could the Minister, before he introduces a new system, perhaps inform the House whether he intends to at least call a meeting of provincial Tourism Ministers to keep the situation from deteriorating any further?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I met three weeks ago with the Ministers of Tourism of the various provinces and made it clear that the ERDA policy context was not the appropriate one for the future but that a new policy context could be put in place. They are looking forward to discussing this with me.
The new context will come to terms with our needs to advertise the product we already have and to put together a program that crosses provincial boundaries and does not just encapsulate this program within the provincial-federal context but makes it a wider program and a more dynamic program.


CULTURE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The sales tax will apply to books and magazines. Every country in the world and every province in Canada maintains a policy of not taxing books.
Why is the Minister of Culture going to impose a tax on reading?

June 22, 1989
Oral Questions


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Minister responsible for culture has no business imposing taxes at all. Second, in the weeks and months to come, Canadians will have every opportunity to discuss this issue and I am sure the Government will be listening to Canadians.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister could at least stand up against that tax.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I know that he is here today, perhaps only for decoration.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Why are you here?


Mr. Mayer:: You're not here for decoration or any other reason.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has boasted about his program to combat adult illiteracy. He has boasted about helping Canadian publishing companies. He has boasted about making Canada a more civil and tolerant society.
Then why is his Government, unlike any other Government in the western world, putting a tax on reading material? Is this not totally inconsistent?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right-I had not planned to be here but when I heard he was running for Leader I came down immediately. I want to wish him well, and I say that on behalf of a unified, generous and tolerant caucus.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The points raised by my hon. friend are very valid. I think he will recognize that we have all contributed to building that kind of a country.
He raises a series of concerns with regard to the artistic community. These will be looked at veiy carefully. A technical paper will be released, all of the concerns will be analysed, and the Minister of Finance will bring in definitive recommendations.
I thank my hon. friend for the question; it is one of the most cogent of all from the leadership candidates around here.


MINISTER'S APPEARANCE BEFORE DUBIN INQUIRY
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, as all of us in this Chamber are quite aware, the eyes of the world are focused right now on the Dubin inquiry.
My question is for the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport. Is the Minister prepared to testily before the Dubin inquiry? If he is prepared to do that, is he prepared to call Mr. Justice Charles Dubin and inform him of his desire to do so?


Mr. Dick:: Typical Liberal, phone the Judge.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right that the eyes of the world are on Canada and the Dubin inquiry.
I can tell him quite frankly that Mr. Justice Dubin has all the powers necessary to call witnesses if he feels it is necessary. We gave him those powers. If he asks me to testify before the Dubin inquiry, I will be happy to do so, as will the previous Minister.
The Member should be warned about calling judges. He may want to consult one of his ex-colleagues about that.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The Minister may find some humour in all this, but I fail to find any humour in this situation.


APPEARANCE OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE BEFORE DUBIN INQUIRY
Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question which was whether he expressed the desire to appear before the Dubin inquiry. He says "if he wants to call me, I'll go ahead''. We are sinking to a new low here, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Where is the Minister's sense of responsibility? It is incumbent upon the Minister to tell the inquiry what he knew about the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in Canadian amateur sport.
June 22, 1989

My supplementary question was going to be directed to the Minister of National Revenue, but in his absence maybe the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport can do me a favour and pass on my question to that Minister.
Is that Minister prepared to testify before the inquiry and, if so, would he be willing to inform the Justice of his desire to do that?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that has been quite clear since the beginning of these incidents, it is that the Ministers of the Canadian Government have been up front and frank. All the information we have has always been given, whether or not we were asked to testify. That has never been an issue for us. We put out all the information we had in all circumstances. That has always been very clear.
On the issue of sinking to new lows, I think my hon. colleague has just won a few prizes himself. He has certainly won a bronze medal in the area of sinking to a new low in criticizing and partisanship.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is a follow-up to a question I asked on Tuesday of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
Yesterday, despite the clear admonition of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, it became very clear that U.S. golfer Curtis Strange and others who are here to compete in the Canadian Open are completely unrepentant about travelling to South Africa to prop up the regime there. Mr. Strange says that he does not care about the politics of apartheid.
Will the Minister make it absolutely clear to Curtis Strange and these other golfers that regardless of what they think the people of Canada care about ending the system of apartheid? Will Canada enforce the UN register, and will the Minister take this opportunity to outline the long awaited policy on sports contacts with South Africa?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question put by the Hon. Member. It is a matter of concern to us.
I will certainly use this opportunity to make clear the views of the Government of Canada with respect to apartheid to any professional athletes. There is a distinction between making our views clear and having a means by which we can affect their behaviour in Canada.
We are near the end of a process of working out a detailed policy I hope to be able to announce next week, which will involve co-operation with professional athletic organizations in Canada and the sponsors of some of these sporting events, to ensure that we are able to give the maximum effect possible to Canada's opposition to apartheid.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister, along with the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, made a very clear commitment to the international community that loopholes which allow South African citizens travelling on foreign passports to come to Canada to compete would be plugged.
Will the Minister not complete the promise made then and actually provide some substance rather than just good wishes?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we intend to do that. As I indicated a moment ago in the House, we expect to have a detailed policy which I will be able to announce some time next week. I am not sure it is within our power to deal with all of the loopholes which might exist. Certainly, every loophole which we can close we shall close.


TRANSPORT
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and concerns Route Canada which is the former trucking arm of Canadian National and formerly employed 3,500 people.

Privilege
It is a known fact that in the case of Route Canada the officers of the company allocated union dues, income tax deductions and pension funds, utilizing them to keep the company going rather than keeping them in trust or paying the Government.
Would the Minister explain why the Crown would prosecute and fine a bankrupt company rather than going after the officers and directors of that corporation?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this question was discussed at length in the House last year. I believe the Hon. Member is aware of the fact that an investigation or an inquiry is being conducted pursuant to an order arising from the Bankruptcy Act, and I have always said, as I told the Transport Committee this morning, that it was better to wait for the findings before intervening in any way at all, bearing in mind that this company was sold in the normal way by Canadian National to Route Canada.


PLIGHT OF ROUTE CANADA WORKERS-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE REQUESTED
George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, my concern is with the workers. My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Given the plight of the Route Canada workers and their loss of pensions and loss of benefits, would he be prepared to refer this matter of the plight of the workers to one of our standing committees of either Justice, Transport or Labour, Employment and Immigration?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Moncton that the Department of Labour has been very active in this case to protect the rights of workers, and after a number of presentations, we managed to get severance pay and annual leave for these workers, which represents an amount of over $2 million, and we are still monitoring this case very closely to ensure that the rights of workers are respected to the extent that the financial resources are available.


FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As the Minister knows, the new vessel replacement regulations for Atlantic groundfish vessels have created concerns and confusion among many fishermen and boat builders in Nova Scotia.
In light of the Minister's meeting yesterday with representatives of the Inshore Fisheries Concerned Citizens Alliance, can the Minister clearly state how the policy affects fishermen wishing to replace their vessels, and whether in fact fishermen are required to replace their vessels with ones of a smaller size?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for South Shore for the dedication he has given to the fishermen and boat builders of his area, not only in this respect but in many related matters.
As a consequence of some two years of discussion with the industry and Atlantic provinces, we have decided to essentially put the lid on the overbuilding of the inshore vessels of his area. I can undertake, and I did so with the members of the Alliance group which the Member brought to see me last evening, that vessels which presently exist will be replaced on a cubic metre for cubic metre basis, or a volume for volume basis, provided the owners of those vessels can prove that those vessels were of a particular size, dimension and volume. We therefore ask the fishermen to co-operate in this respect.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, during oral Question Period, the Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oil Seeds) (Mr. Mayer) accused me of having called a judge before, and I am sure the Hon. Minister is anxious to correct this unfounded accusation,

because if he checks his facts, he will realize that I was convicted of contempt of court but certainly not for having called a judge to try and influence his court decisions.


An Hon. Member:: Even if you were right all along!


André Ouellet: I would appreciate it if the Minister would remove the erroneous impression he gave of past events.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to leave the wrong impression on the Hon. Member for correcting what up until now has been my impression of a former sequence of events. I thank him very much for correcting me and I apologize if I have left any wrong impressions.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Government to share with us the coming program of legislative measures it intends to put to the House. Before the Prime Minister leaves, I wonder if he could just take under consideration the request we made last week, that given that we are going to be celebrating the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution, the Bicentenary of France, and we did pass a resolution last week congratulating the Americans on their bicentenary, could we have a House order that we do the same thing for the French?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend made a very useful suggestion earlier this week at the time that we passed the motion to celebrate the bicentenary of the House of Representatives in the United States. We are indeed looking into my hon. friend's suggestion vis-a-vis the French Revolution. We will be getting back to the House soon. I wanted to reply directly to that request, Mr. Speaker.
I would point out vis-a-vis the work of the House that we have indeed made excellent progress this week with the Bills on the Order Paper. That progress is due to the co-operation of the Opposition Parties and indeed all Members of the House.
Speaker's Ruling
I would refer the House to the projected order of business, items , which we hope to complete by the time the House rises. We would anticipate dealing with those in the order in which they are shown. There may from time to time be adjustments to that order of business and, indeed, additions or deletions which will be worked out with the Opposition Parties.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: This morning, as Members will recall, the Hon. member for Trinity-Spadina (Mr. Heap) raised a matter with the Chair asking for clarification as to the time allowed at the closing hour after a closure motion. Hon. Members will remember that as recorded by the Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadina at the hour, the Speaker in the chair at that time rose and apparently the Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadina was trying to send a message, or send a question as to whether or not he could continue because he would still have had 15 minutes of his 20 minutes speaking time.
As I say, I have looked at the Hansard record and that does not show up. However, there is an indication that indeed the Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadina did try to ask a question, at least that is what appears on the tape. It would appear that that was not heard by the Chair at that time. The Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadina is asking a narrow but important question, and that is that if something like this does happen again, does the speaker who has the floor have the right to use up the still existing part of his or her 20-minute speech.
I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the Annotated Standing Orders which have been brought out recently, on page 196 in the second paragraph, and I think that this is helpful.
All questions necessary to dispose of the closured business will be put no later than LOO a.m, or as soon as possible thereafter, to allow any Member who might have been recognized before 1.00 a.m to finish speaking. No Member shall be given the floor after LOO a.m. to debate the question. When the Speaker interrupts at 1.00 a.m. or shortly thereafter, any bells summoning Members to a recorded division to dispose of the question or questions-
Et cetera.

