1989-10-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions, Nos. 342-0872 and 342-0873.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present three petitions signed by 194 constituents. They call upon the Parliament of Canada to maintain VIA Rail's present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.
These petitions are signed by the residents of Churchill, Weir River, Norway House, Wabowden, Thompson, Gillam, Sundance, York Landing, Snow Lake, Pikwitonei, and Pukatawagan. Many of these communities rely solely on an adequate VIA service.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by several persons living in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. This is in addition to the many I tabled yesterday from people in my own riding of Brant.
They call upon the government not to reduce rail passenger service, but rather to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail service in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy-efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of people from Windsor, Ontario, who strongly oppose the proposed goods and services tax. on the pockets of Canadians and will hit them not only with higher taxes, but with higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment. The petitioners ask this Parliament to reject this tax.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I also rise to present a petition from a number of residents of Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster who are very concerned about the proposed cuts to VIA Rail which they consider to be essential for many Canadians and which has been a part of Canada for more than 100 years.
These cuts will result in a serious reduction in passenger railway service and threatens maintenance, safety and jobs and would eliminate a third of our national passenger railway system. The petitioners call on Parliament to maintain the existing VIA network, upgrade Via equipment and guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry out a mandate to provide passenger service.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting, on behalf of the Club de I'Age d'or in Saint-Hyppolite, a petition which calls upon the Government to reject the new goods and services tax, in view of the negative impact the tax will have on low and middle-income Canadians.

October 3, 1989
Routine Proceedings

I also have the honour, Madam Speaker, to present the same petition on behalf of our Lady of Fatima Seniors Club who again feel that the tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle-income Canadians. We humbly ask Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure once again today to stand pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present this petition on behalf of the residents of South Porcupine who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that there is no taxation on goods and services such as loans, the arts and other non-luxuiy items and to scrap the entire GST as it is proposed by the government.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition in the name of 600 Canadians who are concerned about the present negotiations at the National Arts Centre with its orchestra and who hope that parties will go back to the table and negotiate in good faith.
The petitioners pray that we consider the National Arts Centre orchestra an excellent, world-class one that has brought fame to Canada and its capital city. They ask, as a matter of priority, to ensure that the National Arts Centre maintain this orchestra at its current size and standard of excellence and ensure that sound cultural credentials be the main criterion for any new appointments to the National Arts Centre Board of Trustees. I deposit this petition with pleasure.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour and privilege to present petitions signed by 132 Canadians in the communities of Thunder Bay, Ignace, Nanaimo, South Gillies, Kenora, and a number of other areas across the country.
The petitioners are all in support of the continuation of rail passenger service in this country. They point out that this government has refused to provide VIA with the necessary support to fully realize its potential to develop the kind of national passenger rail network that Canadians want and deserve.
I just want to say that although they were not there at the transport committee this morning, I know that they will be very pleased that we are going to hold public hearings into VIA Rail.
[Translation\


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions. One is signed by a large number of residents in my riding, by constituents who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the new goods and services tax because it does not meet the criteria set by this Government when it made its proposal for a new sales tax. It is a hidden tax, it is unfair and it applies across the board to goods and services. Your petitioners believe that the tax is not a good tax and that it should be rejected.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present the concern of 60 Canadians who have signed this petition, and it has been duly certified by the clerk.
They are concerned that this new tax will be hidden from Canadians and will be applied to virtually everything they buy. They are particularly concerned with the onerous burden it will cause on small business.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise also to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is a petition calling on Parliament to maintain the existing VIA Rail network, to upgrade the VIA equipment, and to guarantee VIA sufficient support to cany out its mandate to provide passenger rail service across our country.
This petition is signed by people in the lower mainland, from Vancouver, New Westminster, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Delta and the Vancouver region.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: These citizens of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are particularly displeased with the fact that the federal government, earlier this year, embarked on a plan to cap the price of industrial milk in Canada. I might add that the representations of the dairy farmers of my constituency and elsewhere have been so successful that the government has already backtracked on a good portion of that awful scheme that they had embarked on previously.
I am pleased to table this petition on behalf of my constituents and I totally support their petition as well.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Madam Speaker, I stand pursuant to Standing Order 36 with a bona fide petition presented by people from the lower mainland as well, decrying what this government is doing to VIA passenger rail service in the country. They are asking the government to change its mind and provide the kind of service to Canadians that we need, with the kind of equipment we need, and with the modern kind of service that is certainly possible and needed within this country.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by residents of Vancouver Island, from Victoria to Campbell River, who are very concerned with the elimination of VIA Rail passenger transportation, especially on Vancouver Island.
They point out in this petition that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada said that the federal government has the responsibility to ensure that rail passenger service in Canada be retained, modernized and expanded. They are somewhat reassured now that there are going to be public hearings on rail transportation in Canada.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present this petition under Standing Order 36. It is the same petition that a number of members have been submitting to this House. It relates to the dismantling of VIA Rail passenger service, the mode of transportation that really should be the transportation mode of the future.
Routine Proceedings
I would like the members opposite to realize that we will continue to bring forward these petitions as there are many, many people who are now becoming aware that their rail passenger service will be taken away from them. We expect to see many more in the future.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by 88 voters from across Canada and especially from Kingston and the Islands.

The petition calls upon Parliament to avoid cuts in VIA Rail passenger service in Canada and reflects in its preamble the importance that VIA Rail passenger service has had to Canada, both to the tourist industry and to national unity, and calls upon Parliament to avoid any such cuts.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour as well to present a petition from residents of the lower mainland of B.C., calling upon the government, as do many others, to maintain the passenger rail service on Vancouver Island and in Canada as a whole, and not only to maintain it but to provide the funding necessary to upgrade this service so that it will truly contribute to the passenger service in Canada. I urge the government to listen to these petitioners.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. Ill and 112.


Mrs. Finestone: For the fiscal years (a) 1985-86 (b) 1986-87 (c) 1987-88 (d) 1988-89, was any money paid under the Department of Communications Postal Subsidy Program to the Canada Post Corporation for mail mailed by (i) government departments (ii) Crown Corporations (iii) provincial government departments (iv) provincial crown corporations (v) municipal governments and, if so, in each case, in what amount?

October 3, 1989
Government Orders


Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Government departments and agencies at the federal, provincial and municipal levels are eligible to mail in the Publications Mail Program. However, no data is maintained to determine the proportion of the Communications Postal Subsidy Program which could be attributed to these users.


Mrs. Finestone: For the fiscal years (a) 1985-86 (b) 1986-87 (c) 1987-88 (d) 1988-89, was any money paid under the Publications Mail Infrastructure Program to the Canada Post Corporation for mail mailed by (i) government departments (ii) Crown Corporations (iii) provincial government departments (iv) provincial crown corporations (v) municipal governments and, if so, in each case, in what amount?


Benoît Tremblay: Government departments and agencies at the federal, provincial and municipal levels are eligible to mail in the Publications Mail Program. However, no data is available to determine the proportion of the Mail Infrastructure Program which could be attributed to these users.
[English |


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, September 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mulroney that Bill
C-18, an act to establish the Department of Multicultur-alism and Citizenship and to amend certain Acts in relation there-to, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I simply want to raise a point of order regarding a situation that occasionally makes things difficult for hon. members, and in any case we have to deal with it.
Yesterday, the Government announced, and that is what we read in the Projected Order of Business, that Bill C-36 would be the first item for consideration by the House. However, it seems the Government changed its mind, so that item No. 2, in other words, Bill C-18, will be debated first.
I raised this point because some members are in committee, and when they have to sit in committee and in the House as well, it is my duty as the party Whip to inform them that the House of Commons has priority.
If these members are supposed to speak to a particular bill, agriculture or multiculturalism or whatever, it is my duty as the party Whip to call them to the House.
Madam Speaker, I find it rather difficult to orchestrate or organize all this when we are not given all the information on what will be done on a given day.
I agree that the Projected Order of Business is subject to change without notice. However, I think we should be able to schedule the business of the House so that Members can be where they should be at the appropriate time and there are no last minute changes in the order of business to confuse matters. Personally, I would ask the Government to be more consistent in its instructions to the Table and to give us one day's notice or at least let us know the night before, as is customary, instead of making changes just before the orders of the House are called.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I take note of the concerns of the whip of the official opposition party. As the House is well aware, the government can choose anything from the Orders of the Day, in whichever order they choose to put them forward and we try, as always, to co-operate.

One of the reasons we are faced with this dilemma this morning, or why we have the change in order, is because of conversations that were going on between the three parties. They did not wrap up in time for us to give the proper notice to the table in terms of the order for today. So we regret any inconvenience it has caused the opposition. They can be assured of our continued and ongoing and habitual co-operation which we are more than delighted to give on every and any occasion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The last time the bill was before the House, the hon. member for Ahuntsic had the floor. She still had some time left. Does the hon. member wish to continue her speech?


Ms. Roy-Arcelin:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Ahuntsic.


Nicole Roy-Arcelin: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment and perhaps ask a question, if I may.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, on a point of order.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I would appreciate your opinion. Is it customary for a member to ask questions when that member has the floor for the purpose of making a speech?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think that the hon. member can certainly understand that sometimes during a statement a Member might ask a rhetorical question, as many of us do, I think, at times.
The hon. member who was asked some questions has a few minutes left. Since she is there, she can surely answer a question she was asked and if her last comment takes the form of a question, I see no reason to object.
Government Orders
The hon. member for Ahuntsic.


Nicole Roy-Arcelin: Madam Speaker, I can also use my time to make a comment.
The multiculturalism policy was established by the Liberal government in the 1970s because they saw it as a way to integrate into the Canadian mainstream Canadians whose origin was neither French nor English.
But since then, Madam Speaker, the face of our country, Canada, has changed. More than a quarter of our population is of other ethnic origins and our country is already in fact multicultural.
As the hon. member believes, Madam Speaker, this concept is no longer directed only to these minorities but to all Canadians, whatever their origin. Instead of dividing Canadians and "ghettoizing" them, it tends to unite them, to help them discover and respect their diversity, which is a great asset for our country.
That is why several European countries and even Australia envy our multicultural policy.
Madam Speaker, why do some hon. members not want to give our country a chance to develop in diversity, which is the reality of our country's existence?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint-Denis.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, may I ask my distinguished colleague a question? She said that Canada should develop in diversity. But how does she fit the Official Languages Act into this diversity? Where does it fit into the new Multiculturalism Act? How can one combine what is an official fact, Canada's two official languages, although I know it is misunderstood in many parts of the country, how can one reconcile it with the new Multiculturalism Act?


Nicole Roy-Arcelin: Madam Speaker, I would say to the Hon. Member that the official languages will still be respected, as will all the new arrivals and the ancestral languages of the ethnic groups. But it must be clearly stated that the official languages, English and French, will be respected. Of course, the intention here is not to change the Official Languages Act and I think that all these newcomers and those who have been here for a long time will respect the Official Languages Act.

Government Orders


Mr. Bevilacqua:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. It is in relation to the debate we are having today which I think is a debate of importance. It is a debate that I think deals with defining the very essence of Canadian culture and who we are as a people. There are certain things that concern me about the present direction of multiculturalism. Sometimes I think the message gets lost, not only outside but even within this Chamber.
For example, I gather from what the member stated culture is multiculturalism. My question is quite simple. If that is indeed the fact, then why do we have a parliamentary standing committee that calls itself the communications, culture, citizenship and multiculturalism committee? I would like to know what groups are represented within the culture portion of this parliamentary standing committee and what groups are represented within the multiculturalism portion of this committee. Are we four solitudes of this nation?


Nicole Roy-Arcelin: Madam Speaker, I think that we granted the wishes of our friends in the opposition because the members of the multiculturalism committee asked for multiculturalism to be separate from communications. So we granted their wish.


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


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, with the belief that this is a sincere effort on the part of this government to address the changing demographic reality in Canada. This bill recognizes that Canada is no longer a bicultural English-French nation, but a country constructed and reborn from many different heritages and backgrounds.
Roughly 40 per cent of today's population is neither of British nor French origin. This new reality of cultural pluralism presents a tremendous challenge for our nation.
But to effect real change we have to change attitudes as well as policy. In the past, Canada has had a relatively good record of addressing the needs of new Canadians and being sensitive to their concerns. Honest attempts have been made to recognize the intrinsic value that each new culture brings with it and the tremendous contribution that immigrants have made in the building of this nation. It is an eclectic identity that has thrived on its diversity and not been weakened by it.
The future of Canada hinges on the harmonious development of a self-confident society, on a society flexible enough to adapt and preserve positive elements from the many cultures of the world. This is a nation where any individual from any culture has the chance to come and start a new life. Canada has become an example to the world of how people of different backgrounds can work together for the common wheel. Our country is now a blueprint for the global village.
In principle Bill C-18 is well intentioned, but there are dangerous pitfalls in the undertaking of this pursuit. Ideally a multicultural policy should attempt to address the various issues of employment equity, racism, discrimination, integration, and training programs. These are good starting blocks, but the record so far has sadly fallen short of the ideal. The government has not been particularly successful in ensuring employment equity even within its own sphere of control. We need to look no further than the post office to measure how well this policy has been implemented.
According to the Canadian Ethnocultural Council only 4 per cent of the workforce of Canada Post are visible minorities. Compare this figure to the private sector as a whole where 6.3 per cent of the workforce are visible minorities. The discrepancy between the government's employment equity dream quest and the actual results is just as worrisome in other areas under government jurisdiction such as CBC and Bell Canada.
The existing legislation designed to end discrimination and ensure equality has clearly failed in the public sector. Unfortunately policies and programs aimed at ethnic minorities have often meant little more than bread and circuses. Ethnic communities are treated as something apart from so-called main stream society.
October 3, 1989

The government is all too willing to throw funds at communities to sponsor dances and events that are little more than costume parties. The attitude that the real problems of discrimination and racism can be avoided as long as money is supplied for costumes is a mistaken one. This is an ignorant and patronizing policy.
New Canadians want to preserve their culture, but more importantly they want to become full partners in Confederation. This has in reality been denied in the past. Multiculturalism has evolved to mean culture, different from French and English. Multicultural policy has regrettably acted as a barrier, preventing full integration, and one by-product has been the development of second-class citizens. The policy has exaggerated the differences rather than the similarities. It has encouraged ghettoization.
Ethnic Canadians who have been here even longer than many non-ethnic Canadians are still considered foreign. A country cannot progress if 40 per cent of its population is made to feel alien.
Lamentably there is a feeling among many Canadians that racism is once again on the rise in our country. The tolerance that was espoused in the 1960s and 1970s is evaporating. More and more Canadian cultural insecurity is reflected in the mounting attitude of many who feel threatened by new Canadians. Sadly we find that a growing number of Canadians do not like the "kind" of immigrant coming into this country. Perhaps it is simply the case that tensions that were previously submerged are now rising to the surface.
These tensions have now taken many forms, whether it be the painting of a swastika on a synagogue in Toronto last summer, a campaign to deny Canadian Sikhs the right to wear turbans as part of their police uniforms, or charges by native and black Canadians that they receive harsher and different treatment from police than other Canadians. All these examples are symptomatic of problems that cannot be conveniently packaged as multiculturalism.
Giving money to community groups to promote heritage events is fine for government public relations, but it does nothing to address the real problems that we will continue to experience as a result of Canada's changing demographics.
Government Orders
Multiculturalism, unfortunately, has become the catch all phrase for everything that is culturally different. There is a real danger if the term "multiculturalism" is used to pigeon-hole immigrants or those with foreign names. This is the reason why I can only agree with the bill in principle.
As a person who would be called by many an hyphenated Canadian as in Italian-Canadian, I have difficulty in accepting that the culture of my parents is a culture apart from mainstream Canadian culture, that it is something secondary, something not quite first-rate Canadian. In fact, the culture of my heritage is no different from main stream cultures other than it has a smaller audience in this country. Nonetheless, to ghettoize my ancestral culture by funding it through a special multicultural branch seems at best a little patronizing.
I can think of a number of organizations in my own riding that survive quite nicely without the benevolent patronage of government multicultural funding. For example, the Croatian Committee for Human Rights has promoted annual community elections that drew over 3,000 members in Mississauga. This was organized without a penny of government funding. I cite this as an example of a community evolving and maturing into political and cultural self-sufficiency within the Canadian mosaic.
Perhaps a more real alternative would be to place these programs under the Minister of Communications along with other Canadian cultural programs. I believe in a cultural policy of one Canada. As our Charter of Rights states, a Canada where no matter the race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability, we are equal.
Canadian social scientists have debated for years an absolute definition of Canadian culture. The reality is that an absolute definition is impossible because culture is always changing with the influx of new people. Canadian policy must reflect this evolution.
Today, the reality is that Canadian culture is multicultural. This new department must go beyond merely institutionalizing the ghettoization of various Canadian groups. We must take precautions to ensure that we will not have a nation where non-English or non-French Canadians will be considered foreign, even if their families have been here for three generations. This is not the way to build a strong Canada. At the same time it is my hope and the hope of many of my colleagues that this new department will be a forum for educating Canadians to more understanding and more tolerance.

Government Orders
We must build a country where each citizen can be rich in the heritage, customs and language of his ancestors but be no less Canadian because of it. This can only be achieved if this department of multicultural-ism evolves into a department of heritage where all Canadians can participate and all cultures are treated equally, whether they be English, French or other.
In a unified and harmonious Canada no one can be called a hyphenated Canadian.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the member and in particular the comment she was making in relation to her own cultural background and the heritage of the Italian-Canadian community. I wonder whether it is a common feeling in certain parts of central Canada and around the Toronto region in particular that maybe we do not need a separate multicultural program or policy. Maybe she will clarify her thoughts on that.
Also, I would like to express some concern. I do not get the same feeling at all coming from the west coast of Canada where many, many immigrants of different racial backgrounds-and there are many black Canadians who have been there for a number of generations-who still feel very definitely that some kind of special multicultural programs and affirmative action programs are needed to deal with questions of racism. I do not think she dealt with this. It is in my view a lot more than just heritage matters. There are very definitely issues concerned with equality and with racism that I feel should be a major priority in any kind of multicultural policy and concerns of a multicultural department. Would the hon. member like to comment on that?


Albina Guarnieri: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her commentary. Perhaps I can best illustrate the point I was tiying to make by citing an example of a constituent who came to my office.
She was born in Australia and she had to reinstate herself. She was obliged to go to what is called the Department of Ethnic Affairs. She came to my office enraged that she, born in Australia and now seeking to reinstate herself, would be obliged to go to what she considered was a put down. The put down was the Department of Ethnic Affairs. My comment to her was: "Join the club".
The hon. member for York South-Weston who was bom here in Canada is still considered a hyphenated Canadian. I can appreciate and understand his grief when he is subjected to being a hyphenated Canadian even though he was bom here.
There is no quick fix solution. The policies may be well intentioned and well meaning, but they have to evolve within the political reality of Canada.
You have a minister of culture and a minister of multiculturalism for the ethnics. Either the English and French will be deemed multicultural or the ethnics should be shifted under the umbrella of culture. It seems that the concept of two ministries to deal with the various cultural groups is faulty thinking. It promotes the differences rather than the similarities.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to address this bill, not only to put forward some of my views but also to clarify some of the talk that is going on in the community as to what is our basic position on this bill as a party.
First, I want to go back to the origins of our party on this bill.
It was this month in 1971 that Pierre Trudeau rose and said: "For although there are two official languages there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. No citizen or group of citizens is other than Canadian, and all should be treated fairly".
We in the Liberal party are constantly defining and redefining policy, and multiculturalism is of no exception. Recently, on Friday, there was an article in The Globe and Mail by Jeffrey Simpson with the headline: "Balking at Multiculturalism". It went on to say that myself and other colleagues were balking at multiculturalism.
We were not balking at multiculturalism. We were asking ourselves some of the very questions that my colleague from Mississauga just finished raising. We are asking ourselves questions such as: if our national culture now is one of multiculturalism, if we are now a multicultural land, why do we really need a new department? Why do we need a separate department? Why can we not have one super ministry of culture?
October 3, 1989

Government Orders
As my hon. colleague mentioned, these are valid questions. It confuses people. There is a feeling out there that at times multiculturalism means this department will look after everyone who is other than French or English. Our country has evolved to a point where the people in my riding-and I do have a riding that has representatives from 50 different countries who are all Canadian-say to me that they feel Canadian, they feel equal, they do not feel that they need separate, distinct status.
It is important as we go through this bill today that we realize it is a bridge. It is a bridge to a point where eventually we will have one super ministry of culture to deal with all Canadians on all issues related to culture, whether it be racism or employment equity, rather than having a separate unit.
Therefore I want to reiterate what my colleague from Mississauga said. The government has basically put forward a bill here today which obviously promotes the machinery of multiculturalism, but we must make sure that the essence of multiculturalism is properly serviced. If we continue to use this department of multiculturalism for song and dance and ethnic newspaper advertising, as it is sometimes described in the manual, then I think we are working against the evolution of this country.
I want to be very clear that never ever has anyone in our party, including myself, balked at the multicultural reality of this country; but we want to make sure that we are not entrenching ghettoization which really does not serve any of us.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the member's comments, but I need further clarification. He said that he is supporting multiculturalism. His actions as critic of his party belie that statement with his request that there be no special multicultural committee.
I am wondering whether or not he realizes that his words are all very nice, but the reality in Canada is that we have racial problems and this multicultural committee and this bill may go some distance to address that reality. I would like him to address his comments to that.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, when I think of the Department of Transport I do not think that we need to create a separate department for planes, a separate department for trains or a separate department for boats. II' the Government of Canada is doing its job properly, the problems of racism should be handled in a comprehensive way and not just handled in some hived-off department.
I am very concerned that the very problem that you cite might not get the amount of priority. It might not get the amount of attention and energy put behind it when it is not right at the top of the agenda and handled in a comprehensive way through the Department of Justice, the Department of Employment and Immigration, and all the various departments that really must act on those very sensitive issues.
In my first job in Ottawa I worked for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, Jim Fleming. I could see the frustration on a weekly basis that we had getting some of those priority issues to the top of the agenda. We at that time were not even on the inner cabinet. We were not on priorities and planning. So sometimes with those sensitive and difficult issues that you raise-and they are important-we just would not get the time we really needed. I really hope that we are not entrenching that kind of issue you raise as a concern which of course I support.


Mr. Nunziata:: Madam Speaker, I have just a comment. The NDP member who just questioned my colleague referred to racial problems that exist in Canada. She is quite right, there are problems. There is a fear that the problem is getting worse, that discrimination in effect is on the increase. Canadians are asking themselves whether we are as tolerant as we say we are and whether in fact we are as pure, if I can use that word, as we say we are when it comes to racial tolerance.
I think it is important to ask ourselves what are the root causes of the increased level of discrimination and racism and intolerance in Canada today. There are those who suggest that perhaps we should examine some of the policies of the Government of Canada and try to determine whether the policy itself, for example multiculturalism, is in some way impacting in a negative way on that very serious problem.

October 3, 1989
Government Orders
With respect to the racial problems that exist we have a problem right here in the House of Commons. There are members in this House who are going about gathering petitions and speaking out against Sikhs using their turbans in the RCMP.
Now, if we are as open and as tolerant and as multicultural as we say we are, then why, pray tell, are members in this House doing something which would suggest otherwise? Where is the tolerance when it comes to as important an issue as allowing Sikh-Canadians, if I can use the hyphenated term, to be members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
I do not believe that multiculturalism or a policy of multiculturalism is the way to deal with that problem. Multiculturalism, if I can be blunt, is there as a vehicle to hand out patronage, to hand out government largess. That is what it has come to mean.
All the flowery rhetoric in the preamble to the Multiculturalism Act and now to Bill C-18, as I have indicated in the past, is divisive.
What we have is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If there is a problem with racism or discrimination we have laws in this country that protect every Canadian. We have the provincial human rights commissions. We have the federal law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the vehicle to deal with discrimination and racism in Canada.
My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood and I agree in principle with respect to where the policy of multiculturalism is evolving. At some point in the past it was a policy that was useful in that it allowed new immigrants to Canada to feel that they were part of main stream Canada. Today, those very people are asking themselves what is main stream Canada. Unfortunately, to some main stream Canada means French or English. In practice it is not a policy that is doing what it purports.
My simple question is this: Can my colleague explain what the functions of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism will be and how will that differ from the functions of the Minister of Culture? If this bill is passed and carried, we will have two ministers-a Minister of Culture, presumably of Canadian culture, and his exact title will be the Minister of Culture and Communications. Then we will have a minister of multiculturalism.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I think my colleague and I share the same concerns. Right now, the ministry of multiculturalism is basically an operation that hands out cheques for programs that in many cases have not been totally thought through and are not really productive in terms of meeting the objective of multiculturalism. Because of that priority on ministers running around handing out cheques, we seem to forget about priority issues like racism and employment equity. I think really-


Mrs. Browes:: You guys are the only ones forgetting about it.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I said that I worked in the Ministry of State for Multiculturalism. I must tell you that I found parts of that operation very wanting. I do not think-


Pauline Browes: We have had a new administration for five years.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Are you telling me right now that you are no longer going to do any of that, that you are just going to address priority issues like racism, employment equity and day care? If you are, then we are heading in the right direction.
The ultimate point that I would like to make is that this is a bridge. We should look at it as a bridge because we must make sure that our aboriginal peoples are looked after in a proper way.
This approach is not the long-term answer, but as a bridge we will be vigilant and constructive. I think the granting of funds for program development should come under the ministry of culture.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today in the House to speak to the act to establish a department of multiculturalism and citizenship. I support the establishment of such a department whose mandate is to promote national policies and programs with respect to multiculturalism and citizenship, to provide services to aid in the acquisition of citizenship, and to grant funds for race relations programs.
First, I would like to address the issue of support for multiculturalism programming. I have long been aware of the work performed by ethnocultural organizations in my own riding and across Canada. The Burnaby Multicultural Society has instituted many innovative programs. The Burnaby School Board now has multicultural workers to respond to the needs of Indo-Canadian, Chinese Canadian and Italian Canadian communities,
October 3, 1989

because of the efforts of Burnaby's ethnocultural communities and because of the efforts of the Burnaby Multicultural Society. This society has also sponsored a wonderful series on religions of the world in a very successful attempt to help to foster understanding and mutual respect in our community.
The society has just hired more multicultural workers through a grant program to assist social service agencies in making their services more accessible to all members of our community.
We know that there are cultural barriers that keep many Canadians from fully utilizing services. The society has ensured the participation of multicultural workers on crisis lines and social service agencies so that these will be accessible to members of our ethnocultural communities. The society has also sponsored cultural programs in schools, and is presently putting on two series for older Canadians in seniors community centres.
I am pleased to offer my support to all of these endeavours. I hope that the new Department of Multi-culturalism will financially support the programs and activities developed and defined by the ethnocultural communities in Canada. Freedom of religion, respect for one's culture and language are the values that I hope the Department of Multiculturalism will actively promote.
When I met last May with representatives of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council on Parliament Hill, many concerns were brought forward at that time that may not be addressed in the setting up of this new department.
The council is active in the area of immigration policy. The government's immigration and refugee policies have been shameful. Immigrants to Canada are of great benefit to our country. They create jobs, they do not take them away. They bring knowledge and skills with them and they use them to make Canada prosper. They bring a culture, a language and a heritage that enriches our country. They bring ideas, a willingness to work, and a desire to be Canadian that inspires those of us who are Canadian by birth and not by choice. Often we in Canada repay them with sorrow, with poverty and with racism.
Government Orders
Canada does have a racist history from the days of the first white colonists who destroyed the political and economic systems of our aboriginal peoples. Slavery was only abolished in Canada in 1833. Later a head tax was imposed on Chinese immigrants just after Chinese labourers had finished building our railroads that now link Canada coast to coast. The Canadian government went even further than the head tax when it passed a law to exclude Chinese immigration altogether.
Japanese Canadians were interned in camps during the Second World War. They were relocated, their property was seized, and many were deported.
On May 23, 75 years ago, the ship Komagata Maru, carrying 375 Sikh passengers entered the port of Vancouver. All of the passengers were British subjects and thus had the right to enter Canada. They were not allowed to disembark. Immigration officials tried every tactic and used every possible delay to deny landing rights to the passengers of the ship. The B.C. government officials cut communications and denied permission to load food and water on to the ship. After two entire months in the port of Vancouver, two months of fear, the ship was ordered to leave. The Komagata Maru was escorted from Canadian waters.
We need not dig into Canadian history to find horrifying examples of racism. Students at the University of Western Ontario are being taught that black people are genetically inferior to the white race. A 1988 survey found that 70 per cent of Canadians believe immigrants often bring discrimination on to themselves.
I hope that the new Department of Multiculturalism can take on the challenge of educating the racist element in Canada. I hope that this new department will not be an excuse for government to ignore the other demands that are being made by the ethnocultural communities of our country. If the government is concerned about multiculturalism, why did it axe the Secretary of State multiculturalism program by a full $2 million?
I am particularly concerned with the situation of immigrant and visible minority women. I want an assurance that women will be well represented at the decision-making levels in this department. Looking at Public Service of Canada statistics, it is evident that decisionmakers are overwhelmingly white, and overwhelmingly male.

