1989-10-27

Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the government if it would indicate to us the business of the House for the next few days so that we are not stuck in a predicament that we were last night when no representative of the government was in a position to tell the House what bills were to be debated this morning. That situation makes it very difficult for the House to function.
I would like to ask the government House leader if we are to assume that Monday and Ibesday will be opposition days, and what business he proposes for next Wednesday.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday at three o'clock, we were trying to put together an order of business for today which would meet the convenience of the government and the opposition members so that their critics could be in attendance to speak to bills.
That is the normal course of events for a Friday when we endeavour to clean up pieces of legislation and not commence debate on major pieces. Those discussions were ongoing at the time that I rose yesterday afternoon. They included Bill C-29, the bill to establish the Department of Forestry, and Bill C-16, the bill to establish the Canadian Space Agency. There were also discussions vis-a-vis the bill on the Museums Corporation but they did not come to fruition.
We were successful in determining that the opposition parties were prepared to go ahead with Bill C-29, the bill to establish the Department of Forestry. We decided to
back that up with Bill C-16, the legislation to establish the Canadian Space Agency. We understand that the opposition parties are prepared to go ahead with those, that their spokespersons are in attendance.
In fact, I think the spokesperson for the Liberals, I believe, was pleased that we were going ahead with the forestry bill this week because next week would have been inconvenient for him. I understand that. That is part of the way things work around here. We do not call things on Friday that are deliberately set to inconvenience people. In fact, my colleague for Burnaby- Kingsway and I might have liked to have gone ahead with Bill C-38, the bill to make amendments to the Federal Court Act, but unfortunately the Liberal critic was otherwise occupied on business of the Opposition and could not be here. I understand that. The two of us would have liked to have gone ahead but we decided not to in order-


Mr. Milliken:: What a lot of nonsense.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We did. The member for Kingston and the Islands might have preferred that we go ahead with the Federal Court Act, but I decided to wait until the critic who has spent some time on it was here to discuss it. I mean that sincerely.
The work that is being done in preparation for today's business has been done with the critics. Unfortunately, I was in Montreal last night. I had intended to come back. I understood that the opposition parties would have the horses to carry the debate to one o'clock. Unfortunately, they did not. I arrived here at 11.31 p.m., and the place was closed. Obviously, the vote took place in advance of that. That is the business for today.
Now that the question has been raised about Monday and Ibesday, I am in a position to advise the House that Monday will be an opposition day, as will Ibesday.
The business for Wednesday will await the same procedure that I have just outlined to the House, namely, that we will endeavour to see what critics are available in order to advance business and convenience

October 27, 1989
Business of the House
members. As soon as that is in place which may be later today or Monday, I will advise the House.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the government House leader did not mean to mislead the House. George, is not available today and it was known that he would not be available today. That information, I am advised, was communicated to the minister. There was no consultation on this issue, except for our communicating to the minister, or to whomever was engaged in discussions with our side, that the critic is not here and is not going to be here for some time.
The suggestion that there has been consultation on this issue, that other bills have been deferred and this one put forward or that there was any process of consultation, is simply wrong.
I would ask the government House leader to be prepared to renegotiate the issue. It is a demonstration of the problems that have occurred because of the procedures the government has followed.
I see the government House leader getting himself agitated but I am telling the House that my instructions are that our critic has planned for some time not to be here today. This information was communicated, and he is not here today. As a result, we are not in the position we ought to be. If the government House leader wants to rely on that point for justification of the procedure which he has followed in this case, he is simply out to lunch.
If the minister has different information, I trust he will put it on the record at this stage, because it is very clear that our critic not going to be here.


Mr. Oberle:: Perhaps I could enlighten my hon. friend from Victoria. It is simply not true that there were no consultations. In fact, the committee dealing with Bill C-29 established a timetable which was clearly laid out to all members. We are now three days past the timetable. There was a sense of urgency that the hon. member from Prince George-Bulkley Valley himself introduced in a debate to get this bill done so that the standing committee can get on with its business.
I personally negotiated and consulted with the House Leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday. There was a clear understanding, after consultation with the critic on forestry for the New Democratic Party, that the
bill should go ahead, that the Party would be ready to introduce the amendments.
In fact, the Order Paper shows that the hon. member, Mr. Brewin, would move the amendments that normally the critic would have moved. Obviously, there had to be consultation for the hon. member to be ready to move the amendments which are listed on the Order Paper. There would have had to be consultation for the hon. member's name to appear on the Order Paper. There were consultations and we were told that the NDP was ready as was the Official Opposition to proceed with this item this morning. Certainly, we are ready, and have been for some time.


John F. Brewin: First, motions were put in my name because we heard rumours that the government intended to proceed with this matter, but they were over our objections. There was no consultation, I repeat, on what was going to come today.


Frank Oberle: Phone Nelson Riis.


John F. Brewin: The minister says there was consultation in general terms about the timing. But we were told, and told up until yesterday, that today was going to be a Liberal opposition day. I am sure our colleagues in the Liberal party will confirm that until this changed it was going to be a Liberal opposition day today. So, the minister has it wrong. I hope that we can take a minute, Mr. Speaker, and see if we cannot sort this out. Our clear preference is to proceed with some other item of business today.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to a few of the points raised by the Government House Leader and I want to do it quickly, because I do not want to delay the discussion on this bill.
I have to remind the government House leader that when he said that the normal course was followed, the House leader's staff only consulted with the opposition House leader's staff after the House had adjourned last night. That is not the normal way in which things are done.
In so far as the remarks of the minister to the effect that he wanted to be back here for 1 a.m., because that is when the vote would be-or something to that effect- surely the government House leader knows that is not what the rules call for.

The rules say that 1 a.m. is the maximum time, in other words, the latest time at which the vote can be held, but the vote could very well have been at 6.05 p.m. Because of the vigorous opposition that there was to the bill, the Opposition expressed that it did not want to go along with that particular legislative measure until some time during the evening. Of course, the government House leader fully knows that, I suspect.



PRIVILEGE


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice earlier this morning of my intention to raise a question of privilege on the matter that has been under discussion. I hope you will bear with me, if I am not familiar with the procedures I should follow or the points I should raise.
However, I feel that my most fundamental right and responsibility as a member of Parliament in this House and, therefore, my most fundamental privilege, is to come here and represent the views of my constituents in the business of the nation. I cannot do that if I do not know until I sit in this House the business of the nation before the House for the day. I consider that my privilege, and the privilege of my constituents, to be represented in this House has been violated by the government not advising Parliament of what the business of the House for this day will be. That makes it impossible for me to prepare what I need to present in this House.
One of the bills that might have been up today was a bill of very direct concern to this region and to my constituents. I sat on the legislative committee and it is a bill on which I have amendments before the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is a bill which is not called yet.


Marlene Catterall: It is one of the bills that was potentially on the agenda for today. I would ask for the Speaker's advice on whether or not this is a question of privilege.



SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair thanks the member for her comments. However, the Chair must rule that it is a point of order and not a question of privilege.
Government Orders
The government, by virtue of Standing Order 40(2), decides the government business in such sequence and when. For that reason, I must rule that the point raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West is not a question of privilege.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-29, an act to establish the Department of Forestry, to amend the Forestry Development and Research act and to make related amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are eight motions in amendment to the bill. I have reviewed the motions and I am now ready to make my decision known concerning the selection, grouping, and voting patterns.

Motions nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 standing in the name of the Minister of State for Forestry are in order and will be grouped for debate with the vote on Motion no. 1 applying to Motions nos. 2, 3 and 5.

Motions nos. 4, 6, and 8 standing in the name of the hon. member for Victoria appear to be inserting new elements into the clauses of the bill, which, as the hon. member is aware, is contrary to our parliamentary practice. Therefore, in accordance with Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1), I will not select these motions.

Motion no. 7 is acceptable and will be debated and voted upon separately.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria on a point of order.