June 22, 1989
Exploration and Development
So I think that clearly sets out the situation. I would draw Hon. Members to a ruling of the Speaker as recorded in 1964. Speaker Macnaughton was in the Chair and this exact point was raised. I might read this.
Objection was raised by the honourable Member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) who proposed a motion "That the Right Honourable the Leader of the Opposition be now heard". We have had a vote on that motion. Therefore, I now have before me an Order of the House directing the Chair, according to my view, that the Right Honourable the Leader of the Opposition be not now heard but that the Right Honourable the Prime Minister be now heard. I must have regard to the effect and terms of citation 167, paragraph 2, of Beauchesne which is in these words: "If a Member has taken the floor at 12.55 o'clock, he is entitled to speak for 20 minutes, but no Member 'shall rise to speak' after one o'clock.
I hope this helps to clarify the situation for all Hon. Members. Again, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadina for the careful way in which he assisted the Speaker by putting the point of order to me this morning.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I place before you today the third reading of Bill C-19, an amendment to the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program. The purpose of this Bill is to implement the decision announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his recent Budget to terminate CEDIP incentives on April 27, 1989, except for certain activities under way or required to be undertaken pursuant to written agreements in place as of that date.
CEDIP was created in March, 1987 as a temporary financial bridge to assist the oil and gas industry in adjusting to a precipitous decline in world oil prices. Oil prices have dropped from $30 U.S. a barrel to $10 U.S. a barrel in a very short period of time. The Government of Canada was sensitive to the disruption in the cash flow and investment caused by the rapid fall of oil prices. CEDIP was brought in to assist the industry in maintaining upstream investment and employment. It provided cash incentives to maintain exploration and development activities. The program was primarily intended to help the smaller to medium-sized companies, the part of the sector that was facing the most difficulties.
Current projections are that the program would provide $1.25 billion in assistance to the industry. The program will have supported over $3.7 billion in exploration and development activity, the bulk of it in western Canada. For 1987-1988, the first year of CEDIP and the only one for which the deadline on applications has lapsed, industry will have been provided with roughly $500 million dollars in incentives.
The decision to terminate CEDIP, I would again stress, was not an easy one. We know that the oil and gas industry is upset by the lack of notice provided on this decision. But coming to grips with our deficit problems means making difficult decisions.
The termination of CEDIP will save the Government of Canada $80 million. We have instituted grandfathering provisions in order to honour activities under way or committed to underwritten agreements. This grandfathering regime will cushion the impact of program termination. Incentives will be provided on grandfathered activities through to December 31, 1989 when the program will be completely terminated. The grandfathering will help many companies. We fully realize that by asking the oil patch to contribute $80 million toward the deficit, some companies will have more difficulty than others in adjusting their investment plans to take into account the Budget decision.
June 22, 1989

I would hope that the decisions taken will be accountable for and will help the Government of Canada in its very difficult deficit position.
At this time I would like to thank the members of the legislative committee who co-operated with the Minister and myself to ensure that we could get passage of this Bill.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to this Bill because I think it will do a great deal of harm. I take great exception to the way the Department of Energy has handled this whole question. It has continued to mislead the public by refusing to state exactly how damaging this is going to be and to admit that the smaller companies for which this program was brought forward have received veiy little of the benefit of this program. Although it is a program to aid small companies, the smaller companies have received less than 15 per cent of the money. In fact, 90 per cent of the applicants under this program received less than 15 per cent of the funds. This has been substantiated by the Government's own information.
In a news release dated June 20, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources states: "The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Monday presented detailed information to the House of Commons Legislative Committee studying the Bill to terminate the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program, Bill C-19, which revealed that 56 per cent of the money available under the program went to small and medium-sized firms and applicants. CEDIP will provide $1.5 million", and so on. Then the release goes on to say that only 44 per cent will be paid to large companies.
More than 85 per cent of the funds under this program will be paid to large companies. Yet small companies are being used as a scapegoat for the cancellation of this program. If this Government reduced the ceiling from $10 million to $1 million under this program, 90 per cent of the applicants could have their applications honoured and the Government would save 65 per cent of the funds. On the one hand, the Government is saying that it will save $80 million. On the other hand, the Government is saying this program will cost $1.2 billion. Yet the Government is only saving $80 million for the rest of the
Exploration and Development
term, which would be from April 27 to the end of December this year. This would be 33 per cent of the length of the program if the program were allowed to run its complete course. Why is the Government only saving $80 million if two-thirds of the program is going to cost $1.2 billion? There has to be a very big discrepancy.
The Department is also saying that to date it has spent $663.6 million, which is half of what it proposed the program will cost. I know a lot of companies will have to file later than this particular date, but certainly half of the $1.2 billion being estimated will not be requested after the actual program is cancelled. The Government is exaggerating the cost of this program. Once again it is putting the blame on the backs of the small oil companies for something that is not their fault and it is not a program under which they will benefit to anywhere near the extent the Government is predicting.
That being the case, what is going to be the situation? We heard from some very good witnesses: the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada and the Petroleum Services Association of Canada submitted briefs. We heard some very interesting remarks and statements which all indicated that activity in the western sedimentary basin is declining at an alarming rate.
The brief presented by the Petroleum Services Association of Canada indicates that this year, 25,000 people will be involved in the service industry in the western sedimentary basin. In the last two and a half years alone, that is down from a total of between 40,000 and 45,000 workers. In two and a half years, 20,000 jobs have been lost in the service industry in the western sedimentary basin, an alarming decline in activity.
Drillers have told us that in the second quarter of 1989, there will be only 100 rigs in use. That second quarter is almost over so there is not much guesswork involved. That is down from the second quarter of last year when there were 171 rigs in operation. However, the price of oil this year is higher than it was last year. The situation is not a reflection of oil prices, it is a reflection of the fact that major companies are merging. They are getting their reserves through mergers. They are paper shuffling, not drilling or exploring. Yet the smaller companies that want to drill and explore are not able to get the funding from the banks. Now this

June 22, 1989
Exploration and Development
program is being taken away from them without any advance notice whatsoever.
The Petroleum Services Association told us that although there will be 100 rigs operating in the second quarter, they need 200 rigs for there to be any kind of profit margin for the petroleum services industry. Only 50 per cent of the rigs required for a profitable period are in operation. That is incredible.
The petroleum services industry and the drillers are also telling us that they need between 40 per cent and 60 per cent activity on the rigs, yet these 100 rigs only represent 20 per cent of the rigs that are available for use in the western sedimentary basin.
The Government would have us believe everything is hunky dory with respect to the conventional oil and gas industry. That is not true. The Government is talking about megaprojects. It is allowing and in some cases even encouraging the mergers of these companies. Yet it is walking away from one of the best employers in Canada, the conventional oil and gas industry. It is doing this without any regard whatsoever for the people involved or the companies involved. Some of the companies involved have been in business for decades, have been handed down from one generation to another. These companies are in trouble. The companies in the drilling industry and the service industry, the small explorers and developers, are the companies that are in difficulty. Jobs are continually being lost. In the last two and half years, 20,000 jobs were lost and thousands more could be lost before the end of 1989.
What has the Government done? It brought forward a program called the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program, mainly for mining companies. It provides good incentives for mining companies, but because of the retroactive provisions of the exploration definition clause under the Tax Act, the oil and gas industry will not be able to take advantage of this program. A company could drill a well, find oil, receive funds under CEDIP and then have to pay those funds back later on when another well is drilled and it is determined by the Government that the well for which they got the funds was not an exploration well. Not only would the company have to repay the money but it would have to pay interest on the money received.
The Government has levelled a large corporation tax against small companies in the oil and gas sector. I think a large corporation tax has benefits and there is a need for it, but not one imposed on small companies that are not operating. These companies have to pay the tax whether they are operating or not, whether or not they are making a profit. As long as they have assets of over $10,000, they have to pay a tax. This is an asset tax which the small producers have said is much more despicable than the PGRT ever was.
Let us return to the program at hand, the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Epp) was in Calgary on April 5, he said that this program would extend to the end of the year. On April 17 in the House of Commons he said that date would not change. Yet on April 26, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) cancelled this program immediately without any notice whatsoever, even though the Act itself contains a stipulation that any change in the rate of pay would require six months' notice. Not only was the rate of pay changed from 25 per cent to zero per cent, but the whole program was cancelled. However, no notice was given.
The small producers, drillers and those in the service industry had been planning on using this program until the end of the year. This is immoral. Just because the law allows the Government to do this, there is no way it is justified in cancelling a program without any notice when the Act says it has to give six months' notice. This is the treatment that is being given to the oil and gas sector. This is the treatment that is being given to the western sedimentary basin and to the western part of Canada when thousands of jobs are being lost.
We are losing six months of the program and I think that has to be rectified. For that reason, I would like to propose a motion. With respect to the motion for third reading of this Bill, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That all the words in the motion after the word "that" be deleted,
and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair finds the motion acceptable.
June 22, 1989


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the amendment, I would like to say that in the interests of Alberta in particular and western Canada in general, the New Democratic caucus wholly supports the amendment. Obviously, the effect of this amendment would be to keep the program operating for close to the full term of the original CEDIP, and I say again in the interests of Alberta in particular and western Canada in general, the New Democratic caucus fully supports this amendment.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for' Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLel-lan). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(9), the recorded division on the amendment will be deferred until Monday.


CANADA-LUXEMBOURG INCOME TAX CONVENTION ACT, 1989 MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill S-2, an Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Canada and the Polish People's Republic and an
Income Tax
agreement between Canada and Papua New Guinea for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any government Member commenting on this Bill, I would suggest that the Bill is one that we would want to support. It should follow the established procedures and go to a legislative committee where, I trust, it will receive prompt consideration and support.
The tax conventions with other nations of this nature have some aspects that are of interest to some of my colleagues. I trust that with second reading this Bill will go to a legislative committee.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of Bill S-2, an Act to implement conventions between Canada and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Canada and the Polish People's Republic and an agreement between Canada and Papua New Guinea for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
I was wondering if, before the Bill is sent to committee, some Member on the government side would not think it proper to explain to us what a Bill of some 66 pages will ask from Canadians in terms of sacrifices, or indeed what is the purpose of the Bill. I would be sure to give my consent if someone would rise and give us a few words of explanation.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak briefly on the purposes of this Bill. Essentially, the Bill relates to trade relationships between Poland and Canada. These tax treaties are directly related to international trade. Therefore, they have a significant impact on Canada's domestic economic performance. We believe that they will be of substantial benefit to the Canadian business community, as well as to different Canadian individuals.
What we are dealing with here was started in 1980 in negotiations between Canada and Poland. Those discussions have gone on for some time, and there have been discussions across the country with various people whose interests may be impacted upon by this Bill. We have asked for feedback, and the feedback that we have received is very positive. That is why we have co-operation from the House on this Bill.

June 22, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could point out an important distinction. Canada has trade Bills with various countries designed to remove trade barriers and facilitate them. In the case of one trade Bill that we have, it opens up Canada to everything that the Americans want to do here.
The Bill presently brought before us does not deal with trade. It is a convention or an agreement dealing with the elimination of double taxation between our two countries. This Bill follows the OECD model. It is one of a significant number of agreements that have been entered into by Canada with other countries since the 1970s in an attempt to ensure that when business is done, double taxation does not apply.
It sets out in very clear rules which jurisdiction is entitled to tax the income arising from particular transactions.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker that the Bill is intended to implement tax conventions between Canada, Luxembourg, Poland, and Papua New Guinea. As the previous speaker stated, it is a standard Bill of which there have been others like it. In our opinion, it will benefit those taxpayers who are perhaps operating a business in more than one jurisdiction.
We must do everything we can to ensure that there is not double taxation for our citizens, and therefore we support this Bill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Benoît Bouchard: that Bill C-3, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, to repeal the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that there is any need for me to go into great detail about Bill C-3. We have looked at it on more than one occasion in the House. A fair amount of time was spent on it the other night at report stage.
It is an important Bill that will have a significant impact on research, science, technology, and those areas that are very important to Canadians.
I do not want to delay the Bill in any manner. I want to give an opportunity to opposition Members to make a few comments, and the Bill can proceed tothird reading.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing very difficult times ahead in terms of our productivity and in terms of our ability to compete in the world markets.
All of the indicators by reputable national organizations point out that although our productivity is increasing somewhat, it is increasing at a much slower rate than that of other countries in the world. For example, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, in surveying its 22 member countries, has pointed out that those OECD countries have an average productivity increase of 1.6 per cent a year. Canada's productivity increase over the last four years has been at the rate of 0.9 per cent per year.
What does it mean if our productivity is declining compared to that of other countries? It means that our ability to sell goods in world markets will decline. It means that the goods that we produce in Canada will be less competitive; that we are going to be able to sell fewer of them. Ultimately this means two things for Canadians. First, we will have fewer high paying jobs here in Canada.
Second, it means that Canadians will have a declining standard of living. In terms of the economic programs of the Government, there can be no Bill that is more important than Bill C-3, a Bill to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. I say that
June 22, 1989

because it will be charged with the task, among others, of making Canada strong economically.
There are many aspects to creating a strong economic environment here in Canada that we on this side of the House have put forward for consideration. The first of these concerns human resources. If the Canadian worker is not among the most competitive in the world, then our economy cannot be strong.
What are the problems we face? First, fully five million Canadians are functionally illiterate. We have seen coming from the Government no programs to deal with this functional illiteracy. If people cannot read then how will they be able to learn new jobs? How will they be able to read manuals in order that they can see how machines will function and how computers will work? How can they educate themselves in a world that is rapidly changing in terms of the way we produce goods?
Even more disturbing, we have seen among those who are literate in Canada for every year over the past four that there has been a declining number of students who have gone into the sciences and engineering. We have few engineers and scientists compared to our major competitors in the world such as Japan. We have far more lawyers than we do engineers and scientists. That may be a statement about our society.
What has the Government done about creating more opportunities for students to study science and engineering?