Government Orders
The target set for employment equity in the Public Service is 3.1 per cent when the work force availability for visible minority workers is 6.3 per cent. I do not want to see the Department of Multiculturalism become some sort of ghetto, with the government feeling that the department must at least have some visible minority staff, but the rest of the Public Service need not. My point is that visible minorities, women, and visible minority women, should be well represented in upper level jobs throughout the Public Service.
I wonder when the government is going to do something about employment equity and about language training. I brought these two issues up before in the House, but there has been no action on the part of the government in these areas. I will continue to make these my priorities.
The Canadian Ethnocultural Council's analysis of the operation of the Employment Equity Act shows that employers covered by the act have made little progress in terms of the hiring of visible minority workers. According to the Department of Employment and Immigration, the labour force participation for visible minority members is 6.3 per cent. In the majority of firms examined by the CEC, visible minorities represented far less than 6.3 per cent of the employees of the firms. Visible minority workers were concentrated in the semi-skilled, manual and clerical occupational categories. In other words, they were among the lowest paid.
I have made public statements about the need for mandatory, enforced employment equity. I have questioned ministers in committee about mandatory enforced employment equity, and I have written letters about it. The only answer I have from the government is an indication that it seemed to think the employment equity legislation is working. Well, it has obviously never tried to use it. The government is so completely unrepresentative of the visible minority population it cannot begin to understand how to combat systemic discrimination. We must deal with systemic discrimination with effective measures such as mandatory enforced employment equity, with goals and with timetables. Voluntary compliance just does not work.
We need a comprehensive, universal system of language training for all adult immigrants, no matter what their immigration class. Access must be guaranteed to all immigrants by the provision of adequate training allowance, and child care. Special outreach programs should be developed to inform immigrant women locked into job ghettos of such a program. Without economic equality and without basic language skills, immigrant women and visible minority women do not have much of a chance in our society.
I hope the new Department of Multiculturalism will not exist just for a show, but that this government is actually prepared to listen to the ethnocultural communities and immigrant and visible minority women.
The New Democratic Party has long advocated the setting up of a Department of Multiculturalism. I might add that there are other New Democratic Party policies that the government would do well to heed. One is enforced mandatory employment equity with goals and timetables for women and visible minority members.
I do support this bill to found a new Department of Multiculturalism, as long as the government understands that this is only a first step and not the only step in creating a society that is truly fair and respectful of all of the ethno-cultural communities of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On questions or comments, the Hon. Member for York South-West-on.


John V. Nunziata: I would like to ask a few questions to the hon. member. The hon. member's surname is Black, and that would suggest that the origins of that name are British?


Dawn Black: Scottish.


John V. Nunziata: Is the hon. member part of the multicultural community in Canada? I would also like her opinion on what she believes Canadians think about multiculturalism and what it means to Canadians generally.
Would she agree with me when I say that multiculturalism has come to mean that if you have origins other than French or English then you are part of the multicultural community and therefore you are ethnic. That appears to be the case, in my view. I would like to ask the member to comment generally in that regard.
October 3, 1989

In closing, can she also comment on why it is necessary to have one minister of culture, and another minister of multiculturalism, one department of culture, and another department of multiculturalism? If one of the fundamental characteristics of Canadian culture is the fact that our population is made up of French speaking Canadians or Canadians of French origin, Canadians of English origin, and one third of the population consisting of Canadians of origins other than French or English, why the need to have the distinction between multiculturalism and culture?


Dawn Black: First, I would just remind my colleague that many women carry the name that they were not bom with and I was not bom with the name Black, so it does not denote my cultural heritage at all.
I envision a Canadian society where all members talking about people who came to this country years ago from both French and British backgrounds. I am speaking about people who have come to our country recently from a variety of cultural backgrounds, Chinese, Japanese, Indo-Canadians. I also speak of our first people, our aboriginal people. In a society that really does care about all its people, perhaps there is no need for separate departments to deal with the inequalities that are present today.
We do not cure inequality by saying that we will treat everybody equally. When there are inequalities in our society, we must finds ways to address those inequalities. I support the development of this ministry, I have great hopes for it and I am pleased to see it before us today.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The point that the hon. member raised this morning is very interesting. I cannot help but throw in a comment before I address a question to my colleague.
It seems to me that he needs to look at the whole question of the status of women department. There are a lot of similarities, of ethnic communities as being those of an advantaged community, then perhaps we do not need a separate multicultural committee. If, as the Liberals in the past have interpreted, perhaps the function is mainly supporting funding for cultural programs, which are very interesting, but perhaps are not a question of disadvantage, and then perhaps we do not need it. If he would talk to many people again, particularly visible minority people about the disadvantages they face in
Government Orders
Canada, it would be quite clear, as my colleague has indicated, just as women need a special program that provides for advocacy to assist them and to give them an avenue for moving towards greater equality, so it seems to me there are many Canadians of different ethnic minorities who would say they need the same thing, including the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. It would be interesting to debate this point further in committee.
The question I have for my colleague really has to do with another matter and it concerns the cuts to funding to the Citizenship Instruction and Language Training Program, commonly referred to as CILT. Many Canadians do not realize that the government has completely cut funding for this program. In 1987 and 1988 about $9 million of federal funds went to citizenship classes and language instruction which was matched by the provinces. Close to $20 million was going into those kinds of programs.
In my community many more dollars were needed to provide language training for new immigrants and also citizenship classes, not only for immigrants, but perhaps for other Canadians as well. They would then begin to have a much stronger identification as Canadians and new Canadians with English or French not their first language would be able to settle into society as well as into jobs.
The government has chosen to cut this program. I would maintain that it is an abrogation of federal responsibility as far as the settlement of new immigrants is concerned and will lead to isolation and ghettoism of many people, particularly women and older people who are not in the workforce. It is also a contradiction of multiculturalism.
I would like to ask the member for her comments. I know of her great concern for the point of view of immigrant and visible minority women.


Dawn Black: I thank my colleague for her question. I know that she has a large proportion of ethnocultural groupings in her community. She is also aware of the very drastic effect that the cutbacks in language training have on all of these people, particularly on immigrant women and visible minority women who, when they enter Canada, are not always deemed to be of the same immigration class for language training. Many times these women have already been discriminated against in the classification that the immigration officials have deemed them to be for any kind of language training.

October 3, 1989
Government Orders
Now with the cutbacks to the CILT program there are further barriers to immigrant women who find it even more difficult than immigrant men to integrate into Canadian society. After all, if they cannot speak the language at the school their children are attending, it is very difficult for them to communicate with the schools about the education of their children. It is very difficult for them to access social service agencies in their community when they cannot speak the language that is used.
I know that the ethnocultural communities are lobbying the government. I applaud their effort and I do hope that the government will listen to the needs, particularly of immigrant women on this issue.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this important and progressive bill and the goals that we are trying to achieve with respect to our Canadian culture.
National identity is an expression that evokes a variety of issues, ideas and feelings. The absence of conflict, loyalty to the national government, the possible succession of one part of the country from Confederation, harmony or positive feelings amongst the people in different parts of the country, pride and other good feelings about being Canadian, co-operation rather than tension between levels of government, giving precedence to one's Canadian identity over one's regional identity, and the feeling of getting a good or bad deal from being part of the country. These are all concepts of national and social cohesion.
Today I want to address the proposed act as it affects the aspirations of aboriginal people and their respective heritage. The wording of the bill is not clear and I do not understand what is intended for the promotion and protection of the culture, the languages, and the rights of Canada's native people.
Over the years Canada has been beset with many problems of national unity or societal cohesion. Recently, attention has been focused on the French-English conflict and the prospect of Quebec national sovereignty. However, English-French relations are embedded in the whole matrix of other matters such as regional
disparities, political tensions, economic problems, external domination, constitutional disputes, integration of people of different cultures and racial backgrounds, all of which present the problems of the cohesion of Canadian society.
Divisions among Canada's various provinces and regions have produced a highly decentralized political system with powerful provincial governments. Federal political institutions have proven inadequate to regulate regional conflict which often must be dealt with by conferences of provincial premiers rather than through the federal parliamentary apparatus. Economic problems have generated intense conflicts in labour-management relations. Canada has experienced a high degree of industrial disruption in recent years. The controversy over inflation and the wage and price controls is only one aspect of this problem.
External domination by British and then American interests contributes to the lack of a strong Canadian identity or a powerful unifying national ideology. In terms of culture, the printed and electronic media of mass communication, and the educational institutions have been heavily influenced by materials foreign, mainly American in origin.
All of these problems, and others as well, are interrelated and intertwined in the effects on the cohesion of Canadian society. None can be understood in isolation from the others. Ideally, ethnic diversity should become the factor in the development of a national identity. By this legislation it is hoped that ethnic diversity, by creating a general atmosphere of tolerance and pride in one's cultural heritage, might itself become the symbol of promoting national unity. It is interesting to examine how language and ethnicity mix with other features of our society such as regional disparities, American economic dominance, and socioeconomic inequities.
The configuration of ethnic and linguistic diversity in Canada is complex: one, the native peoples in relation to the rest of Canadian society; two, the English-speaking people in relation to the French-speaking people; three, a number of ethnic groups composed of immigrants and their descendants in relation to the rest of society. We have our hands full. This is a complex issue.
October 3, 1989

Within these lines of differentiation further distinctions need to be taken into account. The native peoples comprise several different groups including the Metis population. The anglophone-francophone distinction cuts across the other lines of diversity. The anglophone community is highly differentiated ethnically; so is the francophone community, although much less so. Other ethnic groups are numerous. They exhibit a considerable range of variation in factors such as size, acculturation, complexity of social organizations, and geographic concentration.
Despite such internal variations, at a general level there are a number of issues that pertain to all three axes of diversity. Among these is the question of patterns of inequality across ethnic and linguistic groups, and their impact on the cohesion of society.
There is also the matter of the modes of incorporation of members of different ethnic or linguistic communities into the political, economic, educational, and other institutions of the country. Not all communities are integrated into Canadian society in the same way. Then-relationship to institutions are not the same. This is also a matter that has considerable bearing on the cohesion of society.
Another issue is the degree of contact and cross-cultural communication across communities. The development of a common culture that each collectively shares and the common symbols with which each identifies is an issue that is related to that of cross-cultural communication. The survival of ethnic and linguistic groups as distinct socio-cultural entities is another matter of relevance for societal cohesion.
These are some definitions that need to be expanded on in the legislation.
Please allow me to give you some history of the native heritage in aboriginal Canada. As European explorers and fur traders began to move into what is now Canada in the sixteenth century, they encountered a number of native cultures that because of their technological simplicity were thought to be uncivilized and backward. There was no system of writing, no metallurgy beyond the pounding of copper in one or two regions, no practical use of the wheel, and virtually no domestication of animals, except the dog.
Government Orders
Only recently has the ingenious nature of native cultures been recognized, particularly their value as adaptive strategies to deal with regional or local environmental conditions; natural conservationists. Native languages were thought to be rudimentary, primitive, and not really worth learning; religions were thought pagan; and social and political structures almost non-existent, based upon custom rather than a coded system of law. Although there were diverse societies speaking in a variety of languages across Canada in aboriginal times, culture and language played almost no part in the official definition of an Indian developed by the federal government.
This definition grew out of the first Indian Act of 1876 in which the principle of patrilineal descent was used to determine who was eligible for registration. This principle is still in force and has been interpreted to mean that only those persons of native ancestry who can trace their descent through the male line to a person originally entitled to be registered are Indians for purposes and benefits of the Indian Act.
An analysis of ethnic differentiation is useful in considering what makes aboriginal issues different than other minorities. There are major differences and these have to be examined.
First, the native communities are in fact not yet fully incorporated into our society. Indeed they exist as a cluster of satellites at the margin of the wider society. Second, native groups have a long historical background as ongoing societies on this continent. Because of this, they are nations, rather than ethnic minorities in the usual sense of the term. I come from a group called the Dene Nation.
This historical background also carries with it an internal diversity. This is a third element of their situation; it is appropriate to talk of native peoples because there are several of them. The diversity is also increased by the presence of non-status Metis and other categories of people of Indian ancestry. A fourth element is territory. It constitutes an important basis of native communities in their economic, political and socio-cultural dimensions. Fifth, both in absolute and relative terms, the population of people of Indian ancestry is quite small.

October 3, 1989
Government Orders
I want to give members an overview of the issues which the aboriginal peoples of our country are faced with today. I am not convinced that a new department of multiculturalism and citizenship will address the crisis with which native people are trying to cope. Indian and Inuit leaders often argue that real progress for their people depends upon the satisfactory settlement of land claims and the attainment of self government. But these are far from being the only questions facing native peoples today. There are critical problems in the area of employment and services, as there are with the justice system, and with the Indian Act itself.
Compared to other countries, the native people of Canada are well off, because we are not being slaughtered as they are in Brazil or elsewhere. But we can also learn from them, and we are involved more and more in the international links that are being created. For instance, at the United Nations there is now a working group looking at indigenous rights around the world. A draft universal declaration of indigenous rights is being put together. Canadian native people are trying to organize themselves so that we can have a single voice at the international level.
Another initiative they have been pushing for is an international year for indigenous people. It appears that 1993 may be the year.
Native organizations are concerned about what new legislation means to them and their programs and services. There is an immense task before us if we are to create a climate to which our energies are to be used to heal and develop native communities.
The Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations has outlined a number of steps that the government can take to arrive at the situation. First, forums need to be established to resolve outstanding items on the Canada-First Nations agenda. A process is also required for native people to acquire full control in the areas of education, justice, child care and health. Legislation is required to recognize the continuing and inherent right of the First Nations to govern themselves in these areas.
Finally native people need an early resumption of the constitutional process. We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking to become what we always have been and what we always were-first Canadians and Canadians first.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member from the Arctic to deviate just a little from her text. When we speak about multiculturalism I wonder if she was present earlier today when members of this House referred to the department of multiculturalism as being one which handed out subsidies to various ethnic groups, song and dance, if you will.
Normally when groups in my riding receive grants for their community projects, as their member I am informed about the projects and have often presented cheques. When it comes to multicultural groups, at least in Saint-Laurent-Cartierville and I understand that the same phenomenon applies to the neighbouring riding of Mount Royal, our present minister personally hand delivers his cheques to the multicultural groups.
We talked about patronizing this morning or vote buying if you will. I would like our member and others to address this subject and to make comments on that.


Mr. Della Noce:: She is young.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, all that I can say with regard to this particular issue-


John Cole: Naive.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: I am not naive. I am 38 years old. I am a politician. I have equal rights with every other member in this House. I would like to answer this question if the member opposite would give me the opportunity to do
so.
I would like to say that it is generally the practice of the various departments in issuing grants and contributions to allow the member to participate in that process. I do not feel that it is morally right, for one, to have the minister handing out and not sharing in that activity with the local member and with other senior executives or senior government members of that particular region. I think there is some concern about the way in which this is done and I think it is something that has to be examined. Otherwise the perception is that it is generally vote buying.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Arctic has injected into this debate an interesting element, and that is the status of the aboriginal people, the native people in Canada and their role in Canadian society.
October 3, 1989

A few minutes ago I asked the member for New Westminster-Burnaby some direct questions in terms of whether she considered herself part of the multicultural community and whether multicultural to her meant everybody, regardless of their ethnic origin.
I know my colleague, the member from the Arctic, felt slighted when this government entered into the Meech Lake Accord. One of the reasons she felt slighted and aboriginal people generally felt slighted was that when the Prime Minister and ten First Ministers got together at Meech Lake, one of their purposes was to define Canada in the Constitution. They started to talk about fundamental characteristics of Canada. We know that the main thrust of the Meech Lake discussion was to get Quebec's signature to the Constitution, but in so doing it was necessary for them to define Canada as it is today.
I think it would be useful to try to recall how they defined Canada. They said that English speaking Canadians and French speaking Canadians are fundamental characteristics of Canada, period, full stop. My mother, an immigrant to this country, does not speak fluent French-in fact, she does not speak any French at all-and she does not speak fluent English. So by implication in this particular Meech Lake Accord my mother and the hundreds of thousands of others like her are not fundamental characteristics of Canada.
By implication as well-and the member finished her speech by referring to the fact that she considers herself Canadian first and first Canadian-when the powers that be came together to try to define Canadian culture in Canada they excluded not only people of origins other than French or English; they also excluded the aboriginal people, those who were here first. When I speak of the mindset, the discriminatory not necessarily intentional mindset in Canada, one has to look at things like the Meech Lake Accord and one has to examine the actions of the government with for example-and I mentioned this the other day in the House-the Japanese Canadian redress question.
That was an issue that had to be dealt with by the Government of Canada, by the Parliament of Canada, and that issue was given to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The only reason that responsibility was handed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism was
Government Orders
because Canadians of Japanese origin are considered ethnic, part of the multicultural community, and therefore somehow that issue had something to do with their ethnicity rather than-


Pauline Browes: You did not deal with the issue at all.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, the member likes to interrupt and, as I indicated to her on a number of other occasions, I would be pleased to debate this subject with her at any time.
But getting back to my point, that issue ought to have been dealt with by the Minister of Justice, because it was an issue affecting justice in Canada, not an issue affecting Canadians of Japanese origin because they had Japanese origins. So there again we have the mindset.
My colleague has raised some of the concerns that I have raised. How would she have reacted if the Government of Canada said that the question of settlement of aboriginal or native land claims is the responsibility of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Can she tell me what the reaction would have been in the aboriginal community or in the native community? I would like her also to comment whether she considers herself part of the multicultural community and whether she considers herself an ethnic?


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his lengthy and interesting question.
First of all, with regards to the settlement of lands claims, I think everyone knows that particular question lies with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and with the federal government. The Prime Minister was there to sign the agreement in principle. I think it is viewed as a major priority for any government, be it Conservative, Liberal or New Democratic Party.
My reaction would have been one of shock, and I think you were anticipating that answer. It would have been unacceptable for the aboriginal groups to have been referred elsewhere to deal with this issue. This particular issue is so important that it requires inner cabinet's input. There are very fundamental issues such as taxation, cash compensation, et cetera.

October 3, 1989
Government Orders
The other question the hon. member asked was about whether I consider myself to belong to a multicultural mosaic of Canada. Most certainly I do, but aboriginal peoples have a unique constitutional status and that has to be examined as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry I must interrupt the hon. member. The time for question and comments is now over. Resuming debate with the Hon. Minister of State for Housing.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Madam Speaker, over the last five years or so I have told you a number of stories from my own personal background. I am going to tell another this afternoon.
Back in 1976 I decided I would run for mayor of my own municipality, one of the six cities that make up metropolitan Toronto, the borough of East York. I did that for a vast number of reasons. One of those reasons was a growing concern about what was happening to the community, the changes that were taking place, what role the newcomers who were coming to live in their own community were playing in the community. I had been bom, brought up or raised and lived all my life in that community. It has been a community that had been good to me and my family. I wanted to make sure that experience could go on for my children and grandchildren. I thought what we had in that community was something veiy special.
There was a concern, however, about what was going to happen as new people came into the community. Was it going to change the way of life or character of the community? Would it become fragmented in some way, shape or form? Were the newcomers to our community going to change the community and stay off in their own corners, or were they going to get involved in the community themselves and participate in it? That was one of the reasons why I ran for mayor of my community back in 1976, because there are in excess of 60 different cultural and ethnic peoples that reside in my own community.
I had this grand idea that we needed to make sure, no matter what their background, whether they came from the traditional backgrounds of the country, native people or whatever, that somehow we find a way to get all these people involved in the community. I got myself elected and then had to face the great question of what to do now. How would I accomplish what I had been talking about, what I felt, and what I wanted to do.
I happened to be on a bus one morning with a chap by the name of Bromley Armstrong, well known as a Canadian who came originally from Jamaica. Bromley said to me: "Why do you not put together a little committee, a mayor's committee, a multicultural committee, and see if that is not a way of bringing people into the main stream". That is what we did. Out of that bus ride and that conversation with Bromley Armstrong we put together a multicultural committee. It was the first community multicultural committee in Toronto, the first one in Ontario, and perhaps the first one in Canada.
As a result, blossoming from that there is now these municipal multicultural committees in many, many communities right across this country, and certainly in every one of the cities and communities that make up metropolitan Toronto. That committee now is called the East York Race Relations Committee, because we found that we had to focus on other aspects of the whole situation as well.
It did not have any funding. Somebody today in the debate said that we should not be just throwing money around on multiculturalism. That is not necessary. In fact, this committee never had any community funding, and it still does not. It raises its own money. What that did was help to bring together the community, to get people involved, to help them to participate and maintain the kind of community that I had grown up in and loved, even though they came from over 60 different cultural backgrounds from all around the world.
When I ran for Parliament one of the things I wanted very much to do was ensure that this Parliament and the government that I was a part of did everything possible to make sure that all Canadians wherever they may have come from, whenever they may have come here, could participate fully and be involved in Canada with no barriers.
I have been extremely proud of the record of this government in the last five years and the things it has done. The first ever employment equity legislation has been passed by this government during that five-year period. The first ever affirmative action program for visible minorities in the public service has been put in place by this government during the last five years. The first ever Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Multiculturalism was created by this government in the last five years. The first ever Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Human Rights was put in place by this government in the last five years. The first ever Multiculturalism Act was put in place by this government in the last five years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: The final wiping clean of the slate on the redress for Canadians of Japanese origin was put in place by this government in the last five years. I might say it originated under the department of multiculturalism, not the Department of Justice because it was the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, who focused in and put it there. It was carried on, as a result of that, under the multiculturalism provisions.
Now we are debating and have before us the first ever department of multiculturalism legislation in this country. I think that is a milestone and something to be applauded because it is going to help to bring Canadians together, not to divide them in any way. I hope very soon that we are going to deal with that very, very nasty problem that has been hanging out there, the head tax issue. That has to be dealt with and I hope it will be very soon in the life of this Parliament. I hope we can wipe out as well all of the other issues of unfairness with which other Canadians have been treated over the years whether they have originated in the Ukraine or originated in some other country around the world.
Those are measures that I think that are very, very positive. They are certainly not aimed at dividing people or ghettoizing people. They are aimed at bringing people together. That is what this legislation and this department is all about, in my view. It is aimed at making sure that we clear away all the barriers so that all Canadians in this country, no matter where they came from, can participate and become fully involved in Canada itself. Let us get rid of all those barriers.
A week ago Sunday night I had the great honour and privilege to participate in a dinner honouring the dedication of a monument to the Chinese Canadians who came to this country to build the railroad, to build the CPR.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: There is one.
Government Orders


Alan Redway: Exactly, but the statue was erected in Toronto, interestingly enough. You may have one there, but there certainly is one in Toronto now. Let me tell you that between 1880 and 1885, some 17,000 Chinese came to this country to build that railroad.
Ms Mitchell: And died.


Alan Redway: Some 4,000 of them died, that is correct, in the building of the railway that tied Canada together.
After the railway was built they were no longer needed to work on the railway. They could not get home, they did not have any money, so they drifted into poverty.
A week ago Sunday night at that dinner in Toronto the descendants of those railway workers-lawyers, doctors, a meteorologist and business people-all were there to pay tribute to their ancestors and to honour their ancestors who had helped to build their country, all our country, Canada. As they rose and we sang our national anthem together, O Canada, I have to tell you that a real thrill ran up and down my spine. Here we had Canadians all participating in this country of ours. That is the name of the game and that is what it is all about. Regardless of from where any of us may originate, the purpose of this legislation is to make sure that everyone can participate and be involved fully and that there are no road blocks in the way.
I have found in my own community in dealing with Canadians, wherever they come from, that they do not want to have to blot out and pretend that they did not come from where they came from or that their ancestors did not come from where they came from. They want to have the right to maintain their own culture, their own heritage and to some extent their own language. They are proud of their heritage and their culture. They are even more proud, fiercely proud, of being Canadians.
And that is exactly what this bill is all about. This bill is not to create a department to divide, not to create a department to ghettoize Canadians. It is about creating a department to allow everyone to participate and to allow all of us to participate fully in being Canadians.
On that note I want to move, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1):
That the House continues to sit between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. this
day for the purpose of consideration of Bill C-18.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the Hon. Minister of State for Housing. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: According to the provisions of Standing Order 26(1)(6), if 15 members rise in their place to object the motion is defeated. Shall the motion carry?
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There not being 15 members rising in objection to the motion, according to the provisions of Standing Order 26(1)(6) the motion is deemed to be carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the minister who just spoke. I know he has a very sincere interest in this subject. During the course of his remarks he was speaking very positively, in fact, I would say he was bragging that the government has a number of policies including affirmative action in the public service. He also said at one point referring to descendants of the Chinese Canadian workers on the railway that all Canadians are participating in this countiy of ours.
I would like to ask him how he can justify the lack of action, the lack of results, in the so-called affirmative action in the public service in light of the figures which I have. The percentage of visible minority people in the general workforce is 6.3 per cent; the percentage of visible minority people working in the public service is only 1.58 per cent; and the target of the federal government for visible minorities was half way between, 3.2 per cent.
There is supposedly an affirmative action program to make sure that visible minority people have their fair share of jobs in our own public service. We are failing drastically. I would like him to explain this and to explain what the government is going to do about it, especially in view of the fact that there is a cut-back in public service jobs and it is going to get worse rather than better. If his colleague behind him would stop talking, I would be glad to present the next question.
The next question has to do with a question I raised this morning. How can he justify the goals of multicultur-alism and the goals of this new department which he outlined when the government is cutting back on all funding for citizenship instruction and language training? Does he not think it is absolutely essential to help new immigrants who do not speak English or French and in fact to help many Canadians to become a part of mainstream Canada? That is absolutely essential and it is a federal government responsibility to provide citizenship training and language training so that people can get into Canadian society.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to my colleague who I know has a sincere and deep interest in Canadians of all backgrounds. First of all, I do not want for a moment to say that the world is perfect in Canada. I have not been saying that. That is why we need a multiculturalism department and that is why we need other steps to assist in bringing about a much better world than we have at the moment.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about the public service?


Alan Redway: I was quiet for the hon. member and I hope that she will give me an opportunity to respond as well. What I am saying, first, is that prior to this government taking office there was no affirmative action program for visible minorities in the public service. There is now such a program and obviously it is pointing out exactly what many of us believed but about which we had no true evidence; that being that we were not perfect in the public service as far as its representation and its reflection of Canadian society was concerned. Now we have the mechanism in place to indicate to what extent the public service does reflect Canadian society and now we can move on to the steps to correct that. That is exactly what is happening. I might say that I have been laying a great deal of emphasis on that in my own department and hopefully before too long we will show some results.
Second, in respect of the question of cut-backs in funding, we all deplore cut-backs in funding of everything. I do not think anyone in this House enjoys seeing funding cut-backs not just on these programs but on a whole range of programs as the hon. member knows. If we did not have the fiscal problem that we do now, it
October 3, 1989

would not be necessary. Obviously this has to fit into an over-all global pattern of budget responsibility. I know the hon. member has opposed the goods and services tax and other things of that sort. She does so normally, saying that we can tax not all people but others like corporations. She also says that we can cut out unnecessary expenditures. So far, at least, I have not heard from her or her colleagues about any viable, logical suggestions on how to get the deficit under control. I realize she believes that it has to be under control too. Unfortunately, everything has to be restrained, and this is one of the things, along with housing and everything else, that has to be restrained if we are going to stop spending 35 cents out of every dollar that we take in paying interest on the national debt.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. minister who I thank for defining, at least from my understanding of his speech, that he indeed believes that Canadian contemporary culture is multicultural. I believe he agrees with that. Based on that, I would like to see his reaction to the fact that in Parliament we have Parliamentary standing committees on communications, culture, citizenship and multicultur-alism. I wonder why, if Canadian contemporary culture is indeed multicultural, we have departments of culture and multiculturalism.
Second, another question is in relation to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, specifically as it relates to human rights. In a speech made to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons, the hon. Minister for Multiculturalism stated that in addition to enshrining multiculturalism as a prized characteristic of our national identity, the Act has profound human rights implications. It recognizes the right of all citizens of every racial and cultural background to participate fully in Canadian society bringing to Canada their own style of being a Canadian.
I would like to ask the minister what human rights I, as a Canadian not bom in this country, have as a result of the Multiculturalism Act that I did not have before under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Human Rights Act and the Citizenship Act.
Government Orders


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his questions. As I understood it, there were two questions, the first of which dealt with why there should be a separate Department of Multiculturalism when there is a Department of Culture. Am I misinterpreting the hon. member's question?
There are, as the hon. member knows, all sorts of different departments of government. They serve many, many functions. This particular one I see in the light of the hon. member's second question to me, that being the question of what other rights he has now that he did not have before the Multicultural Act.
I see the whole issue as one of clearing away barriers. Whether it be a special committee to deal with that issue or whether it be a department to deal with that issue, I see the whole concept here as clearing away any and all barriers that there are in the way of Canadians, from whatever background, to the full participation and involvement in the fullness of being a Canadian. If the hon. member does not think there are any barriers, I invite him to look around, but I suspect he does understand that and that is really what this whole thing is all about as I see it.
In my own community, as I said, there are over 60 different cultural groups from all over the world. I think of that community as one where a few years ago there were quite severe concerns from people of other backgrounds about people of yet other backgrounds. Now those concerns have not melted away entirely, but they had been reduced very substantially.
I think that this kind of a mechanism, whether it be the Multicultural Act, the multicultural committee or the multicultural department, is a way of clearing away those barriers, barriers that I know the hon. member realizes exists and would like to see eliminated just as much as I and the government want to see eliminated.