October 27, 1989
Government Orders


Mr. Brevvin:: Mr. Speaker, I gather that it is the habit in this House to feel slightly aggrieved sometimes at the rulings of the Chair, but on the other hand, to accept them with as much grace as we can manage to muster.
I do so with respect to your ruling on Motions Nos. 4 and 6. However, with respect to Motion No. 8 I would ask the Chair to take a second look. Motion No. 8 purports to amend clause 6. Clause 6 of the bill provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations for the protection, care and management of lands comprised in forest experimental areas and lands in respect of which the minister has assumed responsibility including regulations respecting: (a) the cutting, removal and disposal of timber and so on; and (b) the protection of the flora and fauna.
The proposed amendment would add (g) the use of pesticides and pest control products, and (h) the preservation of culturally altered trees.
In other words, the first thing to be said is that the enumeration from (a) to proposed (h) merely enunciates and elaborates the general terms of the clause. It does not add anything to the clause. It merely elaborates on the definitions of the clause. There is no additional or new element added by these amendments. It clarifies and explains.
Second, the proposed enumeration includes the protection of flora and fauna. What we propose to add is the use of pesticides and pest control products and the preservation of culturally altered trees which, in turn, relates back to number (a).
I have great difficulty understanding, with due respect, the purport of the ruling. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you would be prepared to take a second look at that. We do have some time because it will not be dealt with immediately. We can proceed with the other motions and you might take a moment if you would on behalf of the House to reconsider this.
The issue, of course, of pesticides and pest control products and culturally altered trees-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the member for his comments. I will have a second look at it, as the member recommends. I will now put Motions nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to the House for debate.


Frank Oberle: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-29 be amended in Clause 2 in the French version by Striking out line 9 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:

" 'developpement durable' Developpement qui".
Motion No. 2
-That Bill C-29 be amended in Clause 6 in the French version by striking out line 21 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"c) s'engage a surveiller et a promouvoir l'elaboration et". Motion No. 3
-That Bill C-29 be amended in Clause 6 in the French version by striking out lines 24 and 25 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"d) tient compte d'un amenagement integre et du developpement durable des".
Motion No. 5
-That Bill C-29 be amended in Clause 7 by striking lines 5 to 8 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) enhance public awareness of the social, economic and environmental benefits derived from Canada's forests".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Forestry.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief in this debate on a bill which from the outset has met with the unanimous consent of all three parties. The purpose of these motions is, after all, to improve the quality of the French in the bill's interpretation. What we wanted to do with our amendments is simply rewrite the bill where necessary, in good French, always bearing in mind the proposal made at the outset by the parties when amendments were proposed, and we made a point of respecting the tenor of the original amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I believe these amendments respect the spirit in which the legislative committee drafted its amendments in committee and the only difference being is that they are drafted in better French, with the help of various dictionaries which enabled us to introduce an acceptable quality of French into the text of the motions. We also had discussions with people in the industry about generally accepted terms like "developpement durable". Since we wanted to reflect the exact meaning
October 27, 1989

of these terms as understood by the industry, we made our changes while always, as I said earlier, respecting the original concept.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I may simply add to what the previous speaker just said that, first of all, it was not nerely a matter of whether the terms used in the bill were legal, it was also a matter of promoting the proper use of French in our proceedings. As the previous speaker said, the amendments had received unanimous consent in committee. They were substantial amendments, and it was extremely important to use the right terms in order to convey a clear message and to ensure it would be clear what the Parliament of Canada intended to do in connection with our forests. I can therefore inform the House that our party will support these technical amendment, without reservations.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this particular clause deals with the language of the bill, particularly the French interpretation.
However, I think we should use this opportunity to recognize that the idea of sustainable development, whether it is expressed properly in English or French, is a key element in this particular bill. We, of course, support the motion, but the idea that sustainable development can be overlooked in any language needs to be commented on.
I live in the northern part of Saskatchewan. In my farming operation there are approximately 200 acres of forest which can be and is harvested on a continuing basis. The sustainability of that kind of industry in rural Canada is very important. Forestry is a rural industry and the people who are involved in forestry consider themselves rural people. Both provincial and federal governments must work toward sustainable development which will allow them to have a continuing livelihood based on that industry.
Government Orders
I recognize that this bill is an attempt to go in that direction and we appreciate that very much.
We recognize also that sustainability must, as far as forestry is concerned, be a major concern not only provincially but federally as well. This bill is a move in that direction.
This issue also needs to be looked at on a world-wide basis. We can contribute much more than we do to the continuation of the forests as a part of the world economy.
I spent several years in Africa in a part of the Sahara Desert where trees were being used for fuel to such an extent that it was getting very difficult to survive in many parts around the fringe of what is recognized as a pretty difficult area in which to live.
Although we support this change, I think we should take the opportunity to express that sustainability should not be limited to any specific area but should be recognized as a requirement across the industry.
If we are going to support rural Canada, then we must recognize that forestry is a strong element of rural Canada and needs the kind of support that we unequivocally give to other areas like agriculture. We recognize that there is a need for sustainability all across the country.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the comments made by my hon. friend. Indeed, the committee in its wisdom elaborated extensively on the concept of sustainable development and the importance to forestry of this particular concept, not only in terms of the trade-offs and the compromises that have to be made as we expand the industry and develop new processes to keep the industry internationally competitive, but also in terms of the importance of our forest to the ecological system and to the environment.
It is for that reason that the committee in its wisdom chose to enlarge on the interpretation section to give a definition of the concept of sustainable development. This will indeed be the first such inclusion in any of the statutes of the government. May I just read the definition which is generally accepted throughout the world as being the definition of sustainable development. It says: "Sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

October 27, 1989
Government Orders
I thank the committee for its wisdom to include this phrase in this bill and, of course, it does answer my hon. friend's concerns.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion and in particular Motion No. 5 which would add to the bill and to the duties of the new ministry the duty of enhancing public awareness of the social, economic and environmental benefits derived from Canada's forests.
I come from an urban constituency. Apart from occasional pruning, very few trees are cut down in our riding but on the other hand, even urban ridings like Victoria depend in a very vital way on the forest industry and on the forests of Canada. We depend on it economically, socially and environmentally. Beyond Victoria, throughout Vancouver Island, the forest industry is critical. In British Columbia the forest industry has always been our leading industry. This bill acknowledges on behalf of the Parliament of Canada the importance of forestry to this country, and the particular amendment that is before the House recognizes and elaborates on that recognition.
There is a need to improve public awareness of the importance of forestry to Canadians. Half the total land of Canada, 79 per cent of the area within the ten provinces, is forested; 60 per cent of forest land is productive. That is 243.7 million hectares. By comparison, 67.8 million hectares of land in Canada are in agriculture.
The production of the forest industry in Canada is $38 billion annually. Only the food and beverage industry exceeds the forest industry's contribution to manufacturing in Canada. It is a major export industry for this country with $17.9 billion in forest product exports; lumber alone, $4.1 billion; paper and paperboard, $7.5 billion; other forest products, $1.4 billion. In 1987, exports rose to 20.9 billion and provided this country with a net balance of trade of $18.3 billion in 1987.
The industry in forestry accounts for 15 per cent of Canada's merchandise trade. We supply 23 per cent of the world's exports of pulp and paper and 23 per cent of the total exports of manufactured forest products. The forest industry employs 840,000 Canadians, directly or indirectly. That represents nearly 10 per cent of all working Canadians. Forest industries provide an economic base for more than 300 one-industry communities across Canada. Economically, forestry is central to Canada's economic future.
Beyond that, as the public is slowly becoming aware and governments even more slowly becoming aware, forests are critical to our environment. Forests moderate weather, regulate stream flow, minimize soil erosion, protect fish and wildlife habitat and improve air quality. Rain forests together with oceanic planktons account for 90 per cent of the photosynthetic oxygen of the world.
In our part of the world, we are engaged in a deep community debate about the role of forestry and its connection with the environment. This bill and this clause, in particular, makes clear the minister's responsibility for ensuring that in that environmental debate the role of forestry is clearly understood by all Canadians. We cannot leave simply to the forest industry, whose credibility on this issue is less than perfect, the responsibility to explain to Canadians the important role of the forest industry in our environment.
We have a raging debate in British Columbia over the preservation of some of our most important valleys. The debate revolves around the issue of the role in the environment that the forests play and its role in related industries, such as tourism.
In that debate it is important that the role of forests in our economic and social life be clearly understood and that the government take the lead in terms of developing public awareness in building transition from an old style forest industry into a new environmentally sensitive forest industry so that we also begin to shift the jobs from the primary industries into the secondary and tertiary industries connected with forestry.
This country is far behind some of the other countries in Europe, such as Sweden, in adding value in terms of jobs and economic life for our community from our very critical forest industry.
In terms of developing public awareness, let me offer a few suggestions at this stage of the debate to the minister. There has been a tendency for governments to be persuaded that the best kind of advertising is to put a picture of the minister on a billboard, or a full-page ad in The Globe and Mail. While this minister may actually contribute mightily to at least people looking at the billboard, it seems to me we need a little more imagina-
October 27, 1989