Mr. Milliken:: Nothing.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: My colleague says: "Nothing". I disagree with him. The Government has done something. It has actually cut back in the funding that is available for scholarships, programs and research-all the things that are necessary to create these highly educated students who will be critical to determining whether our businesses and our industries can compete.
For example, just last year there was a major decline in the number of fellowships that were granted by NSERC, the funding council for science and engineering graduates.
We on this side of the House have been stressing something else as well in order to be competitive and to have high levels of research and development. Studies
Industry, Science and Technology
carried out in the United States show that fully 70 per cent of its growth since the Second World War has been attributed directly to innovation, new technologies, discoveries that people have made and the new products that have been brought on the market for sale around the world. This has been the result of a high level of funding for research and development.
What do we see in Canada? What is the record of this Government? In the last four years under the Tory administration the National Research Council has had its budget cut by $20 million-$20 million actual dollars, which does not take into account inflation factors. The Government has cut its share of expenditures on research and development in Canada from 37 per cent to 30 per cent. The Government has cut its funding of industrial research and development to a point where the United States Government is now at a level that is twice as high as the level here in Canada.
How are we going to compete if we do not have the latest in technologies, if we do not have the bright people coming through our universities, technical schools and community colleges, people who are skilled in new ways of doing business, in the information technologies, robotics and the new biosciences? We will not be able to compete. We will be dependent on foreign countries which are investing in those areas. We will have to buy this technology and know-how from them if we hope to keep any jobs here. We will be dependent on foreigners for our future economic growth.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has responded to our accusations of underfunding and a lack of commitment here. The Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for industry, science and technology have told Canadians that the Government cannot do it all. We have never asked that the Government do it all. All we have asked is that the Government do its fair share so that Canadians can have a level playing field when we have to go into international markets and when it comes to creating jobs in Canada for the future. We do not think that our young people should be handicapped because the Government is not prepared to do as much as other Governments in the world are prepared to do in terms of creating the technological base and the research and development which is critical for us.

June 22, 1989
Industry, Science and Technology
Another issue to which we take great exception concerns the Government's inability, or its hypocrisy, in terms of dealing with another major economic issue for the future. I refer to the whole issue of sustainable development. Sustainable development has been recognized by the Brundtland Commission, by environmentalists throughout the world and by the Government in its Throne Speech, as well as in declarations by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard). They have said that the environment will be considered in every Department. It will be on the agenda at the Cabinet table when everything is considered, including economic development.
What was their response when the Hon. Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manley) proposed a couple of days ago to this House that part of Bill C-3 concerning the mandate of the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology include a simple mandate to ensure that the economic implications be considered, along with the environmental considerations of development? He simply wanted a recognition of what the Government has been calling for in its pious statements here in Canada and around the world as it accepts awards which must now to the donors appear hollow. Why? If they had to give those awards again to our Prime Minister, they would take them back. They were hypocritical. They would not allow the simple mention of the environment in this particular Bill.
Another area with respect to which we on this side of the House have difficulties in terms of the Government's approach to future economic development in Canada is the regions of Canada. We on this side of the House believe that Canada cannot be strong economically unless every one of its regions is strong economically. We proposed a simple amendment. As a matter of fact, I commend the Tory back-bencher who proposed it. It is a simple amendment which states that in considering economic development for Canada the interests of the regions and fair treatment be taken into consideration. It is innocuous. Give them an equitable share. Treat them fairly at the table when economic development is being considered. Why did the Government refuse to allow such a simple measure to go into a Bill? While it may not be an important consideration to the Government, what about the people in Canada who are disadvantaged, including the people in northern Ontario where the 15
per cent tax on softwood has caused seven mills to close and 2,000 people to be laid off already?
At the time we debated the constitutional amendments, we included a provision for fair economic treatment of our regions. The Government makes pious declarations about treating the regions fairly, but it does not even include mention of the need for regions to be supported in this particular Bill.
The Government also refused to deal with labour market adjustment in the Bill. When the Macdonald Commission recommended free trade, it set as a priority before entering into free trade the implementation of programs to provide for the massive readjustment and training that will take place because of the dislocation caused by free trade.
It has not been quite six months since free trade came into effect and we have already seen at least 25,000 Canadian workers laid off. Has there been one provision to allow for labour market adjustment? Has the Government entered into one program to help the industries where people have been laid off because manufacturing has been transferred to the United States? Absolutely not. The Government would not even allow mention of the need to have labour market adjustment programs in place to help our workers be retrained and to find the new jobs which even the Government admits they would have to find because of the adjustments that would be necessary under the Free Trade Agreement.
Another cause for concern in this legislation is the question of control over Canada's economic destiny. Will that control lie in the hands of Canadians, or will it be conceded to any foreign company that wants to buy Canadian companies?
Let us consider why ownership and control in Canada is important. First, Canada has the highest level of foreign ownership of any nation in the world. Fully 47 per cent of our jobs in manufacturing are foreign controlled, and 34 per cent of all our industries are foreign controlled. Some may say: "So what?" We know from all the studies that have been done over the years that if the real head offices are not in Canada, the top jobs are not in Canada. The decisions about which branch plants are closed are not made in Canada for the benefit of Canadians, they are made abroad for the benefit of foreign headquarters.
June 22, 1989

Second, research and development is not done in Canada if the Canadian companies are foreign controlled. Excellent studies from the past indicate that the level of research and development done in Canada by foreign controlled firms is a miniscule percentage of the research and development done in Canada by Canadian controlled firms. We have the lowest level of research and development of all industrialized countries and the Government is permitting more and more foreign control in our key sector industries. That will mean less research and development conducted here in Canada.
Canadian branch plants do not do research and development. The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology said recently that branch plants just do not do R & D.
The export market is another reason why our young people must be concerned about where they will get their jobs, be it the high paying executive positions or the jobs in R & D for which they get training at great expense to taxpayers in Canada. Will those exports be created by a branch plant in Canada which is designed to serve only the Canadian market or will they come from the head office plant that is trying to service the world market? We have the recent example of Lumonics, the third largest manufacturer of laser equipment in the world. That Canadian company was sold to the Japanese company, Sumitomo. It was not even a joint venture for marketing the technology, but a 100 per cent purchase by Sumitomo.
That proposal went to Investment Canada. Yesterday, Investment Canada officials admitted to us that they had done nothing to find Canadian capital to help increase the equity base in that particular corporation. As a matter of fact, Investment Canada is a joke. From 1982 to 1985, when the Foreign Investment Review Agency was in effect, about 3,600 take-overs of Canadian firms by foreign firms were reviewed. In that process, some 700 of those applications were either rejected or withdrawn. FIRA was doing its job of ensuring that if foreign control is coming to Canada it must be for the benefit of Canada.
Let us look at the record of Investment Canada. Since July, 1985, until today, there have been 651 applications to FIRA to take over Canadian firms. The number of applications that have been rejected because of preliminary discussion is a paltry six. Not one of those 651 applications have been turned down. Investment Canada
Industry, Science and Technology
officials admitted to us that they had discussions with a number of firms to ensure they will benefit Canada, but how many undertakings are they prepared to take from those firms? They told us with pride that the average number of undertakings per take-over application is down to about two. That is far less than what took place under FIRA.
Only six person-years out of all the employees in Investment Canada are available to enforce the undertakings. Investment Canada likely does not even need that many because it is insisting on so few undertakings when take-overs occur.
Under the Government and Investment Canada, we are open for business and up for sale entirely. The Government is pleased to see us sold out.
Why should Canadians be concerned? I have talked about the jobs, export markets around the world, research and development and head office jobs. The problem is even more insidious. The figures show that in the 10 years from 1978 to 1987, the net foreign investment in Canada was $1.2 billion. In other words, foreigners taking over Canadian firms invested over $1.2 billion. However, what did they take out? During this period they took out fully $73 billion in payments to head offices. Furthermore, the net book value of their investments in Canada increased by $55 billion. That is who is benefiting from taking over Canada. There was $73 billion going out to these companies. They brought in $1.2 billion and their net worth has increased by $55 billion. So much for what it does to help Canada over the longer term.
In opposing this Bill, Mr. Speaker, we want to put it to you that we have a very different concept of where Canada's economic future lies. We feel that if Canada is going to be strong, the Government has a role to work in partnership with the private sector, to give, in a co-operative effort, to business here in Canada the ability to go into the market-place internationally and compete head on. Every other multinational with which we are competing has much better support from their own public sectors. This means more R and D, more education. It means sitting down with the private sector, with our financial institutions, with labour, with management, with our universities and planning for our economic future.

June 22, 1989
Multiculturalism
It means that if we are going to tackle the problems of being competitive over the long term, we are going to have to go about it in a different way. Cutting back on transfers to education, to the provinces, cutting back and capping our R and D expenditures is not going to create for us a good economic future. The Government is wrong and I hope Canadians discover it before it is too late. We must oppose this Bill. We must oppose the way in which this Government is headed. When will this Government learn that to be competitive, they have to work at the fundamentals to make Canada strong, to make Canadian companies strong, to build the Canadian multinationals? When will they put Canada first?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: that Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto be
now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I rise to open today's debate on Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. The central responsibility of this department is to strengthen the solidarity of the Canadian people by ensuring that all Canadians participate fully and without discrimination in defining and building Canada's future. This is a responsibility which reinforces commitments made in the Speech from the Throne to foster a caring nation, a confident society, a country proud of its unique national identity. [Translation]
It is a fact that Canada today ranks among the most dynamic, the most pacifist, and the most challenging nations of the world. It is a fact that Canadians, men and women alike, give the highest priority to the need for tolerance, compassion, and fairness. Yet it is also a fact that the new department will assume its mandate at a time when Canada is facing major challenges.

This is a time of change and transition in our nation, a time when the evolving cultural and racial diversity of contemporary Canada presents a new image of what we are as Canadians. It is a time when we are seeking to ensure that all Canadians receive fair and equal treatment, that all Canadians have the same chance to participate and to achieve their dreams.
A society which denies any of its citizens a sense of belonging and which fails to utilize the skills, the talents and the potential of all its citizens cannot grow in greatness and stature. A black teenager taunted by racial slurs on the way to school each day is diminished bit by bit into a lesser person. A man or woman denied legal protection or a fair trial under our justice system, for whatever reason, is robbed of fundamental human rights. An adult who lacks the ability to read and write lives with daily shame and frustration. Such incidents are not mere speculation. They are happening in small and large communities across this country. When they happen, they diminish us all. They undermine the best of what we are and what we can be as Canadians.
It will be the job of the new department to take a lead role in eliminating such incidents, to create and organize a ministry that will see on a day-to-day basis that the barriers of racism, of injustice and of illiteracy are broken down. It will be the job of the new department to re-affirm the inherent worth and value of every citizen so that we are all strong and secure in our sense of what
June 22, 1989

it means to be Canadian. Too often we Canadians take the many benefits of our citizenship for granted. We need to respect and protect our rights and freedoms on a daily basis, to keep them strong. Any challenges to these basic freedoms, at home and around the world, must be recognized. Promoting the need for this kind of vigilance will be a key aspect of the citizenship mission of the new department.