Mr. Dan Heap (THnity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak on Bill C-18 to establish a department of multiculturalism and citizenship because I think there are some serious problems with it. It is possible that it could be corrected to be useful, but one of the troublesome things about it is its lack of definition of its job. I notice, for example, in clause 4, page 2, that it says that the minister has the powers, duties, and functions extending to him, including all matters, et cetera, relating to multiculturalism and citizenship and it does not really define it any further at all. It does not say one word about race.

October 3, 1989
Government Orders
I believe that the question of race, race prejudice, racial oppression, racial injustice, is a very serious matter, much overlooked by many of my fellow Canadians and, in fact, one that I did not take as seriously in some past years as I now wish I had because problems that I thought were going away appear to be dreadfully still with us.
Therefore, I think we have to ask ourselves seriously if this bill is for real, is this department proposal for real? Or is it just patronage jobs and top-down propaganda? That is to say, is it really going to focus on opposing, combating and reducing racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination, and if so, how?
One very practical proposal put forward by the New Democrats was that there should be an ombudsman or commissioner, someone who would have statutorily defined duties and powers to whom anyone who felt aggrieved could appeal. Well, that was turned down and it is now sort of mushy, wishy-washy, in a department with a lot of friendly rhetoric but no clear undertaking.
That is not good enough because we have to face the fact that is with us to this very day that Canada as we conventionally call it has racism in its foundation. Canada was self-defined among the French and English arrivals from Europe who chose to kill and dispossess the First Nations of this country and to restrict them to very, very limited ways of earning a living. That is there and that has not changed to this day, not fundamentally.
Now, it is good to be busy about correcting some of the racial wrongs that have been done since then. It is good to correct the matter of the blacks in Canada who have been with us for centuries and are still discriminated against. It is good to correct the matter of the Japanese-Canadians, the matter of the Sikhs, the matter of the Chinese railway workers. When I attended this unveiling of the monument to the Chinese railroad workers that the previous speaker spoke of, I also felt great satisfaction since the idea had been initiated by my motion in Toronto city council in 1979. Certainly more of that is needed and perhaps there should be a monument in Vancouver, if there is not one already.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: There is already.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I hear there is already. That is good. But it was appropriate to have it in Toronto where so many of the descendants of the Chinese railway workers are established now.
After founding Canada in part on the dispossession of its First Nations, the aboriginal people have been mistreated from then until now, including through our constitution. Our constitution, when asked to recognize the rights of aboriginal peoples, was persuaded by some of the western provincial premiers to recognize only "existing rights" leaving "existing" of course undefined. What we have learned in the last eight years is that the aboriginal peoples have not been able to make any use of that clause in the constitution. They cannot even get to the bargaining table when their rights are being bargained away.
Nations like the Lubicons have been chiseled out of land rights that were promised to them, the same as the Temagami people in Ontario. There was chiselling and is chiselling on the post-secondary educational rights by a government which has plenty of money for developing certain war projects and therefore has no money for the people of Canada.
There are cramped reserves, poor housing, poor health care services for Canada's First Nations. In the cities, there is much too frequent violence by the police forces and statements, for example, by officials of the Toronto Police Force clearly implying that black people do not have rights and that native people do not have rights.
There is a low intensity warfare being conducted on the homeland of the Innu people. The government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars preparing that; hundreds of thousands of dollars with propaganda to justify it. This is because they are one of Canada's First Nations and they are treated almost as non-persons. This situation cannot be trivialized out of existence by creating a department of multiculturalism or even a Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
October 3, 1989

I have referred also to the blacks. There is not time to go into all the matters that this department is in danger of overlooking. We have had black people with us for several centuries in some parts of Canada and generally, they were and are poorly treated compared to white people in Canada.
In Toronto last winter and the year before, there were killings of blacks by Toronto police which have yet to be properly examined. It is shocking that when the Attorney General of Ontario dared to permit manslaughter charges to be laid, he was criticized by the president of the police union for having yielded to pressure. No police official of the Ontario government or of metro called that public servant to order for attacking a decision of the attorney general.
Likewise, another police official said, "Well, if people don't like what we are doing, we'll just let the blacks do anything they want and this will become like Detroit". That was a racist lie calculated to create fear in a city which so far has succeeded in avoiding the worst sort of excesses of a city like Detroit.
There is the situation in Nova Scotia and a recent report about Nova Scotia schools with the headline: "There is racism at all levels: Black, natives face barriers in school system, task force finds". That is in a study by Dalhousie University and, of course, there have been many other witnesses to the same point.
In Parliament, there is a book in our parliamentary library called A History of Blacks in Canada by James Walker. Now, to the credit of the Department of the Secretary of State, this was written partly with a grant from the Secretary of State, but only 500 copies were printed. Attempts to find it in bookstores or in Toronto public libraries have failed. Why is it that there was no funding given to the larger distribution of a careful scholarly work on the history of the black people in Canada?
We also know of a recent complaint by Brenda Lem, a Chinese writer, regarding the difficulty of locating works in public libraries by writers of colour. We are not talking about the past, we are talking about the present because the past is too much with us.
As was mentioned earlier by my colleague, government employment does not set the example that it ought to set. To set up a system for reporting and wait five years for a review of the law is a way to avoid doing anything. The government has the means of getting this informa-
Govemment Orders
tion in its own employment or in its Crown corporations without going through such a ponderous process.
We are told by David Vienneau in The Toronto Star that the national labour force participation rate for visible minorities in Canada is 6.3 per cent. The government seems to require only half of that, 3.2 per cent. Even that was failed by the CBC with only 2.1 per cent, Canadian National Railways with 2.7 per cent, Air Canada with 2.9 per cent and Canadian Airlines 3 per cent. It does not matter whether it is public or private employment.
It was veiy interesting that CHUM Radio in Toronto, which employs 1,591 people, had the lowest over-all grade of 1.2 per cent. To be fair, large companies that received higher grades were Canada Post of 11.6 per cent-the first time I have heard something good for a while about Canada Post-the Bank of Nova Scotia with 10.6 per cent and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. with 5.6 per cent.
That is not a good record for the Government of Canada. Therefore, we have to ask questions as to what this bill is really likely to accomplish. Even the multicul-turalism sector under the Department of State is having questions raised about it. Out of eight senior appointees, that is the deputy minister, the associate deputy minister, the general director and the directors, only one, the appointee on race relations, is a visible minority, Mr. Ajit Mehat. He was made permanent director only last month. For four years that sector had no permanent director on race relations, no established statement of policy or strategy on how it was to work. That does not suggest that during the last four years this matter had high priority under the present government.
The member for York South-Weston has raised a very interesting point as to whether possibly well-meant efforts to help minority groups might in fact, under present circumstances, do them harm, or more harm than good. I think his point is worth examining although I think it requires more careful examination. He mentions, according to The Globe and Mail in Jeff Simpson's article that "the Tories are just catching up to where we were as Liberals".
This invites one to ask where were they as Liberals when they were the government? Where were they on this question of ghettoizing? I was reminded of an article published in Toronto Life in December 1988 by Elaine Dewar, in which she tells us again-we have heard it before, of course, in this House, about something called:

Government Orders
-the Canadian Alliance for Italian Integration and Culture (Alliance for short). It was created in late 1983 and ran until March 1984. It hit the front pages in 1984-just as the Liberal leadership contest got under way. The Alliance had received a grant of $538,000 from the Special Employment Initiatives Program of the Minister of Employment and Immigration to operate a storefront referral service. John Roberts was the minister responsible. Such funds could only be acquired through the recommendation of an MP-in this case, Roland de Corneille. Ian Waddell, NDP MP, had charged the Alliance's real purpose was to put government money into a Liberal riding before an election. Certain persons associated with the party were involved or employed by the Alliance.
She goes on to name names, but I see that my time is running short. However, you can find the names if you want in the December 1988 issue of Toronto Life.
It is possible that the Tories have arrived at where the Liberals were in making a grant like that. It is also possible that they are even falling farther behind in other ways. The Liberals, at that time, were reducing the funding for English as a second language in places like George Brown College where it was taught with professional qualifications, and handing the funding instead to people with no track record in teaching English as a second language, but with reliable Liberal Party connections. But now the Tories are cutting out their program of citizenship instruction and language training, CILT. They have cut it 50 per cent and announced that next year, 1990, it will be cut totally. This particularly hurts immigrant women.
We have had too many years in which ESL and FSL grants were handed out to some immigrants on the grounds that they were destined for the workforce and withheld from others, mostly women, on the grounds that they were not destined for the workforce. Of course, that means that no housewife does any work. There is no work to cleaning the house, making the supper or raising the kids. It also ignored the fact that many of those women did not get even what this department would call work. They worked in factories in cities like Toronto or they worked as domestic cleaners in the houses of more affluent people. But they were denied the opportunity that was given to some to study the English language. Now the CILT program is to be cut out entirely. There still is the employment-related one, but it is not nearly good enough.
What I hope is that if this bill goes to committee, as it should-I understand the government is talking closure. Perhaps it wants to drive the bill through in case it gets looked at too closely. But I hope it will get a very thorough look in committee. I would like it to focus on the existing forms of white racism, racism by people who are white like me against people who are not. That has never been fully acknowledged in Canada and we have corpses to prove it, not only in Toronto, but in many other places, corpses of people of colour, including some of the First Nations, whose treatment cannot be rationally explained except on the basis of systemic, habitual or institutionalized racism. That is not an easy thing to overcome. It would shake the foundations of some of our deepest patterns in some of our institutions.
There is something this government could do in very short order. It would not correct racism per se, although it would ameliorate it a little bit. It would not end all conflict between ethnic groups, but it would do much in a few years to remove the basis of the conflict, and that is to provide instruction in English as a second language, or in French as a second language, to every immigrant old enough to receive such instruction and requiring such instruction.
We have our jokes about our cousins from Glasgow and other parts of Scotland, but until they ask for instruction in English, they probably would be insulted if we gave it to them.
I would hope both of those points will receive heavy consideration if this goes to committee, and I certainly hope it goes to committee.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member started to comment about racism and discrimination in Canada. I would like to commend him. At times, it seems to me, he went a little too far in suggesting that some of the very tragic events in Toronto were race related, even though a number of people have gone so far as to suggest that.
I do not think one has to go to that extent with respect to the killings in Toronto of blacks by police officers. One only has to look here in the House of Commons, across the way, if one wants to cite examples of racism and discrimination. There are members from the Conservative side of the House who are actively seeking and circulating petitions asking the Government of Canada not to allow Canadians of Sikh origin to be members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is the net effect of their objection. They are saying that it is improper and unacceptable for Canadians of Sikh origin
October 3, 1989

to wear their turbans while members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There are people here in the House of Commons exhibiting an abysmal ignorance and an abysmal and shocking degree of discrimination when it comes to talking about participating.
I would like the member to comment. Just a few moments ago, the minister of housing, who spoke one tune when he was on this side of the House-that is as a person outside of cabinet-and is speaking another tune when he is in cabinet, went on for a period of time, to the applause of some of his colleagues on that side of the House, about the first government to do this and the first government to do that. But he did not comment about his colleagues circulating the petitions. He did not comment about what is the actual track record of this government. I would like the member from Trinity- Spadina to expand a bit on the track record of the government.
It is fine to talk about affirmative action and about pay equity, employment equity legislation. It is fine to talk in words, but one has to examine the actions. The bottom line was confirmed by the Secretary of State for multicul-turalism just a few weeks ago when he was speaking to Conservatives gathered here in Ottawa at a national convention of their party. He said something to the effect that Conservatives view ethnic communities with distrust and disdain. Perhaps it was the other way around, perhaps it was the ethnic communities that were viewing the Conservative party with distrust and disdain.
But the fact remains that when it comes to general elections the overwhelming majority of Canadians of origins other than French or English vote for the Liberal party. That is because the Liberal party has been leading on the issue of equality. It was the Liberal party that gave Canada the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that enshrines in our Constitution the equality of each and every Canadian.
You have indicated that my time for commenting is expiring, Madam Speaker. I would like the member for Trinity-Spadina to comment further on the track record of the Conservative government when it comes to equality among all Canadians.
Government Orders


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for leaving me a few seconds. I want to comment on what I think is a more serious matter in relation to the Sikhs, and that is the action of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in writing to the then Minister of Employment and Immigration to urge him, apparently successfully, to change the established procedure for determining the status of a refugee claimant. A Sikh from India who had claimed refugee status here had been recommended after due process by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, then the responsible body, to the Minister of Employment and Immigration as a refugee.
After the Secretary of State intervened, the minister appointed another committee of people who were not contaminated by any direct knowledge of refugee affairs. They were from the department of immigration but they did not know anything about refugees professionally, and they reversed the decision. The first committee of appropriate people had unanimously found this person to be a refugee. The second committee obediently and unanimously found this person not to be a refugee.
At the same time the Secretary of State was found to be complaining because already two or three out of several thousand Sikh refugee applicants had been found to be refugees. Apparently, from what he said in his letter, as published, this was thought perhaps likely to hinder commercial or other relationships with the Government of India. I think that was a much worse signal than anything else I know of that this government has done on the matter of bias against the Sikh people.
There are other examples. There was the letter urging other government people not to meet with certain groups and so on. But to endanger a man's life by such a dubious process, legally a very, very doubtful process if not plainly illegal, on the basis and in the context of such racism was a very bad example for the minister to set.
On the matter of the turbans, I have not seen the petitions. I have read about discussion of the matter in the newspapers and I think it must surely be capable of being resolved reasonably between the Sikh community and the RCMP, and I hope they will be allowed to resolve it.

October 3, 1989
Government Orders


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, the member for Trinity-Spadina also mentioned in passing the letter written by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would like him to comment a little further about a letter that was sent to provincial premiers urging premiers and politicians at other levels of government to boycott, not to attend, events put on by certain groups in Canada.
When questioned about that particular letter here in the House of Commons, the minister did not have a justifiable or reasonable explanation as to why as a minister of the Crown, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he would be asking colleagues in this House to boycott legitimate groups in Canada, namely several Sikh organizations in Canada which have done nothing wrong and are legal and legitimate. Why would he ask people to boycott them? Would he suggest, or would the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina comment on whether he believes that that might be a further example of a level of discrimination on the other side of the aisle.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member heard some of what I was saying. I will repeat the rest of what I said on that. Yes, it is an example of discrimination, as I said a few minutes ago, from the other side of the aisle, as he calls it.
I could enlarge on it a little bit. I received a letter from the hon. minister cautioning me after I had met with a certain group. Now it did not forbid or anything like that, but it said "please get in touch with us before you go to speak with such a group". I regret that the matter was treated as though it were confidential. I do not particularly relish the idea of being given reasons why I should not meet with a group and then being told not to tell anybody. I wish he had put the reasons in his letter. I have since met with other Sikh groups and will continue to do so, but I really think the minister ought to clear up his position on that point if the government is going to have a credible Department of Multiculturalism.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the multiculturalism debate today. I have just listened to many very interesting statements and speeches on the topic and subject now under consideration. Personally, I prefer to begin in French and continue in English and maybe later, I might say a few words in Italian, because I consider myself, like some of my colleagues, a symbol of this
multiculturalism that we are talking about today in philosophical and practical terms.

It gives me great pleasure to be able to address the essence and soul of Canada with this Bill C-18, an act to establish the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, even though the designation should be vice versa. To date from this government we have been given merely a callous display of the government's economic philosophy, that is up to today. It is an elementary market economics where laissez-faire prevails, but then only in circumstances decreed by the Conservative agenda as befitting of a continental sweep under which all matters economic must, by force of magnetic or deliberate policies, push and pull Canadian citizens into the orbit of a state whose greatest claim to historical fame is the amassing of unprecedented military and economic power at the expense of numerous nations, peoples and values.
These values need to be re-examined periodically if we Canadians are to keep our sights on a vision that will set us apart from our sister nations as a people whose definition of the human condition is a cut above the others.
It would appear that we lack neither the qualities nor the ingredients for we are at the very least capable of saying the right things. As an example, we pride ourselves on our multiculturalism policy. We have heard much of that today. In fact, today we propose to establish a department to deal exclusively and singularly with all matters multicultural.
Before asserting that we are on the road to salvation or on a road to perdition on the matter, I think it behoves us to cast a momentary, though not casual, glance at what multiculturalism means. I caution, not what the nay sayers in our midst would have it mean, that the aim that the word was intended to stimulate as a goal for which all citizens capable of its achievement could rightly be conferred the adjective "great".
Multiculturalism, so simple a word, so profound its concepts. Cultures, different, unique, each in its own way, none superior or inferior to the other, existing in harmonious, productive interaction; each confident and secure in its values-defined and reshaped in continuous manner, in contact and interplay with others, in a changing environment which hones values tried and true and nurtures on tested, applicable new ones.
October 3, 1989

The main tenets, the main principles embodied in multiculturalism are familiar to all whose historical perspectives go beyond the mere parochialism of personal experience. For that in a global, international context is surely as inhibiting and as restricting as it is limiting.
Let me make clear that when we speak of multiculturalism we are not breaking new ground, by no means, by no stretch of the imagination. The concept of equality among all men, all women, universal brotherhood, the rule of law in western civilization is not new to Canada. They date at least as far back in history as Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, pre-Diaspora Israel, and in more recent times to the emperor Caracalla in the 3rd century AD when with a single stroke he bestowed citizenship upon the several and disparate parts of the Roman Empire, thus giving equality before the law, equality of access to decision making without-and this is important-a priori transformation into something else.
Thus we could see in an historical perspective that one could acquire Romanitas without being a Roman. One can become Canadian without having been born here. An individual in the past, as today, could retain his traditions, do business, participate in the local or larger economy, enjoy the privileges of citizenship, fulfil the obligations incumbent upon a holder, and yet not give up his or her identity religious, cultural, linguistic. He or she needed only obey the laws which he or she could shape.
I could easily in that description have referred to our own country Canada-citizenship, the rule of law, tolerance, brotherhood, multiculturalism. It seemed then as now a logical solution to problems emerging when different races with unique religious backgrounds and the modi vivendi that emanate from them, with different needs, aspirations, with peculiar social units and economic organizations for their realization, were brought about and brought together. A lingua franca, though not indispensable, facilitated the functioning of the marketplace and the exchange of both ideas and culture.
Government Orders
Multiculturalism, by its definition, encourages and stimulates that exchange in a non-threatening environment. It does not confuse culture with language, but it recognizes that language both as an extension and as an expression of culture is the vehicle for finding common values that transcend different cultures. Language bridges and opens doors to peoples, to markets, to ideas. It does not set apart nor does it exclude or seclude.
Canadians face the unhappy condition of being governed by a party that has blurred the distinction between culture and language and in fact has come to equate the one with the other, all to great detriment. It has downgraded the word "culture" to a national or racial designation and has caused Canadians to seek security of being in the refuge of assimilating, voluntarily or otherwise, in the so-called cultures of the two main language groups, an exercise, as some of my colleagues to my left have noted, that has had the effect of marginalizing Canada's visible minorities in particular. This ethnocul-turalism is not multiculturalism.
Any noble Canadian worthy of the adjective should react vigorously against the deliberate refutation of the realities of a new and expanding Canada. To say one believes in multiculturalism is merely to accept what is; a thriving expression of the ultimate definition of individuality grouped in as small or as large units as per individual preference, living according to values commonly accepted by those units and sanctioned by the acquiescence of a duly constituted larger jurisdiction.
As an example, Europe, whose countries and peoples have histories dating back as far 1000 BC, is now realizing that one builds on common ideas, on common needs, on common experiences and that differences are valuable and can be reciprocally profitable conditions that should be nurtured rather than legislated away.
Where are we going by way of contrast? Legislative, attitudinal or systemic discrimination are too ephemeral in their results, too energy consuming in their efforts, to interest our talents, and we squander opportunity.

October 3, 1989
Government Orders
Yet, as a country we have the tools to be proactive, and aggressively so, if only we through our government would seek out those with open minds to be the custodians of our emerging culture, to be the proponents of a sociocultural philosophy that would make us the lighthouse of social organization in this world.
Look for a moment at the ministry of culture and its dependent Crown corporations, councils, agencies through which we nurture those English and French elements that some would have us believe are mainstream culture. I notice that my colleague from Scarborough Centre, who is at one with me on these issues, is dutifully paying attention and I thank her for so doing.
Look at the ministry of communications and the implements through which it disseminates bilingual Ca-nadianism. Again, mainstream and exclusive.
What a puny little brother beside these Anglo-Franco giants is this little sop to speak for Canada's official multicultural policy. What a testament to this Tory party's rejection of the validity of multiculturalism as anything more than a trite, token recognition of the existence of an inferior folk who comprise that one-third of Canada's population, the only growing portion of the population whose contribution and role in nation building will persevere in spite of the regressive small minds who refuse to accept the inexorable tide of progress.
I am pained to admit that for the disdain with which the government accords this pitiful and reluctant gesture the new Canada will wrest from its hands those tools of nation building which its small mindedness clutches so jealously. Would that the minister who proposes this legislation could have been more forceful in his cabinet we would have need of such advocacy. He might have convinced his government that the occasion for progress was not of the passing.
The ethnocultural communities do not need a special department to represent them, even if the principle of multiculturalism still does. But those communities will accept this condescending administrative token to their cultural uniqueness and recall with methodical anger the manner in which the minister has thus trivialized that uniqueness as his government goes about destroying our country through language debates and constitutional reform that is expected to enshrine established position.


Mr. Holtmann:: That's absolute nonsense.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: I know the member opposite will probably be interested in the rest of the speech because it will be a lesson for him to take to his committee as chairman of multiculturalism or as the new cultural car.
How illusory, how unfortunate, how tragic, how foolish to engage in cheap partisan gamemanship without making even the slightest effort to acknowledge that multiculturalism is first and foremost-are you listening-about culture, about Canada, about how Canadians see themselves, how they define their values, how they shape their identity.
To relegate these values and identity to folklorish song and dance is to deny history and to insult the great traditions and heritages; legal, literary, philosophic and artistic contributions of a substantial portion of our population to the history of mankind.
Once culture was thought to indicate a level of learning and sophistication not commonly evidenced; in short the ability to see beyond the meagre horizons of mundane needs, the ability to approach godliness by creating or refining an expression of the human condition, a condition that transcends the individual histories of people everywhere.
Respect for those histories is being subordinated to the pressures that an insecure people impose on others to assimilate, to efface one's identity in return for yet another's as a sign, perhaps, of homage or fealty to some vague, self-proclaimed superior culture in the name of national identity.
Insecurity is a shaky foundation for any identity. One does not acquire Canadianism by becoming anglophone or francophone, by changing one's name, or by denying one's heritage. An early 20th century playwright philosopher, Luigi Pirandello, said it best in Italian when he said: "Cost e se vi pare", and in English: "You are what others see you to be".
I am proud to be identified for what I am-Italian Canadian, for I am the sum total expression of the experiences of my parents and all of my ancestors, experiences of 3,000 years of historical achievement through which they have learned from and internalized the experiences of great civilizations of this globe-the Oriental, Indian, Hellenic, Hebrew, Egyptian, Arabian and others. Look at the talents and energies that people from these areas bring to our country. Should they apologize for the fact that their historical perspective is measured in millennia rather than in decades?
October 3, 1989

The focus of our multicultural policy should be to integrate these prodigious experiences and talents into our mainstream. They are in fact our culture. We can do that only if we acknowledge their merit and allow individuals with proven merit from their midst to take leadership roles.
The economy and the arts have witnessed their immense productivity and impact. Politics, bureaucracy and the national media will surely follow-fifth columnists notwithstanding.
Our government should be setting an agenda wherein multiculturalism as the operative ethos permeates all levels of government but at the very, very least the ministries of culture and communication. It is an ethos that would both integrate newer Canadians, showcase their heritages and provide expression for their talents and merits.
We are offered a distant second best with this department, but Canadians of origins other than English or French are accustomed to building on scraps.
[Editor's Note: Member speaks in Italian.]
As the government continues to bog itself in the centuries old language wars the rest of us will continue to construct a Canada in which all Canadians will share proprietorship equally, equality based on the acceptance and promotion of a multicultural ethic.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member who just spoke to clarify the confusion that certainly is in my mind, and I imagine it is in the minds of other people, about the Liberal position on this Multiculturalism Act.
Earlier today we had I think three Liberal members from the Toronto region who seemed to be opposed to the idea of a multicultural department. In fact if you carry their thinking a little bit further it seemed that they were opposed to multiculturalism, period. In one case they saw this as something that would perhaps reflect heritage issues. A couple of them said that they felt this would ghettoize Canadians who were not from either French or English speaking origins. One member in particular felt that we should not have a separate
Government Orders
ministry of multiculturalism but that this should all be under the Department of Communications. He also seemed to suggest that racism and job discrimination against visible minorities would just disappear by some magic. In my party's opinion, this is one of the main needs and should be one of the priorities of a multicultural department.
I would like to ask him whether he agrees with their opinion. I gather from what he said that he does not. He was complaining that the multicultural department was not strong enough, that it was really just token recognition of a third of Canada's population, I think he said. I am confused and I am sure the public is from the point of view of what is the Liberal position. Does he agree with the speakers who spoke earlier?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the questions. They were very craftily put with very wise insight into the questions themselves.
I am not sure that we need to trivialize the discussion further by highlighting the fact that there are various opinions on the various aspects and components of multiculturalism and about this bill, because this bill has given rise to an opportunity to debate the issues, to debate all components and aspects of multiculturalism. You quite rightly alluded and pointed to the fact that many of us, unfortunately, have begun to equate multiculturalism with racism or with multiracism. It goes much beyond that.
It is a fact of life that there are many who have a different origin than another and have a different colour than another. None of that should stand in the way of progress and in the way that we deal with each other. None of that should stand in the way of people developing policies and having access to government, access to bureaucracy, having delivery of services, having delivery of a vision of Canada that applies to each and every one of them individually and collectively in the way equally that it applies to all others.
And so when you ask me what is the position of the Liberal Party, it has been one that has been open to the infusion of new ideas. It has been one that has been open to the infusion of criticism.

October 3, 1989
My own personal view, and I gave it to you, was that this particular bill does not go nearly far enough. I made some suggestions, and I thank you for having listened to it as well, that the minister should take our directions into his cabinet and indicate strongly to all cabinet members that this is not simply an issue of multicultur-alism, an esoteric definition that we file away in a library, but that it is in fact an explanation and an indication of the directions that should guide all of our policy makers, be those policies in the economic domain, be they in the cultural domain, or in a social domain.
The most important part is to recognize just what are the needs of Canada, what are the needs of all Canadians. This party has continually worked on making sure that the definition and the system by which we arrive at such conclusions have always received the analysis and the scrutiny that they merit. We are not dealing with trivial matters.
We are dealing with the soul and the essence of this nation. For those of us who are looking for the definition of Canada, we offered it up today. I was glad to be a part of that debate because it gave me an opportunity to shape that definition if even ever so slightly. I thank the member for drawing the public's attention to the fact that the Liberal party has always been in the vanguard of honing that type of definition, of developing that kind of contact and of developing as well the resources and the abilities of politicians and the political system to address the needs that are what they ought to be, and that is to make government function for all those who sustain it, for all those who co-operate in developing that process which creates a government and a political body.
To the hon. member who has attempted to focus a direction and a purpose to where all of these debates would lead, I know that her party favours the kinds of decisions that we have acclaimed today. I know that her party along with members opposite would love the opportunity to continue to debate exactly where we should be going because there are many, many vacuums that have to be filled in this particular bill. While we accept it as a sop-and I said that deliberately-it is but that we must go from there to build and to build even further in order to provide for Canada that basis, the foundation from which we can go into the next century.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 2 p.m. the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. 0. 31
[Stage Direction]


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from Cambodia, a nation plunged again into civil war, a nation just beginning to recover from the 1975-79 slaughter of an estimated two million men, women and children under the barbaric Pol Pot Khmer Rouge Party.
This time, the blood of thousands of Cambodians will be on the hands of China and the west, including Canada. Canada continues to support the Khmer Rouge at the United Nations, has remained silent as China has resupplied and rearmed the Khmer Rouge, supported the return of the Khmer Rouge to power sharing in Cambodia, and gave $1 million in aid to resistance forces in Thailand after various NGOs and United Nations officials admitted the United Nations has oversupplied these camps which, in turn, supply the Khmer Rouge soldiers and the black market.
While I appreciate that the Secretary of State attended and participated in the Paris Peace Conference, Canada's policy toward Cambodia is at least morally wrong and probably politically wrong as well.