tion in the way in which we develop public awareness in this country.
It must start with community based awareness programs in which people in our urban centres have an opportunity to actually get out into Canada's forests, not only to see the virgin forests in all their majesty and beauty, but also to understand in real depth how the forest industry works in this country, how the process works from beginning to end. As well, people in the forest industry must understand much better the concerns of urban Canadians on the environmental issue so that we begin to build a sense of community around these issues.
We need to work with the schools across Canada. We have an education system that gives us an opportunity to reach in a systematic way all of our young people in every part of the country. I would hope the minister, in developing programs of public awareness, will consult with school boards, colleges and universities throughout the country, and will develop with the forest industry and the trade union movement, which has played a leadership role in developing public awareness of these issues, a detailed program that can have real meaning to our young people.
Beyond that, I come from a constituency which has many seniors, in which there is a body of wealth, experience and understanding that could be put to work in enhancing public awareness of our forest industry. I believe there is great potential in working with seniors' groups not only in shaping the programs but in developing a relationship in those programs between our young people and our seniors. In our submission, a public system of developing awareness should be community based. Also, the minister should be discouraged as much as possible from putting his photograph on billboards, and move instead to programs which will pull this country together and enhance even further the role of this great industry in Canada's future.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the amendments which are before the House to Bill C-29, Motions
Government Orders
Nos 1, 2, 3, and 5, which stand in the name of the Minister of State for Forestry.
I might say that a number of these amendments, and I am sure the minister would agree, were strongly urged upon the minister in committee, in particular by my colleague, the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley, who has done such an outstanding job on behalf of New Democrats in speaking for us on this important legislation.
As well, my colleague, the member of Parliament for Skeena, our spokesperson on the environment, has played an important role in shaping the response of New Democrats on this critical legislation, which indeed is long overdue. My colleague for Skeena in his very eloquent remarks on this legislation at second reading had occasion to quote from a report done, I believe, by the Minister of State for Forestry himself, called The Green Ghetto.
I am not going to take the time during report stage to remind the minister of some of the very thoughtful comments he made at that time, but I will note that there is certainly a glaring inconsistency between too many of the policies of this government and the policies which the hon. member enunciated at the time of the drafting of that report, The Green Ghetto.
I want to say that as an urban member, as well as my colleague from Victoria who just spoke, certainly I share the concerns that have been enunciated by many of my constituents, indeed by many British Columbians and Canadians about the destruction in particular of old growth forests.
We are pleased to note the minister has made a strong commitment to the concept of sustainable development, but we have to be very careful that we have not only words, but action, in this important area. For example, the minister responsible for forestry, and I use the words advisedly, in the province of British Columbia, has accused environmentalists of being out to destroy the economy. He suggested that the environmentalists had a hidden agenda and were out to destroy the economy.
We need government leadership. We need leadership that will bring together the elements in the community that are concerned about the future of the forest industry. That includes environmentalists. It includes representatives of working men and women in the

October 27, 1989
Government Orders
industry, including the IWA, the International Woodworkers Association.
I was very pleased to note that the IWA recently adopted a policy at their convention which clearly commits it to the establishment and maintenance of fully sustainable forestry. That is defined in the IWA's policy as, "forestry that leaves to future generations of Canadians a rich endowment of fish and wildlife, soils capable of supporting varied ecosystems and commercial forests, managed so as to provide many more jobs and the wide range of forest recreations that Canadians value."
We have to bring these elements of the community together. That is not to say that there will not be conflicts or differences. I must say, Mr. Speaker, I was deeply saddened to note that certain members of the IWA, at the same time as promoting a thoughtful and comprehensive policy in this area, have been in court suing environmentalists in the Port Alberni provincial court.
In fact, a logging road in Sulphur Passage, north of Tofino, had been blocked. I very much regret that some members of the IWA, hopefully acting as individuals, have taken it upon themselves to actually sue the individuals involved in this action. For those people who took a stand to protect the future of this fragile ecosystem, I think it is most regrettable that that kind of action would be taken on the part of some of these members.
I made reference earlier to the important work of my colleague, the member for Skeena, on the whole question of forestry.
I want to take a few moments on this amendment to point out some of the concerns that we addressed in the report of the New Democratic task force on the environment, appropriately entitled: "Toward a Sustainable Future". This very comprehensive report was adopted following hearings by New Democrats across Canada.
In the report it is noted that one of our most precious resources, our forests, are really under siege. The rate of clear-cutting has increased in the last 40 years, to the point where many experts feel that the rate of logging now exceeds the long-term ability of our forests to replenish themselves. That after all, is what sustainable development should be about, development of our resources in a way that will ensure that our children and our children's children will also be able to enjoy the
fruits of an economy in which there are jobs and in which there are forests.
But 63 per cent of Canadians believe that the most important factor to consider when deciding forest land use is the impact on the environment. Now Canadians believe that the greatest threats to forests are acid rain and other pollution, overcutting and mismanagement.
When we look, for example, at the situation in the Temagami area of Ontario, only 13 per cent of the forests in that area, the old growth red and white pine forests have, in fact, been regenerated. Is it any wonder that facing the extinction of this old growth forest after years of mismanagement, this forest of red and white pine, that Canadians have taken up the call to protect this fragile environment?
I would note as well that in many of the areas of land use conflict there is an additional concern, and that is the whole question of the rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples. That is certainly the case in the Temagami area. It is not just an environmental question, it is a question as well of, according to the spokespeople for the native people in that area, the Tem-Augama people, of possible extinction. According to their letter, they will be pushed over the cliff. They will be dead as a society of people. The old growth red and white pine forest will be gone as well, if in fact the logging road is pushed through that area.
That is another reason why we surely have to call for the negotiation of land claims as an integral part of a policy on forest and land use management. I know that my colleague from Comox-Alberni has done a great deal of work on this whole question of the resolution of native land claims. It is a very important area for us as New Democrats.
Native people have said to us: "We do not not inherit this land from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children". That must be our approach to environmental questions, whether it be forestry questions or other questions. That is why we support the amendments that clearly enunciate the importance of enhancing public awareness of the social, economic and environmental benefits derived from Canada's forests.
My colleague for Prince George-Bulkley Valley has pointed out the importance of taking a comprehensive approach in this whole area. We do not even have an inventory after all, of old growth forests in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada, for that matter. This is an area in which the federal government can assist in providing leadership. In British Columbia, we have called for a royal commission on forestry and we have
October 27, 1989

been joined in that call by the IWA, who have urged a comprehensive look at this very important question.
My colleague has pointed out as well, that an essential element of the regeneration of forests is an assurance of FRDA agreements. We are still waiting for renewal of this important agreement in British Columbia, which runs out at the end of March. I will have much more to say on this and other amendments as the opportunity arises. But again, I want to commend the minister for recognizing the importance of public awareness in the area of sustainable development of this most important Canadian resource.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, we will now proceed to Statements by Members. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Prime Minister will announce today that Canada is joining the Organization of American States. The minute allowed for a member's statement is not enough to do justice to the importance of the subject. Therefore, the Liberal Party will issue a full statement later on the role that Canada should play in Latin American and Caribbean affairs.
Let me just say now that joining this organization cannot take the place of a valid policy on the region. The Conservative government must formally commit itself, by concrete acts, to raising Canada's profile, in terms of both financial and human resources, in Latin America and the Caribbean. Also, it should immediately establish a set of priorities and principles to guide Canada's representatives to the OAS and in the region, for example, to strongly promote respect for human rights and to closely monitor situations that might result in violations of these rights, to provide effective aid taking into account respect for human rights and the environment, and to state clearly Canada's point of view on the settlement of conflicts in the region and to promote the democratization of institutions and governments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Abitibi has the floor.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Loch Meech monster has surfaced again. In an interview yesterday, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the man who managed the incredible feat of repatriating half the Constitution after promoting national unity and bilingualism, launched another attack on the Meech Lake Accord, which according to him will put an end to Canada as we know it.
The former Prime Minister, whose customary arrogance hon. members will recall, in addition to ridiculing the leaders of the seven provinces that ratified the accord, shrugs off the humiliation suffered by Quebec in 1982 and blames political leaders in Ottawa and Quebec for the constitutional anomaly he himself created.
Canadians understand the importance of ratifying Meech Lake, and I am sure they also remember the War Measures Act and the National Energy Program.