Therefore the Bill before us today is not aimed solely at establishing a federal department. It is more than a simple administrative measure designed to organize and combine compatible programs with a view to strengthening the natural link between multiculturalism and citizenship. Rather it is a means through which we will invest in the Canadian people and in the future of our country. This is why I am very proud to open the debate today.

In the course of many stages of debate on the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, my colleagues and I on this side made it clear that the Government opposed the establishment of a separate little stand-alone Department of Multiculturalism. Rather than isolating multiculturalism, the Bill before us today has a wider, more dynamic perspective. The Government has looked carefully at the commitments of the Multiculturalism Act. It has looked at the concerns of our different cultural and racial communities and it has looked at the concerns of ordinary Canadian citizens in all parts of the country. What resulted from that process is an agenda for change and for progress that will strengthen and enhance our common citizenship, our solidarity as a people and our vitality as a nation.
Just two weeks ago, following a discussion with House Leaders, my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis), announced that a new standing committee, a Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, would be established in the autumn. This new committee is part of our
Multiculturalism
agenda. We listened to those who have made proposals and we have taken their advice. This committee will play a key role in monitoring the application of the Multiculturalism Act and I look forward to working closely with its Members.

This Bill creates a very important department in terms of the way we Canadians look at ourselves and how we intend to prepare for the 21st century. Much as the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, this Bill concerns all Canadians and relates to the contribution and cultural wealth of a good many different legacies.
Allow me to recall that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was unanimously endorsed last July because, as parliamentarians, citizens of this great country, parents and individuals we all want a Canadian society which is better for and fairer to ourselves and our children. In addition, since we want a society where we are all full-fledged citizens, the new department will be a determining factor in that respect.

At the core of the Department's mandate are two major purposes. The first is the promotion of Canadian pluralism, a pluralism which recognizes and values the full diversity of the people of Canada. The second is the promotion and encouragement of an active and informed citizenry, a citizenry that values the dignity, the freedoms and the responsibilities that we share.
We must encourage the kind of self-confident and compassionate Canadian citizen who recognizes the vast potential of our multicultural identity, the many benefits of our two official languages and the special characteristics of being Canadian. Citizenship means participating in the life of this country, respecting our fellow Canadians, playing an active role in the community and helping to safeguard our principles of justice and equality for all.
In the coming year the Department will grant citizenship to an estimated 94,000 individuals. They, too, will be part of our dynamic Canadian family and contribute to our nation-building.

June 22, 1989
Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism must now be recognized as a vital resource in the on-going creation of our society. What I mean is that we must recognize the vitality, strength and vision of all Canadians. There are many ways of being Canadian, expressing the unity derived from our common values and citizenship. We have succeeded in creating unity from unbelievable diversity.

Unity is what multiculturalism is all about. Our many cultural heritages and traditions lie at the heart of what we are and what we have become as an independent nation. Together they form our distinct and individual identity.
The new Department responds to the diversity of our society. For me, that means that every Canadian must have the chance to participate in our society on an equal basis with the same chance to progress through our education system, to get a job, to run for public office, to have equal access to social and health services, and receive fair treatment under our justice system. In this sense, Canadian diversity means setting a standard for the quality of life of all Canadians in all parts of this country.

Promoting the dignity and well-being of the Canadian people is promoting the well being of all peoples, in view of our common humanity and of the deep respect we share for human life. But if Canadians today and tomorrow are to efficiently work within the global community, we must start at home. Ensuring active participation by and equality of Canadians in a diverse society in the area of language and heritage is something that will not happen by itself.

And so the Government must work with all sectors of society to bring about change. It must encourage the contribution of the voluntary sector which plays such a vital role in the practice of our freedoms, reminding us again and again how much Canadians can help other Canadians.
Last September 15 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced his intention to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. He gave me the responsibility to develop it. It has been one of my greatest privileges to do this, to nurture this concept and help
find ways in which Canadians can work together to shape the Canada of tomorrow.
Let me remind you of the Prime Minister's vision of this new tomorrow when he spoke to Canadians from Baie Comeau on election night. He said then:
-the confederation of tomorrow, the Canada of the 1990s (is) a land of promise, a people of hope, a tolerant society, a prosperous country uniquely blessed among the nations of the earth.

As mentioned in the Throne Speech, all Federal Ministers have a duty to help prepare the emergence of that viable and dynamic Canada. The legislation now before us is the symbol of that vision and the way in which, as a nation made up of people from all over the world, we will meet the challenges of a new century.

This Bill is about the future of Canada. The Department that it will establish will seek the best and encourage the best of what we are as a people. It is with great pride that I begin this debate, Mr. Speaker, and I urge Members on all sides of the Chamber to join with me in support of this statute. I pledge to all Members that I will work with them, listen to them, co-operate with them in genuine partnership, and I seek the assurance of all Members to do the same.
I hope that we can move rapidly here today and get this Bill to a legislative committee before we rise for the summer. Over the course of the summer months members of a legislative committee will have the opportunity to start thinking about how they will proceed in the fall to review it and return their report as soon as we come back in the fall.
We are here as citizens of a democratic and pluralistic society. Each and every one of us in this Chamber is here because people in our communities look to us for leadership. We are here as parliamentarians who have the opportunity to assist in building a better, stronger and more confident Canada. This is a task that must be accomplished together.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, as multiculturalism spokesperson with my colleague for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Mills), I am pleased to rise in this debate today. This debate is vital to Canada's happy and peaceful future. Indeed, the debate on Bill C-18 is more than a debate revolving around the establishment of a department of multiculturalism. Not only must we establish the administrative structure needed to implement the policies and programs to promote multiculturalism, but we must provide them
June 22, 1989

with the legal framework with which to exercise its true mandate.
Today, nearly 40 per cent of Canadians stem from ethnic origins other than French or British, while in the 40's the proportion was around 20 per cent. So it increased two-fold in a matter of 40 years only. Of those, more than 6 per cent belong to the so-called visible minorities.
That new multicultural reality is therefore a major asset and a tremendous challenge for Canada. A major asset because Canada as a whole can benefit from that multicultural diversity, both in terms of our economy and cultural riches.
Canada's future therefore is based on its capacity to recognize and promote that Canadian mosaic. The recognition and promotion of that basic Canadian feature implies developing mechanisms, policies and programs that will enable our Canadian society to establish healthy inter-racial relations, based on mutual respect and equal participation in this country's growth. Such is the challenge of Canadian multiculturalism.
A failure to rise to this challenge would seriously jeopardize our future. One need only imagine what our country would be like if it were only ruled by intolerance, racial tensions and discord. Canada would be faced with an extremely serious crisis.
As early as the 1960's, Mr. Speaker, Canada examined this increasingly multicultural reality. The Royal Commission on Bilinguism and Biculturalism, also known as the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, dealt with this issue in Book IV of its report entitled The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups.
On page 7 of the this book, one can read the following statement dealing with the Canadian society, and I quote:
But Canadian society, open and modem, should be able to
integrate hetorogeneous elements into an harmonious system, to
achieve "unity in diversity".
Multiculturalism
On page 9, dealing with the diversity of cultural groups:
To deny their existence would be to shut one's eyes to the Canadian reality.
Because the Liberal Party of Canada of which I am a Member has always recognized this multi-ethnic component of Canada, Mr. Speaker, we had adopted in the early 1970's a policy on multiculturalism in Canada which gave rise to the many legislation aimed at recognizing and enhancing this mutlicultural aspect of Canada.
Since then, the Liberal Party has always supported in a non partisan fashion the legislation put forward by your Government which it felt was valid in the area of multiculturalism.
To remain true to our sincere commitment to the ethnic communities in Canada, we therefore support the Government's Bill to create a Department of Multiculturalism, although I intend in committee to move amendments which might possibly improve it.

The Bill, as proposed by the Secretary of State, has certain basic flaws which I hope will be amended in committee. The establishment of such an important ministry must be done with the utmost care so as not to pass a Bill that is poorly drafted.
My first concern is the fact that the Bill does not have a definition section. Simply put, it does not define who the Minister responsible for the Department is. The Secretary of State may think this is obvious, but unfortunately, the implementation of multicultural policy is also in the hands of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall), through the Employment Equity Act, as well as the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), through the implementation of multicultural policy in broadcast and print media.
A second technical modification is the definition of the word "department' so as to clarify the confusing situation which would arise whenever the full name of the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship is not used in the Bill.
These are two simple, minor technical modifications I would like to see added to the Bill. However, Bill C-18 has one major flaw. It is disturbing to see that in the specific duties assigned to the Minister of Multicultural-

June 22, 1989
Multiculturalism
ism and Citizenship, the word "multiculturalism" is mentioned but once in a list of duties relating to citizenship as well, while citizenship on its own is mentioned in three specific subsections.
I feel that a greater degree of attention should be paid to the multicultural section of this Bill than is accorded to it in its present format. I feel that an amendment of the legislation is needed to ensure that future Ministers of Multiculturalism and Citizenship actively cover both areas of their mandate.
The need for a Department of Multiculturalism has been there for many, many years. The fact that nearly 40 per cent of Canadians are of neither British nor French heritage accentuates the need for such a department. In fact, this policy was started under former Prime Minister Trudeau who recognized the ever-changing Canadian mosaic. No longer is Canada an exclusive haven for Europeans and Americans. It has become home to peoples of diverse cultures from all over the world representing hundreds of linguistic and ethnic groups.
The variety of people coming to our shores in ever increasing numbers makes Canada's multicultural policy a living rather than a static entity. We all hope for the day when racial, linguistic and ethnic relations will be at such a state where no official body is needed to facilitate these ends. At such a time, a universal cultural ministry would be a more appropriate mechanism to facilitate Canada's diverse cultural heritage.
Unfortunately, such a state does not exist in Canada today. For that matter, it still does not exist in areas of government jurisdiction. If we look at certain departments, we see that the percentage of visible minorities represented is far below the percentage in the general population.
The CBC, Canada's main cultural vehicle, only has 332 visible minority employees representing only 2.5 per cent of the corporation's total workforce. This is utterly unacceptable when the percentage of visible minorities in the Canadian population is closer to 8 per cent.
How does the Minister expect a greater degree of understanding to be portrayed through the broadcast media if the CBC does not have the staff who can best represent our multicultural heritage? Mr. Anthony Man-era, senior vice-president of the CBC, stated that he was not satisfied with this pitifully poor representation of
Canadian visible minorities in his corporation. Do you know what else he said, Mr. Speaker? He said that the CBC has been downsizing and will continue to downsize and therefore its ability to change the complexion of the CBC will be extremely limited.
It is nice to make fancy speeches and establish departments but that is simply not enough. The Minister must recognize that without greater representation of our minorities on television, and specifically the CBC, a more tolerant public attitude toward various groups will be long in coming.
If the state of things on Canada's national network are so far from the desired targets of both the Employment Equity and Multiculturalism Acts, one can only imagine the status of affairs in the private sector. It has been clear in recent months that ethnic violence and racism has been on the rise, particularly in urban areas. We have been seeing more and more ethnic youth violence in Montreal, as well as the rise of the skinhead movement which attempts a sick mimicry of early day Nazism. The League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada released a major study relating to racism against the Jewish community in Canada. The number of anti-Semitic incidents during 1988 increased by over 100 per cent over 1987 and represented the highest level since 1984.
According to this organization the main factors contributing to the rise was the negative images portrayed by the media concerning the intifadah and the the trial of Ernst Zundel here in Canada and the Demjanjuk war crimes trial in Israel.
The number of incidents of vandalism against the Jewish community tripled in the past year and this included attacks against synagogues and cemeteries. The most disturbing incident occurred in Calgary where two alleged members of the KKK were apprehended before they were able to plant a bomb at a Jewish high school. Mr. Dimant, Vice President of the B'nai Brith said, and I quote:
This study makes us painfully aware that we are still a vulnerable
community and that multiculturalism, acceptance and tolerance are
still far from reality in Canada.
I am sure that the Secretary of State (Mr. Weiner) is particularly concerned with these issues and I am sure he recognizes that we must confront this kind of hatred
June 22, 1989

straight on or we will be left with this plague for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, racial tensions within other communities are also on the rise. During the hearings of the Sub-committee on Multiculturalism, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) emphasized that racial tensions between the white and Asian communities had increased in Vancouver.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of work to do. The creation of a single Department of Multiculturalism will promote better understanding and result in the elimination of racism and bigotry. Because of the evolution of the multicultural reality, the establishment of an independant and influencal department has become a necessity. We, as Liberals, feel therefore that this department should serve to promote our multicultural heritage.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, this new department could influence the attitude of Canadians by adequately funding the various groups on the basis of their services to their communities. Unfortunately, judging from the this year's estimates, it seems that there will he cuts in these organizations' grants.