CANADIAN CORPS OF COMMISSIONAIRES
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honour and privilege to rise this afternoon to pay tribute to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires.
These dedicated men and women have served in a branch of Her Majesty's active regular forces, the Canadian forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or were members of allied nations who served with Canadians in time of war.
October 3, 1989

I can attest to their outstanding service to the country, in the provision of dignified and purposeful employment for those who have already served their country and wish to continue to do so. Their pride and camaraderie sets an excellent example and the value of this quality to the rest of our country and their respectful rapport with the public has become a time-honoured institution in Canada.
I know I speak for the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, for all my colleagues in paying tribute to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires on their fiftieth anniversary.


NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this week, October 2-8, 1989, marks the fifth National Family Week to be celebrated across Canada.
National Family Week gives every Canadian an opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of all family members who show concern and care for each other.
Few among us would deny the importance of the family as a social unit. Although the role of the family has evolved along with contemporary society, it remains the most basic social structure of our time.
In four short years National Family Week has grown from an imaginative idea to a full-fledged nation-wide celebration. Take advantage of the opportunity for the growth and discovery that National Family Week represents.


FISHERIES
David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans referred to the appointment of Don Tansley as a replacement member on the free trade panel studying landing regulations for B.C. salmon and herring.
The Canadian chair of the panel has the right to decide whether or not to reconvene the panel and hear evidence. Can we assume from the parliamentary secretary's comments that further hearings will be held?
There are thousands of British Columbians, 70 per cent of whom are women, many of these of visible minorities, who will lose their jobs if the final decision goes against Canada. As well, Canada will lose its sovereign right to control its own resource.
It is essential that this government stress in all future hearings the importance of controlling our resource. We must maintain B.C.'s well-earned reputation for the quality of our salmon and herring products.
We must protect our investment in the most modem and efficient processing facilities in the world. We must do all within our power to protect the jobs of thousands of British Columbians working in our fish processing industry.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for months, those involved in the economy of Abitibi-Temiscamin-gue have been trying through CRDAT to meet with Air Canada executives on the future of this carrier in the region.
Without consulting the people of our great region, the President of Air Canada and his gang of high-flyers in their ivory tower in downtown Montreal decided yesterday to send letters and press releases announcing that Air Canada would stop serving Val-d'Or and Rouyn-No-randa, Quebec as of February 4, 1990.
As a remote region, we are entitled to receive the best possible service; for us in northern Quebec, the DC-9s are what highways and subways are to the South.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see these employees whom I have known for 20 years leave with their families and children and I urge Mr. Jeanniot to reconsider his position and come and see us in the Abitibi.


BILL C-21
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as a result of Bill C-21, the government's bill to cut unemployment insurance benefits, Newfoundland will lose $82.7 million; Prince Edward Island will lose $15.5 million; Nova Scotia will lose $42.1 million; and New Brunswick will lose $64.8 million.
The Government says that this money, money that was set aside to help the unemployed buy their groceries and pay their rent, will be redirected to development and training. But there is no legislative provision in the bill that this money will go back to those provinces from which it is taken.
Why does the government not amend this bill to ensure that the $800 million taken from the unemployment insurance fund for development will go proportionately to those provinces where there is the highest unemployment in this country?


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, the people in Elk Island recognize that Canada's deficit and national debt are serious problems. We all know that fighting the deficit is not an easy job. We know that we cannot leave this burden for our children to deal with in the future. We must do something now.
Over the past several weeks much has been said in Elk Island about taxation. People have told me that we are taxed too much. If we must change the federal sales tax to fight this monstrous deficit, if we must accept the GST, then let us make sure we cut spending too.
The Canadian Government must make some tough management decisions-cut out the waste, cut out the inefficiencies, reduce spending, and improve the tax system.
Let us work together to reduce the deficit. Let us all work together in this country to build a stronger economy. Let us work together to build a better Canada.


SENATE REFORM
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a tremendous political development taking place in my province of Alberta. After more than 100 years without any action on meaningful Senate reform, the government and people of Alberta are taking action.
On October 16, Albertans will go to the polls to elect the nominee for the Senate vacancy. Six outstanding Albertans are contesting the position, including my party's candidate, Reformer Stan Waters.
A handful of Tory MPs and cabinet ministers have seen fit to fight against this process and the entire spirit of true Senate reform. But I am confident that the Prime Minister will join the political pioneers of Alberta and endorse this action by appointing, without delay, the first Senator ever to sit with the consent of the people.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, for all the fine words we have been hearing from the Prime Minister concerning how much he and his government are doing for Atlantic Canada, the truth is that the government's policies are short-changing the region and reinforcing regional disparities.

According to a study conducted by the Economic Council of the Atlantic Provinces, federal government funds for industrial assistance have declined steadily since the Conservatives took power in 1984. Furthermore, in 1987, the amount of these subsidies fell below the national average.
In 1980, Atlantic Canada received $2 billion in federal aid compared to $4.4 billion for the rest of the country. In 1987, they received only $631 million while the rest of the country received $8.2 billion in federal aid.

Is this what the Prime Minister means by regional development, Mr. Speaker? How can the Prime Minister reconcile this sad truth with his repeated statements that the Atlantic provinces have never had it so good?

Well, Mr. Speaker, under this government Atlantic Canadians have never had it so bad, and they have never been short-changed so much. Numbers don't lie.


SOUTH KOREA
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute today to the Republic of South Korea as it celebrates its national foundation day.
It was not long ago that Korea and its impressive capital of Seoul were the very picture of devastation as a result of conflict which tore apart a people and culture as ancient as history itself. The Republic of South Korea has now developed a political and economic growth which is making it the envy of the world.
The Canada-Korea Parliamentary Friendship Group believes that closer co-operation with South Korea as a valued partner in our Asia-Pacific diplomacy is a worthwhile result. As chairman of the group I speak for all members in extending congratulations and best wishes to the national assembly and people of South Korea, and our thanks to Ambassador Park and his excellent staff at the embassy for all of their support and co-operation, with sincere wishes that our countries continue to enjoy good relations in the years to come.


POVERTY
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I rose in the House to acknowledge Family Week and to note that 1.2 million children in Canada live in poverty.
Today I rise to draw the attention of the House to the results of an inquiry into hunger in Regina released yesterday by Mayor Doug Archer. This report noted that in a community with a population of 180,000, 5,500 meals and 6,000 boxes of food a month are distributed by community groups.
It is easy to write off numbers. It is easy to blame the poor for their plight. But the reason they are poor is that they do not have work or money to buy food. Surely, no one here honestly believes that a family would go hungry if it could afford to buy food.
The House must be shocked to learn that 34,000 people in Regina live below the poverty line and are hungry-34,000 people in the heart of the province that is the bread-basket of the world.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, the Times Review, a newspaper in my town of Fort Erie, headlined a story this way, "Fort Erie booming", and continued, "This community is building its way to record heights." Building permits to the end of August totalled a record setting $32,359,000. This tops the town's 1988 figures of $26.4 million for 12 months.
The Niagara corridor is strategically positioned to benefit from the free trade agreement. Half the population of North America is within a one day's drive of the Niagara peninsula. This represents tremendous opportunities. The free trade agreement has helped to stimulate the great growth that we are enjoying.


MULTICULTURALISM
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State responsible for Multiculturalism made what Canadian Macedonians believe to be offensive remarks.
This summer the minister attended a conference in Greece hosted by the Pan Macedonian Organization where he said, among other things, that there is no Macedonian nation.
Does the minister not realize that to deny the distinctiveness of the Macedonian community in Canada is a serious affront to this group? Will the minister apologize for this statement?


CANADIAN CORPS OF COMMISSIONAIRES
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to the men and women who continue to serve this country so well in uniform, members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. We, who work in Ottawa are particularly aware of the courteous, efficient presence of the corps. Our government buildings are kept secure by those smartly dressed uniformed men and women.

Oral Questions
Hon. members probably know that the corps members must be former members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or our allied forces.
Today, the Corps of Commissionaires has over 11,000 members in 18 divisions across Canada.
This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Ottawa division started in 1939 with just four members. It now has a strength of 2,200, and is the fourth largest non-government employer in Ottawa.
I know the House will join me in congratulating the Ottawa division on 50 years of super service and in sending our best wishes to all commissionaires across Canada.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, this House held a long and serious emergency debate on Canada's state of preparedness to deal with marine spills and particularly those of crude oil. This resulted from the tragic Nestucca and Exxon Valdez spills and the continued deterioration of our marine environment from chronic unreported spills.
Rather than hold a full public inquiry, the Prime Minister chose to spend millions of dollars on a review. The interim report was released yesterday. It is pathetic. Its 17 short pages reveal just how superficial the mandate and terms of reference really are.
The recommendations reveal a process that will neither seek nor find the kind of solutions required to protect our marine ecosystems. The report operates from the premise that existing technology, ships and barges will simply carry on.
On page 3, the panel states that they are comfortable with their mandate which excludes offshore exploration and development, excludes alternative modes of transporting oil and other chemicals and excludes energy conservation.
The review is a fraud. It is a cover-up of the ghastly and grizzly destruction of a marine environment by shipping firms and big oil companies.
There are solutions, Mr. Speaker, but this panel is simply spraying whitewash on the hull of a rusty supertanker on a collision course. The Prime Minister is Canada's version of Captain Hazelwood.


CANADIAN WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, last week, a number of Canadians received a questionnaire as part of a public opinion survey on the environment, sent by the Canadian Wildlife Federation.
Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that this organization is doing veiy important and very good work.
However, in question No. 12, Canadians are asked to identify five areas on which the Canadian Wildlife Federation should focus in 1989. One of the fourteen areas listed is the following: "Impact of the Free Trade Agreement on the environment".
Mr. Speaker, I wonder what impact the Free Trade Agreement could have and indeed what connection it might have with the environment, since we know very well that the free trade agreement is about trade. The Federation must have made a mistake. I think it is useful to point out that there is a difference between the environment and the free trade agreement.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Since the return of Parliament last Monday, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have repeatedly refused to refer the Prime Minister's decision to scrap VIA Rail to the Commons transport committee or to the National Transportation Agency. The Prime Minister will know that the Commons transport committee voted almost unanimously this morning to conduct public hearings on the government's plans to terminate VIA Rail.
October 3, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Six of seven government members voted with the opposition in determining that there ought to be public hearings.
Will the Prime Minister now do the honourable thing and table the government's recommendations on the future of VIA Rail and immediately impose a moratorium on the implementation of those recommendations until the public hearings are conducted by the Commons transport committee and a report laid before the House for consideration by Parliament?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the reference levels respecting VIA Rail and other operations were contained in the budget that was tabled last April.
Clearly, there would be nothing at all, given the parliamentary reform that we introduced, that would have prevented the transport committee of the House of Commons to begin last April to consider any changes that they might have anticipated, or otherwise. This is part and parcel of the concept of parliamentary reform that I as Prime Minister am honoured to have introduced in this House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My friend refers to-I think I am quoting him properly-"the Prime Minister's decision to scrap VIA Rail". He may want to wait for a little while to find out whether that statement is accurate or is fundamentally wrong. Because, no doubt, once he receives the facts that would normally dictate his course of action. I would think that the prudent thing for the member to do would be to wait for the decision of the government which will be announced shortly by the Minister of Transport.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just told the House that he is honoured to have introduced parliamentary reform.
Oral Questions
I would ask him to honour the spirit of parliamentary reform by giving the House a commitment today that because a parliamentary committee comprised of members of all three parties has voted nearly unanimously- has said that this item is important enough and urgent enough to warrant emergency public hearings-that he, the Prime Minister of Canada, will impose a moratorium on the cuts to be announced tomorrow or some time very soon, and that those cuts will not be implemented, either the route eliminations or the 3,000 lay-offs, until the public has had a chance to be heard before the Commons transport committee and the transport committee makes its report to the Parliament of Canada. That is the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand the point of my hon. friend. I find it a little difficult to understand his indignation. He was a member of a government that wiped out 20 per cent of VIA Rail without so much as a by your leave to the House of Commons. So while I understand the point he is trying to make, I would ask him to cool the indignation because it is really not going to go over in Canada.
With respect to our obligations to manage the government pursuant to the levels that are set out in the budget, this is precisely what we will do. Any parliamentarian or any parliamentary committee is free, of course, to take a look at the proposals of the government.
Our fundamental obligation to the people of Canada and to the Parliament of Canada is to manage the affairs of the nation in such a way as to bring about a much better economic situation, greater economic growth and better jobs for Canada in a more competitive economy. That is precisely what we are going to do. The budgetary implications are an important part of that plan.
So, if my hon. friend or members of the House wish to examine this, they will of course do so, I am sure very enthusiastically. But the Government of Canada is responsible for the conduct of the economic affairs of the nation. We shall implement these decisions and accept the verdict of Canadians at an appropriate time.

Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Commons transport committee wants to examine a live VIA, not a dead carcass, which is what will happen unless the Prime Minister imposes a moratorium.
The lesson from Panama this morning is that those who do not respect parliamentary traditions eventually get the boot. The Prime Minister should pay attention.
I repeat my question to the Prime Minister. This morning, members of Parliament specifically charged with the responsibility of overseeing transportation policy in this Parliament, members of the transport committee from all three parties voted to hold public hearings on the future of VIA Rail because they regard the proposed cuts as an urgent matter requiring emergency public sessions.
If the Prime Minister is going to be consistent, if there is a need to allow the Commons finance committee to hold public hearings before proceeding on the goods and services tax, then surely there is a need to allow the Commons transport committee to hold public hearings before proceeding to slash VIA Rail.
Will the Prime Minister give that commitment today, or admit that his commitment to parliamentary reform is hypocrisy in the extreme?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have done nothing at all that would prevent any committee of this House from being seized of a proposed government course of action, holding hearings and making whatever decisions and recommendations they would like. In point of fact-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Before you act.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If my hon. friend will wait for the answer-as I have indicated, the reference levels were spelled out very clearly in the budget documents of April 27. At that very moment the committees of the House could have been meeting to examine any proposed course of action.
My hon. friend says the cut is an emergency. Well, any proposed compression budgegtaires is viewed by the opposition as an emergency because they have been so used to overspending that they do not understand that the time has come for some sanity in the public finances of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Prime Minister. Canadians will find it hard to see how a parliamentary committee could study the future of VIA Rail before it has the details of the government's plans. There is some logic missing here. The Minister of National Revenue has said the government is going to spend more than $200 million a year and hire more than 5,000 tax police, one for every 300 taxpayers, to help collect the government's new goods and services tax.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, therefore, how can he justify hiring these 5,000 tax police, if he is concerned about government expenditure, and at the same time he is firing thousands of people at VIA Rail. Why doesn't he scrap the new goods and services tax and save VIA Rail?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the mandate of this government is to make the country a more efficient place to live in as we look toward the future. That is what tax reform, including the move from the existing federal sales tax to the GST, is all about. It is so that future generations can reach their full potential in being able to create jobs and productivity in this country.
In the last four or five months our department has looked everywhere to utilize existing facilities. In order to dispel the figures that have been floating around- those of between 10,000 and 12,000 person years to administer GST-we have been able to bring that figure down to somewhere between 3,400 to 3,900 additional person years in order to provide a service for the taxpayer, particularly the small business community in this country, to make it easier for them to prepare for a smooth launch in 1991.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is a strange vision of efficiency, hiring nearly 5,000 more public servants as tax inspectors and spending $1 billion over five years.

It is a strange vision of efficiency.
October 3, 1989

I want to ask the Prime Minister how many of these new tax police will be stationed in barber shops, and taxi cabs, How long will Canadians tolerate this government's spending $1 billion over five years to hire these new tax police to enforce a tax that Canadians don't want? Let's have straight answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, that question is as misinformed as the hon. member usually is in this House of Commons.


An Hon. Member:: Right on!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: We are not talking about any tax police. What we are talking about are civil servants who are going to be providing information, who are going to be providing service, who are going to be consulting with the taxpayer, with the small business community, in such a way as to make the transition from a bad tax to a good tax easier.
When the hon. member talks about tax police, that is what was in place when the Liberal government was in power, but not since the new taxpayers' bill of rights came into effect.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VIA RAIL
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Last night in committee, the Minister of the Environment indicated it was not his responsibility to do an environmental impact study of the possible closure of VIA Rail. According to him, it was the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. My question is quite straightforward: Did the Minister of Transport do this kind of study?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, there is of course very close co-operation between the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment on all matters that concern our two departments, on an ongoing basis. As for VIA Rail, I said yesterday that when the Government's decision was announced, we would release a number of comments or decisions regarding various subjects, and at that point the
Oral Questions
environment would be discussed, and I would advise the Leader of the New Democratic Party to wait for the Government's decision. Then and only then will we discuss the environmental issues.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, some comments are one thing. A comprehensive study is another. I want to address this question to the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Transport.
In the election last year their boss, the Prime Minister, said:
We are prepared to subject every federal undertaking and every
undertaking on federal lands to a full environmental impact study.
Was there a full environmental impact study done about the possible closure of VIA? Yes or no. Is the government going to live up to its promises in this area. Yes or no.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said before that any decision dealing with VIA Rail would have to await the announcement. How can we say at the present time, today, that nothing or something will be done about VIA Rail when the decision is not known?
I would propose to the leader of the NDP that he wait for the announcement. At that time he will be able to make any comment about any consideration regarding VIA Rail.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will try again. The question concerns the relationship between a comprehensive environmental impact study and the government's decision on VIA Rail. Government, dearly in the words of the Prime Minister last fall, in the words of the Minister of the Environment at the end of January of this year, indicated that before a major economic decision is taken in each and every case an environmental impact study will be undertaken and, if necessary, if the environmental conclusion leads to a negative result for this economic decision the environmental concerns would predominate.
I want to ask either minister today: Will they guarantee that such a study will be undertaken before the government makes up its mind on VIA and that environmental concerns will predominate? That is the issue.

Oral Questions


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, clearly the leader of the NDP is not familiar with the federal process on the assessment of the environment.


John Edward Broadbent: I am very familiar.


Lucien Bouchard: I would advise him to read the guidelines. The guidelines provide the government with the obligation to conduct an initial study and then for the responsible minister from the initiating department to make a decision whether to request more studies.
When the initiating minister is satisfied with the study which has been conducted he can proceed. This decision has been made by the Minister of Transport. He will announce at the same time as the plan how he will cope with the environmental impact. Let us wait for that.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Cars produce nine times more ozone pollution than a train so he knows that fewer trains equal more pollution choking our nation.
Vancouver, Windsor, Quebec City, and Saint John, New Brunswick already have the worst ozone problems in Canada. Last year federal ozone guidelines were shattered 157 times in Toronto, and 189 times in Windsor.
In light of this clear evidence, will the minister make the environment a first thought and not an afterthought and have a full environmental assessment before any VIA cut-backs?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this government and my department have made sure in all circumstances that the environmental review process has been respected in every phase. This is the same in all the megaprojects. The same thing has been applied to the Goose Bay PCB destruction. The same thing has been applied to nuclear waste. With this government we now know what environmental assessment is.
As far as VIA Rail is concerned, the minister has just said that he will satisfy the House with the full respect of the requirements of the environmental review process. He has instructed his officials to make the initial required study.
When he announces the VIA Rail plan he will inform the House and the people of Canada how he will cope with environmental aspects.
When we talk about the railway people must draw a distinction between a railway going across the country without passengers. This is a way of polluting the country for nothing. We must make the right decision now.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: The booby prize goes to the Minister of the Environment who doesn't know what the word environment means. He isn't even willing to protect VIA Rail.
I want to ask him personally whether he knows his own legislation.

Maybe the Minister of Transport should listen for a moment because his own environmental legislation states that a self-assessment process must be undertaken by the initiating department before irrevocable decisions are taken as early in the planning process as possible.
The Minister of Transport has admitted here in the House today that no environmental assessment process has been undertaken by his department. He said it was going to be undertaken after the decision was made, which clearly breaks his own law.
Given the fact that the Minister of Transport is breaking the law in moving with VIA cuts without having done the proper assessment, will the Prime Minister follow through with his own promise during the election campaign that on any development, any project, any program, we will make its environmental consequences as fundamental a test as we now apply to economic feasibility?
Why doesn't the Prime Minister live up to his own words? Were they mere hollow words when he stated them? Did he say them just to win the election? Was that his real game?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what was said by the Hon. Member of Hamilton East. It is quite unnecessary, since the House is so used to hearing this sort of thing. I simply want to say and I repeat what I told the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that I think it makes sense to wait for the announcement to be made by the Minister of Transport, to determine the environmental implications of that announcement. When we make our announce-

ment, we will provide information on a number of subjects, including the environment. So I would ask the Hon. Member to be patient and wait for the announcement. I did not say we wouldn't do anything, but if she is patient, she will know exactly what the situation is.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In his Budget Papers, the Minister of Finance said that the Government intended to downsize the Public Service, increase its efficiency and reduce payroll spending. The Minister told us this in his Budget Papers. Yesterday, the Minister of National Revenue announced they would hire an army of federal tax inspectors who will harass small business people across Canada.
How can the Minister of Finance justify his statement while this kind of money is being spent? All those inspectors are going to cost a fortune. How can the Minister of Finance reconcile what he said with what is happening here?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is quite right when he points to the excellent record that we have had in reducing the size of the public service by 12,000 people. In so doing, we have reduced the overhead of the Government of Canada by 10 per cent from what it was in 1984-85. Clearly our record speaks for itself.
My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, has said that for the new goods and services tax we will need additional resources. He has spoken clearly as to what those resources will be.
I ask the hon. member to consider this one thing. His party is on record as saying we should scrap the existing tax, we should move to a new tax. The member for Ottawa-Vanier said: "a multi-stage type of sales tax sounds to me like an idea which the government should have proposed when it brought in fiscal reform".
Oral Questions
This hon. member, his colleague, agrees that we should be moving to a multi-stage type of sales tax like the goods and services tax. I ask him to give me some suggestions as to how they would do it utilizing fewer people than what my colleague has proposed.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. There is a very easy way for the Minister of Finance to avoid hiring all these people and that is to go back to the negotiating table with the provincial ministers and agree on how this tax should be collected instead of trying to go it alone. The fact is that there have been no genuine negotiations with the provinces, and I suggest that the Minister of Finance, in mid-October when the provincial ministers of finance have their meeting- Is the Minister willing to send them a request immediately for opening negotiations in order to avoid having to hire thousands of new public servants?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, just to put these additional resources in perspective, it is at the low end, by far the low end, of the range of other countries that have this similar type of tax. Colleagues on the other side of the House were saying 10,000 to 25,000 additional person-years when in fact it will be less than 4,000. I think my colleague has done an excellent job in controlling the amount.
The hon. member asks if I am prepared to return to the table with the provinces. The answer is yes, if they come up with a proposal that they can agree on and which their Premiers and their governments will agree on. We have said quite clearly that that is the case. But I have discussed this proposal with them for two years, from early in 1987 until early this year, and we have not been able to come to grips with it, and I have responded in this House as to why.


VIA RAIL
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In earlier exchanges the Minister of the Environment left the impression that an environmental impact assessment had been done on the VIA Rail cuts.

October 3, 1989
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Minister of Transport this question. Is it accurate to say that an environmental impact study was done on the VIA Rail cuts or was it not done?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I have already said twice. I believe that we should wait for the announcement day to know exactly which study has been done and what for. I believe that it is normal to wait for the announcement, and we will answer that question on the day of the announcement.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport should remember that in the spring of this year the Prime Minister said categorically in the House that no such assessment had been done.
What I want to find out from the Minister of Transport is the following. Yes, we will find out when all the reports come down, but the people of Canada want to have an understanding in advance as to whether your government has done the correct work by having an environmental impact study done. Will you indicate yes or no? Was such a study done to test the impact on the environment?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I can only say, wait for the day of the announcement.


CAMBODIA
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Hun Sen Government of Cambodia has established a free market system and a Constitution calling for multi-party internationally supervised elections and even including the abolition of the death penalty. The Vietnamese have left Cambodia and the government enjoys the support of the vast majority of Cambodians.
What more does the Government of Canada want before it begins moving away from the murderous Khmer Rouge and toward the Hun Sen government?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Government of Canada in Cambodia is to contribute to a circumstance in which the Cambodian people themselves can decide their own futures.
I listened with interest to the hon. member's personal view that the Hun Sen regime enjoys the widespread support of the people of Cambodia. That is far from clear. There has been a Vietnamese withdrawal. That Vietnamese withdrawal is due in part to the fact that Canada, other western countries, and our allies in ASEAN maintained a very strong position over the last several years. We think this is not the time to break that kind of strong position. No one wants anything to do with Pol Pot or the Pol Pot faction of the Khmer Rouge regime. The reality is that the Khmer Rouge commands authority in Cambodia.
When we have been looking, as we did actively through the Paris Peace Conference this summer, for a means by which there could be a coalition government or an interim authority that could speak for all of the Cambodian people we were seeking to minimize the role of the Khmer Rouge.
I can assure the hon. member that I have been following this matter with our allies closely, including most recently in discussions with the foreign ministers of the other members of the G-7 in New York on Thursday night.


HOUSING
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Housing. The minister has been accused of saying that there is no national housing crisis in Canada. How can the minister justify this statement? Would he clarify these comments for the House?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the article in the press referred of course to a poll that had been done in which Canadians were asked to identify their two greatest concerns.
In that poll across the country only 22 per cent of Canadians identified housing as one of their two major concerns, whereas in the city of Toronto area where the hon. member comes from some 43 per cent identified housing as a major concern.
It was in fact my comments relating to that poll that were reported in the press and indicated, obviously, my desire to see many, many more Canadians seeing this as a priority and seeing this as a crisis as I do and as the government does.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Robert Molloy, Minister of Energy for the Republic of Ireland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Stanley Nelson, member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The GST proposal includes a special office allegedly to safeguard consumers against overpricing of goods and services. With a staff of only 20 and no authority to lay charges or to roll back prices this office will be a sham.
Will the minister admit that this government has no real plans to monitor overpricing and is planning to leave Canadian consumers completely unprotected?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has got it wrong. We are concerned and I think Canadians are concerned that the savings that are clearly there from replacing the existing federal sales tax with the new tax will result in a cost reduction for a number of businesses in Canada. It is very important that these businesses reduce their costs and reduce their prices accordingly.
We have established this office in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and given it the ability to make available, through an information program to Canadians, how the change from the old tax to the new tax will affect pricing so that the intelligent consumer can make intelligent decisions about where and how they shop. This particular office also has the capacity to make public any findings of people who are overpricing, and I think that particular power in itself will address the problem of overpricing.
Oral Questions


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. It is clear that Canadian consumers are going to have to be Einstein level to understand this stuff.
The government is going to lead consumers to their fate, and the GST represents an attack on the real consumers of Canada, lower and middle wage earners, and that means women. As consumers women will be taxed for diapers, for diycleaning and for baby clothes. As service sector workers Marjori Cohen of British Columbia predicts that women will lose 100,000 jobs. How does the minister justify imposing such a punitive tax on the women of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first I would not agree with anything like what the hon. member has said. Let me just point out to my colleague that the goods and services tax proposal has some very clear elements in the design which will make sure that people in low and modest income brackets will be better off after tax reform.
Let me remind the hon. member that there is a tax credit. There is a very substantially enlarged tax credit which will be paid to those people who are eligible, up to $25,000, and then it will phase out. There will be a middle income tax reduction. There will be an exemption of food. There will be an exemption of other products as well, such as basic groceries. There will be an exemption of a number of other products as well.
In all these ways we are ensuring that those in low income brackets, including women, will be better off after sales tax reform.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. With the apparent collapse of the scallop fishery which, had the minister listened to his inshore Scallop Advisory Board, might not be happening, will the minister now listen to the many groups who appeared before the Hache committee and listen to the fishermen who say there is cod and pollack to catch and reopen the groundfishery in the Bay of Fundy and Georges Bank so as to salvage the livelihood of the thousands of people who are directly and indirectly dependent on the inshore groundfishery in southern Nova Scotia?