EL SALVADOR
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity- Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Mir-tala Lopez, Salvadoran human rights worker, was captured by the fourth Salvadoran infantry brigade in the north of El Salvador yesterday, Thursday, October 26, at 11 a.m. She is the daughter of Magdalena Hernandez, a peasant leader from Las Vueltas, a Salvadoran town twinned with Windsor, who is now on a speaking tour of Canada.
Ms. Lopez and four other human rights workers were trying to help 1,600 Salvadoran refugees return home after years of exile in Honduras. The army, financed, armed, and advised by the United States, has blocked the

October 27, 1989
refugees' re-entry for nine days, causing exposure, hunger and three deaths in the mountains.
Ms. Lopez, who was imprisoned and tortured for three months by armed forces earlier this year, is likely to be tortured again and killed along with the other prisoners.
I call on our Prime Minister to tell his good friend President Bush publicly that Canadians detest the bloody tyranny the United States and his government is imposing on El Salvador and to demand immediate release of these prisoners unharmed.


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of this week, Small Business Week, I would like to say that small business in Canada has emerged as a key engine of economic growth and job creation. Hundreds and thousands of Canadians have taken the exciting step of founding their own businesses. They have taken risks, committed their resources and devoted long hours to the success of their ventures.
Since 1984 Canada has had the best job creation record of all major industrialized economies, largely due the its vibrant business sector. This is Small Business Week and the government is aware of the importance of the small business sector's contribution to the economy. We strive through our policies and programs to foster the growth of existing firms and the creation of others through entrepreneurship.


CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada once again is exhibiting its contempt for the men and women who dedicate their lives to the Public Service of Canada.
Earlier this week, I walked an information picket line with some of these men and women employed as ships' crews with the Canadian Coast Guard. These are the individuals who make Canadian waters a safe place for fishing ships, merchant ships and pleasure boaters. They work on armed fishery patrol vessels to protect Canadian sovereignty and police the valuable fish stocks on the east coast. They tow barges and work on oil tankers, defence research vessels, and coastal harbour fire tugs.
They provide our country with essential commendable service in an honest and upright fashion.
This government has allowed these men and women to work without a collective agreement for well over two years. If this is not tragic enough, this government insists on continuing to impose on those contracts regional rates of pay.
As a member of Parliament representing some of these employees, I am deeply offended at having these workers, my constituents, treated in such a callous and discriminatory manner. I call upon this government to start bargaining in good faith and to conclude a fair agreement which removes the indefensible discriminatory practice of paying people on the basis of where they live and not the job that they do.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, this week in the riding of Elk Island our weekly newspapers have been highlighting the importance of small business. One of the newspapers, the Fort Saskatchewan Record has outlined the potential benefits of the GST to small business.
The article correctly pointed out that special measures like the small traders exemption, streamlined accounting systems, less frequent filing requirements, payments by Ottawa of a fee of up to $600 and financial support for adapting cash registers are special considerations designed to help small business adapt from the old federal sales tax to the new GST system.
As a highlight, The Record informed readers that under the GST, $600 million will be directed from Ottawa to small business in Canada. On behalf of all the people of Elk Island, I salute small business for its ongoing commitment to our community and for its valuable contribution to the Canadian economy.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Governments of Canada and British Columbia must immediately open negotiations with the First Nations of B.C. on the matters of title and rights.
October 27, 1989

The Gitksan-Wet'Suwet'en are asserting authority over their 57,000 square kilometre traditional territories. Chief Justice McEachem describes their trial which began in May 1987 as the most important land claim trial ever undertaken in Canada.
Amid much controversy but with growing native and non-native support, the Gitksan-Wet'Suwet'en chiefs have set up roadblocks on logging roads entering their territories. The B.C. Court of Appeal ruled four months ago that the chiefs can prevail against new resource developments as long as the question of aboriginal title remains unsettled. It will be many months before the Supreme Court of B.C. rules and it will be many years before the matters raised are ruled on by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Earlier in the week, the Minister of Indian Affairs met with the B.C. Attorney General and confirmed that the province will not be pursuing any injunctions affecting the roadblocks. The Gitksan- Wet'Suwet'en have a right to halt the exploitation of their lands according to Canada's Constitution and the highest court in B.C. The simple fact is that the moment for justice has arrived, and before some incident sparks tragedy, I call upon the Prime Minister to act and to negotiate.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on the Environment had the opportunity to visit Washington on October 24 and 25. Thus trip gave us the opportunity to meet with a number of congressmen including Senate Majority House Leader George Mitchell of Maine on the topic of acid rain.
I am quite pleased to be able to report that acid rain legislation in the House of Representatives will be before the Committee on Energy and Commerce shortly and that a bill is expected to be introduced in the Senate in a couple of weeks. Canadians should be encouraged that there is great optimism in both the House and Senate that a bill will be passed.
The political situation in the U.S. with respect to acid rain has changed dramatically. The argument is not if a bill will be passed. It is how and when a bill will be
passed. The general consensus appears to be that legislation should be in place by early 1990, if not earlier.
Canadians from coast to coast and members on both sides of this House can take heart in the fact that effective U.S. legislation on acid rain appears to be on the horizon to reduce acid rain by about 10 million tonnes in the U.S. by the year 2000 A D. As a member of the acid rain committee and one who has been working on this for close to 10 years, that is certainly welcome and exciting news.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I recognize the contribution that small businesses have made to my riding of Malpeque and to all ridings in Canada. There is no doubt that the spirit of entrepreneurship is the backbone of communities across our country. However, I am concerned with the effect the government's GST will have on small business development.
For the past few weeks, the finance committee has travelled across Canada. We have heard how detrimental this tax will be to the growth of the small business industry. Yesterday the committee held its final hearing. I urge this government to listen carefully to what Canadians are saying about this tax.
We must encourage the spirit of entrepreneurship, not stifle it with bureaucratic nightmares for small business people. This week, as we acknowledge the small business community across Canada, let us think of ways to further its existence and stop the GST.


EXTRADITION
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I applaud the decision taken by the Minister of Justice in ordering the extradition of Charles Ng to the United States. The member for Peterborough as well as many Alberta members should also be commended for their continuing efforts in this regard.
However, there is some truth to the maxim "justice delayed is justice denied". To prevent delay in justice and discourage others who may seek refuge in Canada to escape justice in their own country, the Minister of Justice should have the power to order the extradition of

October 27, 1989
alleged or convicted criminals any time after their apprehension in Canada or during their period of incarceration for crimes committed in Canada. I encourage the minister to continue to pursue legislation in this regard.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As -siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General in his annual report twice states that there are two options open to a government that wants to tackle the deficit and debt without curtailing programs. He says,"It can increase taxes or it can operate more efficiently."
This unfortunate statement infers that the debt and deficit problem could be met through greater efficiency alone. That is simply not true and the Auditor General knows it. There is no quick fix. Ready proof of the inference can be found in the Wednesday The Globe and Mail headline "Federal tax increase not necessary, Dye says".
The Auditor General has quite properly identified opportunities for improved efficiency and better management in government. It is unfortunate that his serious misstatement regarding the deficit problems mars his report. I call on the Auditor General to clarify his statement so that Canadians will not be misled on an issue of vital national importance.


NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, it is said that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited wishes to sell a nuclear reactor to Israel. Given that Israel is widely reported to have a covert nuclear bomb assembly capability, I call on the Government of Canada to block this sale. Given that the Israelis are not signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, they cannot be considered to be purely peaceful consumers of nuclear power.
It should be remembered that in 1974 the Indian government detonated a nuclear bomb based largely on Candu technology and nuclear materials. We do not need this dangerously dirty technology and the balance of power in the Middle East does not need another nuclear plant with all the possibilities of diverting nuclear materials to nuclear weapons production that such a Candu plant would imply.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, recent events have called to the attention of all Canadians that Canada's Great Lakes, one of our precious resources, are in a crisis. They have become the beachhead for both chemical and biological pollution.
In 1981 the government ignored a study by Environment Canada which recommended that ships exchange ballast water in mid-ocean to prevent an invasion of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. In 1985 the government axed the study and purged the scientists who sought to ascertain the risk to human health posed by toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes.
In 1987 the government failed to honour the commitment with the United States to clean up the Great Lakes. As a consequence, zebra mussels have proliferated and toxic chemicals have accumulated in the Great Lakes, thereby adversely affecting our food and water supplies and risking birth defects, brain damage and cancer in people.
The government's response to date has been too little too late. I urge the Prime Minister to introduce a long-term environmental program that will effectively clean up the Great Lakes and thereby assure Canadians of today and Canadians of tomorrow that they will be safe from the twin problems of chemical and biological pollution.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake monster has surfaced once again. In an interview yesterday, former Prime Minister Trudeau renewed his attack on the Meech Lake Accord. He claims that it would mean the end of Canada as we know it. This comes from someone who preached one thing, national unity, but practised another, repatriating the Constitution to the exclusion of Quebec.
The former Prime Minister's rigidity even to the point of arrogance is legendary. Not only did he ridicule the premiers of seven provinces that ratified the accord, not only did he poke fun at Quebec's humiliation in 1982, he

now blames the politicians in Ottawa and Quebec whom he left to clean up the constitutional anomaly which is fully his legacy.
Canadians who believe the message of national unity that Mr. Trudeau once preached now understand the importance of ratifying the Meech Lake Accord.


GENERAL MOTORS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, last week General Motors of Canada announced that it would move the van production facility currently located in Scarborough to a new consolidated production facility at Flint, Michigan. The Scarborough van plant now employs about 2,700 people and has an annual payroll of close to $100 million.
In the North American auto market, trans-border shifts in auto production are going to occur from time to time, but all of us will agree that significant losses or gains in auto production are material factors in the health of our industrial sector.
The Minister for International Trade must make himself fully aware of the circumstances surrounding this plant closure. His ministry must be proactive in ensuring that this significant Scarborough industrial resource continues to be utilized. He cannot leave management of our economy exclusively to General Motors.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau - Saint-Michel) Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister always said his tax would be revenue neutral and would not be used to reduce his deficit. Is the minister aware that the Economic Council of Canada has published a study that proves the exact opposite? With tables to prove its points the Economic Council of Canada states that additional revenue generated by the minister's new tax will total $7.9 billion in 1995, and that the deficit will be reduced by about $5.2 billion. Considering this damning evidence, will the Minister finally admit he did not tell the whole truth?
Oral Questions
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can repeat the answers that I have given to the early part of his question again if the hon. member wishes. On the question of the Economic Council report, I have read that report and I am still puzzled by certain omissions in the report. I may not have seen all the appendices to the report, but at this point, it is not clear how we get to the lower rate of tax that the Economic Council is proposing without giving up some of the clear fairness elements in the package. I am not sure which fairness elements in the package the Economic Council is proposing that we do away with and until I see the full extent of this analysis, I am not prepared to comment further.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Not only does the minister refuse to consider the possibility of reducing the GST rate, he has refused to acknowledge or deny the fact that the rate might go up. The cock has now crowed twice: first in Montreal and then yesterday in the House of Commons, when a member of the opposition asked him a question and the minister again refused to commit himself. The minister's credibility is at stake. I am now giving him a chance to make a clear and formal commitment to the House that he will not increase the rate of his GST.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for a minister to promise not to change tax rates in the future. So many things can happen in our international economy. There may be other problems, and there may also be domestic problems. It is impossible to make this kind of commitment. I have said, from time to time, that the best deal for Canadians is to have a government that controls spending.


Some Hon. Members:: With care.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -with care. And our goverment's record is very good. We have reduced spending by 3.6 per cent over five years, the best record of any government in this country, and it is better than the record of the hon. member's government, which increased spending by 14 per cent during the five years preceding 1984.

October 27, 1989
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: And that is very bad indeed.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, such an answer coming from a minister who is responsible for doubling the national debt is certainly not reassuring.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: You do not want us to say it, eh? It hurts. Is the minister aware that one of his senior officials said yesterday that over 30,000 new jobs were lost when Ottawa walked away from negotiations with the provinces over the creation of a joint national sales tax? This says a lot for a government that was supposed to promise national reconciliations with the provinces.
Will the minister acknowledge his mistakes, listen to his officials, go back to square one and resume negotiations with the provinces?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. friend's statement about the increase in the size of the government debt. If we did not have to pay the interest on the debt that had been run up by his government and previous Liberal governments, we would not have had a deficit today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me put that in perspective and context for the hon. member. When we came into office, there was a deficit in program spending in relation to the revenues of the government. We have now turned that into a surplus from a deficit of $22 billion to a surplus this year of $9 billion. We are paying our way in this government but we are still saddled with the debt that the previous government ran up and the hon. member knows it. I can tell from the smile on his face.


André Ouellet: The Auditor General says you mismanaged the country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the hon. member wants to look at specific quotes that the Auditor General has made, he will read where the Auditor General says that we have great control of spending in this country. It is there in black and white in the report.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance, who claims he can control spending. Some time ago, Canadians dicovered that the Government intended to budget $4.5 million of their money to promote the GST. Now we find that this misleading advertising will cost not $4.5 million but as much as $9.1 million. Why should Canadian taxpayers have to pay for misleading Tory advertising?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is an advertising budget and there is a budget that involves a number of things, primarily for brochures, for the printing of the technical paper, for the overview of the technical paper and, yes, those things do cost money.
I remind the hon. member that when the finance committee returned from its trip to New Zealand a year and a half ago one of the things that the committee recommended in its report-I do not have the precise words here. In fact, I do. If the government proceeds with the tax, the committee recommends that it establish a private sector advisory committee to develop practical rules for the new tax, and to publicize the details of the new tax and the relevant social policy transfers.
It is very important for Canadians to understand the nature of this tax. If the hon. member refers to the CBC-The Globe and Mail poll earlier this week, he would see that 60 per cent of Canadians said they did not have enough information about the tax. It is very important for us to get that information out so that people can draw their conclusions about the new tax.


Don Boudria: If the minister wants to talk about the public opinion poll, I can remind him that 80 per cent of Canadians do not want any part of his tax, nor the advertising, nor anything else that goes with it.
The headlines in the newspaper today state that "The KGB has now abolished its anti-dissent unit, its top police". At the same time, Canadians know that the Government of Canada has doubled its anti-dissent budget in promoting the goods and services tax.
October 27, 1989