While over-all the budget for multiculturalism has gone up, the funds for community support and participation have decreased by $400,000 this year. This represents a full 15 per cent cut in the funding for such groups as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and various others which act as co-ordinating and community liaison organizations which help various communities to communicate among each other and with the various levels of government.
It seems that this Government is moving toward a more project-oriented rather than an organizationally oriented program. This, quite frankly, raises several concerns that must be addressed. The danger that arises from a greater project oriented subsidization program is that it is a band-aid approach to solve a very complex problem. When groups are funded they are able to act in unison to co-ordinate progressive and ongoing activities that build upon each other for greater racial and ethnic harmony. This is not to say that I feel projects should not be financed. Quite the opposite is, in fact, true. However, I feel that to orientate in that direction would take
Multiculturalism
away from a concentrated and co-ordinated attempt at addressing the problem.
I am also concerned about whether or not this trend to cut operational support is for one, two or three years. If this is the case the effectiveness of the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship to combat racism effectively in Canada will be adversely affected.
I also found that none of the groups affected by the cuts was ever consulted by either officials of the Department of Finance or those from the Secretary of State. But then again this is perfectly consistent with the way this Government has handled all aspects of the budgetary process. Hopefully the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship will be more responsive to the groups and organizations that represent the various cultural groups of Canada. The Department needs to co-operate closely with these organizations so that it can monitor the situation out there in the real world.
We cannot let bureaucrats here in Ottawa decide in a vacuum what the reality of Canada's multicultural dimension really is.

We all know that the Canadian fabric is the result of our population and our immigration policy. That is why we must keep a multiculturalism policy flexible in order to accommodate new arrivals and ease their transition into Canadian society; this implies making Canadian society prepared to accept them.

Until 1967 Canada's immigration laws were somewhat restrictive, following the closed door policies practised by our Government during the First and Second World Wars and the Depression. Between 1947 and 1967 most non-British and non-French immigrants to Canada came from war tom southern and eastern Europe. By 1984, immigrants from Asia, Africa and the Caribbean constituted 62.5 per cent of the total number of people coming to Canada.
As parliamentarians we must find a way to facilitate a greater understanding between groups that in their homelands may be traditional rivals. We must ensure that Canada does not become a new theatre for old wars. The way to achieve this is not through reduced immigration. We must have our doors open to all people who are fleeing tyranny and oppression. The way to achieve this ethnic harmony in Canada is through a direct dialogue

June 22, 1989
Multiculturalism
between all communities in order to foster and facilitate a better understanding of ourselves as Canadians.
As we proceed to the creation of this ministry, I cannot help but worry that it will be nothing more than window dressing set up as a fulfilment of an innocuous promise during the previous election which, incidentally, the Liberal Party advocated as well. If we look at the past record of this Government in the implementation of multicultural policies, it leaves much to be desired. It is nice that the Secretary of State (Mr. Weiner) is able to travel all across this country proclaiming that much work is needed. However, if he looked in his own backyard, he would see that much improvement is needed.
At Air Canada only 2.9 per cent of employees are members of visible minorities; at CN 2.7 per cent, at the NCC 1.4 per cent and, as I mentioned earlier, only 2.1 per cent make up visible minorities at CBC Radio Canada. It is obvious that the requirements of the Employment Equity and Multiculturalism Acts are a fair distance away from being implemented.
In December, the annual report to Parliament on employment equity stated that 34,970 members of visible minorities were employed under the Act.
In mid-May we were informed that the actual figure was 29,520, a full 5,550 less than what the Government claimed in December. These discrepancies occurred in the mess that this Government calls a post office. Instead of 11.6 per cent of the workforce at Canada Post being made up of visible minorities, only 4 per cent of the employees were actually members of this group. I hope we will see amendments to the Employment Equity Act that will ensure that the changing face of Canada be represented in areas of federal jurisdiction.
I hope the Secretary of State ensures through his duties in the new Department that the provisions of real equality are implemented and that a blunder of this magnitude never happens again.
Bill C-18 is going to establish the framework under which the Multiculturalism Act will be implemented. Unfortunately, the Act only confirmed the status quo. It put into law the goals and values which were bom in the 1960s and 1970s. I hope that the Multiculturalism Act will be strengthened and improved through the introduction of meaningful amendments. It is only at this time
that the Department established by this Bill will gain important status.
I would like to remind the Minister that the House is anxiously awaiting new legislation on citizenship. The provisions of the present Act are outdated and need to be changed. Hopefully the provisions of the new Citizenship Act, in concert with amendments to the Multiculturalism Act, will make the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship a mainline ministry that will be able to achieve the highest degree of tolerance for all Canadians.
I applaud the Government for the introduction of this Bill. I hope we can see the amendments I have proposed accepted or worked out in committee. In order to promote a multicultural heritage, the establishment of such a ministry is indeed a positive step. I only hope that the Minister and the Government strengthen various pieces of legislation to ensure that the real mechanisms of equality remain intact.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the importance of creating such a department. Twenty years ago, we did not have to consider the various armed conflicts in the world like the one in China. We must revise our immigration policy and our policy to integrate citizens of those countries. We are a people that is proud of its legendary hospitality and we must continue our efforts in that direction.
For the future, I see a multiculturalism department that is even more important than the one this Government is considering creating. That is why we support this initiative. Over time, the importance of such a department has been felt and I believe that we cannot delay establishing it.
I wish to point out, however, that we in the Liberal Party will try to improve this Bill in committee. It needs many corrections and I will be very vigilant in this regard.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to give Canadians following this debate this message: It is also up to you to help set up this department. After all, it is not just there for new arrivals-it is also there for you. With your help

and support, we will make our society proud and prosperous, at peace with itself and with its people.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-18. As my colleagues have said, the Bill establishes a new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship following on the earlier Multiculturalism Act which established objectives for multicultural policy in Canada. The Department will have a Minister and possibly a Deputy Minister, though it is not quite clear whether it will have a Deputy Minister.
Previously, these responsibilities were administered by the Department of Secretary of State. There is still not a completely clear line drawn between those respective responsibilities.
The new Department will have power over most matters relating to multiculturalism and citizenship. It will have the responsibility to enforce implementation of multicultural policy as outlined in the Multiculturalism Act within all government Departments and within government institutions. I think this is one thing that is not spelled out clearly enough in the Bill. Its specific duties as outlined are to promote national policies and programs with respect to multiculturalism and citizenship, to provide services for acquisition of citizenship, to promote the values of Canadian citizenship, to promote an understanding of human rights and to make grants in support of programs. Special programs on race relations are included.
I would like to commend the Government and the Minister because, during this time of decreased funds in many areas, the Government has increased funds to promote race relations. We feel that this is very important. I cannot say this without also condemning the cuts in funds which have occurred and have caused great hardships for ethnic, native, the disabled and youth organizations, particularly for the advocacy groups.
We will be supporting this Bill. We hope it will be improved during committee stage and third reading. We support it because it has been a part of New Democratic Party policy for some time. We feel it is quite important to carry out the objectives of the multiculturalism policy and it was strongly recommended by the Standing
Multiculturalism
Committee on Multiculturalism in the last Parliament. As well it has been supported across Canada by ethnocultural groups.
I have several concerns about the ability of the new Department to carry out its mandate as stated and its objectives which are outlined more specifically in Bill C-93. The present staff members who are to be transferred from the Department of Secretary of State are not sufficient to carry out the responsibilities of this Department. Clause 5(a) states that the responsibility is to initiate, recommend, co-ordinate, implement and promote national policies and programs with respect to multiculturalism and citizenship. This is a very large responsibility and certainly more staff members are needed, as are more resources for community groups.
Extra staff members from very diverse backgrounds are needed. We need people who are sensitive, come from the grass roots and understand what the communities need. These kind of people can then influence the Department, the Minister and the Government. It is very important that staff members who are culturally sensitive to multiculturalism are hired, and it is very important that there be additional funding for community programs as well. If there is not, the new Department of Multiculturalism will simply be window-dressing. It may be political tokenism on the part of the Government unless the funds exist to carry out the job. That will be the test. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister, but I do question whether the Government will really put any teeth into the multiculturalism policy by providing adequate resources.
I have spoken many times about my Party's concern that funds for multicultural organizations have been cut by 15 per cent, and over three years, this will accumulate to a 50 per cent reduction in funding. These are the groups that speak for ethnic communities. They are the advocates that help us and give us advice on policy. One such group is the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, and it is very important that these groups have adequate funding in order to help us do our job and help the Minister do his job.
I was very concerned to learn that funds for the Citizenship Instruction and Language Textbooks program, referred to as CILT, have been cut by 50 per cent

Multiculturalism
and this program will be eliminated by 1990. I do not think many people know about this. It is very difficult to get information about it. I think it is an extremely serious situation which contradicts the commitment and obligation of the Government to citizenship development. This is a major abrogation of the federal Government's responsibility under our Constitution. The federal Government has an obligation to assist immigrants to integrate into Canada and to promote citizenship generally, both with immigrants and with Canadians.
We must have funds for a very wide range of language classes for those who come to Canada speaking little English or French. Many of them are homemakers, and if they do not learn English or French, they will never become a part of Canadian society. Without such programs, new immigrants will not integrate readily and there will be increasing mistrust and resentment within the communities. We have seen too much of that in recent years.
A few minutes ago, the Minister said that every Canadian must have the same opportunity to participate. I hope he is listening to me, because I say to the Minister that if he is to eliminate the CILT program for language training, he will very definitely deny immigrants equal opportunities. They will not have equal opportunities, nor will their children if they cannot learn the languages that are so essential to function well in Canada, to find good employment, to progress and to support their families and adequately educate them. That is very important. I hope we will see some action in this area.
In the Bill, the Minister knows very well that the Act states that it is his obligation to promote an understanding of the value of Canadian citizenship and to encourage participation in the social, cultural, political, and economic life of Canada. How can the Minister achieve this goal if there are no funds for language training under this Act? It is absolutely appalling that this essential program is being cut for the broad masses of immigrants. I am not talking about the programs related to employment. Those are also inadequate, but we want language programs in this Department. I hope that the provinces will take a very strong stand and protest to the
federal Government that it is abdicating its constitutional responsibility in this regard.
When the Bill was tabled at first reading, I raised the question of the re-establishment of a separate Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. This was promised by two past Ministers responsible for multiculturalism. It was done in order to provide a mechanism within Parliament to monitor the implementation of the Multiculturalism Act, and the implementation in all government Departments, Crown corporations, and federal institutions.
As multiculturalism critic for the NDP I lobbied in committee, in the House, and individually with House Leaders to re-establish a separate committee. I am sorry to say that, in committee, Conservative members and one Liberal member disagreed. However, I am pleased to hear that the Government House Leader has now reconsidered. I would ask that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Mr. Lewis) make an official announcement before the end of the session, in order that a separate Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship will be established by next fall.
It is essential that the chairman and committee members of this committee, which is very closely tied in with the new Department, have a deep understanding of multiculturalism, if we are going to work together in an effective and non-partisan manner to carry out important responsibilities in the area of multiculturalism.
We, like the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, feel strongly that we still need a Commissioner of Multiculturalism. This position would be similar to the Commissioner of Official Languages. It should be a step removed from Government. Until this is accomplished, it will be very difficult to ensure that the Multiculturalism Act is being enforced.
In its usual efficient style, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council has made a number of comments about the Act that are very helpful, and hopefully we will hear from its representatives in Committee. It feels that the new Act does not specifically state that the Department will lead in implementing the Canadian Multiculturalism Act; that it is somewhat vague in its alignment with the Secretary of State which needs to be clarified because of
June 22, 1989