October 3, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do intend to listen, as I always do, to the concerns of fishermen and their representative groups whether through the exercise of the Jean Hache task force or their direct representation to me.
I think it is important to point out to the hon. member and to the Elouse that the scallop fishery has not collapsed, if I were to repeat the language that the member used. In fact the historical scallop catches in the Bay of Fundy of some 300 tonnes were exceeded last year to the extent of a scallop catch of 3,000 tonnes and 2,000 tonnes already having been taken this year.
These are measures of the successful management of the fishery to the benefit of the fishermen in her region in Atlantic Canada.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I said: "apparent", if the minister had been listening. I can only go by The Globe. However my supplementary question is quite serious.
The minister avoided the total context of the groundfi-sheiy as it was put. I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is chairing the special cabinet committee set up specifically to look at the problems in the Atlantic fishery.
We have the Minister of Fisheries stating that the fishery has been good on the east coast. His attitude is totally opposite to the reality of the tragedy that is occurring in southern Nova Scotia. It is contrary to the people who appeared before that committee, the municipal leaders, the provincial government, and even now we have a hunger strike started out in front.
However, I ask the minister in charge of that committee whether he would convene that special cabinet committee. Will he look at the reality that the direction of the fisheries management plan is doing to the east coast and the livelihood of the thousands of people who are dependent on the Secretary of State for External Affairs convening the special cabinet committee?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I certainly prefer to base my decisions on facts and not on The Globe or whatever other method the member would recommend.
I want to tell the hon. member that, as I do with all fishermen who bring individual concerns to my attention, I met with Mr. Robichaud this morning to discuss his specific personal concerns. This is an example of the kind of human story that we are taking to the special cabinet committee chaired by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I just want to conclude by pointing out that in the Scotia Fundy fishery alone over the past four years the value of landings has increased by 60 per cent. The number of registered fishermen increased by 30 per cent. If we are having some localized difficulties this year, we nonetheless have a good news story to tell.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister knows that as a result of his GST Canadians will have $3.6 billion less to spend in the service industry. This means, as an earlier exchange showed, that 100,000 Canadian women will lose their jobs in the service sector.
How can the minister justify saying that the manufacturers' sales tax is a silent killer of jobs when his new tax will do nothing but slaughter the livelihood of 100,000 Canadian women?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as usual the rhetoric seems to outstrip the truth by quite a long way.
The service sector is one of the most rapidly growing sectors in Canada, and it is a place where the demands for women to work in the future are going to come from.
Let me say as well that women are going to benefit the most, particularly single mothers who are frequently in the workforce, from the credit that goes to people with incomes of under $30,000. If you put this together with the kind of programs that this government has for women around job training and employment equity so that we are raising their standards of living and improving their skill levels, women are going to be better off.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I shudder to think if the minister really believes that increasing a tax will not decrease women's spending dollars.
Low income families spend over 90 per cent of their income on basic consumption, while families earning over $50,000 spend only 56 per cent. Tax credits, to the contrary, will not cover the cost of this GST to low income families or to women who are low income earners.
Why is the minister forcing low income Canadians and women to bear the burden of his GST?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me point out in the first place that it is not in the interests of women that the deficit go up, that interest rates go up, and that the economy goes down. That is not in women's interests.
Over half of the new jobs that have been created since 1984 have women working in them. Their skills are better than they were before and they have better jobs. The sales tax credit is going to benefit women more than any other group. The single parent credit means that the woman gets a credit of $275 and she gets a credit of $275 for her oldest child. We have taken these things into account. If the hon. member insists on telling people this, she is going to raise the alarm level well beyond what it belongs to.


HUNGARY AND POLAND
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the fact that both Hungary and Poland took great risks in implementing more democratic forms of government, and considering the fact that both countries will require immediate and long-term assistance in achieving their economic and political reforms, will the Secretary of State tell Canadians today in this House what assistance Canada is offering to these two countries to help them achieve their economic, social and political goals?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I know all members of the House want to give the utmost of encouragement to the forces of reform and change in both Poland and Hungary.
Oral Questions
I am not in a position to reveal the details of the package to the House at this moment because it is still under consideration by the cabinet in meetings that we will be holding this week, but I look forward to being able to make that announcement sometime next week.
I had the occasion last week at the United Nations to meet directly with the foreign ministers of both Poland and Hungary to discuss with them the range of their needs and ways in which Canadians, including private Canadians, including people outside government, can be of help to them in their reform. As the member knows, Lech Walesa will be in Canada as a guest of the Canadian Labour Congress in November. The Prime Minister and others of us will be meeting with him and with other representatives of Solidarity.


EAST GERMAN MIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Everyone has been watching with fascination and interest the mass exodus of some 25,000 East Germans to the west in the past days.
Given that this migration is the largest movement in eastern Europe in 30 years, and given that Canada has responded to the historical developments in eastern Europe, whether accepting 9,000 Poles in 1982; 12,000 Czechoslovakians in 1968 or 37,000 Hungarians in 1956, what action is the minister and her government taking in response to requests made by Canadian organizations that they initiate a program to facilitate the entry of some of those East Germans fleeing their country into the west.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have met with representatives of the East German community in Canada and have suggested to them that this government is prepared to work with them in signing a master agreement as a priority action for private sponsorships in Canada, which does, of course, involve the government in some cost as well. We are going to do everything we can in working not just with the East German community in Canada but in terms of the kinds of provisions that we can make. We recognize the sensitivity of this situation. We have tried to respond to other eastern European interests in the past two or three years and we will continue to do so.

October 3, 1989
Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: A single question for the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, and a single question for the member for Mission-Coquitlam.


SOLICITOR GENERAL
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, many Hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of the tremendous work done by Child Find. This organization is responsible for returning 59 children to their families, thus ending the nightmare these families were going through.
Six months ago, this organization presented a grant application to enable it to continue its work. The application was rejected by the Solicitor General and it is still under consideration!
My question is for the Solicitor General and, in his absence, the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Why does the Government not act more quickly in reviewing this application? When can this group expect a reply?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the absence of the Solicitor General I could take notice of the question as a former Solicitor General myself who began an initiative to help to search for missing children. I recognize the importance of the concern that we should do anything that we can to assist in finding missing children. I will undertake, on behalf of the Solicitor General, that he will study the requests made by the hon. member and give her a response as quickly as possible.


MINIMUM WAGE
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, in a statement this afternoon I outlined the shameful plight of 34,000 people in Regina who live below the poverty line. A single parent in Saskatchewan working for minimum wage of $4.50 an hour lives $11,000 below the poverty line. That parent would have to earn $9.68 an hour the poverty line. That parent would have to
In view of the statement just made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, would the Minister of Labour tell Canadians when they can expect an increase in the federal minimum wage, which is currently $4 an hour?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that the Department of Labour is continuously examining the question of minimum wage in this country and will readjust it as soon as it is proved to be essential.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Langlois).


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege further to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe- Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin) and the questions he asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at the beginning of Oral Question Period.
His comments may leave the House under the impression that the Transport Committee this morning discussed VIA Rail as a matter of great urgency and that the Committee's decision to hold public hearings was also made on an emergency basis. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker, since the proposal that the Transport Committee hold public hearings was made by the ViceChairman of the Committee in a non-partisan spirit so that Committee Members and the public could express their opinions on VIA Rail.
I would ask the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte to kindly correct his statement so as not to mislead the public and the House, Mr. Speaker.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke and suggested to the house that the decision was a non-partisan decision is absolutely right. Six of seven Conservative members of Parliament in that committee together with all opposition members voted for these hearings. We decided to hold them because we thought the VIA Rail decision was critical and important for the public and we decided, as part of the motion, to hold them as quickly as possible after the announcement was made. That in my mind is an emergency, Mr. Speaker. I have no apology to make.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not the first time that we are faced with such a situation. The members of a committee have a difference of opinion concerning its activities. This is not a question of privilege.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which concerns Bill C-36. Representatives of 19 important farm organizations across western Canada met yesterday and called on the Prime Minister to withdraw this piece of legislation and to reinstate the full farm cash advance program. I wonder if the deputy Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, I am sure, knows that that is not a point of order. We are in a position where under the rules it is clear that the government of the day has the right to call the order of business, and the government has decided to do so.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, today the House is being asked to consider a bill to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. Programs under these pieces of legislation have provided producers of storable crops with interest-free guaranteed loans at harvest time.
Government Orders
The amended legislation, as set out in the bill, will maintain loan guarantees for advance payments that will help promote the orderly marketing of agricultural commodities in this country. Farmers will still be able to obtain the financing they need to carry crops from harvest time to delivery. That means that they can continue to take advantage of marketing opportunities and that seasonal price fluctuations can be smoothed out. Under the Crops Act the advances are administered through producer organizations which have entered into agreements with the federal government. This year we have agreements with 55 such organizations. The advance is extended to the farmer by the producer organization and is repaid by the farmer when the crop is delivered. The government guarantees these advances against default by farmers so that their organization and lenders take no risk.
Under the act covering prairie grains, advances are extended by Canadian Wheat Board through elevator companies. The loans are repaid through deductions on payments received by farmers when the grain is delivered. Again in this case, the government guarantees these loans. Neither the Canadian Wheat Board nor the lenders are at risk. Over the summer, consultations with producer organizations have enabled us to put forward this amending legislation with a number of improvements to the legislation that was originally introduced. I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation in allowing that bill to be withdrawn and to be replaced with this one which incorporates a number of those improvements.
To provide better security the acts will guarantee the payment of interest as well as the advance. If a producer is in default, both the principle and any accumulated interest will be covered. As well, any producer organization that administers the advances is accountable for 10 per cent of defaults on principle and interest on an individual basis up to an aggregate of 2 per cent of all advances made by it.
The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act will be further amended so that interest rates will be designated by the minister, rather than by regulation. This is already the case as provided for in the Advance Payments for Crops Act. This change will help get advance payments

Government Orders
into the hands of producers more quickly. In addition, the advance limits would be designated by the minister each year up to a level of $250,000. Many producer organizations have requested such action. Previous limits were set at $30,000 for an individual producer; $60,000 for a partnership of two; and $90,000 for a corporation of three or more producers.
These limits were established to control interest costs to the government, but since the government is no longer paying these costs, we can remove these statutory limits and establish new limits set by the Minister of Agriculture.
I would also like to take note here that the Advance Payments for Crops Act is being amended to include oats. We have taken this action since prairie oats are no longer being marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board.
Under the legislation that we are considering today, farmers will still be able to obtain the credit they need to hold crops off the market for whatever period they choose. The principal change is that they will now have to pay interest on the loans taken out. This means that the decision to sell or hold their crop will be based on business principles rather than on the availability of an interest-free loan.
Interest rates will be based on rates negotiated by the Canadian Wheat Board or the producer organizations with the lending institutions. These rates will be significantly lower than what otherwise would be the case if producers or their organizations sought credit independently of these federally secured programs. Farmers acting on their own would generally pay rates anywhere from one to three percentage points higher than that which will be negotiated. It is normal practice for farmers to carry some crop inventories past harvest. Delivery schedules may be staggered or farmers may anticipate that prices will improve later in the year, or it could be to their advantage to delay crop receipts to the next year. These are business decisions and interest charges associated with carrying inventories are expenses regularly faced by Canadian business.
The amendments to the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act will save Canadian taxpayers and the federal treasury about $20 million this fiscal year. Over the next four years the savings will total $100 million.
Everyone is being asked to contribute to deficit reduction. In this case, in a modest way, the Government of Canada is asking the farmers of Canada to contribute in a small way.
Since the government assumed office we have been successful in reducing the deficit from a level of $38 billion in 1984, when we came into office, to a level of $28.7 billion in the last fiscal year, a reduction of almost $10 billion. It is a painful process and it is not easy.
As well, we have slowed the rate of growth of the debt from 24 per cent a year, which was occurring before we came into office in 1984, to a level of less than 10 per cent per year. As the Minister of Finance has indicated, we have reduced the size and the cost of the administration of government. We have reduced the size of the public service. We have taken a number of expenditure reduction measures all in the interest of bringing our revenues and expenditures more into line.
Despite these best efforts, the debt is still outstripping our ability to carry it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Don't forget the huge tax increases.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is why my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has this past April prescribed some very tough measures in which all Canadians are being asked to share, measures which include this provision which all together will reduce the deficit to approximately $15 billion by 1993 and 1994.
I heard the hoii. member say, "Don't forget about the taxes". Well, it really invites me to say something about the Liberal debt that this government inherited, a debt of $200 billion.


Mr. Peterson:: What is it now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what is it now? I am glad the member asked that. It is about $350 billion, and the $150 billion is interest on the debt that we inherited in 1984. We have not added one plug nickel to the nation's debt on the basis of program expenditures.


Mr. Harvard:: You have been in power five years.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What we have been left with is a legacy, a mountain of debt which Canadians are now being asked to service and for which Canadians are being asked to sacrifice. Hon. members can chirp over there all they like. It is not our debt, it is their debt. Unfortunately all Canadians have to pay for their mistakes.
October 3, 1989


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: You have doubled the debt in a mere five years.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Since the fiscal year of 1987-88, our budgetary revenues have exceeded our program expenditures in each and every year. What has been killing us is the cost of servicing the Liberal debt. It is a Liberal debt and it is a Liberal legacy and Canadians will never forget that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Daniel Nault: You have raised taxes 30 times.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, all Canadians and even Liberals are going to have to face up to this. We must build for the future. We must reduce the debt. We cannot continue to borrow from the future and that is what this piece of legislation addresses. I know that hon. members opposite will oppose it because they have been so used to spending like drunken sailors that they will not take charge of the situation and we have got to take charge.
While these budgetary cuts will have some impact upon the farm sector, it does not in any way suggest that the Government of Canada is walking away from supporting the farmers of Canada. We have a distinguished record in terms of what we have done in the past.
Federal government support for agriculture has been unprecedented since we have come to office in 1984. Direct federal support to Canadian agriculture totalled some $6 billion in 1987-88. Whether it has been drought, whether it has been grasshoppers, whether it has been floods, or whether it has been depressed commodity prices, this government has been there to respond to the needs of the farmers, and we will continue to do that.
We are asking the agriculture sector to do its share and to help overcome Canada's deficit problems. Farmers, like other Canadians, in the long run will benefit from the action we are taking today to put this country on a sounder financial footing. The changes necessitated by the budget must go forward and that is why we are bringing this legislation forward today.
Government Orders
Yes, the producers will have to pay interest, but the guarantees offered them through their producer organizations will allow them to get the cash they need at a better rate of interest.
I know now that the issue is not the interest rate question as much as the fact that what is needed is the enabling legislation so farmers can go out and apply for cash advances under the provisions of this legislation. So there is, indeed, some urgency to the passage of this legislation.
The acts will still help producers store crops after harvest in order to market them later, and this means more reasonable prices at harvest time for other producers and a better average price throughout the year. Advance payments legislation will, as I said, continue to provide significant benefits to Canadian producers and I would urge the members on all sides of the House to consider the urgency of this so that farmers can, indeed, apply for advances and receive those advances in order to make their marketing decisions and in order to calculate their cash flow in an orderly fashion.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, the minister has certainly outlined the purpose of this bill, a bill that was introduced in the House of Commons back in the late 1950s by the Diefenbaker government. There is no doubt the government of the time had a lot of foresight and recognized the need for legislation such as this, whereby a farmer could borrow money against the crops that are in storage, interest free money that helped tailor the supply of food to market.
I feel bad that the present day members of that party have lost sight of that need, and have lost sight of the need of the farmers particularly in a year like this when harvests were delayed across the northern part of the Prairies with the result that the grades of those crops have deteriorated to the point where they will not return as much to the producer as they would in a normal year.
I take part in this debate today in the hope that the government will reconsider its current trend of abandoning the Canadian farmers. This bill is another example of the complete disregard of this government for our major primary industry, and it is the latest in a series of moves that is throwing Canadian farmers to the vultures of the market-place, a market-place that has been racked by investigations and scandals and charges of insider trading in some commodity exchanges.

Government Orders
Back in July of 1985, the headlines of the London Free Press stated "Ottawa Kisses Off The Family Farm". I had hoped they were wrong because I am a farmer at heart. My son is a farmer. However, when we look at events since then we realize that they were correct. We have seen a grape industry ravaged. A healthy tobacco industry, with the highest quality and the lowest chemical content of any in the world, has been partially destroyed. The two-price wheat system was discontinued in spite of a 1986 recommendation of $10 per bushel for wheat consumed domestically.
We were assured the marketing boards were not on the bargaining table at the free trade negotiations, yet these boards, particularly in the poultry sector, were gutted. Look at what was done with chicken, for example. There are 13 different types of further processed chicken that are no longer classified to be chicken, nine different types of turkey which are not considered to be turkeys that will be allowed into Canada through the Free Trade Agreement and will enter without restriction. The Canadian people and the Canadian farmers now realize who are the real turkeys, the ones who negotiated this agreement. This systematic dismantling of our Canadian farm programs is destroying the Canadian family farm, not by a direct frontal attack but by a series of attacks on the superstructures of the industry. Apparently the government seems to think that agriculture is just another big business. It seems to think if you can produce iron ore cheaper in South America, we can do the same with foods.
The farmers of this nation will never accept the living conditions of those in the Third World countries. They demand better, and if we are expected to compete against the multinational companies that control the world's grain trade we must continue our programs that have made Canadian farmers among the most efficient in the world, who produce the highest quality grains in the world and do it through the marketing systems that we have in place and programs like those that are being gutted here today.
I have to ask the government why it did not raise this hidden agenda four years ago instead of the piece-bypiece dismantling that we have been witnessing since that time. Let us take the Farm Credit Corporation, for example. The 1988-89 corporate plan was tabled late,
late in the evening just before we adjourned for Christmas. Of course when we look back, we realize it had to be done after the election, but not seven months late.
Then, of course, the annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation for 1988-89 was due in early June and tabled late on the night we adjourned June 27.
Then we had the cabinet directive to the Farm Credit Corporation of July 1988 that was not tabled even though by law it should have been tabled within the next 15 sitting days of Parliament. The government is treating the members of Parliament like mushrooms that you keep in the dark and feed on a special diet. If the government intends to phase out the Farm Credit Corporation, it should tell us and tell the farmers of Canada because we have to know. Please stop the discrimination of requiring farmers in some provinces to sign covenants that are illegal in other provinces and are not being treated equally.
There are provisions under section ll(l)(e) of the Farm Credit Corporation Act to make compositions, schemes of arrangement, re-writing of mortgages, etc., but it was never the intent of the legislators that we should go so far as to force these people to sign away their future, their heart and their souls. I call on the government to stop these practices, to accept the responsibility and realize that Canadian agriculture cannot be run like big corporations. When one examines some of the actions of the Farm Credit Corporation and looks at some of the situations, one has to realize that at this time it is as much a collection agency as it is a lending agency.
I want to commend the representatives of the four churches for their involvement a week ago yesterday on behalf of Canadian farm families.
This government is slowly but surely dismantling the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Ontario Wheat Growers Marketing Board. When the levels of subsidy are at an equal level there must be free movement of grain according to the free trade deal. This means that probably by late next year we will see cheaper and lower quality United States grains-I am referring here to wheat and barley-coming into Canada and undermining our price structures and quality standards. In fact, the end users certificates that will accompany this grain will not even show the quality or grade of product.
October 3, 1989

The travesty of this situation is that processors can bring in a few loads of low quality grain and undermine a price structure here in Canada of the high quality Canadian grain, all at the expense of Canadian producers. If this government is going to be the frontman for big business, and if the rural roots are cut off, this primary industry will wither and die.
We have come to be known around the world as a land of plenty, but when I look at what is happening to the resource sector of this country and how this government has allowed these areas to be decimated, I realize that this will impact not just on our present generation of Canadians and our farmers, but also future generations of Canadians and the nation.
Let me give you a few examples. Fishing is a resource industry and on both coasts it is in difficulty. Stocks are depleted on the east coast by overfishing, plants are closing and people have been thrown out of work. On the west coast we lost the dispute requiring Canadian fish to be processed at Canadian plants and our fish farms are being sold to foreign interests.
Our lumber industry has been devastated by the Free Trade Agreement. In 1986, we had over one-third of the total U.S. market. Now we have about one-quarter.
Our oil industry is suffering its worst year in terms of oil wells drilled and completed. This is another resource sector.
The number of oil wells that were brought into production as of the end of September was approximately 1,200. Let us compare that to what has happened in the past. In 1983 that number was 2,606. In 1984 it was 3,900. In 1985 it was 4,723, four times as many as this year. In September, 1989, there were only 157 drilling rigs working in Canada, while 342 were sitting idle. There are only two rigs drilling in all of northern Canada, and none in the offshore. This is a major resource industry and the policies of the government have virtually shut down the oil industry in Canada.
My point is that these resource industries create much of the nation's new wealth and create the basic production from which the growth of our economy emanates and the spin-off from these new wells spreads to the manufacturing sector, the service sector and the total economy. I submit that the health of these resource sectors reflects through the rest of the economy and the whole nation will eventually suffer from the impact.
Government Orders
No nation such as Canada should ever allow itself to become dependent on others for food, particularly a great nation like Canada whose potential is tempered only by climate and distances to markets.
The original bill was designed-the original bill that we are debating here today and which has been in effect for so many years and served us so well-was designed to allow these farmers to store their crops and feed them into the market as the need arose. I want to use this as an example. Many tobacco farmers used this original bill and it worked very well. Normally in the tobacco industry the money was only needed for three or four months, from harvest time until the crop was sold at producer-run or auction exchanges.
When I look at the new bill, we have to check and see if there is an advantage to producers. I worked this through on a $30,000 loan to a tobacco farmer for four months. Using the new legislation, because the farmer will be charged interest, it works out that the farmer will have an advantage of about $45. That will not even cover his costs for paperwork and bookkeeping.
The minister was asking us a few moments ago if we as farmers would do our part to bring down the deficit. I have to submit that we are doing our part and I will bring that out in a few minutes.
Another area where this is going to hit extremely hard is where it will take cash out of the pockets of the farmer. Certainly as we look at the areas of environmental concern and stewardship of our soil, if a farmer is expected to do his part, why is this government so insistent on slashing our programs? I suggest the whole cost of environmental and soil management programs will fall on the farmer's shoulders as the margins of return on investment, management and labour are already pared to the bone.
I respectfully suggest this latest move will impact on our environment and soil conservation efforts because of the additional cost to the farmer of this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-36. This bill is another example of producer abandonment. I call on the minister to reinstate this bill to its previous form and intent or to withdraw it completely. This bill will force producers who are in a financial bind to sell their grain at harvest time in order to get cash to pay the production costs. We do not have to be financial wizards to know what happens to the price at market time when the farmers are forced to sell.

October 3, 1989
Government Orders
Let me give a few examples of what this program will mean to the producer in terms of stabilizing a price over the period the grain is in storage. I will use com as an example. These are figures from the Ontario Com Growers Association. In 1986-1987, the average increased value per tonne from storage was $4.54; in 1987-1988, that same advantage for storing that product and releasing it into the market at a later date was $36.30 per tonne, money that is sorely needed by the producers and this legislation has to be made available to them.
The government is making these cuts on the pretext of cutting expenditures when in fact it is biting the hand that feeds it. The total cost of this program is approximately $20 million to $25 million, maybe $27 million. Yet the government will take in about $995 million, almost $1 billion, in tax on alcoholic beverages. That is the increase in this year's budget.
Even more ludicrous is the fact that these fellows who take $1.8 billion in taxes from the tobacco industry are now withdrawing a program in this sector of the industry that costs the government $1 million. That is quite a return on the investment. The tobacco industry is contributing $1.8 billion and it is only costing the government $1 million. I think the government should reassess its position and withdraw this legislation.
How can this government be so callous? The projected taxes from the tobacco industry are as I just have stated. Add on alcoholic beverages of $995 million, plus an additional increase of $700 million in the sales tax on these items in this year's budget for a total of $3.5 billion from tobacco and alcohol alone and the total budget of the department is $2.35 billion in the coming year.
This reminds me of some of the earlier medical practices where a patient got sick and the early doctors of the day would bleed them a little bit. Of course, if they didn't get better, you bled them a little bit more. That is what the symptoms are here today. I should remind the government that quite often the patients died.
I submit that the discontinuation of these interest free loans and the dismantling of various other programs will mean the death of Canadian family farms because they are already being bled to death.
A few moments ago I spoke about some of the tactics of the Farm Credit Corporation on withholding reports and directives. Thousands of Canadian farmers and their families are in arrears with the FCC. This will further multiply the problem because they are counting on these interest free loans to tide them over.
Recently a constituent of mine received notice of order of sale just before he was to start harvesting his soybean and com. At a time when he had a cash flow that was going to be available to him within a month or six weeks, this happened to him. I think that we should reassess what is happening with Farm Credit. It has become more of a collection agency than a lending agency.
I mentioned a moment ago that the amount of feed grade wheat is above normal. Consequently, the average price to the producer will be down dramatically. These interest free loans are needed and they are needed now, or else the number of farmers who will be foreclosed on will increase in the next few months.
It seems strange indeed that at the same time the government is cutting back on Canadian producers, the United States producers of soybeans in particular are already pressuring their government to bring in a similar program to stop the exploitation by the very large corporations and the speculators in the commodity exchanges.
In fact, if the Canadian program is being looked at as a subsidy by the U.S., has our government not challenged them on the Commodity Credit Corporation loans or the Export Enhancement Corporation loans? I wonder if the government got assurances from the U.S. that it will bring an immediate end to its export enhancement programs that drive down the price of international grains. The government is forging ahead with this legislation that will create additional hardship on our people.
I have a whole series of letters and requests from various producer organizations across Canada. One is dated October 2 from Prairie Pools Incorporated asking the government not to proceed with this bill. There is
October 3, 1989

another one from a meeting held in Winnipeg yesterday. Several farm organizations asked the government to withdraw this legislation. There are representations from all across Canada on this particular piece of legislation by producers' organizations asking us to put a stop to this madness and to leave the legislation in place which has served us well over the years.
Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-36 be amended by removing all of the words after the
word "That" and by substituting the following:
"this House declines to proceed with Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act because it opposes in principle, namely, the elimination of interest free loans to producer organizations and producers".
This motion is seconded by the Hon. Member for Algoma.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has received the amendment and it will be taken under advisement as to its admissibility. I will return to the House later with a ruling on it.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in this House and debate the great issues of the day, but it is certainly not a pleasure to have to stand up in the House and discuss what is happening to agriculture as a result of the bill that is before us.
It seems that every time I stand here as the member for Prince Albert, I have another reason to remember my predecessor, the former member for Prince Albert, the late John George Diefenbaker. It was my predecessor who in 1957 saw the very obvious need for this kind of legislation and brought it in to great acclaim on the prairies. In fact, that measure was so popular that in the 1958 election, even people who were normally CCF voters supported the Chief because of what he was doing for prairie farmers.
I think it is a real shame that this government, made up of members of the late John George Diefenbaker's party, have turned its back on so many of the legacies that John left behind.
Government Orders
It is doubly unfortunate because it was prairie members and farm members of the Conservative party who got elected on the legacy of John Diefenbaker who in fact kept the Conservative party alive through its years in the wilderness. Now that it has become a government, suddenly it is quite fashionable to forget about the farmers who kept that party alive through the years.
There are a number of reasons why I oppose this bill, one of which certainly is that farmers do not need any more interest-bearing debts. I listened very carefully, or tried to, to what the minister was saying. There were three reasons that he gave, as I understood it, for introducing the bill at this time. One was that there is a real sense of urgency, that we need to get cash advances out into the hands of farmers. Certainly that is true. The crop is largely off in many parts of the country. Certainly it is off in our part of the country. People have been counting on that money, but have not not been able to get it. All of us from rural constituencies have had phone calls, letters and so on asking:"When will the cash advances will be available?".
However, that is no real cause for urgency at all because until this bill is passed, the old bill remains in effect. In fact, if the government had been so anxious to get money into the hands of farmers, it could very well have done it under the old legislation. That in fact is what many farmers across the country have asked the government to do. Therefore there is no urgency at all, other than that imposed by the government itself in passing this legislation at this time.
The second reason that the hon. minister gave, as I understood it, was the need to cope with the deficit. I want to ask the minister, is there not a real cost involved in continuing the cycle of increasing debt, farm foreclosure and rural depopulation? Surely there is a real cost involved in loss of infrastructure, loss of taxes and the cost of relocating all those people and providing goods and services to them in new places when they are forced off the farms into towns and cities across the country. There is a real cost involved in that. All too often those kinds of costs are not figured into this government's equation.
Third, surely when making decisions like this for financial reasons, there should be a careful measurement of the costs and benefits of such a move. The figures that the hon. member who spoke previously alluded to from the Ontario Com Producers indicate clearly what a cost- effective program this has been.