When are we going to get some glasnost in Canada? When are we going to get a government that stops using taxpayers' dollars to manipulate public opinion?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have both glasnost and perestroika in this country. The whole budget-making process, the tax reform process, has been done in a very open way. We have held consultations now for two and a half years since the White Paper was put out on the sales tax proposal. We have had another paper since the April budget. We have a technical paper now dated August 8 of this year.
In a very real way, glasnost is demonstrated to the Canadian people. It is all in pursuit of perestroika which is restructuring, withdrawing a number of the elements of the economy that are holding back the private sector.
If you go back to the November 8 economic statement, we stated our intention to introduce a number of ways that we would improve the functioning of the economy. Thx reform was one, open trade was another, incentives for investment, privatization, deregulation of energy, of transportation and of financial services, making for a more flexible labour force. I would be happy to send over to the hon. member a copy of the November 8 economic statement.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, on May 23, our research office filed a request through the Access to Information Act and on September 12 the Minister of Finance responded by saying the government would spend $6.6 million on GST advertising. Yesterday in committee, finance department officials revealed that $9.1 million of taxpayers' money would be spent to sell the GST to a reluctant and angry Canadian population.
I ask the Minister of Finance, was that $6.6 million figure given to our research department through access to information on September 12 not entirely the truth?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as normally happens with this type of question, some of the information is left out of the preamble. In the letter of September 12, it states: "All records have
Oral Questions
been reviewed up to and including August 8." That information was provided to Mr. Keith Reynolds of the NDP caucus research bureau and was absolutely accurate.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, what we see here is the government making a 40 per cent increase in its budgeting in less than two months. This is the second incident in a week where the minister has been shown to undermine the access to information process. He is telling us one thing and doing another.
How can Canadians believe the assurances that this minister has given them about the GST?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally reject that because we provided the information that was requested. We made it quite clear what the information was, and then in this past week we have updated that information in view of recent circumstances. Surely the hon. member must admit that that is very open government, in providing all the information the committee needed yesterday and asked for yesterday in a very open way.
I see sitting beside the hon. member the member for Nickel Belt. We have had all this fire and brimstone from the NDP members of Parliament about what a terrible thing the goods and services tax is, but then the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt says: "I would like to see a tax at the retail level of 5 per cent". So he is accepting the principle of a tax. All we are arguing about is the rate.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the minister told us $6.6 million. It turned out to be $9.1 million.
What else has the minister got in his back pocket? What else is he not telling us? I think it is time that Canadians got the truth instead of being subjected to contemptible government advertising. Is this the Minister of Finance, or is he the minister of propaganda?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member can have it both ways. The finance committee of the House of Commons, on which were sitting representatives of both opposition parties, agreed on the recommendation that I read out.
It is the fifteenth report. It is dated in early 1988 and it says that we must publicize the details of the new tax.

October 27, 1989
Oral Questions
If we do not have money to publicize the details, what are we going to do it with-tom-toms? Are we just going to speak on little telephones or what?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You have to use information like this-reports, brochures, and other forms of publications-to ensure that Canadians understand the details of the proposals so that they can make up their minds about the proposals.
Some hon. members have referred to the CBC poll that said 80 per cent were against this tax; 60 per cent also said they did not have enough information on which they could make that judgment.


FISHERIES
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
Yesterday his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, indicated that the problems in the Scotia Fundy region were ones of overcapacity in terms of harvesting and processing, while the problems in the Newfoundland fishery related to science, the environment and other factors. If you assume that the problems are different, it is logical to assume that the solutions will be different.
I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade if he could indicate to the House that there will be a measure of fairness, that the Government of Canada will not participate in any mug's game to put Newfoundland fishermen against Nova Scotia fisherman, and that the solutions which will be put in place hopefully in due course will provide equity both for Newfoundlanders as well as Nova Scotians.
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
TVade): Mr. Speaker, that is the easiest question I have ever had to answer in the House.
We are interested in the problems of Canadian fishermen. We understand that Newfoundland fishermen are Canadians as are Nova Scotia fishermen, Quebec fishermen, New Brunswick fishermen, P.E.I. fishermen, British Columbia fishermen. In fact wherever there is a Canadian fishing we are interested in the problems of that Canadian fishermen. Equity and fairness is certainly the hallmark.
With reference to the Scotia Fundy Shelf this is a matter that is being referred as well to the cabinet committee led by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The task force led by Mr. Hache has been looking at the situation there. We hope to deal with this problem and to be as helpful as we can and as soon as we can.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary questions is for the same minister. At this very hour the community of Louisburg in eastern Nova Scotia, with an unemployment rate of 22.9 per cent, is involved in a march of concern to demonstrate its dismay at the possible closure of its fish plant throwing 400 workers out of work.
I would like to ask the minister, on behalf of the Government of Canada, what assurances he and this national government will give those workers. Can he, will he guarantee their jobs and thereby ensure that this community saddled with high unemployment will have some degree of certainty as it looks to the future.


Mr. Crosbie:: Mr. Speaker, the firm of National Sea Products, as it is known, has been having some difficulties as have other east coast Canadian fishing companies. They have had losses now for a number of quarters. The company does not believe that they can continue taking losses and they are going to have to take steps that will minimize their losses and put them back in a profitable position.
Now it is not just Louisburg. The company has a number of plants in my own district of St. John's West. It has a plant at Arnold's Cove, a plant at St. John's, a plant at Burgeo, Newfoundland, and other plants in Nova Scotia.
We have had no information from the company that it has decided to close any particular plant.
We are expecting that they will consult with us before they do take any such action so we can be ready to do all we can to assist the people who were working in any plant that they might decide that they had to close, either temporarily or whatever the decision might be. We have had no such information.
Therefore, I can only say to the people of Louisburg: "We hope that your plant is not going to be closed. We will do what we can to see that it continues to operate, and we will certainly do everything we can to assist
October 27, 1989

anyone who might be laid off as a result of the present resource situation in the east coast fishery".


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my bosom pal, the Minister for International Trade, fresh from his bull in the china shop romp across Europe, only to find that his colleague the minister of fisheries is stomping around on our own china shop over here, frothing at the mouth about "prosperous times" he says "prosperous times in the Atlantic fishery".
The minister, to his credit, tells the opposite story. He does it graphically, even earthily, but he says it and he is on target, I say to him.
But what I want to know is: Who speaks for the government on this fisheries issue in Atlantic Canada- the Minister for International Trade, which I hope is the case, or the minister of fisheries?
Maybe, if the Minister for International Trade would stay closer to home and mind the shop, he could contain the damage being done by the minister of fisheries in the Atlantic fishery.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, when any minister speaks on behalf of the government then that minister is speaking on behalf of the government. There isn't any way to divide the matter up. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is speaking on behalf of the government and I trust that I am as well, and we are in perfect harmony.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has rightly pointed out that the fishing industry on the east coast of Canada is far healthier than it was four or five years ago.
Some sectors of it are always healthy; some sectors are not. In the inshore fishery every year there will be part of the coast where the inshore fishermen get no fish, so that is certainly not healthy in that particular area. In another part of the shoreline there will be a very good fishery, so that fishery is healthy. The fishery can be both healthy and non-healthy, both at the same time. While the hon. gentleman opposite might not want to acknowledge that, that is the situation.
The minister of fisheries yesterday announced a new $28 million program for aerial surveillance and enforcement in the offshore, moneys that were never allocated
Oral Questions
or spent by the hon. gentlemen opposite when we had the misfortune to have them in government in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: You know, even when you squirm you're delightful.
Mr. Speaker, let us get this straight. The fishery is healthy and it is unhealthy; both versions are correct. The government believes both views, that the patient will live and the patient will die but even if it dies there is nothing wrong with it. Smack in the middle of all that glorified, beautiful bafflegab there is an admission from the minister who knows the situation well, that our fisheries is in crisis particularly in Newfoundland.
I ask him now: instead of dancing all over and trying to cover for his colleague who has admittedly embarrassed him on this issue, when is the government going to come forward with an adequate special and credible response program to address the needs of those thousands of people out there who are having difficulty putting bread and butter on the table?
Come to the rescue of your fellow Newfoundlanders, John, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it was Oscar Wilde who said about Bernard Shaw that he had no enemies but that he was intentionally disliked by his friends. It could equally have been said about the hon. gentleman who is questioning me at the moment.
With respect to the question that he has asked, at the beginning of this year our fisheries scientists gave us advice that was startling different from the advice that they had been giving the minister of fisheries and the government in the previous five or six years in connection with the size and total allowable catches which might be made of northern cod.
As a result the government acted immediately. We appointed Dr. Leslie Harris, and I think several distinguished fisheries scientists knowledgeable of the fishery, to review the whole methodology and to recommend to the government what they think is the situation, what steps should be taken to ensure that we are getting accurate forecasts, and to advise us on what they think

October 27, 1989
Oral Questions
the TAC should be next year. Their report will be in by the end of the year.
The minister of fisheries has already allocated $3 million additional funds for research into the east coast fishery, what stocks are fished there.
Action has been taken. A cabinet committee has been appointed. A task force under a Mr. Stein has been appointed. There is action being taken every day, and we will have a plan in place to deal with the problems when we know exactly what are the nature and the extent of the problem.