the confusion in the minds of the public. The Council also calls for a Commissioner of Multiculturalism. It also raises many other points, both positive and critical.
In considering this Bill to establish a multicultural Department, it is important that we refer to Section 3(1) of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. This is the Section that outlines the multicultural policy of Canada, and it is very important. It seems irrational to me to have a Bill to establish a Department without including in that Bill why we want to establish the Department. I feel that we should go back to the statement of objectives in the original multiculturalism Bill and that there should be a reference to that in the Act.
Very quickly, I wish to refer to the 10 policies outlined under Section 3(1) of Bill C-93. It includes references to the cultural and racial diversity of Canada, to multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canada, to full participation in all aspects of Canadian society, to equal treatment and protection under the law, to multicultural content in Canadian institutions, to cross-cultural relations, appreciation of cultural diversity, and heritage language preservation that is in harmony with official language policies of Canada.
The NDP views equality rights as the primary objective of multiculturalism. Long before we talked about multiculturalism in today's terms we, and our antecedents, starting with J. S. Woodsworth have spoken out strongly against the injustices toward ethnic minorities and the infringement of human rights that regrettably are in Canada's history. We have advocated redress and redress policies in regard to some of those communities.
We continue to protest the injustices in our present immigration policies. I know my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) will be elaborating on that. We continue to deplore and ask for action to remove systemic discrimination in employment against visible minority people. It is upsetting to think that this is discrimination within our own Public Service and within fields of federal jurisdiction, as well as private employers. This we have to change.
We also feel very strongly about the growing incidence of racism in Canada. I raised this in committee in relation to some racism in the media, and have asked that this be a priority. It has to be considered a priority
Multiculturalism
both by this Department and by the Standing Committee.
On June 2, in my private Member's motion on the subject of recognizing multiculturalism as a fundamental character of the Canadian nation in the preamble to the Constitution, I raised a number of constitutional concerns. There is a growing awareness and a growing anxiety in many ethnic groups. In my area of Canada, in Vancouver, it comes from the Chinese community. They feel that the notwithstanding clause does not allow protection of their rights and that there must be major changes to ensure that their rights are protected under the Charter.
On June 2, my speech outlined our Party's concerns that there be greater protection of minority rights under our Constitution, as well as recognition of multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canada. There is not time to go into those issues today. However, I know my colleagues will be speaking on some of them, and we will speak on them later as the year goes on.
I wish I had more time to elaborate on multiculturalism and citizenship in Canada. The more one moves into this area, the more deeply one feels how important and enriching it is. Multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of Canada, whether or not it is expressed in our Constitution. More than one-third of Canadians have come from origins that are not aboriginal, French or English. This number is rapidly increasing. Together they form the largest majority in the Canadian population. In many western communities the non-English or French descendants are actually in a majority. It is rather an interesting difference between eastern, western, and central Canada.
People from Europe, Asia, and other countries bring a rich cultural heritage, as well as contributing to Canada's economic and social development. In recent years, immigrants have come in increasing numbers from Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and from the Latin American countries. Canada has become a very rich and colourful mosaic and a haven for many people-not enough-from developing countries. We must be more generous in opening the door to those people. Most of the so-called white majority in Canada who originated in Europe have welcomed this change. However, there are many who have serious concerns. They must recognize that all Canadians are Canadians and have equal rights. We want no skinheads promoting fascist ideas in Canada. Multiculturalism policies must ensure these rights and eliminate discrimination and racism against persons of

June 22, 1989
Multiculturalism
colour. The new Department of Multiculturalism must have appropriate, sensitive staff who have an ethnic background themselves which would prepare them for this job. There must be adequate funds for community organizations to achieve this goal.
Perhaps even more important than multiculturalism when one begins to think about Canadianism is the importance of promoting an appreciation of Canadian citizenship, an identity with Canada and with all our people as a whole that supersedes but also includes the specific ethnic heritage of individuals.
It was only in 1977 that we dropped British citizenship to become Canadians first. We brought home our Constitution to Canada in 1982. We are proud of this glorious land, and proud of being Canadians from diverse origins. However, we are still in the process of defining our identity. It is only the last generation which has overcome a certain complex that we had in relation to our southern neighbours.

For Quebecers, the process was more internal. The Quiet Revolution and the nationalist movement for independence contributed to Quebec's evolution. Our present policies recognize Quebec as a distinct society whose culture and language must be protected.

The free trade debate helped Canadians to distinguish the important values we hold that are different from those of the Americans. For those of us who oppose the Conservative sell-out of Canadianism to the United States, I think our emotional commitment and our pride in Canada was renewed.
Our commitment to social programs show that we are a caring nation, not only interested in the almighty dollar. We care about people. We share and want all people to have security, whether they be a single mother on welfare, an elderly person on a pension or a person who is unemployed.
We are committed to regional development and to a mixed economy that allows for government intervention when this is appropriate. We are committed to preserving our environment and our resources for future generations, and to adequate planning, which means that there has to be an appropriate, well-planned role for governments.
We are also committed to social as well as economic development, not just to the market-place but to planning for people and helping our economy to provide adequate jobs to meet the needs of our population. Of course, we are committed to multicultural policy. I cannot say that these were commitments made by the Government. I can certainly say very strongly that these are commitments of the New Democratic Party as social democrats.
New Canadians and old Canadians must become much more conscious of the wonder and the freedom of being Canadians. I appeal again to all Canadians to experience the richness of getting to know their neighbours from whatever background they come and enjoying the intercultural activities that we can have in our communities and our neighbourhoods. This Government must restore funding for citizenship classes and must increase funding for language classes to strengthen Canada as well as to promote multiculturalism.
We must also have a new multiculturalism Act. I think some of the groundwork was laid in a previous Parliament. A Department of Multiculturalism will be of little use if there are no resources to implement multiculturalism and to promote Canadian citizenship.
I look forward, as do my colleagues, to presenting amendments in committee and to working with the Minister to make it the most effective Department possible to carry out the important policies of multiculturalism in Canada.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this afternoon's debate on a subject that is very dear to the hearts and souls, hopefully, of all Members of the Chamber. Let me start by congratulating our chief critic on multiculturalism, the Member of Parliament for Saint-Laurent (Mrs. Maheu), who I believe articulated the thoughts of our caucus colleagues. She articulated the principles by which the
June 22, 1989

movement officially began in 1971. Obviously and formally, the creation and building of a nation by people from all over world began much before then.
There are those among us in our country who would suggest that the creation of a separate ministry would be paramount to ghettoizing people, concepts and ideas in a dark ugly comer. I take a somewhat different view from that, as long as we know the directions in which we are going and the final concepts at which we wish to arrive for a cultural statement on Canada and its peoples.
Like every policy, every piece of legislation evolves in terms of ideas and evolves through different times and generations. For instance, we have an evolving Constitution. There is an ongoing debate on the Meech Lake Accord which tries to amend and build upon the foundations of our federal statutes. A few months ago there were amendments to the Official Languages Act which were introduced in 1969.
To a certain degree the process that we are undergoing today is simply a modification, an adaptation to the current standards, or perhaps to the evolving standards that people place on the legislation that governs ourselves and our country.
It is important to underline the condition that we as Liberals attach-at least this Liberal-to the whole question of that evolution. That is to say that as long as we can say that this an intermediate step, that this is a bridge from where we were in 1971 to perhaps a single ministry of culture, then I think we can win those hearts that we talked about a few moments ago. That is to say that the challenge for multiculturalism is to try to bridge the different definitions that we all bring and attach to that word "multiculturalism".
The policy may mean a very different set of criteria to my father as compared with the definition I attach to it. However, which definition is more relevant? Is it my father's from an earlier generation, or is it mine? As a younger Canadians are my views more relevant? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that both views are relevant. Both views are dynamic in their own sense of the word. Both views ought to be respected for what they are-definitions of who we are and what kind of country we have. Therefore, the challenge for multiculturalism today is to try to reflect in our policies both those views, both those generational forces that come to meet somewhere in the forum of this great Parliament.
Multiculturalism
To have a multiculturalism which simply ignores one of those two generational forces would be inadequate. That is why I believe this step to a separate ministry should only be seen as one step in that evolution, one step to a separate or single ministry of culture, so that we would be sending out a signal that multiculturalism is for all Canadians, not only for a certain segment of society, or depending upon where one comes from, or what year one arrived in Canada. In fact, it is part of our fundamental foundation as a people and as a country.
I believe it has to be seen in the long-term for us to embrace it and for us to expect the younger generation to embrace it as well. If it will not go to that final chapter, then, yes indeed, critics would have legitimacy in saying that it is short-sighted and that it will simply ghettoize people.
We have to see this measure as a sure step rather than an attempt to take a giant leap which goes nowhere. Notwithstanding that, I think the Minister and the Government have a number of shortcomings inherent in their policies and approaches to multiculturalism that have to be addressed and cannot simply be admitted to as being addressed by a Bill or by the Act.
For instance, what happens to the financial support that dwindled for those community groups? Before the election these community groups were showered with gifts and promises. Why is there one agenda before the election and a different one after the election? That will only breed cynicism, that will only breed criticism of those who suggest that somehow multiculturalism is being politicized. It is not the people of Canada who are politicizing it. It is not the ethnocultural groups who are politicizing it and selling it short. It is being circumscribed by the Government in having two different agendas, one before the election and one after the election.
What happened to the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism? A few months ago, in the last Parliament, the Minister said we do not need a commissioner because there will be a full Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to review and monitor the progress of the Multiculturalism Bill. Now we do not have a full Standing Committee on Multiculturalism but a hybrid, together with four or five other subjects. If we are not going to have a full Standing Committee to review and monitor in an efficient and vigorous way, then the