October 3, 1989
Government Orders
For example, the figures produced by the Ontario Com Producers show that in 1986, the value of this program to com producers was $2,044,826, but at a cost to the treasury of only $1,175,976. It was even much more dramatic in 1987-88 when the Ontario Com Producers realized a net benefit of $16,000,796 at a cost to the treasury of only $1,121,000. That is a ratio of $15 to $1. For every dollar invested by the government, there is a return to the farmers in net benefit of $15. Surely that is one of the best expenditures this government has ever made. At least I have not seen any better.
The last point with regard to the deficit is that there is a real contradiction involved in the approach of the minister when he says that it is absolutely essential that we save this $27 million and at the same time he brags about the fact that the government has spent $6 billion on agriculture over the last number of years. Surely this is not such a big percentage of $6 billion that it is absolutely critical to wipe it out in that kind of a context.
I think what really got to the point of this whole issue was when the minister indicated that introducing this bill and making farmers pay interest on the cash advances will permit farmers to make decisions based on business principles. That is a very short-sighted and narrow view of what business principles involve. To me, it shows a total lack of understanding of how the whole grain marketing and collection system in this country actually works.
Surely there are important business principles involved in things like orderly marketing. Surely there are business principles involved in being able to store grain and put it on to the market to counter the price cycles so that farmers can sell their grain or their produce when the prices are high rather than when the prices are low. Surely there is a cost to the whole system if that system that has been built up over the last 50 years is suddenly destroyed and we have no other system to take its place.
Let me explain in a little more detail how that works. The way the cash advance program works is that in effect farmers can sell their grain when they take it off. As soon as the crop is in the bin, they are able to get an interest free cash advance and they in effect have sold that grain at that point. That is very important because our grain handling system, at least in western Canada, can only
absorb 40 per cent of the annual production of the prairies at any one time.
The whole system in western Canada can only absorb 40 per cent of the grain at any one time. It means that the grain has to cycle through that system two and a half times in the course of a year in order to move all the grain, and the same I understand is true in other parts of the country. That means it is in fact not possible for farmers to make decisions, as the minister would imply, solely on the basis of price because there is not enough capacity to do so.
Over the years we have introduced a very effective system that is the envy of farmers all over the world and that is a quota system which allows the Canadian Wheat Board, for example, or the Ontario Wheat Board to make sales in advance and know what kind of supplies it is getting and be able to call those supplies into the system at the time when it can be shipped.
There is no point, there is no benefit, there is no business advantage to all the grain that is produced in a year being dumped into the system all at once. It has to be sorted into train loads and into terminals and on to ships and so on. It makes a heck of a lot more business sense, as far as I am concerned, to call that grain forward at the time that it can move all the way through the system very quickly, through the local elevators, through the railway system, through the terminals and on to the boats.
Surely an efficient modem system is something we have had a lot of debate about in the House, or other members have, I being new here, debate about how we have to enhance the ability to move grain very quickly through the system in response to demand. This bill effectively undermines that capacity.
It would perhaps be a different situation if we were making moves to increase the handling capacity of the system, but we are not. Our whole emphasis in the last 15 years has been on moving it through quicker with reduced storage facilities. At the time when this legislation was originally introduced, the elevator system was able to handle about 50 per cent to 55 per cent of the grain at any one time. Now it is down to 40 per cent. That 40 per cent is being rapidly eroded by the whole process of elevator rationalization and rail line abandonment which certainly is another related issue.
October 3, 1989

The government, at the same time that it cut the cash advance program in the last budget, also cut all funds to the rail branch line rehabilitation program. In my own constituency of Prince Albert-Churchill River there are two lines, the Blaine Lake subdivision between Shellbrook and Blaine Lake, and the Paddockwood subdivision which serves the points of Henribourg and Paddockwood. Those are million bushel points. The elevator companies there are perfectly prepared to keep on handling grain up to the year 2000 or beyond because they are viable points. Everybody assumed that this government was going to stick to the commitments it made regularly, that that system which had been included in the year 2000 system would in fact be upgraded.
On these rail lines, the roadbeds were rebuilt, there was new ballast and there were new ties. All they lacked was heavy steel. But this government, by its budget moves, has made it impossible to get that heavy steel down so now there is a threat for those three-million bushel points to be abandoned in the next short period of time.
That kind of a situation is duplicated right across the prairies, which means that we will have even less than 40 per cent capacity in the system. That means that there is an even greater need to call grain forward in an orderly fashion to take advantage of the new rapid through-put kind of system that we are obviously developing.
The second point is that this really starts to open up wide cracks in the whole quota system that has been so successful in this country. We have been able to maintain the kind of marketing system, the Canadian Wheat Board, which I think everybody concedes has maximized benefits to producers far beyond what any other grain handling system in the world has been able to do. Certainly that is the opinion of the vast majority of farmers on the prairies.
That quota system will be very effectively undermined because when producers face the prospect of not being able to haul in all their grain or not being able to get interest free cash advances on their grain, they are going to put all kinds of pressure on to be able to haul that grain all at once. Why, because of lack of capacity in the system, should one farmer be able to haul his grain in
Government Orders
September and pay his bills and the next one in December, the next one in March, the next one in June? It is not possible for everybody to do it at once, so there is going to be real pressure exerted from all kinds of grassroots farmers who need that money very badly to start to eliminate the quota system which has been at the foundation of our grain handling and transportation systems.
I guess what amazes me as well is the whole lack of consultation that is characteristic of this government's approach to agriculture. As I mentioned before, this party opposite was kept alive and nurtured through its bleaker years by the farmers of Canada. Farmers assumed that when this government came to office, certainly its policies toward agriculture would be undertaken with the widest possible consultation and that they would have friends in government. How often have we seen that that is not true? Once again that is not true, because, as the previous speaker mentioned, there have been representations from all over the country objecting very strongly to this legislation.
The Advisory Committee to the Canadian Wheat Board, certainly an important policy body on the prairies, wrote to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds last July 13 offering him the unanimous resolution that the Advisory Committee to the Canadian Wheat Board recommend to the federal government that for the 1989-90 crop year the cash advance program be operated as it was in the 1988-89 crop year.
In passing that motion, the committee noted that it also wanted to give recognition to the fact that economic factors continue to create serious financial stress for many producers in western Canada. I can vouch for that being true. I have spoken to many farmers in my constituency and throughout northern Saskatchewan in the last several weeks and months.
Although the yield is not as bad as it was last year because there were better rains, though there was a period of drought and certainly the grains are just awful, there is a large quantity of feed wheat in the system, wheat that is worth only half of what people had expected to get. There is not only the outstanding debt from previous years, but that debt is not going to be dealt with at all in this coming year because of the very poor grades that so much of the wheat came in at.

Government Orders
The National Farmers Union wrote in mid August that a cash advance program is urgently needed for the 1989-90 crop year since farmers need cash flow now to pay their bills.
The prairie pools say that the changes will hurt orderly marketing and undermine the Canadian Wheat Board because it will be more difficult to manage deliveries.
Manitoba's Keystone Agriculture Producers noted a very special situation. It said that the elimination of the interest free provision under both acts would be particularly onerous for grains and oilseeds producers in Manitoba who are virtually obliged to ship their commodities through the port at Thunder Bay. Because that port is closed during the winter months, in contrast to Vancouver and Prince Rupert, many farmers in Manitoba sit all winter with little or no opportunity to market grain, resulting in turn in their having little income with which to pay their bills and support the economies of their local communities.
Certainly I would expect that there are a fair number of government members representing Manitoba farmers. I would hope that they had drawn this very directly to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds who, ironically, is himself a farmer in Manitoba and should know very well what the effect would be on Manitoba.
The letter that I found most interesting, however, dated August 2 and arrived by fax, is addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada and reads:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
At a national meeting held in Winnipeg this morning, 19 Canadian grain and oilseed producer organizations were unanimous in calling on your government to withdraw Bill C-36, and to re-institute the two previous acts, which provided for interest-free cash advances, for crops grown in Canada.
In our view, Bill C-36 will destroy the value of the Cash Advance Programs.
Your federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Mazankowski, has initiated a major review of agriculture policy in Canada, of which marketing is one aspect. We feel the Cash Advance Programs should be part of this review.
It is urgent to reinstate the 1988/89 Cash Advance Programs, and to allow the farm community with the federal minister, through the policy review process, to design the appropriate marketing systems to ensure equity in the system.
Yours truly,
Roy Cusitar Meeting Chairman
The interesting thing about this letter is not so much what it says but who signed it. People who have followed the agriculture debate over the years know that there is in some respect a bit of a polarization within the farm community between those who favour the orderly marketing approach, the pooling kind of approach, and those who prefer a more of a free open market kind of approach to agriculture. That tension has been very clear in debates like that on the Crow rate and so on.
This particular letter is signed by groups like the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, Western Barley Growers Association, Alberta Pulse Growers Association, Focus on Inputs, Prairie Canola Growers Council, Manitoba Canola Growers Association, Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, Alberta Soft Wheat Grain Association, United Grain Growers, Flax Council of Canada, Atlantic Grains Council, Ontario Com Producers Association, Manitoba Pulse Growers Association and Western Canada Pulse Growers Association.
What those who follow this debate closely will recognize immediately is that most of the signatures on this particular letter are from people who have historically supported an opening up of free market forces within agriculture. A good number of those groups in fact even supported the free trade initiatives, although there were groups that had misgivings, including the federations of agriculture, the pools and so on. The majority of signa-tors to this particular letter were in favour of the free trade deal and thought it would be a good deal for agriculture. This is the government's very own friends that it is turning its back on.
I would also like to comment briefly on the effect on individual farmers. When a farmer puts in a crop, that is largely done with borrowed money. Today's input costs are so high that there is no way that the vast majority of farmers have the cash on hand in spring when the crop goes in to pay for those input costs, so that crop is put in on credit. What has traditionally happened is that when the crop came off in September, October or November, in the fall, the farmer was then able to take an interest free cash advance, pay those debts and thus be rid of the interest charges on those debts through the rest of the year and, in fact, could manage a cash flow so that the planning process for the next spring could begin again.

What this bill does, by imposing interest charges on those farmers, is in fact make this a very unattractive option for farmers. Certainly I can appreciate that perhaps there would be a slight interest rate saving of 1 per cent or 2 per cent.
But when you are talking of interest rates of 13 or 14 per cent, and with the grab and steal tax coming in, we could well be looking at interest rates in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent. With the added inflation that particular tax measure could very well induce, and with the policy of John Crowe to raise interest rates to compensate for every rise in inflation we could well be looking at interest rates in the 20 per cent range again within a year or two. So farmers are going to save 1 per cent or 2 per cent in interest, but they are just going to get killed by the interest rates. If there is one thing that farmers do not need it is more interest bearing debt.
I would also like to talk a little bit about what this represents in the larger context of farm policy. What is becoming very frustrating, not only to members on this side of the House but to farmers across this country, and I suspect even to some of the government's own backbenchers, is this government's unwillingness to come clean with its real agenda on agriculture.
Within the last very short period of time we have seen a number of measures taken by this government that to me point very much in the same direction. We saw oats being removed from the Canadian Wheat Board's jurisdiction. This was, of course, supposed to be a big bonanza for farmers. As a result, there were much lower sales of oats at much lower prices this year than there had been in the past few years. So the bonanza never materialized.
People were skeptical about that whole maneuver to begin with. Something like 70 to 80 per cent of farmers called on the government to change its decision, not to introduce that Order in Council to take oats out of the wheat board's jurisdiction, including many friends of the government who I met at meetings who stood up and made their views known very forcefully. But oats were removed from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. Certainly that led to the clear impression being left in the farm community that the Wheat Board was no longer the major instrument of government policies, if
Government Orders
you will, the sacrosanct institution of Canadian agriculture that it had once been. Certainly, removing the cash advances is another blow to that whole system.
Second, there is the whole question of free trade. Although the government spelled out, it seemed very directly, that free trade was not going to be a hindrance to agriculture and certainly was not going to have any impact on orderly marketing, a lot of producers were very dubious about that assertion. I suspect those numbers include the former Minister of Agriculture, the former minister from Elgin who, it is widely rumored, in fact chose not to run again in the last election because of what he feared was going to happen to the orderly marketing system which he strongly believed in. I know he did. I lived in that part of the country in the early 1970s and knew the former minister to be a strong supporter of orderly marketing. I think he just did not want to see what was going to be happening.
It has been argued that some of the things that have happened since the Free Trade Agreement, for example, the ruling by GATT on the import regulations on ice cream and yoghurt and the American countervail on pork, are not the result of free trade, that those kinds of things would have happened anyway. In a narrow sense that is perhaps true. However, I remember very clearly the Premier of Saskatchewan, one of the most ardent apologists, in fact one of the most ardent cheerleaders for this government's agricultural policy, coming to our city of Prince Albert and saying very directly to farmers who were concerned about these things that certainly it is not going to undermine orderly marketing. And even if the jots and tittles, as the Minister of Trade refers to them, do not necessarily spell out in every detail how orderly marketing is going to be protected, it is going to create a climate of harmony, it is going to create a climate of goodwill between the United States and Canada where the type of harassment that we had seen an increasing amount of was not going to be visible any longer.
That has clearly turned out to be only so much hot air, frankly. The harassment has not only not decreased, it has actually picked up, as evidenced by the very destructive ruling from GATT launched by a New York dairy producer and the recent ruling on pork.

October 3, 1989
Government Orders
As well, we saw under free trade the loss of the two-price wheat system. We were told that was going to be compensated for, and nowhere do I find in the government's financial plans for the future that that particular promise is going to be kept either.
Later this week we will debate again the bill that we gave second reading to under closure, the plant breeders' rights bill, again another bill that opens up the whole industry of agriculture, the whole farm community, to increasing threat from large corporations and increasing corporate control of that sector.
Then I had the pleasure, I guess, of attending the press conference in my own city of Prince Albert when the Minister of Agriculture and the provincial ministers of agriculture announced their new policy on agriculture. There were a couple of very key words in there that certainly anybody who follows agriculture debates heard very clearly, namely, that the new look of agriculture was to be; one, market-driven; and two, self-reliant. It is very easy to find words that to the average Canadian sound as if they represent progress. Who is going to be against markets? Well I guess some people are, but certainly nobody is against self-reliance.
What that obviously has come to mean in the context of the government's other activities is that the historic foundation of agriculture in this country, the family farm, is something that this government is perfectly willing to abandon. Every action this government takes in the field of agriculture makes that more and more clear.
I think family farmers are starting to realize that they are being abandoned, that they are being left behind, that this government is doing whatever it can to hasten the corporate concentration in agriculture, to hasten the industrialization of the agriculture sector. What is really frustrating is that farmers always feel like they are fighting rearguard actions because the government is saying one thing, that, yes, the family farm is sacred, and, yes, it is doing what it can to assist and support the family farm, but all the actions run the other way.
It is becoming very frustrating and very tiring for family farmers to constantly fight these rearguard actions against the government that will not come clean on what its actual agenda is. I am sure there are a lot of
members opposite, a lot of farm members in particular, who are starting to realize as well that what this government says is much different from what this government does.
In that regard I would like to offer some evidence that this frustration is not just something that comes out of what might be termed the left wing of the farm movement or out of the Official Opposition or the NDP. This whole frustration with the direction this government is taking in agriculture is shared every bit as much by its own members, its own grassroots members.
I would like to quote from The Western Producer, a paper with a circulation of approximately 130,000 a very important farm paper. My copy is a little bit worn by now because I have been showing it to all my colleagues from other parts of Canada, especially my urban colleagues because they often do not have the opportunity to know what is being said about government programs in the farm press.
I thought this article was very important because it was a report from the P.C. policy convention earlier this last August which was billed in the mainstream media as being very much a love-in; that there was very little dissent, that people were happy, they had vision for the future and they were going to ride the great economic boom well into the 21st century, that all kinds of good things were going to happen and all the delegates there were very pleased with everything they saw.
This headline, first of all, caught my eye. It said: "Rural PCs line up at convention to air their gripes". I went on to read:
Conservative farm policies were attacked last week by rural delegates attending the Progressive Conservative national convention.
They said despite official government optimism and selfcongratulations, conditions are bad down on the farm. And government policy is driving rural voters away from Conservatives, they warned.
There was scarcely a word of praise for past government performance or the new theology of market-oriented, subsidy-reduced farm policy being developed and promoted by agriculture minister Don Mazankowski.
As Mazankowski sat in the audience listening, delegate after delegate came to the microphone to complain about the state of the farm economy.
October 3, 1989

They complained about prices, high interest rates, uncertainty caused by government policy and the inequities of the drought program.
Russell Lakusta, of Wandering River in northeastern Alberta, complained that he cannot afford to turn his grain farm over to his son.
"Farmers are in very poor shape", he said. "If we don't get federal help, lower interest rates and get to the point where farmers break even-" At that point, his voice broke and the sentence trailed off.
Later the longtime Conservative said he does not find the government particularly sympathetic to the farmer's plight, despite the record of subsidies.
"I still think the government is sorry for the $3 billion they gave us," he said in an interview. "I don't know why. I think if it hadn't been for Grant Devine's election, we wouldn't have gotten that either."
I might add that another billion dollars would be very welcome in the prairie economy but you can bet the last dollar of those billions that it will not buy Grant Devine another election.
Farmer Bill Cole, from Ninette, Man., was equally blunt.
He was angry about the loss of the interest-free advance payment program this year and the way the drought payment was handled. Payments were late, administration too cumbersome and in too many cases, fanners are being asked to pay back thousands of dollars already received in interim payments, he said in an interview.
On his own farm, Cole received a $7 an acre interim payment and then, instead of the additional payment he expected to cover his bills, he received a notice from Ottawa that he had been overpaid by 52 cents an acre. He has to pay it back.
I might add that the appeal process is in total chaos. The structure that has been set up puts all the burden on rural municipalities which in no way have the resources to deal with what is happening in that drought payment. Reeves and councillors are getting calls in the middle of the night, families are being divided because one brother will get a payment when he had a pretty good crop and the next brother gets nothing, is wiped out and driven out of business. It is causing all kinds of stress in the rural community.
In any event, getting back to the words of Cole, he said:
"That program was a disaster", said Cole, a member of the executive in grains minister Charlie Mayer's constituency organization.
Government Orders
This is one of the Minister of Grains and Oilseeds' own constituency executive members. He said:
"I told Charlie last week to his face, you have two chances for re-election: slim and none."
I think that is pretty blunt talk. I do not think you can put it any clearer than that.
Other delegates had other complaints.
A young Quebec farmer said the government should do more to help young people stay on the land.
An Ontario dairy fanner said reducing government regulation is not the answer.
A Prince Edward Island delegate warned that low prices and a lack of government action will send many family farms into the grasp of multinational, vertically-integrated food companies.
A southern Saskatchewan nurse said farmers are turning to alcohol, drugs and suicide because of poor conditions and a lack of government support.
I might stress again that this is not something dreamed up by wild-eyed New Democrats in some back room. This is a report from the debate at the Conservative convention. These are direct quotes.


Mr. Cardiff:: Who wrote that?


Raymond John Funk: The member opposite asks who wrote that. These are direct quotes from their own delegates and I hope he was there to hear those things said because I think that is very clearly the voice of the whole farm community speaking.
With that I would like to reiterate that the bill we have before us, the bill to charge interest on cash advance payments, is just one more example of this government's agriculture policies that are being rejected from from coast to coast as not only being unworkable but very likely to lead to the demise of agriculture in this country as we know it and to hasten the demise of the most valued institution in rural Canada, the family farm.
This government may think that, as some analysts at their convention said, it does not have to worry about the farm population any more because the Conservative Party has become the party of the upwardly mobile people in the suburbs. If you look at a map of Canada you can see how many constituencies there are that elect rural members in this country. It is not possible for this government to form a government again without rural members. This government may think that farmers cannot remember three years. Farmers can remember a lot longer than that and I hope that the government pays attention to what farmers are saying to them.

Government Orders



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville	(Mrs.
Maheu)-POVERTY-Government Position-People living below the poverty line; the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Dundum (Mr. Fisher)-UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-Proposed Amendments to Act-Impact of proposed amendments on Unemployed; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus)-TRANSPORT-Subsidies to Via Rail-cuts to Via Rail-Environmental benefits of rail transit.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Earlier this day the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex presented what we call a reasoned amendment which, for people who are listening to us, might need some interpretation. That is an amendment that leaves out all the words in the main question after the word "that" and adds other words.
The Chair has looked at the amendment proposed by the hon. member and finds it out of order. As Beau-chesne's 745(4) says:
An amendment which amounts to no more than a direct negation
of the principle of the bill-
-is out of order.
The hon. parliamentaiy secretary on a point of order.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I would like through you to point something out to the previous speaker from Prince Albert. He spoke about the lack of support from this government toward farmers. I want to point out that the minister did say that we had supported government extensively and I want to point out-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary may want to participate in the debate at a later stage. Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Algoma.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the parliamentary secretary is so much on the defensive, as was the minister, on this bill. They know they have practically zero support. Even the most militant Tories in this country do not support the bill. It is interesting that some 19 principal farm organizations, commodity groups from across the country, met in Winnipeg yesterday and petitioned the Prime Minister by letter after that meeting demanding that the government withdraw this bill. I did the same thing a week or so ago and lo and behold, the Minister of Agriculture withdrew that bill, C-32. Unfortunately, Bill C-36 is no better than Bill C-32 as regards the interest free cash advances.
It is hard to imagine that the Tbries are really bringing in this legislation. In 1984 they campaigned that they would double the farm cash advance program, and they did, they increased it from $15,000 to $30,000. We supported that move. But lo and behold, when the Budget came down this year they emasculated the benefits of the program because without the interest free portion to the farm cash advance program the program is almost useless. The value will be for somebody who has a crop worth $.5 million who might gain .5 per cent and utilize it because of the mass volume of the program or for someone who is absolutely destitute and cannot get credit any place else.
Farm organizations across this country uniformly are opposed to this program. We would like to spend some time talking about why they are opposed to it. Clearly, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the umbrella group for most Canadian farmers covering the wide spectrum of dairy producers, of fruit and vegetables producers, the pools, the UPA, the Atlantic farm groups,

the Federation of Agriculture from Ontario and the Atlantic Federation of Agriculture all oppose this group. The National Fanners' Union opposes this legislation. As a matter of fact, the group that passed the resolution yesterday and petitioned the Prime Minister said this in a letter to him.
At a national meeting held in Winnipeg this morning, 19 Canadian grain and oilseed producer organizations were unanimous in calling on your government to withdraw Bill C-36, and to re-institute the two previous acts, which provided for interest-free cash advances for crops grown in Canada.
It is interesting that they sum up that letter by saying:
It is urgent to reinstate the 1988/89 Cash Advance Programs, and to allow the farm community with the federal minister, through the policy review process, to design the appropriate marketing systems to ensure competitiveness and equity.
It is signed by the representative, Roy Cusitar, of the United Grain Growers in Winnipeg.
It is supported by all these groups: the Ontario Soybean growers, la federation des producteur de cultures commerciales du Quebec, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, the Western Barley Growers, the Alberta Pulse Growers Association, Focus on Inputs, Keystone Agricultural Producers, the Prairie Canola Growers Council, the Manitoba Canola Growers Association, the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, the Alberta Soft Wheat Grain Association, the United Grain Growers, the Flax Council of Canada, the Atlantic Grains Council, the Ontario Com Producers Association, the Manitoba Pulse Growers and the Western Canadian Pulse Growers.
There is uniform support to oppose this legislation in every way possible and we just do not understand why the government is proceeding with it. It is just inconceivable to us that the government continues to push to have this legislation. It has been uniformly opposed. The Deputy Prime Minister talked about the enabling legislation that is needed.
All the Government of Canada has to do is obey the law. It is not obeying the law now. The law now says that they will make available to the Canadian Wheat Board and to other commodity groups funds with the interest looked after by the Government of Canada, and they are not doing that. What I am calling on the government to do is to withdraw the bill or just let it die on the Order Paper and to obey the law of Canada now which is to provide interest free cash advances.
Government Orders
The Deputy Prime Minister talked about farmers paying their fair share of the cuts that the government made in government programs. Farmers are making a tremendous contribution. The infamous budget which was brought down will increase taxes and cut services by $5 billion this year and $9 billion next year, and with the goods and services tax a $5.5 billion increase will be imposed the year after. Those are government figures. It may be $9 or $10 billion, but it certainly is going to be the $5.5 billion if the government implement that program.
In this program last spring the government has cut crop insurance by $200 million, grain and flour transportation by $60 million, rail branchline rehabilitation programs by $48 million, and grain and crop advance payment programs by $54 million. That is $27 million a year.
Most of these cuts mean a reduction in services or a reduction in programs to farmers but there is hardly any program, in my opinion, which has the multiplier effect of a grain and crop advance program. I would like to talk about that a little bit later.
Just to respond to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture saying, "farmers have got to take the blunt axe themselves" let us go on to the other things which they have cut. They have cut the dairy export program by $12 million, the commodity-based loan program by $15 million and the Canadian Dairy Commission by $10 million. So farmers, without being slaughtered on this one, have been slaughtered on a a host of other programs amounting to $400 million, and that does not even get into another $100 million which they are going to have to pay in input costs for the oil and gas excise tax and sales tax. So farmers certainly are taking their chunk of the government's chop.
As we look across the spectrum of Canadian agriculture which is going to be adversely affected by this legislation, we see those organizations which I have mentioned this afternoon such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union, and the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory group. This is a farmer elected group across the prairies which advises the Canadian Wheat Board on this. The Canadian Wheat Board operates this program in western Canada. They have opposed it, as have the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, the Ontario Com Producers Association, the Manitoba Com Producers Association, and so on.

October 3, 1989
Government Orders
The Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon suggested that the program would have some value, or might continue to operate. That really is not the case because this program, at least in eastern Canada, is operated by farm groups like the Ontario Corn Producers Association. The Ontario Corn Producers Association tells me that at its board meeting just last week it was discussing how many farmers would take advantage of the program that the Deputy Prime Minister is talking about. The program in the past has provided benefits to about 1,200 com producers. Their discussion was as to whether there would be 50 that would even bother taking the benefit, because by the time one pays the administration fee and the other charges, for people who have a very good credit rating there probably is no advantage at all under the program.
So, it is a very big question whether a lot of these associations which have operated the program and done yeoman's service in that regard would even bother. Various organizations have outlined how much harm this program will do. First, the costs are relatively minimal compared to the advantages. It is a relatively inexpensive program compared to many operated by the government, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, costing billions and billions of dollars. So this is a relatively inexpensive program in terms of providing for orderly marketing of Canadian farm commodities, and surely that is the primary goal of the program. It is not just the amount of interest support that is provided, it is the impact on the commodity; the price, the funding and support at a particular moment in time.
Without the program farmers who need the cash will tend to market their commodity as soon as the commodity is harvested. This program allowed them to shift the marketing from the months of October and November into the winter months and the spring months. That had a beneficial effect. It not only kept the price up during the fall months, but it tended to keep the price more stable in the spring months. It not only benefits the
farmer but at the end of the day it benefits the consumer. It does not result in having tremendous troughs when there is a surplus of the commodity in the fall and a shortage in the spring. It tends to level that out.
In the prairies we will see, with this bill destroyed, that farmers will rush to make deliveries in the fall, over-taxing a grain-handling system that does not have as much capacity as it needs to operate without this program.
This program is not trade distorting. It does not increase production. It just provides for a much more orderly marketing arrangement. It does not stimulate production. The government, unilaterally, without the agreement of commodity groups-and certainly the dairy producers-last fall signed an accord at the GATT to not increase government support programs. They did some fast juggling in dairy by cutting out dairy support programs by some $20 million or $25 million and then raised the price of milk by 41 cents a hectolitre, which was less than what they had cut out in the budget.
Nowhere in that GATT accord of last April does this program provide for reducing the support programs. Yet this action by the government results in a reduction.
I guess the other concern we have as we look down through the range of government programs which were destroyed in the budget is that many of these programs which the government chopped out-some $500 million over the next couple of years in support to farmers-are programs that were listed in the free trade deal as being subsidies. The free trade deal also provides for negotiation over the next five to seven years of what is a subsidy, what is an acceptable subsidy that does not encounter countervail or dumping duties. When we look at the budget we see the government, one, two, three, four is removing subsidies while the Americans, who they have not even started to negotiate with in earnest, are not removing any of their subsidies. They are not removing their advance payments or load interest programs. Why are we doing it?