Roger Simmons: Bread and butter, Johnny.


SPACE PROGRAM
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
A consultant's report which was mandated by the government of Manitoba and funded at least in part by the federal government says that the closure of the Churchill rocket range was a mistake, that its dismantling should be halted and reversed, that closing the range makes Canada dependent on other nations for its space program and is devastating to that program.
My question to the minister is simply this: Is the government prepared to respond to that report in a positive way and co-operate with the Manitoba government in reopening the Churchill rocket range?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows that report is being studied by the National Research Council which still has authority over that range. When it has had a chance to look at it, indeed it will make a recommendation to the government.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, that report says that the current Canadian rocket program with one launch every two years from foreign soil is inadequate to sustain scientific careers or attract young scientists.
This morning we have the manager of the Manitoba space program saying that the ideal situation would be for NASA or someone else to come in and reopen the base. The government of Manitoba has already found
that there is considerable demand for the use of that particular rocket range.
I ask the government: What position does it take with respect to the reopening of that range which it closed?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, when we have had a chance to review that report and when I have had a chance to review the report from the National Research Council, I will be delighted to make some response to the whole issue.


SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS
Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Many of my constituents in Cariboo-Chilcotin, in fact many people across Canada, have been expressing sincere concern regarding the proposed legislation to ban the importation of semi-automatic weapons.
On behalf of law-abiding Canadians who possess legitimate semi-automatic weapons, I would ask the minister to clarify his intent.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no intention of banning the importation of semi-automatic weapons, none whatsoever. The government is looking at the banning of further importation of firearms originally designed and manufactured to fire in an automatic mode which are converted to semi-automatics for importation purposes.
There is no intention at all to ban the importation of semi-automatics, only those originally designed and manufactured to fire in an automatic mode. Any such weapons that are currently in the country would be grandfathered.


CANADA POST
Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for Canada Post, I will direct my question to any other minister who is prepared to justify the substance of my question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 27, 1989

Oral Questions


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On October 10, Canada Post informed communities north of my riding of Cochrane-Superior and of Keno-ra-Rainy River of a prohibitive, senseless 32 per cent increase in postal rates effective November 13, 1989. The first citizens of this country depend on Canada Post for their basic essentials.
In view of the fact that unemployment hovers around 50 per cent and 90 per cent in those remote areas, would the minister bring Canada Post to its senses and continue to offer a service affordable to the citizens of the north?
William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for Canada Post said in this House the other day that he was prepared and anxious to have a meeting between all those affected and Canada Post. That meeting is being arranged.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Broughton Island is one of the 23 communities in my constituency of the central and eastern Arctic which will be hard hit by this Canada Post rate increase. If this increase is imposed, the people of Broughton Island will have to pay about $5 for one litre of milk, $6 for a celery bunch, and $10 for a three-pound bag of apples.
How does the minister think the people of Broughton Island will be able to afford these basic groceries? Will she take immediate steps to stop this planned rate increase?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I would simply repeat what my hon. colleague said on behalf of the minister responsible for Canada Post.
With respect to the impact in the north it is difficult to determine the impact precisely. The minister responsible for Canada Post has expressed his willingness to meet with all the affected groups in order to determine whether this is an appropriate policy, and that meeting is forthcoming.


Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, employees of Veterans Affairs and National Parole have been trying to negotiate a fair settlement to their contract that expired about three years ago. Their demands are not unreasonable. They want wages to keep pace with inflation and parity with other government workers in similar jobs. These employees are in the helping profession which includes counsellors and social workers. As such these individuals are very committed to their clients.
My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I would like to know: When does the government intend to return to the negotiating table with the Public Service Alliance of Canada to work out a fair settlement?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we actually returned to the table yesterday morning. The negotiations continued all day yesterday, and we resumed this morning. We are in the process now of mediation following the Conciliation Board report.
I would certainly hope that this process of mediation would lead to a successful resolution of the issues that are before us. I can tell the member that we are being as forthcoming as we can with the backdrop of the over-all agreement in the public service.
We are at the table at the moment. It would be premature to say that the talks will either succeed or fail. I certainly hope and the government certainly hopes that these talks will succeed in the next few hours.


Bob Wood: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the answer.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I would also like this minister, if he could use his influence on his colleagues at the Treasury Board, to ensure that ageing veterans have the help they depend on to get them through the many difficulties they are experiencing with increased medical problems as a result of war injuries and that employees of his ministry are not forced to go out on strike.

October 27, 1989
Oral Questions


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has indicated to this House very clearly that the labour process, the negotiation process, is in effect now.
We are in the process of mediation. Meetings are taking place now. Following the conciliation process, hopefully this will end in an agreement between the two sides.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning the health and survival of the operations of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, which has been threatened by the government's financial slashing.
The minister has told this house that the centre is not at risk over funding costs and also that this should be obvious because the market-place has lots of options.
I would like to ask the minister: what in fact has the market-place offered in the way of alternatives for this agency, an agency geared to the avoidance of industrial health hazards which not only protects health but saves time and many thousands of dollars? Is $10 million too high a price to save lives?
I would like to ask the minister: With 90 days to go under the minister's imposed deadline, what are the results of his marketing plan? As the minister knows, the CEO of the centre went to market to buy a plan. The plan cost $180,000. It was a fantasy and, when the council rejected it, it cost him his job.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated many times in this House, since its inception 10 years ago the centre has done a tremendous job, and we intend that the centre will continue its operations.
The CEO of the organization was asked to prepare a plan to meet the objective of this government that it become self-sufficient over the next three years. The CEO presented its plan to the governors of council in October, and its plan was rejected. The council of governors has formed a task force and hired a consultant to prepare a new plan which I have asked them to present to me by January 31 next.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, that really does not help. The whole issue of the centre's survival is now mired in utter confusion and nobody knows who is in charge any more.
The minister has said that the proof of the pudding lies in the fact that a new plan is in the works. That is not so.
An October 19 memo from the Canadian Labour Congress stated that it refused to participate in alternative planning within the impossible constraints imposed by the minister. It is one of the three bodies responsible for the governing of that centre. The confusion over leadership, the viability of selling a product that is not owned by the centre and where the NIOSH-CCOHS contractual agreements can be terminated in 30 days, do not show sound planning. All this makes the minister's request impossible to meet.
I would ask the minister: Will he agree now to end some of the confusion, take a second look and recommend that the centre receive guaranteed interim financing? Will he reopen negotiations with the centre without preconditions?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety was informed in April, through its CEO, that the government would want the centre to become self-sufficient over the next two years.
The CEO was asked to prepare a plan. The council of governors rejected that plan at the October 5 and 6 meeting. They have themselves decided to form a task force and hire a consultant to have a second look at it. I have asked them to present their report by January 31. When I receive the report I will see what they have to offer.


TAXATION
Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
Seniors across the country have been led to believe that they will be the victims of double taxation on then-old age security high income repayment.
Could the Minister of Finance tell me if this is true? If it is true, it is grossly unfair.
October 27, 1989

Oral Questions


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can reassure the hon. member that it is absolutely untrue. The high income repayment is calculated and then the net amount after the repayment is subject to the normal income tax for the person in the tax bracket they would be in.
There is absolutely no double counting, and it is the fairest way that we can put together to achieve our objectives.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
On Monday, hundreds of Canadians will march outside this Chamber to demonstrate their rejection of the proposed goods and services tax. Many of these Canadians are offended that this government is preparing to tax books and magazines since publishing is a very price sensitive industry where increases in consumer costs result in a proportional decrease in demand. A study by Woods Gordon says that the tax will result in a 10 per cent to 15 per cent drop in sales.
My question is: Why does the minister feel he can jeopardize a vital industry with such a hefty tax?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the analysis the hon. member has made. Those studies that are done by companies like Woods Gordon or others are looking at one industry in isolation to anything else that is happening in the economy.
Since all sectors of the economy are being affected by the broad base tax, there is not the distortion which would have that effect generated by the new tax.
Our position has always been to make the tax as broadly based as possible so that the burden of taxation can be shared as fairly as possible and as equitably as possible across the economy. In that way we would make a very large improvement from the existing tax which is based on such a narrow part of the economy, leaving other parts of the economy free of tax.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister is hoping to reduce Erik Nielsen's future sales of his book by introducing the tax.