June 22, 1989
Multiculturalism
Minister ought to review the whole question of the official commissioner position.
On the one hand there is an Official Languages Commissioner who reports to the Elouse and, through the House, to Canadians. But that seems not to be good enough for multiculturalism. The Secretary of State (Mr. Weiner) is prepared and pleased to have an Official Languages Commissioner but is saying that multiculturalism is perhaps not good enough to deserve that same kind of commissioner status.
I ask him to rise and explain to Canadians why there is that double standard? If it is fine to have a Commissioner of Official Languages who does not report to a Minister or a government that will simply hide a skeleton in the closet, why should multiculturalism be different?
We have suggested and reiterate that an official commissioner is valuable because that commissioner would go through the federal civil service and report to Parliament, and through Parliament to Canadians, rather than leaving it to the Minister to tell Canadians what he wants to say and not tell Canadians what is obviously very embarrassing. The Minister is playing with a double deck by operating with an Official Languages Commissioner on the one hand while not admitting that the same concept would be valuable and reliable for the multiculturalism policy.
We have seen evidence this afternoon with respect to the treatment of the Canadian Sikh community. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) sent a letter a few months ago to the Premiers suggesting that they should not associate with certain organizations in Canada. The Secretary of State for External Affairs interjected into the refugee applications of certain Sikh applicants. The Secretary of State for External Affairs tried to block a chair of Canadian Sikh studies in Vancouver. I am suggesting that we cannot divorce ourselves from these types of issues because these issues are also embodied by that word we call multiculturalism.
It is not good enough to simply stand on a soap box at a picnic and extrapolate on the virtues and then come to Ottawa and have a very different and drastically reduced priority.
What about Meech Lake? Did the Minister talk about Meech Lake and try to explain that the opening paragraph of Meech Lake is supposed to define a country? I thought we had four fundamental variables to the equation we call Canada. One is the English, the second is the French fact, the third is the aboriginal and the fourth, if you will, is multiculture. When we put those four variables together we have the equation that defines who we are and what we are.
Why did the Government only stop on two of those variables, where it talks about the linguistic duality of English and French? What about the other two variables? The Government added them at the end of the Constitution.
People are asking, why move that to the back of the bus? If we accept the four variables as fundamental building blocks to our country, as I believe this Party does because we moved amendments to that effect but they were refused, why move them to the back of the bus?
The Government suggests that it does not matter where one sits on the bus because the entire bus is a constitutional bus. I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister, if they followed that to its logical conclusion were they prepared to put the English and French linguistic duality at the end of the Constitution and put the aboriginal and multicultural clause at the beginning of the Constitution? The answer was no. I suggest with all due respect that if it is not good enough and not respectful enough to put the English and French linguistic duality at the back of the bus, which I do not want to see, why is it so right to put the other two variables at the back of the bus? That is objectionable. That raises cynicism. It raises skepticism, but not in the people of Canada or the communities or groups, but in the Government. Those are the issues.
The whole question of anti-Semitism was raised. On Canada Day in Minden, Ontario, there will be a meeting organized by the neo-Nazi Party. In Minden, Ontario, in 1989, hundreds of people who subscribe to a neo-Nazi philosophy are expected to meet. Skinheads, only white people, will attend on Canada Day. The theme is: "Let us save Canada".
The Government has said nothing about that. It is a difficult situation, and sometimes one must decide whether to give more promotion and credibility to these
June 22, 1989

people by standing up and talking about it, or addressing that very cancer which is apparent in all societies. I would like us to do the latter.
We cannot divorce ourselves from those issues. We cannot divorce ourselves from employment equity, from a government that called it an national emergency when only 300 people came to our shores some summers ago when we had invited thousands upon thousands individually? Is the Government trying to educate Canadians or excite them by that?
Mr. Speaker, we have some good things to say about this Bill, but the Minister fails to recognize that he must do better than simply give a 20-minute speech in the House or attend a cocktail party, a picnic or celebration, as important as they are, and read a prepared text. It is also time that we go beyond the 15-page speech or the 25-minute press conference, and try to address the very issues that we have addressed in the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, and which Members opposite have begun to address. Only then, when we attach priority to the full essence of multiculturalism in Ottawa and in Parliament, will we do justice to the feelings that we are trying to communicate to the country. Only when we stop to think what it means to people and groups will we try to embrace the very essence of what they are doing on a voluntary basis in the community, out of a belief and deep conviction.
Sometimes it hurts to see the corridors of power here in Ottawa out of whack with what is important to families, individuals and communities across the country. I draw the Minister's attention to some of those issues and advise him that we will be raising these issues in committee until such time as he takes this issue and this policy as seriously as we do.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the Hon. Member made quite a strong point of the advantages of having a separate Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, and I know as a past critic that he was in favour of this. At least I assume he was since the committee as a whole were in favour and felt very strongly about this matter. I wondered if he was aware that when I raised this in the form of a motion at the standing committee that the present critic of multiculturalism of his Party voted against this idea, voted against bringing this matter
Multiculturalism
back to the House to ask for reconsideration to establish a separate committee? In fact, the multicultural critic felt that this would be a way of ghettoizing multiculturalism. I appreciate knowing whether or not he agrees with that position, and if he does not, has he talked with his critic and tried to educate him?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I think the Member does no justice to herself in trying to divorce oneself from purely political partisanship in a debate that goes much further than that. We in the Liberal Party do not have to take any lessons from the New Democratic Party who preach and suggest that they have a monopoly on virtue. When we were in government, we did the appropriate things. We moved on appropriate things. We will continue to do that in Opposition and look forward to doing them in government in 1992.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on another subject. In my remarks I mentioned that the Government has cut back 50 per cent on the SILT Program, which is essentially a program of language classes for adult immigrants. I wondered if he was aware of this and what the impact is in his community.
In British Columbia, for example, the elimination means that 23,000 students in British Columbia, or 83 per cent of the adult immigrants, will not have access to ESL classes, a very serious thing. Of course, in our schools in British Columbia over 50 per cent of the students now in elementary and high schools throughout the province do not have English as their primary language. They also need classes. As I said in my remarks, I think this is a real undermining of the whole principle of citizenship and certainly of developing an effective multicultural policy.
I would be interested in the Hon. Member's views and whether he had any more information in this area.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I realize that we have a couple more speakers who wish to put their views on the record. Therefore I will try to be very brief.
Suffice it to say that the Member from Vancouver raises a very legitimate and lamentable point in terms of English as a second language and training.
It is my view, and I have raised it in the House and I have raised it with my caucus colleagues and in the Chamber, that all Canadians would want the Govern-

Multiculturalism
raent to spend as much as it takes to train new-comers, immigrants, in both or either of the official languages. It is a shame, particularly when we talk about English or French training for our immigrants and new Canadians, that it is largely the visible minority women that are left behind in terms of the language training deficiency. A lot of times, unfortunately, it is the major bread-winner, and in some groups it happens to be the male, who has access to language training facilities. The children through the process of going to school and the dynamics of playing with their friends learn one of the two official languages. However, quite often it is the woman who is left behind, whether at home or with poor economic opportunities without any hope for vertical mobility because of language deficiencies.
It is time that we grew up in this country to realize one thing, that whether it costs x millions or y millions to provide language in either English or French, it is money well spent. We cannot put a value on what it means when people are having difficulties in communicating with one another within Canadian society. It would help everyone's sense of Canadianism if we attached the proper financial investment. We would reap benefits that far outstrip the value of the dollars that we would put at the beginning of the equation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since there are no further questions, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North on debate.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto. Multiculturalism is an idea that we are still striving to fully achieve in Canada involving as it does the official recognition of the different cultures and the values of a pluralistic society that accompany them. Multiculturalism does ask to enshrine the principles that all our ethnic groups, that is, all Canadians are equal, that all of our cultures deserve respect and dignity and that cultural pluralism must receive official support.
The establishment of a Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship is an important step in the right direction and an essential instrument of national unity. A separate Department for Multiculturalism and Citizenship is necessary to ensure that these two areas are
not neglected or ignored as they would be if included in a super ministry.
I must point out however that there are problems with Bill C-18 which are a cause of concern. Perhaps some of the concerns will be addressed when the Bill reaches the legislative committee.
First, there is no provision in the Bill that states that the new department will be responsible for co-ordinating the implementation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. It is not enough that the Bill includes general statements about the policy of multiculturalism. It should be clearly stated that the new department will be responsible for implementing the Multiculturalism Act.
Second, there is no provision for an independent commissioner of multiculturalism and therefore the effectiveness of the department will be limited. An independent commissioner, as called for by the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism in 1987, is necessary because such a commissioner would be able to monitor the Act across the Government without-and I emphasize "without"-political interference. Not only would an independent commissioner monitor multiculturalism in all departments-Justice, Immigration and Employment, to name a few-but the commissioner would also be able to initiate and carry out investigations into the implementation of programs and delivery of services by various departments.
A commissioner would be a non-partisan watchdog who would be especially effective in protecting the values of multiculturalism and citizenship in all governmental departments in ensuring compliance with the Act.
The Minister in introducing the debate on this Bill has indicated that a Standing Parliamentary Committee will be struck this fall. I believe in his sincerity and we anticipate that at least we have that second best.
It is not merely these two very specific problems with Bill C-18 which worry me. I am concerned about this Government's approach to multiculturalism in general. On the one hand, the Conservative Government has introduced this Bill to create a Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. On the other hand, the Government has cut funding for operational support to the very groups that the Department is being established to represent and protect. To me, this is a contradiction in policy, or is it the Government's philosophy? This contradiction in policy demonstrates this Government's

lack of real commitment to furthering the cause of multiculturalism in Canada.
There is another disturbing example of this Government's lack of consistency in regard to ethnic issues. The Government has said that is supports an increase in immigration although it has not set a target. Yet, in Toronto on April 4, 1989, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) made statements which included hints of a policy change on immigration levels that have caused great concern to the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. I would like to indicate at this point that it was my pleasure to have served on the executive of this Council before my election to Parliament.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council has pointed out that the Minister of Employment and Immigration said that increasing immigration levels cause tensions in the areas of multiculturalism and race relations. Is the Minister not attempting to lay the groundwork for a reduction in the levels of immigration? The Government must clarify its position now and not just before election time. We must recall that immigration has been the genesis, the origin of citizenship for new Canadians.
I would like to point out one final area of concern. The federal Government reported last December that 6 per cent of workers covered by the federal employment equity law were members of visible minorities. However, in the month of May it reported that only 5 per cent of those who work for federally-regulated employers are members of visible minorities.
There is a 6.3 per cent employment rate of visible minorities in the general workplace. It is not acceptable that the Government, which should be setting an example, is failing even to keep its employment policies in line with the private sector. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that all Canadians are equal and that laws and programs exist which effectively ensure this equality.
Multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of Canada. Eight million Canadians, that is close to one-third of our total population, are of non-aboriginal, non-francophone, non-anglophone origins. These 8 mil-
Multiculturalism
lion Canadians are truly a contributing part of our great nation.
We must embrace and act on the concept of equality in diversity. Let us again recall that the underlying principle behind our Citizenship Act is that of equality, that those born in Canada are equal to those who chose Canada to be their country. But, while outlining the principles of cultural and racial equality and discussing the need to respect the different nationalities which make up our country is important, it is not enough. The Government must commit resources to promoting the cultural pluralism of Canada if the principle of multiculturalism is to be strengthened and made a fundamental reality and principle of our country.
I think it must be a fundamental principle because it is such a vital one. As I stated when speaking on the private Members' motion on multiculturalism debated in the House on June 2, multiculturalism is about many things. It is about tolerance and racial harmony. All Canadians should be able to pursue their individual dreams and goals with equal freedom regardless of differences in appearance, accent and traditions.
Multiculturalism is about employment equity. It is about a dynamic affirmative action program, and this program is based on the principle that merit is the basis for employment; colour, creed and physical characteristics should not be considered. Multiculturalism is about equal access to affordable housing and it is also about human rights.
Given the vast and vital nature of multiculturalism and the importance of citizenship, I am pleased that a separate new Department is being created to deal with the concerns that fall within these areas.
I hope that this new Department will strive effectively; one, to promote the dignity of Canadians of all nationalities, two, to protect the rights of all of us and, three, to ensure that we achieve social harmony through strengthening our cultural mosaic. Only then will this new Department become a genuine milestone in Canadian history. The ethnocultural community in Canada has waited and fought for so long for this new Department. We shall watch the Government. Muticulturalism is truly a living fabric of our Canadian society.