We seem to be doing everything unilaterally, hurting farmers and destroying our negotiating position with the Americans in the trade negotiations which will come up over the next few years.
I spoke earlier about the benefits of this program in terms of not having all your marketing take place at harvest time and spreading it out, having orderly marketing over a period of time. I was interested in what the Ontario Com Producers have indicated as the cost benefits of the program in terms of the price of com. What they have done is they have calculated the price of com during the harvest season, October and November, and then compared it with the selling price of com in the winter, spring and summer months.
It is very interesting to note that the cost benefit in one year, 1987-88 which is the last year for which they have marketing figures in terms of what it cost the government to run the Advance Payments Program and the benefit to the com producers is something like 15 to 1. That is not bad. Even the parliamentary secretary, who is one of the great white bean growers and knows how to calculate how to make profits, would have to admit that a 15 to 1 cost benefit ratio is very good.
If you calculate what the interest on the advance payment program cost the government for the last year for which we have figures, 1987-88, you see it was $1.1 million. The increase in price during the winter, spring and summer months compared to what it was if everybody had marketed in October and November was $16 million, 15 times as much.
Surely even the Tories can calculate that that is good for the industry. It stabilizes it. You do not have massively low prices in October and November, and you do not have massively high prices in the spring because everybody marketed in the fall. If we look at just that one commodity, which is a big important group, although certainly not the whole of the Canadian agriculture scene, you see the tremendous benefits of this.
If you look across the range of commodities, whether you are talking about fruits and vegetables in B.C., Ontario, Quebec, or Atlantic Canada, or if you talk about soybeans, or about the prairie grain, you get a stability in the industry that is very desirable. If you maintain the price as well, it is certainly desirable.
Government Orders
I am suggesting to the government that it really should withdraw, withdraw, withdraw Bill C-36. It is wrong for a country. It is wrong for farm pricing. It is wrong for Canadian farmers, and wrong for agriculture.
I would like to move an amendment to the motion before us today, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex:
That Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Advance Payments for Crops
Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act be not now read a
second time but that it be read a second time this day six months
hence.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Madam Speaker, I noticed the statistics show that 3,644 farmers in Ontario took advantage of the advance payments in 1987-88, and a large portion of those were soybean growers, tobacco growers and com producers.
I would like to ask the hon. member what portion of these farmers who took advantage of it in 1987-88 he thinks would still find it a worth-while procedure, a worth-while program under the new bill? That is question number one.
I have a second question which is very close to it. The new bill allows $250,000 instead of the regular level of borrowing that was allowed. I wonder also how many of those 3,644 farmers who took advantage of this would have any reason to use more than the present level of expenditure.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. He is a person who has taken tremendous interest in agriculture issues. He has worked widely on agriculture issues in the agriculture committee of the House of Commons.
I would suspect that the answer to his inquiry concerning tobacco growers, soybean growers and com growers would be typical of the estimate that has been made by the board of Directors of the Ontario Com Producers Association. They estimate that as low as 50 farmers, out of the 1,200 who have been using the program in the past, might use it in the future. I am not sure of the percentage, but you are getting down to something less than 5 per cent of the people who would use it in the future as it is reconstituted with the farmer paying the interest.
What the government is doing with this bill is destroying the program. They can huff and puff and talk about farmers having to bear the brunt of their cost-cutting exercise and all the rest of it, but if you think that the Ontario Com Producers are going to run a program like

Government Orders
this for 50 producers when in the past they have had something like 1,200 producers, I do not think they will. The administration costs and the overhead and everything grows disproportionately when you are dealing with a very small number of producers compared to a widely diverse group.
The second question is about the $250,000 limit. The current limit is $30,000, $60,000, $90,000 depending on the number of partners in the farming operation. In my opinion, the $250,000 limit is a pure smoke-screen. It is one of two things. As the hon. member will recall, the first bill C-32 was bungled and they were so embarrassed by it that they had to withdraw it because the loan guarantee in the bill did not cover the interest. They had to put up some kind of a smoke-screen to cover the embarrassment of it all and raised the limit to $250,000. In my opinion, that is why they did it.
In any event, very few if any farmers will use it. I think that the amount will never approach the previous limit which was something like 17 per cent in the west and 25 per cent in the east. In any event, it is probably designed to help a few really good Tory supporters who can benefit by the marginal gain they will get on interest. As far as the broad spectrum of the average farmer is concerned, it will benefit practically none, because you are only covering 50 per cent of the grain or the commodity in the bin. I do not know too many farmers who will have half a million dollars worth of grain or other commodity in the bin. In my opinion, it will help practically none.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Algoma if he is indicating to us that he prefers the level to remain at $30,000, $60,000 and $90,000. It would appear from his remarks that he is asking for that level to remain there. Is that what he is indicating?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I was responding to the Member for Saskatoon-Humboldt as to the number who I thought would utilize it. In my opinion, there would not be many who would utilize it. What we are asking for-and I want to make this very clear-and what practically every major farm organization in this country is asking for is that the government leave the legislation that is in force now in place, obey the law and provide the money to these farm organizations.
The government should obey the law and give these farm organizations the funds that they are entitled to under the existing Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the Crop Advance Payments for Crops Act. That is what I am asking the parliamentary secretary and the government to do. I think if they pay attention to the 19 farm organizations which petitioned the Prime Minister yesterday after the meeting in Winnipeg, that is what they will do.


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a questioon. I have just received a communication that CIL Agriculture Lambton Works at Cartwright, Ontario, is laying off 150 employees throughout their organization. Will this bill, if it passes in the present form before this House, have a further impact on the farm economy that is reflected here in these lay-offs or are these lay-offs as a direct result of the free trade agreement?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I would have to defer to the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex as I do not know the details of that particular lay-off.
I certainly do know, as the com producers have demonstrated in the data which they have provided to the parliamentary secretary and to all the rural members in the House, that the benefits of this program go far beyond the cost to the government. You talk about the price of com being increased 15 times what the program costs to the government. It provides a stable arrangement for marketing. It provides cash flow at the time the profit is taken off.
Clearly this bill will have a very adverse effect on this industry, which the Hon. Member for Lambton- Middlesex has spoken of, but as well for farmers throughout the country. A very small amount of money brings massive benefits to producers all over the country. I think especially of those who have No. 3 and No. 4 wheat in western Canada due to the wet harvest period in some areas. Many of them will not be able to deliver that grain to the elevator because there is so much abundance of it, at least initially.
They will not be able to get a cash advance because there are tests undertaken as to their financial viability before they will be able to get a loan under this program. In any event, they do not get anything because they are going to be paying the interest and the government is withdrawing its support for those producers who are already hard-pressed with a poor grade of crop.
October 3, 1989

Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, one of the principles of the constitution of our country is that there is an accountability to Parliament in that the government is responsible to the House of Commons. Here we are discussing a government bill and out of 38 ministers of the Crown there is not a single one in this House. I object to that. I submit that this is a contempt of Parliament. There should be at least one of the 38 ministers here listening to this important debate on a public bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do realize the hon. member wanted to make a point which he has made. He also knows very well that it is the way of this House that no one mentions the absence or presence of any particular ministers or members who may be attending. The hon. member has made his point. He also knows what we normally do in this House.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair doing your usual competent, no, I would say, sterling job. I am delighted to take part in this afternoon's debate in the House of Commons. I would like to take note of the Minister of Energy, the senior minister of the government from my province. I hope he stays around for this afternoon's debate. You never know, he might even learn something. But I will not hold my breath.
My riding of Winnipeg-St. James is almost 100 per cent urban. Although I do have a few farms, and probably could count them on one hand, I can say I am concerned about Manitoba farmers and all Canadian farmers. I am proud to say that I was bom and raised on a farm near that grand community of Glenboro, Manitoba which is probably a little more than 100 miles west of the minister's home community of Steinbach. That community is more famous for cars.
I am concerned about the future of Canadian farms. I certainly do not want to see them disappear. In my opinion farmers are still the backbone of this country and the backbone of our economy. After all, a nation that cannot feed itself certainly cannot survive for very long.
Today we will talk about this system of cash advances made to farmers, that is cash payments advanced against grains stored on the farm. As a number of speakers have already pointed out, this system has been in place for 30 years.
You can ask almost any farmer anywhere in this country and that farmer will say that the system of cash payments has been an unqualified success. Suddenly-I would say precipitously earlier this year-this program was suspended by the government. Of course, under this particular bill, Bill C-32, the government is bringing back the cash payments without a very, very important and vital feature. That feature is the interest free portion of the program.
Of course, this has left farmers puzzled and in limbo ever since this was first announced in the budget of last spring. Why this bolt out of the blue? I think that is what farmers are asking. Farmers certainly were not asking the government to put an end to this interest free portion of advance payments. They were not asking for it. The government went ahead anyway, apparently without any consultation, or with little consultation, which surprises a lot of people.
The Deputy Prime Minister comes from the province of Alberta. I understand that he represents, largely, a rural area with all kinds of farmers. He is the Minister of Agriculture. Yet he has done this. I would say that he certainly has been the point man in this particular exercise. I think farmers across the country have not only been surprised but stunned. In a way it has been carried out in a rather arrogant way.
I knew that I was going to be speaking on this bill today so I deliberately sought out a farmer friend of mine who happens to live in my riding but whose farm is actually about 100 miles outside of my riding. It is about 100 miles west of Winnipeg. The conversation I had with my friend I found rather revealing. My farmer friend made it absolutely clear at the beginning of the conversation that he-and I am sure that he is not an unusual farmer in this respect-is not looking for any assistance or handouts. He does not want to be on the dole in any way. He is very curious about what the government has been doing because he really cannot seem to get a handle on what the government is really doing.

October 3, 1989
Government Orders
Is this exercise part of some larger scheme, dropping the interest free portion of the program? Is this part of some new philosophy? Is it a by-product of the free trade agreement? After all, we know terms like harmonization, level playing field and subsidy negotiations. This is a subsidy. Lo and behold, the government eliminates this kind of subsidy or any other kind of subsidy is negotiated.
This government is very curious. It seems to sort of throw the game away before it even starts. As my farmer friend asked, if it is not part of a larger package, if it is not part of some new kind of philosophy, is it nothing more than just another austerity measure? If that is the answer, why pick on farmers for this particular kind of saving? If this government is really anxious about saving some money, and if it really wants to eliminate waste, why pick on the farmer? Why strip down this particular program that has been so useful, so efficacious, something that has helped the farmers for three decades in this country? Why pick on this program?
If the government wants to save money and if it wants to eliminate waste, I have all kinds of suggestions. Earlier this afternoon we heard the Minister of National Revenue talk about the possible hiring of 4,000 tax collectors to collect the GST, if it is implemented.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


An Hon. Member:: Thx cops.


John Harvard: Tkx cops, that is the term, tax cops-tax policemen. That measure alone would cost Canadian taxpayers what, $200 million?


An Hon. Member:: Easily.


John Harvard: Easily, and perhaps more. Now, that is just one example. There are all kinds more.
How much money did the government, which is supposedly interested in saving money, spend on promoting that ill-conceived budget of last spring? The last time I saw the figure, it was about $2.7 million. Why pick on the farmer? Why spend all this money on the budget if you are that interested in saving money?
It has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising the GST, something which has not been formally debated in this House of Commons. No money has been authorized, none whatsoever, by we parliamentarians.
Earlier this spring we heard about lavish spending in some of the ministers' offices. Just today I learned they were planning to spend over a half a million dollars on what is called an electronic information board at the VIA Rail station in Montreal. Now they are going to have to cancel that because of the cuts to VIA Rail and it is going to cost Canadians about $233,000-$233,000 for something they will never get, something they will never see.
That is the kind of government we have. Yet it is going to go after the Canadian farmer, the backbone of this country, to save what, $27 million? They are strange priorities that this government has.
Let us take a look at the specific proposal. The specific proposal would put an end to interest free advance payments. It has already been noted in the House that 19 producer organizations met yesterday in Winnipeg and appealed to the Prime Minister of the country not to go ahead with the bill. Is the government listening? I do not think so. Let us consider what just one or two of those organizations have said about the interest free portion of advance payments. They have put forward a case, in my opinion, that is blunt, succinct and worth listening to.
I want to read into the parliamentary record if I may, what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has said about this. I quote:
The interest free portion of the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act are of vital importance to Canadian farmers. Making interest payable on cash advances will increase costs to fanners, and that combined with the increase in administration costs on the part of the government will make cash advances as costly as regular loans from financial institutions.
I am not saying this, nor is any other partisan Liberal in this House. This is what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is saying. Its statement goes on:
The amended programs would provide no advantage to producers, in fact their usefulness would be severely limited.
That is pretty precise language. There is no way that you can misunderstand this statement. The statement from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture goes on to
say:
The interest-free portion in both acts encourages orderly marketing. The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act provides needed cash flow to producers during times of surplus stocks and tight quotas. It permits the Canadian Wheat Board the leverage to time sales to the benefit of the farmers. The advance payments-
October 3, 1989


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the hon. member will want to continue the next time the bill is being studied.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   THE ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Robert Lloyd Wenman: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider introducing legislation to fully protect the Canadian environment through the institution of mandatory environmental impact assessment procedures which would allow for assessments, prior to the construction of installations, public or private, of projects which may prove to be potentially damaging to the environment.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is with a bit of a sense of deja vu that I rise today in the House of Commons to bring forth Motion 485.
Motion 485 is really the motion form of a bill I brought in over 10 years ago in 1979. Curiously enough, Madam Speaker, you have given this bill the title of 485. The bill title back 10 years ago was Bill 458. We have stuck with the same numbers and I hope that we will stick with the same principle of the bill as we move it from the motion and hopefully then into legislative form.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider introducing legislation to fully protect the Canadian environment through the institution of mandatory environmental impact assessment procedures which would allow for assessments, prior to the construction of installations, public or private, of projects which may prove to be potentially damaging to the environment.
Time is required for any new idea. I recall back in the British Columbia legislature in 1966 I brought forth an idea on the environment that related to the establishment of green belts around cities. I recall it was seen as a little bit revolutionary at that time, and I had to keep pounding on it year after year after year.
Private Members' Business
Well, six years later the first green belt legislation in Canada in the same form that I presented the private member's bill was introduced. I am most pleased to see the same kind of thing happening here in Canada today. Certainly, patience is rewarded when substance develops from it.
To start to talk about this motion I think that we need to talk first a little about the philosophy-the reason for-and I think that I was reminded about the reason for on a recent trip to Asia from which I just returned. I thought as I looked at the development in the newly developed countries that the development community of those newly industrialized countries could of living, the quantity of life, at least.
I wondered as I looked at the development of these newly industrialized countries how much had been really achieved when one can't drink the water, breath the air, or find a healthy patch of green among the intense density of black and grey of pavement and concrete and among the shiny glitter of new glass and steel jungles.
The newly industrialized countries have both gained and lost as they have developed in the rapid sense of the last few years. It seems they have developed without an adequate sustainable development ethic. A quality of life rather than a quantity of life will next become an ethic that they, too, will embrace as our society has .1 wonder if they will be able to afford the redevelopment costs required to meet the demand for the quality, sustainable development lifestyle necessary to ensure the survival of our global environment.
We must, in fact, develop a value that thinks of before-the-fact prevention, that accesses the environmental impact of development before the development occurs rather than after the damage begins. We must add to the rhetoric of sustainable development a practical alternative. That is the purpose of the motion before us today.
I was pleased to receive a letter from the Minister of the Environment which stated: "I am familiar with the bill that you sponsored in 1979 because it was the first initiative that would have made it statutory requirement to conduct an environmental assessment of all proposals falling within the area of federal responsibility. Although we may differ in some details, the essence of my views on EARP reform is very similar to the concepts that you have long proposed.

Private Members' Business
I am planning comprehensive legislation to reform the federal EARP. The central features of the reformed process will include the integration of environmental and economic matters in all federal projects, programs, and policies; mandatory environmental assessments for all activities, both public and private, within the decision-making authority of federal institutions; more systematic checks and balances within the process to ensure that all proposals falling under federal authority would be properly assessed; better public consultation on government initiatives so that citizens will have a fair opportunity to respond to activities that could adversely affect their environment; and the streamlining of procedures to avoid costly and often confusing duplication".
I was extremely pleased with those words from the Minister, and with this House I wait in anticipation for the results of that legislation.
I have left the motion before us today particularly open in order that members of the House would have the opportunity, in our discussions of this motion to, as the minister said, differ on some details. Yet when it comes to the vote on the motion, we could agree in principle and all may with full and clear conscience vote in favour of this motion thereby truly stating the intent of the House of Commons for compulsory environmental impact assessment for Canada and that it should be brought into law.
Since the government has already agreed to present legislation, this debate has a special purpose because it can give before-the-fact of legislation the government an opportunity to absorb the ideas of the House of Commons. In fact, that is what environmental assessment impact before-the-fact is all about; that we should consider it in advance and then proceed to the development.
In this case, I am calling for before-the-fact discussion of environmental impact assessment legislation that the government itself might examine the debates and choose from the ideas of the members of the House of Commons in fulfilling their own mandate for an improved version of a bill that they might well be drafting at this moment.
Therefore, I think it would be important in my motion to mention some of the details that may perhaps not be mentioned in the bill itself. Naturally, the motion before the House of Commons refers to matters within the
jurisdiction of the House of Commons and that is defined in the bill. In the motion it does not say exactly "the federal government jurisdiction". But I think that we should take it to mean that because, in fact, how can we do more than deal within federal jurisdiction.
If we want a further reference to that, my Bill C-458, presented in 1949, states that intention very clearly. On page 3 of the original Bill C-458, it defines specifically what is the jurisdiction. It states that the jurisdiction applies to undertakings carried out by or on behalf of the Government of Canada, by or on behalf of any Crown corporation, by or on behalf of any Crown agency, by any person when the undertaking is supported by whole or in part through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other form of assistance from the Government of Canada, by any person when the undertaking has been approved in principle for which funding has been approved before this Act is proclaimed in force but where no construction has begun, and within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada.
While the motion may not specifically define it, one of my purposes today is to give that definition, at least as I understand it in relationship to my bill, and that is referring, of course, to federal authority.
Section 3.(l)(a) of the bill further outlines what should be included in an impact assessment and concludes that such an assessmen t should include a summary that could be understood by the ordinary, reasonable person for public notice and for hearings as well as time limits for decision.
I believe that all of these factors would be important because if there is going to be a public hearing process, certainly any environmental impact assessment will have to be readily understood by a reasonable man, and in the hearings we would like to see time limits for a decision because too many times we have legislation that is created in the environmental field that seems to be designed more to throw sand in the gears then to accomplish a very direct purpose.
Therefore, any legislation, if brought in, should have those kinds of time lines. Of course, it will require compliance and compliance means that a fine that is appropriate to ensure that compliance should be included as well.

How can I say it is now time for such compulsory environmental impact assessment? One only has to look to the government's own view. In the Speech from the Throne in April the government made the concept of sustainable development one of its commitments.
Another example is the new direction in thinking signalled by the Prime Minister's decision to establish a new committee of cabinet, chaired by my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, the purpose of which is to put environmental concerns at the heart of government activity and all government decision.
Of course, this government has taken other action. The accelerated attack on air pollution by further restricting vehicle emissions is notable. The Montreal Protocol aimed at reducing ozone and depleting CFCs is another. The reduction of sulphuric acid rain causing emissions produced here in Canada is another positive step. But all of these things have one thing in common. They are designed to be corrective. They are designed to correct mistakes that perhaps would not have been made if in the development process we had considered in advance the environmental impact. It would have been much cheaper and much safer. Our environment would not be experiencing the damage we are experiencing today if it had been before-the-fact as this now suggests.
There is no doubt that the Canadian people want action on the environment. They want sustainable development, but what does sustainable development mean except a series of rhetoric and words unless we put the legislation behind it to give it meaning and substance and impact.
I feel the fact that this motion calling for this impact assessment is a motion coming out of a Private Members' Bill can be quite a tribute to the House of Commons. If a Member of Parliament, a private member, can bring forth a substantial idea and over time the government can take that idea and expand it into its own, it makes Parliament itself a very worth-while place to be and to participate in.
I will have an opportunity to speak about this again in closing the debate. I have spoken about it for over 10 years in this House of Commons. I congratulate the government for its intention. I look forward to the legislation. I look forward to the support of all Members
Private Members' Business
of the House of Commons to state clearly to the people of Canada, through their vote in favour of this motion, that we will support the principle of compulsory environmental impact assessment for Canada through legislation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the speaker for bringing forward a bill which should be a hallmark of all government environmental legislation. The member has, in his work on the environment committee, as well as his specific work with the Western Canada Wilderness Committee in relation to Carmanah, shown himself to rise above the petty fray of partisan politics in dealing with this issue. It is something that Canadians appreciate, and I know his constituents appreciate it as well.
It is particularly appropriate that this private Members' initiative comes out on a day when there is a revolt in the ranks of the government as it relates to potential environmental issues , namely, the revolt about VIA Rail. The government's cut-back attempt has been back-tracked. A member is shaking his head on the other side, not the member who introduced the motion, but another member saying where is the connection. I think that is the very point of the private members' bill we are discussing now. That is, to every action there is a reaction. It has reached that point. This was recently underlined in a survey published by Southam News in considering Canadians' violent reaction to our government's lack of action in the area of the environment.
VIA Rail is one area where government policy will have a direct negative impact on the environment. Train travel is the most pollution free on a per capita basis and the most effective mode of moving from point A to point B. I found it particularly shocking to learn last night, as we did in the environment committee, that there has been no environmental involvement in the decision to cut VIA Rail. The motion put forward today was actually introduced in a prescient fashion by the member on May 31, 1989. The motion states:
That in the opinion of this House the government should consider introducing legislation to fully protect the Canadian environment through institution of mandatory environmental impact assessment procedures which would allow for assessments, prior to the construction of installations, public or private, of projects which may be potentially damaging to the environment.

October 3, 1989
Private Members' Business
That particular motion speaks of the need to review all government policies. I only have to refer back to the words of the Prime Minister himself during the election campaign when he said in a commitment to the people of Canada that every decision of this government would involve an economic analysis and an environmental analysis. He said, for anyone who cares to read his words during the election campaign, that the importance of environmental assessment would be equal to that of economic assessment. Here is the first time his train has been derailed on the VIA Rail question.
Here we have a situation where clearly there are economic considerations which have been expanded upon ad nauseam in the House of Commons. One might argue that the Minister of Transport does not blink an eye at spending millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money on an ongoing basis to subsidize air travel. That is a commonly accepted practice perhaps in part because most Members of Parliament tend to travel by air and we like to get out of clogged airports.
The same economic arguments that the minister is using to kill VIA Rail have not been balanced off by the kind of environmental arguments that should follow any kind of environmental assessment. In the particular motion we are discussing here, it would necessitate a full federal environmental impact assessment before a travesty like the Rafferty-Alameda dam, before a potential movement in the area of parks construction such as Sunshine, before the Old Man Dam, and before the eight pulp and paper mills that are being proposed for northern Alberta.
As I read the motion of the hon. member, it would permit assessments of private and public projects which may prove potentially damaging to the environment, so I am assuming he would include Carmanah. Even though the timber rights in Carmanah are of specific provincial jurisdiction there is a national interest involved. I visited it myself with my daughter and walked into the valley and had a wonderful experience. I saw more of British Columbia and more of our Canada in nine days than I had seen in a lifetime. Having gone into Carmanah, having seen the valley and understanding the topography, I could not believe that the decision on whether or not to log the hillsides of Carmanah was going to be made on the basis of a study that was conducted by the company.
Canadians want companies and governments to take a step back and be prepared to subject projects to the most rigorous independent examination. In a similar fashion-

Similarly, if we look at Phase II of the James Bay Project, Hydro-Quebec should have done an environmental impact analysis to see whether there had been any environmental problems during Phase I. However, we may be sure that if the onus is on the company to do the study, it will not be done objectively, so that Canadians can trust the results of the study, and this also applies to the Carmanah study being done by MacMil-lan-Bloedel. Canadians won't trust a study by Hydro-Quebec on the impact of James Bay on the environment. Why didn't the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) have the courage to say: I'm the Minister of the Environment and I'm going to ask for an objective analysis, in addition to the one by Hydro-Quebec, an analysis that will not involve anyone with a vested interest in Phase II. The way the Minister reacts to these challenges -What does he do? He says: It is up to the company to decide. It is up to the Minister of Transport to decide whether he wants to do an environmental impact analysis with respect to VIA Rail.

That is one of the reasons why this particular motion is really necessary for the government to proceed to restore the confidence of the people in our leadership, and to restore the confidence of the people in particular in environmental questions.
I actually sat at the table, when I was travelling through British Columbia, with some people in the forestry industry who told me the reason that the Japanese are so effective at utilizing all their resources is that they are very disciplined and are prepared to recycle while Canadians are not.
That was stated to me by somebody who was responding to my suggestion as to why we are not seeing companies get into the recycled paper business in a much greater fashion. It is because Canadians want that type of product to be available. His response was, "Well, we are not disciplined. We will not recycle." I beg to differ with him.
October 3, 1989

Canadians are far ahead of the politicians on these matters. What they do want is independent environmental assessments. They want the government to have the tools to step in where a private project clashes with the public interest. They want to make sure that the environmental assessments being conducted are not being carried out by people who have their own partisan economic interest at heart, but rather carried out by somebody who can step away from a moment and look upon them in an entirely objective fashion.
That could be achieved by adopting this particular motion. What we should be doing as a House is wholeheartedly supporting this motion and giving the member every support that we can to ensure that it gets the full support on all sides of the House in order that we can move.
I would suggest that there is a first area where we could utilize this motion, with possibly some amendments. I know under the current private members' discussion that might not be allowed. But if we had a proper reference to committee, and we moved into committee immediately, we could be dealing with some amendments, so that we could deal not only with construction of installations, public and private projects, but also with destruction of installations, public and private projects. In that way we could also capture the essence of the VIA Rail question in this particular motion.
I congratulate the member for bringing it forward. I congratulate his colleagues who jumped ship, or derailed the government's initiative on VIA Rail by agreeing to have public hearings, because I think you are going to see the environmental aspects of the VIA Rail question explored in much greater detail in the pubic hearing mechanism which is now being allowed by the majority vote of the Transport Committee.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I would like to join with my colleague from the Liberal Party in supporting this motion. I would like to support this motion, but I would like to point out to the House that it does nothing really to advance the debate, the big debate in Canada, that is about environmental protection and sustainable development.
Private Members' Business
I would also like to remind the House that the member for Fraser Valley West, the mover of this motion, has been a member of Parliament for many years and has been a member of this government since it took office in 1984.
People are increasingly frustrated with the combination of nice talk and no action from this government. So, as I said earlier, while I support the motion, I do so with some degree of cynicism. It is my hope that this motion is not just another example of empty words being piled on empty words. In the crisis which confronts us we need far more than words. We need action. I pose the question: what is worse than nice words and no action? Let me answer that. It is nice words and wrong action, which we are seeing increasingly from this government.
The Minister of the Environment promised that there would be environmental assessment on all megaprojects. Where does the Rafferty-Alameda project fit in with that? It is incumbent upon this government to reaffirm its commitment to that process or to come up with a new one. I listened to the member for Fraser Valley West reading in the letter from the Minister of the Environment that there was a process coming. Well we look forward to that, because so far we are getting a lot of words and no action.
A beginning to this whole debate about what constitutes a megaproject should be the definition of a megaproject. The record shows that at present the application of EARP is very limited. Any financial, military, agricultural or forestry decision should be subject to environmental assessment. The GST, for example, should be considered a megaproject and subject to environmental assessment. As it stands, it is environmentally unfriendly. Bicycles are taxed at the same rate as cars. Gasoline and fuel are taxed at the same rate as solar cells. So when we talk about sustainable development, environmental assessment and megaprojects, we have to think about more than just dams and oil wells. We have to think of the big things like the tax system.
In the House yesterday my colleague from Skeena in a question to the Minister of the Environment managed to extract from the minister the admission and I quote "that on budgeting, in particular does not fit in at all with the already existing mechanisms". I put to the House that we have to rethink what is meant by the word "megaproject".