June 22, 1989
Multiculturalism


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for being present here today. I am sure that by the various speeches made by the Official Opposition he has probably noticed that there are indeed longer-term goals in our society that we must be able to face. I believe that his job as Minister of Multiculturalism is indeed a very challenging one because he must cope with the ever-changing make-up of this country.
The debate we are having today is a very important one. We are not simply addressing Bill C-18, an Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, but are indeed speaking to the contemporary cultural reality that is Canada. More important, this debate will bring to the forefront some very fundamental questions related to the cultural policy direction that the country is willing to take to the 1990s and the 21st century.
During a period of our country's history when we are challenged by the definition of our cultural identity, it is very important to begin to review the role that multiculturalism plays in our society, indeed what necessitated the implementation of a Multiculturalism Act, what this Act is in fact responding to and, hence, what the purpose is of a separate Department. As a Canadian elected to the House of Commons, I firmly believe that I have the moral obligation to attempt to define what is Canadian culture, what is our Canadian identity.
In this nation we are often faced with a multitude of terms to define and express what is, in cultural terms, our Canadian society. Terms such as "bilingual", "multicultural", "diversity" and "pluralism" are but a few of the expressions that we have used in an attempt to come to grips with who we are and what we are. As far as I am concerned, I view our Canadian cultural reality in multicultural terms, however, not necessarily in total accordance with the traditional meaning of multiculturalism or its usage.
There is no question in my mind that contempory Canadian culture is indeed multicultural. The very essence of this reality can be seen in the many faces of our Canadians citizens. I stress "Canadian" because if we were to examine the terminology used in the description of various Canadians of different heritages, for example, Japanese-Canadians, Chinese-Canadians, Greek-Canadians, Italian-Canadians, French-Canadians and Portuguese-Canadians, we see that indeed the common point of reference, the focal point, is that they are Canadian. That is what brings all these people into a common fold.That is our common denominator.
In my past experiences I have noted that the multiculturalism policy was embracing all Canadians with the exception of the English, French and native components of our nation. That is indeed the national perception. I feel very strongly that if Canada's multiculturalism policy is to be a truly national policy, we must be able to safety state that it represents everyone. The present direction of the policy has resulted in a form of societal differentiation creating the community concept of English, French, natives and others; others being "multicultural".
Canadian culture is undoubtedly a sum of all parts. Multiculturalism is its essence.
I am very proud to be part of a Parliament whose objectives recognize and promote the understanding of multiculturalism, the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all Members to preserve, enhance and share in their cultural heritage.
I am very proud to be part of a nation which recognizes that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of Canadian heritage. How serious we are about this is questionable when we view for example, the Meech Lake Accord. Why was the multicultural characteristic of the country not in the preamble as were the English and French components?
We tend, if we look at the issue very, very closely, to become a bit cynical. In the spirit of optimism, we should perhaps look at ways to salvage the beauty of a truly multicultural society.
Multiculturalism per se can in fact provide and is, in fact, an invaluable resource in shaping Canada's future. A nation which promotes 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 assists them in the elimination of any barriers to such participation should be applauded. We also ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity.
June 22, 1989

Obviously, if one is following my speech, there are terms which must be defined. I could proceed to expand on the various objectives and the positive objectives of the Multiculturalism Act but we cannot argue that the majority of the points mentioned in the Act are important statements.
The problem I have is that perhaps they are indeed just statements. When all is said and done, I think with this Act more is said than done. We must be able to look at the Act itself and the one thing which we will notice is the use of very vague language such as promote, enhance, facilitate, encourage and so on. In reality, there is really no mechanism set in place to bring to fruition these very noble and necessary progressive ideals. I am very much puzzled by how the Department is going to better address the somewhat vague Act which lacks a true sense of objective and focus.
I have many questions about this Department. For example, are we to assume that this Department is going to give so-called ethnocultural groups greater access to justice? How will they benefit? What is the ultimate goal of this Department? Is it a Department which we want today for the 1990s, or is it a Department which is part of a vision which will take us to the 21st century. Will the rights of ethnocultural Canadians be better represented?
Are they not going to receive, in essence, the same protection which they would normally receive under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code, the Citizenship Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act? Where do we see the improvement?
There is no question in my mind that the Department will have to view the Multiculturalism Act as the cornerstone of its policy implementation. Quite frankly, with an Act which lacks direction and substance, I am wondering how the policy direction and enforcement will be carried out by the Department.
It is very obvious to anyone who has read the Act that indeed it does not give any additional rights of citizenship to people, nor does it erase the barriers of discrimination or racism. It is quite evident that it has failed at that.
Multiculturalism
The Act states the obvious ideals. They are simply on paper. How do we take the myth and how do we make it become reality? That is the issue at hand.
However, if and when this Department will be set up, I firmly believe that it should not turn out to be solely a financial clearing house, or grants for folklore dances and sing a song and that sort of thing. This country has grown up. The reality is a very different one.
If I may make a recommendation to the Minister who has kindly stayed for this speech, I would like the ministry to devote the majority of its resources in sensitizing Government agencies and Departments right across the board. I think an excellent start would be the Ministry of Justice so that they know that there is a new reality out there, that Canada is no longer a bicultural country but indeed the official culture is multiculturalism. Perhaps in Immigration and Employment, where we have the issue of employment equity and affirmative action. Sensitizing Government to the new reality is crucial. However, I must state that this should have been started with or without a Multiculturalism Act or Department. It is a responsibility of the entire Government and elected officials to keep up to date with the changes which take place in our society.
A true multicultural country will only be achieved when the political, economic and social structures of this nation will reflect its cultural diversity, a diversity that should concentrate its energies not only on the retentions of one's cultural heritage and background but also in the development of a true Canadian culture whose essence is multicultural.
Citizens of this country have listened to quite a bit of rhetoric about multiculturalism. This empty rhetoric should be sincerely and seriously examined. We must be able to, and begin to differentiate between the myths and the reality of multiculturalism. If this Department were to solely depend on the Multiculturalism Act as its cornerstone, and may I add, if our human rights were to solely depend on the Multiculturalism Act as its cornerstone, then I predict that it will not succeed in aiding the definition and development of Canadian culture.
The ultimate goal if we are going to get serious about building a nation, and if we are going to get serious about developing a nation that we can call Canada and bring everyone together under the spirit of nationhood, is that we must eventually, not tomorrow, but in the future be looking at the establishment of a ministry of culture which recognizes everyone equally. In all our great policies and Government policies, I think that nation-

June 22, 1989
Multiculturalism
building should be paramount. Nation-building should be our focal point. Multiculturalism should be treated no differently.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for York South- Weston.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief submissions with respect to the Bill before the House today, entitled "An Act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto".
As you know, Mr. Speaker, last year the Parliament of Canada passed a Multiculturalism Act. That was the first Act on multiculturalism in Canada. It was a declared policy of the Government of Canada to have multiculturalism as its official policy.
I have some very serious difficulties in understanding what multiculturalism means. I would submit to you that it does not mean what it is supposed to mean in practice in Canada according to the dictionary definition of multiculturalism. Permit me the opportunity to explain.
Multiculturalism means multi, many. It should mean everybody. It should mean anglophones and francophones and those with Italian origin, Greek origin and German origin. That is what it ought to mean in the pure sense of the word. Unfortunately, since the introduction of the policy of multiculturalism in Canada, it has come to mean something different and that is what causes me considerable concern. It has come to mean that if you have origins other than French or English then you are multicultural, you are an immigrant, an ethnic. I regret that very much that as a policy of the Government of Canada there is a clear distinction between francophones and anglophones on the one hand and the multicultural or the immigrants and sons and daughters of immigrants on the other hand.
I would not have any difficulties if we all considered ourselves part of the multicultural community but we do not. That is a reality. If you ask average Canadians what multiculturalism means, they certainly exclude French
Canadians and English Canadians. I would suspect that if the Government of Canada were to do a survey or conduct a poll asking Canadians what multiculturalism means, I would suspect that the large majority of Canadians who answered such a poll would define it as being anything other than French or English.
The policy of multiculturalism in practice is divisive in my view. It has been rendered divisive. It renders a certain group of Canadians to be a different type-and I don't want to use the term second class or third class-it renders them different. It puts them on the periphery.
I was reading the Multiculturalism Act passed by Parliament last year. In the last recital, it states:
AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society-
Where have we heard that term "fundamental characteristic of Canadian society" before? We heard it in the Meech Lake Accord. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and 10 First Ministers got together, they tried to define what Canada means, what it means to be a Canadian. They referred to certain fundamental characteristics and the language is here, used in the Multiculturalism Act. When they talk about fundamental characteristics in the Meech Lake Accord, they refer to French-speaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians as if to suggest that those were the only fundamental characteristics of Canada.
My mother, an immigrant to this country, does not speak fluent French. She does not speak fluent English and by implication, therefore, she is not a fundamental characteristic of Canada. Nor are the hundreds of thousands of other Canadians who have origins other than French or English.
I argued and others argued at the time of the Meech Lake debate that if you are truly defining the essence of Canada and what Canada is, you surely must include as fundamental characteristics the immigrants who came here and chose Canada as their homeland. The First Ministers did not include the immigrants, the multicultural, as part of the fundamental characteristic of Canada and there was another very serious and grave omission, the aboriginal people.
June 22, 1989

Why were they not included as a fundamental characteristic of Canada, Mr. Speaker? All 11 First Ministers in their haste to come together to decide on something excluded the aboriginal people and the 38 per cent of Canadians who have origins other than French or English.
I look now at the Multiculturalism Act and the words appear in the recital talking about the diversity of Canadians as regards racial, national or ethnic origin as a fundamental characteristic. If it is a fundamental characteristic, enough to put in a recital of a Bill of Parliament, why was it not enough to include it in a constitutional amendment that will be there forever and a day until further amended?
Let me give another example of the concern I have with respect to what multiculturalism has come to mean in Canada. A few years ago the Government of Canada had to address the question of Japanese-Canadian redress. The Japanese-Canadians were dealt with in an unjust fashion in the two World Wars. The Government of Canada decided that something should be done about it. We agreed. But the Government handed that responsibility over, not to the Minister of Justice, not to the Prime Minister's Office but to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner). If that is not the ultimate insult, I do not know what is. Just because Japanese-Canadians are not considered francophones or anglophones on an issue involving them, it is"give the matter to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism". What in God's name does the trampling of the human rights of the Japanese in the Second World War have to do with multiculturalism?
The mind set here in Ottawa, in the legislatures across the country as well as in the minds of a lot of Canadians is that if you are not French or English you are multicultural. What would the reaction have been in Canada if the issue of war criminals were handed over to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It would never have happened.
Multiculturalism


John V. Nunziata: Right. It would never have happened, my colleague says. It ought not to have happened with respect to the Japanese-Canadian redress question. That is an example of the problem with multiculturalism.
My time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to continue my comments when the House reconvenes in consideration of this legislation.
I was bom in this country. My parents are immigrants. I am not a francophone, I am not an anglophone-at least I do not consider myself a francophone or an anglophone. But what am I? A lot of people like to refer to me as an ethnic Member of Parliament or part of the multicultural community. In terms of the powers that be, one often refers to the linguistic duality. It is referred to in the Meech Lake Accord: French-speaking, Englishspeaking. At some point in time this Government-and I am speaking of this Parliament-has to come to realize that there is more to being a Canadian than being French or English. There is more to being a Canadian than being a francophone or an anglophone. I consider myself just as much a Canadian as any francophone or any anglophone in this House. As long as we keep talking about hyphenated Canadians, Italian-Canadians, Japanese-Canadians, francophones, anglophones, we will forever keep people on the periphery, on the outside. Rather than talk about differences, whether it is the distinct society or-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it six o'clock, the Hon. Member will have 10 minutes left for his speech plus a 10 minute question and comment period.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, pursuant to Order made Tuesday, June 13,1989, this House stands adjourned, pursuant to Order made Wednesday, May 3, 1989, until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 26, 1989