October 3, 1989
Private Members' Business
My colleague from the Liberal Party also pointed out the kind of contradictions that are implicit with the decisions made by this government around VIA. The dismantling of passenger rail service in this country is a major problem. I give you an example. There is a lobby pushing right now for a $17 billion overhaul of the Trans-Canada Highway.
Airlines are asking for deregulation, and VIA is being shunted out. Rail transportation, as has been demonstrated in Europe, is the most environmentally appropriate means of moving big quantities of people. We have to take all the environmental costs into account. When we are talking about subsidies and the government's linear thinking on what constitutes a subsidy, we have to consider what are the real environmental costs of the dismantling of VIA Rail.
In order to advance the debate, I would like to put to the House an idea put to me by my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley. It is the idea of an environmental gazette. I know the government now has many documents such as those which are let for contracts so that businesses may see what was coming up and have an opportunity to bid.
The same goes for regulatory reform, with a document produced by the government so that people who are interested in such things can see what is planned by the government and to assess how they can take part.
An environmental gazette follows on from that idea. It puts it back into the public process so that people can understand all federal projects or provincial projects and, as the motion states, even private projects which have to be assessed. They would be in this gazette and the project, with a rating of what the problems or lack of problems might be, would be assessed for the public record.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to put that forth in an honest attempt to try to advance the debate. As I said, I and my party support the motion, but we feel increasingly frustrated that there is lack of action in this area.


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, I must admit that I did not expect this debate to be about VIA Rail. I think VIA Rail is taking up a lot of time in the House and I also think we should focus more on the motion itself and on considerations that are more pertinent to the motion presented today by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley-West (Mr. Wenman).
I would like to start by congratulating the Hon. Member on a motion that is in the national interest, and of course the environment is a priority for Canadians and this Government. However, I must inform the Hon. Member that quite honestly, I have some reservations about his motion because although it is practically a motherhood issue, the motion does give rise to several problems and I am sure the Hon. Member will agree.
First of all, I suppose it helps to represent a region like Abitibi-Temiscamingue or Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean or the Gaspe to realize what a severe impact reckless industrial development during the past decades has had on those regions. A short visit to Abitibi-Temiscamingue is enough to see to what extent industrial development has affected our environment. Thousands of lakes are contaminated, the air we breath is polluted, the ground we walk on is contaminated, all as a result of 50 years of uncontrolled industrial development. In a region like mine that is entirely dependent on our sawmills and our mining industry, I hardly need to describe what our ecology is like today, and that is why a motion like the one before the House is certainly a step in the right direction.
In 1987, we had the Brundtland Report which introduced the concept of sustainable development, broadly endorsed by Canada and our Government.
The Hon. Member's motion is certainly in line with this goal of providing for sustainable development.
The motion before the House today reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider introducing legislation to fully protect the Canadian environment through the institution of mandatory environmental impact assessment procedures which would allow for assessments, prior to the construction of installations, public or private, of projects which may prove to be potentially damaging to the environment.

Madam Speaker, this is an important motion which deserves consideration.
As for setting up an assessment process, we know the Government will shortly be tabling legislation to strengthen the present assessment process which has become obsolete. The forthcoming legislation is the result of wide-ranging consultations that took place in this country between November 1987 and March 1988, during which the Government consulted with the provinces, the territories and numerous experts.
We can therefore expect the new legislation on the assessment process to ensure consideration of environmental impact phenomena when building public or private infrastructures.
Madam Speaker, several provinces, including the province of Quebec, have already passed similar legislation. The Quebec legislation on the environmental assessment process goes back to 1972 and was amended in 1978. Changes were made in the housekeeping provisions for preparing and reviewing impact studies where the Government is involved in issuing permits for projects that are subject to the new process.
Provision has been made for the public to be able to express its concerns to the Department of the Environment with respect to these projects.
The process must be administered in accordance with regulations established by the Government. The latter may exempt a project and issue a permit in order to repair or prevent damage caused by a real or apprehended disaster.
Under this legislation, environment means water, air and land or any combination of one or the other or, generally speaking, the interacting natural systems, including living organisms. But Quebec went quite a bit further, because the regulations on environmental impact assessment and review broaden this definition to include fauna, flora, human communities, cultural, archeological and historical heritage, agricultural resources and the use made of the surrounding resources.
Under the law, the Deputy Minister of the Environment or the Government may issue the authorization certificate.
The technical services of the Quebec Department of the Environment check to see whether the project will be authorized by the Deputy Minister or subject to the
Private Members' Business
environmental assessment and review process. In the latter case, they prepare a guideline for the impact study to be carried out, in consultation with the developer and the other departments concerned.
Later, they have the Environment Department review the impact study and make recommendations concerning the environmental acceptability of the project and the appropriate control and follow-up. Once all that is done, they supervise the implementation of the conditions contained in the decree or authorization certificate.
The Environmental Public Hearings Board is responsible for helping the public review the application. It holds public hearings on the project at the Environment Minister's request and writes a report on the public's concerns for the Minister.
Every citizen is entitled to a healthy environment and to environmental protection, and in accordance with the amendments made to the Act in 1978, may take legal action against a developer if the law is not obeyed.
So I think that the Quebec law might assist the federal Government with the legislation it is preparing to present on the assessment process.
I was just saying that I had reservations about the Member's motion as regards legislation on private installations. I think that the Hon. Member will agree with me that legislating on private installations is impossible without federal-provincial agreements, because private installations often fall under provincial or municipal jurisdiction and federal-provincial coordination would be required in order to legislate.
Our Government is not a dictatorship and we do not impose our views on all the provinces. We will therefore have to cooperate with them in order to come up with satisfactory legislation.
The Hon. Member in his speech referred to the Government's environmental achievements. I think that since 1984, we have made great strides in terms of the environment. I was just saying that because we have inherited 50 years of uncontrolled industrial development, we face a big challenge today.
One of our Government's major achievements was to pass an environment bill last summer which provides very heavy penalties and fines for those in the private sector who continue to pollute our environment.

Private Members' Business
I think that, first off, imposing heavy penalties and fines- Some industries and companies have already been taken to court under this law. What the people are telling us is that they expect governments to apply existing legislation firmly. I think that the present law provides penalties and fines that will keep industry in line.
So, Madam Speaker, you are signaling me that my time is up. I just want to thank the Hon. Member for giving us the opportunity to debate such an important subject. If his intention was to make the Government aware of the importance of having assessment processes, the message was received loud and clear and the Government will certainly take it into consideration.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the member for Freezer Valley West is to be congratulated on his fine initiative. It gives us an opportunity, as the member from Temiscamingue just said, to focus on this very important issue and the absence of an important policy instrument on the part of the federal government. It also helps us to remind the government of a promise made during the 1984 election that there would be a legislated environmental assessment and a review process. I am sure that his initiative today will help in prodding the government to find the political courage and the necessary will to deliver at last on this front.
I am intrigued by the intervention of the member for Temiscamingue when he says yes to the public works and the assessment from an environmental point of view on public initiatives but no when it comes to private works or public endeavours. It may be that the member for Temiscamingue will want to review his attitude in the light of what an environmental assessment is all about.
An assessment and review process from an environmental point of view means to find out ways and means to protect and possibly save native lifestyles, wetlands, wildlife, fisheries, rivers, lakes, trees. It means making a choice between modes of transportation, as we are presently debating, between railway versus highway transportation and the like.
Therefore, the division that the member for Temiscamingue makes between the private and public sector is really an artificial one because if you are interested in the environment, not only in its protection but also in making the development sustainable from and environmental point of view, then of course you cannot make that distinction. It becomes an artificial line and, therefore, you would also want to assess a measure not only when Canadian National wants to widen its tracks or build a bridge or over some salmon fishery, but also when it comes to the building of a pulp and paper mill. You would not only want to analyse a gas pipeline built with public funds, but also when it comes to the construction of a new foundry or a new smelter.
In other words, you have to decide which is your perspective. You cannot argue for an environmental review when it is a public initiative, but not when it is private. You may want to argue whether it is a provincial or federal issue, that is only fair. You may want to make sure that when it is provincial it is as good as the federal one, or when it is a federal that it is as good as the provincial one. Sometimes you may want to watch the standards that the two apply. Be it the construction of a tunnel, a bridge, a dam, a railway track or highways, as well as any new venture in the private sector, you would want to approach the matter with the question: "How can I ensure the protection of the environment"? In some cases, if there is a conflict in the long term, you should determine what are the alternatives to this project.
What has catapulted this whole question of reviewing and assessing a project from an environmental point of view has been the decision by Judge Cullen a few months ago. We decided that a cabinet decision which dates back to early 1984 under the Liberal regime was a decision that had to be interpreted as being not voluntary, but mandatory. It is that decision which has really given new momentum to this whole question and importance of environmental assessment.
The member for Fraser Valley West has shown over the years consistent and persistent effort and attitude and somehow is reaping the benefit of history working in his favour. In that sense he has demonstrated that he is a very fine Parliamentarian.
On the other side of the House, as you have heard, there is full support for his measure. We believe that the

legislation that is to come down soon, hopefully, should as a minimum include in addition to legislative authority a mandatory process for each federal project and also for policies and programs. It will be difficult, but if we mean business and mean what we say by embracing the notion of sustainable development, it is very crucial.
We would also urge, as a minimum, assessments for environmental impacts and for environmental sustainability of a proposed project. We would urge, as a minimum, a provision whereby a project can only proceed when the environmental assessment is published and publicly reviewed and not afterward, as it has sometimes happened in the past. Before a decision is made to proceed, the assessment not only has to be made known, but be published and a public review possibly take place within 90 days of the publication of the assessment. I am sure that the Member for Fraser Valley West has thought about this component as well. It would also be desirable in the new legislation to have a mandatory debate in this parliament for major projects. It would be difficult in legislative terms to define what is a major project. It will take some ingenuity but that can be resolved I am sure in order to ensure that the parliamentarians of the day, particularly when it comes to a pipeline or a proposed tanker route, will have an opportunity to express their views and give governments an indication as to where the majority of parliamentarians stand on that particular proposal.
Finally, it is essential that in the legislation that is expected that there be included a program for the funding of intervenors. People who may be living in the remote parts of the country may want to speak, for instance, about a proposed dam in northern Alberta, a proposed pipeline in the Northwest Territories. In order to be heard, there is the necessity for them to travel and therefore to be funded.
If you think about environmental assessment and what is really behind this very heavy phraseology and what this review process is all about, in essence it is an assessment as to the impact in the long term, the economic and environmental impact in the long term, which come together usually if they are approached with the long term in mind. It would be the economic impact on native communities when something is being planned from
Private Members' Business
outside those communities. It could be the impact on certain non-quantifiable things such as the beauty of a landscape or, if you like, the quality of life or of wildlife itself. Therefore what we are talking about here is not an abstract notion but a very real one which may not be easily quantified in practicable terms but which must be done if we really mean what we say about sustainable development.


Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, I welcome the motion of the member for Fraser Valley West.
First, I would like to congratulate him. As some of us will recall, he had the foresight a decade ago to recognize the need for comprehensive federal environmental assessment legislation and introduced his Private Members' Bill, the environmental impact assessment bill.
The member's motion is indeed timely because the government will introduce, this session, its proposed environmental assessment bill. It will require an impact assessment of all proposals for which the federal government has decision-making responsibility, but will respect areas of provincial jurisdiction.
As we know, there has long been a need for legislation that provides for sound environmental management and planning. We can no longer afford to be simply reactive to environmental matters. We must consider environmental aspects when planning every federal proposal. The public has expressed its rising concern over the last decade. Citizens from all walks of life recognize that neglecting the environment threatens them individually as well as casting an ominous shadow over the future of the entire human race.
Canadians have spoken out in various ways, through demands to their elected officials, through participation in environmental groups and through a constant expression of concern in public opinion polls. Our business community is investing in environmentally improved methods. Canadian scientists are also cautioning us of the mounting threat to our way of life and ultimately to our survival.
As is known since it was first elected in 1984, this government has acted with purpose and direction. It passed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, created a special committee of cabinet and will soon put forward a comprehensive environmental assessment bill.

Adjournment Debate
The government has recognized that our environment is under threat. Many species of Canadian plant and animal life are in danger. Our forests must be systematically replaced after cutting. Our farmlands must be guarded against overuse and misuse, as well as urban sprawl. Our lakes must be protected against acid rain. Our communities must have environmentally sound sewage facilities. The mountains of household waste we generate daily must be disposed of in a manner that causes minimal harm to our environment. Toxic substances must be contained, managed, and disposed of in a safe way.
The challenge is great here at home, but both our federal and provincial governments are rising to this challenge. They are developing a broad system of environmental legislation, regulations and policies.
I would like to move from the general to the specific with a few real examples and some thoughts on their implication. Fifteen million acres of productive land around the world are converted into worthless desert every year. In Canada alone we lose 26 acres of productive farmland every hour to urban sprawl. More than 27 million acres of forest land throughout the world are destroyed every year. In over three decades that is an area equivalent to Canada's entire land mass east of the Manitoba-Ontario border.
The implications are increasingly known. These forests are the lungs of the planet. They are the major regulators of oxygen balance in the atmosphere and exert an important control on global precipitation and moisture exchange. Both on land and in the oceans the largest and most complex species of plants and animals, the highest products of evolution, are facing extinction. The giant redwoods and sequoias of America, the Canadian grizzly bear and the whooping crane, the condor of the Andes, the elephant and the rhino, the blue whale, the giant panda of China, are all seriously threatened.
I have commented on the abuse of our land and water. I would like now to turn to the use of the air we need to breathe in order to live. In the words of the International Conference on the Changing Atmosphere, humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, global pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war.
We of the so-called developed world like our mobile and air conditioned creature comforts. We bum gasoline and we use fertilizers and what we reap is carbon dioxide and methane. These accumulate in the atmosphere and trap solar energy reflected from the earth. The result is an increase in surface temperature. What you have heard is referred to as the "greenhouse effect".
Scientists predict an average global warming of about 4 degrees Fahrenheit within the next 45 years. That may not sound like much when local temperatures typically change 20 degrees from day to day, but a global change of 4 degrees within such a short time will alter precipitation patterns and vegetation zones throughout the world with potentially disastrous consequences in some regions.
Global warming will cause world sea levels to rise as the heated oceans expand and glaciers and ice caps melt. The rise in the next 45 years is expected to be about five feet. It will, for example, place permanently under water lands currently home to 25 million to 40 million people. Low-lying cities such as Charlottetown and Saint John could be inundated. Prince Edward Island could be divided into three or four islands and maybe eventually disappear under water.
Still, more ominous is the growing threat to stratospheric ozone, that thin blanket of gases around the earth that protects the human race and other life forms.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, it has now been four months since I rose in the House and asked the Prime Minister to do something about the fact that the province of Quebec is the second poorest province in Confederation. On June 15, the Canadian Council on Social Development announced that a quarter of Quebec families lived below the poverty line. Madam Speaker, that is a total of 615,000 households or two and a half times the population of Laval.
Since its investiture, this Government has tried to project the image of responsible management. It tried to convince Canadians that it was the best administrator of Canada's economy.
If we refer to the data submitted by the Council last spring, we see that this Government's economic policies are not the answer to the needs of Quebec and Canada.
Since the Tories came to power, they have constantly added to the load carried by low-income Canadians. The Government has withdrawn from unemployment insurance, leaving this fundamental social program in the hands of business and labour. It has introduced a 9 per cent tax on goods and services, which will have a devastating effect on families living below the poverty line and on families living in this country's remote areas.
This Government's policies have widened the gap between rich and poor in Canada. While there are plenty of opportunities for those who are well off, the future for Canadians at the bottom of the scale is far from rosy.
I am sure the Minister will answer that this Government has created more than 300,000 jobs in Quebec since it came to power in September 1984. Madam Speaker, we are not only concerned with quantity but also with the quality of those jobs. The Government must realize that the kind of job a person has is very important. That we continue to have working poor in Canada is shameful and must stop.
Madam Speaker, 29 per cent of Canadian families living below the poverty line have at least one member who is employed the year round. How can this Government be so confident about its economic agenda when the ranks of the working poor are swelling every day? Can you imagine what the statistics look like when we consider the number of families that depend exclusively, on seasonal employment? Does this Government realize what impact its unemployment insurance and fiscal policies will have on the poorest regions of this country?
Adjournment Debate
Madam Speaker, Canadians are sick and tired of hearing the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance hold forth about the number of jobs that have been created and how wealthy they have made this country, while one-third of our poor families have one member working full-time. People are sick and tired of the disappointments and problems they have to live with under this Government.
The fact is that this Government does not invest in the future of this country. It has cut transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education, for instance. Instead of giving Canada's youth the skills it needs to be competitive on world markets, the Government has decided to invest unemployment insurance funds in tenuous training programs. Basically, Madam Speaker, this Government would prefer to invest in retaining the low-income status of many of its citizens instead of giving them the education they need to become independent and prosperous.
As concerned citizens, we must demand that this Government be fair and equitable. This Government has been anything but that. In the first place, the Conservatives signed the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. They promised to provide the best possible programs to help displaced workers escape the poverty trap. Unfortunately, when the effects of the Agreement became obvious throughout the country, the Conservatives decided that there was no longer a real need for substantial programs.
The Government then decided to withdraw from unemployment insurance. It is obvious that the Prime Minister thought that it was wise for the federal Government to withdraw from an important social program before his dear friends to the south defined it as a subsidy. This polity will take food from people's mouths and invest in training programs that will just put people in routine, dead-end jobs, without breaking the poverty cycle.
To top it all off, Madam Speaker, we have the new goods and services tax. The Minister of Finance said that it would be revenue neutral. He has since changed his mind and decided that it would be a way to reduce the deficit. With this new source of revenue, the Government will squeeze $5 billion more from the Canadian people. Some Hon. Members on the Government side have themselves spoken against this Conservative attack on low-and middle-income people.

Adjournment Debate
Is the Government perhaps trying to mislead Canadians by telling them the tax will be 9 per cent, knowing very well that they intend to introduce a 5 per cent tax which would be accepted as a lesser evil?
In essence, Madam Speaker, my question is about fairness and equity. How can the Government be so sure of its economic performance, when its performance with people is so different? Why are so many workers in Quebec in poverty? How come my province has become the second poorest in the country? More than 50 Conservative Members (from Quebec) sit on the other side of the House, but what good has it done the province? My question is and remains: What does the Prime Minister intend to do to end the widening gap between rich and poor and how will he stop Quebec from having the highest rate of poor families in Canada?


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I wish to respond in greater detail to a question of June 15 by the Hon. Member for Saint-Laurent.
The question dealt with the government's position on poverty. The best social program is a job, not just any job but a secure and rewarding one. A good job is also the surest ladder out of poverty.
The measures this government is proposing as part of the Labour Force Development Strategy will provide all Canadians, men and women, with the opportunity to acquire skills necessary to get a job and to climb out of poverty. Thousands of women have already benefited from the programs offered under the Canadian Jobs Strategy introduced by this government in September, 1985.
During 1987-88 more than 160,000 women, youths and disadvantaged workers participated in programs under the Job Entry Component of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The increased emphasis on active spending under the Labour Force Development Strategy will further benefit women by providing them with the opportunity to acquire skills necessary to get a good job.
As part of the Labour Force Development Strategy, we are significantly increasing social assistance recipient programming. With the co-operation and participation of the provinces, up to $200 million, an increase of 33 1/3 per cent, will be available for additional programming directed at improving the employability of social assistance recipients.
This additional $200 million is targeted specifically at those who fall below the poverty line. This money will enable these people to undertake training and skill enhancement necessary to break the cycle of poverty. The new programs we are introducing will allow these people to trade their welfare cheques for a pay cheque.
The increased funding for social assistance recipient programming is significant. That is not all we are doing as part of the Labour Force Development Strategy.
UI coverage will be expanded to workers who choose voluntarily to remain in the labour force beyond age 65. This will substantially enhance the income security availability to seniors.
I emphasize, Madam Speaker, that the changes we are making in the unemployment insurance program are modest in scope. Claimants who need UI benefits will continue to get them. Provincial welfare rolls will not increase significantly because of these changes.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ACT-IMPACT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ON EMPLOYED
Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, I am asking about a response which I considered to be inadequate some time ago from the minister's office. My accusation in the question was that the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, Bill C-21, fell so far short of what was needed by Canadians as to be something which ought to be withdrawn and would receive very little support not only from the New Democratic Party but from people all across the country.
The response, as is usually the case, did not address the question at all but referred to how much training was going to be done, how those who were unemployed were going to benefit so much from the expanded jobs under CJS and how, in some cases, even people who are on social assistance would be receiving so much benefit because of the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, Bill C-21.
October 3, 1989

Many of the things referred to by the minister had nothing to do with Bill C-21 which I was addressing specifically. When you talk about the social assistance programs as they are referred to under the unemployment provisions, it does not have anything to do with Bill C-21 other than the source of funding which we will come to in a minute. When they talk about entry and re-entry into the labour force, it does not have anything to do with Bill C-21 because people who are entering and re-entering the labour force after a long period of time would not have any way of accessing the unemployment insurance fund which is what Bill C-21 is about. References to human resource development, which is a rather amorphous term and I assume includes all the foregoing, again has nothing to do with Bill C-21.
Bill C-21 has to do with what has been referred to as the gutting of the unemployment insurance program as it has been known in Canada. It has to do with what has been referred to in parts of Canada as the implementation of a social stock prod that was introduced by the government, substantiated by government members during the travelling of the committee subsequent to the summer recess, on the basis that there was a tremendous amount of abuse of the system as it was presently constituted. This is in spite of the fact that time and time again the minister herself said "No, there is not much abuse, abuse is minimal, this is not why we are putting it in. We are putting it in to improve training so people will be able to access all these wonderful jobs that are available in the community".
Since the exchange in the House, a committee of the House has travelled and almost overwhelmingly the response of the Canadian people has been what we anticipated it to be. That is an almost total rejection of the government's scheme. The extra funds that are being made available for all these wonderful social programs which I referred to a moment ago are going to come from the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is the substance of Bill C-21, and the saving in funds which the government is going to spend elsewhere comes from increased periods of time in which people are going to have to work in order to qualify for unemployment insurance.
Adjournment Debate
I know I do not have a lot of time but I think it is helpful to talk about some of the people who are going to be most direly affected by these changes. When we talk about people who are going to have difficulty qualifying, we are talking about people on the margins of society, for the most part women. Certainly included in that or perhaps in addition to that are single parent mothers whose children are going to suffer enormously because of those longer qualifying periods. As a matter of fact, studies have shown that over 150,000 Canadians will be excluded altogether from these benefits.
I know my time is getting very, very short. I just cannot accept the minister's answers. These changes are brutal, a total distortion of unemployment insurance, and I guess the best way of describing it is that the government is using these changes as a social stock prod and it is inexcusable.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I want to respond in greater detail to a question of June 15, 1989, by the Member for Saskatoon-Dundum. The question dealt with changes we are making in the unemployment insurance program.
The hon. member wanted to know about the changes in the unemployment insurance program. The changes we are proposing in the UI program form part of a wider effort this government has taken to ensure that the Canadian labour force is ready for the challenges of the 1990s. These challenges include an increasingly competitive world and trading environment, a diminishing reliance on traditional industries, a rapid growth in the service sector and more sophisticated technology. These are formidable challenges.
If we are to meet these challenges and prosper in the increasingly competitive world environment, we must rely on the skills and resourcefulness of the Canadian people. Labour force development strategy represents a comprehensive approach at equipping Canadians workers with the skills necessary to prepare for these challenges. The government intends to stimulate the commitment of employers and workers to skill excellence through programs that promote and reinforce private sector training. This will strengthen the competitiveness of the Canadian industry.

Adjournment Debate
We will be spending an additional $350 million on training under Section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. This represents a doubling of the current allocation for training under the UI program, thereby giving 60,000 more UI claimants the skills necessary for re-employment.
In addition, we will be undertaking a major reorientation of the national employment service to offer additional help to the unemployed in finding jobs. We will be earmarking $100 million to assist the displaced workers who are experiencing difficulties in finding other jobs.
Self-employment and entrepreneurship programs in other countries have shown promise as elements in the active program strategies to encourage self-sufficiency. In light of this, the government is committing $50 million to allow unemployment insurance claimants with viable business plans to capitalize their UI benefits to partially defray business start-up cost.
We are revising the current program regime of sickness and maternity benefits. The changes we are making in this area represent a breakthrough for Canadian social policy. Our proposals for change will enhance the protection that is currently available by making the receipt of these benefits more flexible and by providing 10 weeks of parental benefits.
We are extending UI coverage to workers age 65 or over. This will substantially increase the income security available to these workers.
Last, Madam Speaker, we will amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to eliminate restrictions on access to benefits during labour disputes.
TRANSPORT-SUBSIDIES TO VIA RAIL/CUTS TO VIA RAIL/ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF RAIL TRANSIT


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight as part of the adjournment debate to talk a bit more about VTA Rail.
I want to say at the outset that we have all been waiting for the other shoe to drop. We have had the leaks, we have had the first shoe, but now it would appear that the government is busy changing shoes. The parliamentary assistant is looking at me with a queried look on his face.
What they are doing is rewriting the report right at this minute. They are taking routes that the leaked document said were going to be cut and, lo and behold, they are being saved. On the other hand, they are taking routes and services that supposedly were saved in the leaked documents and now they are going to be cut. What a way to run, or should I say ruin, a railroad.
What does this action of rewriting reports at the last minute just to protect the political backside of the Minister of Transport say about this government's ability to make decisions? It should not matter if the contents of the documents leak out. If they have been thoughtfully done, if the analysis has been done, if the environmental assessment has been done, if everything has been checked and double checked, then they should not worry about having to rewrite the document.
They should be able to stand the tests. They should be able to withstand the test of the opposition. They should be able to withstand the test of the government backbenchers on the transport committee who will review whatever documents are produced, and they should be able to withstand the test of the people of Canada if they have been arrived at after the appropriate deliberation and analysis.
But I ask you, Madam Speaker, does this suggest that they are now writing an environmental assessment report so that the appropriate documents can be included with the package whenever it is released tomorrow or Thursday, or are they just rewriting the environmental assessment that they have done, if they have done one? There is no clear indication whatsoever that such a document has been produced or even considered.
This is not the way for any government to make decisions. This is not the way for a government to determine transportation policy for a country as diverse and as large as Canada. This is not the way to make decisions that have a profound impact on the environment, not just of this country but of this planet. This is certainly not the way to make decisions that will ultimately decimate the regions of this country; Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario, the prairies and British Columbia.
When Canadians learn the specifics, whatever the final result of this rewriting is, whether it is at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning outside the Conservative caucus room or in the press theatre-and I understand that Mr. Lawless and Mr. Hanigan are en route to Ottawa to help participate with the minister in telling Canadians the news-I hope that they do two things.

The first thing I hope they do is call their local Conservative member of Parliament and say very clearly that the transport committee of the House of Commons has wisely decided to hold hearings to review these documents and we think it is extremely important that some of those hearings be held out here where we live, away from Ottawa, so that we can tell you firsthand what we think of your decision so that hopefully we can influence that decision even though it will already be an order in council. Orders in council can be revoked.
The second thing-and this one depends a lot on the first as to how they respond to the request from the people of Canada to be heard-is that I hope they will tell the Conservative members of Parliament that if the VIA cuts are not cancelled, then at the next election the taxpayers will cut the Conservative from office.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to what my hon. friend from across the way had to say about how decisions are made around here. He must be seeing government through a different set of eyes than those I see through from this side of the House.
I can only reiterate what has already been stated repeatedly, both in this House and elsewhere. Many people would have us believe that trains are the most efficient mode of transportation. Energy efficiency depends to a large extent on passenger levels.
In 1980, a study on the energy consumption concluded that buses, not trains, were the most energy efficient mode of transportation based on the energy consumed per passenger mile. Eighty-four per cent of all the intercity travel is by car, and nobody seems to be disputing that figure, 6 per cent is by bus and 3 per cent is by train.
Contrary to all the rhetoric which has been bandied about in recent months, VIA Rail's performance is worsening. It is not improving. My hon. friend is shaking his head no. Let us look at some of the NDP economics.
Adjournment Debate
While 1988 revenues did increase by 13 per cent, on $26 million of revenue, operating costs increased by 15 per cent or $94 million with the result that the government subsidies to VIA for its operation alone had to be increased by $68 million for that year alone. This means that for every additional dollar earned by VIA in 1988, the government has had to disburse an additional $2.62.
We are asking all Canadians to pay this subsidy but only 3 per cent of the travelling public uses this mode of transportation. Continued subsidization of a mode of transportation which costs more and more and quite frankly is not used to the same degree as it was, say, 10 years ago, is not a sound investment in our future, particularly when that investment is being made with the Canadian taxpayers' money. That is why the government announced a new policy approach for VIA and asked the corporation to prepare a new business plan which would reflect its new reference levels.
VIA Rail's corporate plan is currently under consideration. An announcement will be made in due course. We anticipate it will be made within the next few days. The government expects the financial and operational performance of VIA Rail to improve and to function in a more cost effective manner. When money is scarce, it is spent where it is most needed and where it is most likely to produce results.
A cost effective transportation system is essential if Canada is to preserve and to enhance its position in world trade. In order to meet the challenge, we must make the best use of each mode of transportation and a wise use of the Canadian taxpayers' money.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.