My supplementary is directed to the same minister. By imposing the 9 per cent GST, the Tory Government will massacre the publishing industry, especially Francophone publishing companies. French books are already for more expansive than English books.
Does the Minister realize he is penalizing Francophone readers and that as result, only a minority of wealthy Francophones would be able to afford books?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member ignores the fact that a very generous credit rebate will be paid to low income Canadians that will offset the impact of the goods and services tax on people in low income brackets.
To put that into perspective, families with less than $300,000 of income will be better off after tax reform, and that is a considerable change over the type of sales tax we inherited some five years ago where there was no offset, there was no rebate paid to low income Canadians. We are moving from a tax which was clearly regressive to one that is in fact progressive and clearly much fairer than the old system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Question Period will close with questions from the member for Kingston and the Island and the member for Victoria.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday he replied to a request for information pursuant to the Access for Information Act. In order to avoid a court battle he created a veritable paper blizzard and tried to snow the reporter who filed the request. Neither the reporter nor we in the Liberal party are easily snowed.
Why will the minister not release the 530 sheets his departmental officials originally prepared for him to release, and recommended that he release, instead of the 1,000 sheets of nonsense that he published yesterday in response to this request for information?

October 27, 1989
Routine Proceedings


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member who is continually walking around in a blizzard, the information we have provided is the information to which the applicant is entitled under the Access to Information Act. The other information which has been withheld is clearly advice to the minister.
My friend is a very knowledgeable lawyer, I am told. I do not know that first hand. These rumours, though, are scurrying around. He knows the importance of advice to minister. He knows that has been identified in the act as an element that should be protected so that the free flow of information and the free dialogue between the minister and his deputy minister will be maintained. It is on that basis I have made the decision that that advice should not be released.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE DRESS CODE
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In June the RCMP Commissioner told the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General that he had legal advice, presumably from the Department of Justice, that it was a denial of rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to fail to permit Sikhs to wear turbans as members of the RCMP, that it was contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights.
It is now nearly November, Mr. Speaker.
Will the minister, who is responsible for enforcing the Charter, insist that the Solicitor General stop dithering on this issue and approve the RCMP recommendation? Will the minister take the opportunity that will be available to the government this afternoon, when a motion brought in the name of the member for Burnaby-Kingsway on this issue to make it very clear to Sikhs and to others in the multicultural community and to all Canadians, that the rights of Canadians in this matter are going to be upheld by our national police and by the Minister of Justice?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Solicitor General, I would advise my hon. friend that the government is giving careful consideration to the
recommendations of the Commissioner of the RCMP. The discussions on these recommendations will be based on the essential principles, that is, to maintain and improve policing service to all Canadians.
As I said earlier this week when the Solicitor General was away, it is my understanding that he is reviewing this matter urgently and a decision will be made in due course.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology on a point of order.


SPACE PROGRAM
William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I may have inadvertently misled my college from Windsor-St. Clair on the question with respect to the Churchill rocket range. I said the National Research Council because perhaps technically that is correct.
The group actually reviewing it is the Canadian Space Agency which, until the bill is passed, officially does not exist. But that is the group doing the review.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.[


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34,1 have the honour to table, in both official languages, the following reports of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association: Preliminary Meeting, 7th Parliamentaiy and Scientific Con-

ference, Paris, France; Parliamentary Visit to Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland; Annual OECD Debate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.

The delegation that went to eastern Europe certainly was there at a time of historical significance. The meetings with the parliamentarians and the government officials confirm that "political reform" were the words of eastern Europe. We heard them most often.
The rise of democracy to a multi-party system and increased human rights were what people wanted to talk about and, indeed, what they wanted Canada's Parliament to support and to help in the future.
We learned in Poland that economic development is critical. In fact, it is absolutely necessary in order that political reform moved forward that this development occur.
The government officials and the parliamentary officials from the equivalent of both the House of Commons the Senate concurred in saying that Canada has a vital role to play.
The association was pleased to see that earlier this month the Government of Canada had gone forward with its efforts. The association wants this House to know that further recommendations will be made at a meeting next week which the members will forward on to appropriate government ministers as well as to you, Sir. Canada's Parliament is really behind this movement in eastern Europe to democracy and increased human rights.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion I would like to put to the House which has been discussed with House Leaders. It results from the splitting of the Committee on Communications and Culture, Citizenship and Multiculturalism and assists in the designation of exactly where the papers and reports, et cetera, which had been previously put to the entire committee, be placed in view of the fact that we now have two committees.
If my colleagues will bear with me, I will read it and then it can be put if we have unanimous consent. I move:
Routine Proceedings
That all outstanding orders of reference before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, Citizenship and Multiculturalism prior to September 27, 1989, shall be deemed referred, with evidence adduced in relation thereto, to the new appropriate corresponding standing committee; and that, all reports, returns and papers, deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Communications, Culture, Citizenship and Multiculturalism, pursuant to Standing Orders 47(4) and 71, prior to September 27, 1989 shall be deemed permanently referred, with the evidence adduced in relation thereto, to the new appropriate corresponding standing committee.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We consent to the motion proposed, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, we would concur with that recommendation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise and present some petitions. Constituents of Winnipeg North support the citizens of Thunder Bay in their petition which I now present pursuant to Standing Order 36.
This petition has been certified correct as to form and content. Like the constituents of Winnipeg North, the citizens of Thunder Bay oppose the cuts to VIA Rail services for a variety of reasons, among them for the jobs that will be lost, the services that will be cut, the increase in environmental pollution and the likely increase in accidents.
The petitioners hereby pray that the announced cuts be rescinded and that the government instead increase the support to modernize equipment and thereby attract more Canadians to use the VIA Rail train service.

October 27, 1989
Routine Proceedings


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a number of petitions from Canadians from the Ontario area opposing the goods and services tax. They feel that this tax will impose an onerous burden on small businesses. They feel that this will impact negatively on low and middle income Canadians. Therefore, they seek the remedy from this House that Parliament reject the proposed goods and service tax.


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table a duly certified petition signed by people from Thunder Bay who object to the dismantling of VTA Rail.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand in this House today and present a petition on behalf of 6,600 Prince Edward Islanders who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to formulate and legislate a law to protect life from conception, a law which seeks to save the life of both mother and child.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House and present several petitions on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Kent.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, the attached petitions are certified correct in form and content. The petition is with regard to Via Rail and the petitioners are asking the government to please rescind its bill and continue with the rail service.


Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, I also have petitions regarding the GST, requesting that the government not go forward with this tax.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, duly certified under Standing Order 36, from several hundred of my constituents. Those constituents recognize the value of the provincial-federal resource development agreement which has created jobs and replenished our forests in British Columbia. The undersigned encourage the Parliament of Canada to renew this important agreement with British Columbia and thereby provide for a renewed commitment to restocking our forest land, advancing forestry research, promoting silviculture and assisting the forest industry in developing new products and markets that will provide forestry jobs for the future.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 36, on the subject of cutbacks at VIA Rail, signed by Canadians who strenuously object to cutbacks without prior consultation on the consequences.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, duly certified pursuant to Standing Order 36, signed by 2,500 people on the issue of drift-net fishing.
The petitioners call on the government to stop the use of pelagic drift-nets in the north Pacific Ocean. The petitioners urge the government to move this item high on its agenda. It is a matter of great concern to people in my constituency and across Canada and we ask the government to act now.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of Canadians, calling upon the government to withdraw the goods and services tax.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people right across western Canada who are members of Transport 2000 and Rural Dignity of Canada, who are petitioning the Parliament of Canada to

maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network, upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment, to pass a passenger train act giving VIA Rail a firm legislative mandate and, finally, to revise the costing arrangement with the railway companies.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. One of them is from a number people resident in Windsor, Ontario. They are concerned with danger to Canada's rail transportation and the government's stated intention. They pray and call upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail services in those areas of the country where they can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Toronto, Pickering, Scarborough, West Hill concerned with the government's mishandling of the land that the Inuit live in in eastern Quebec and Labrador. They join with the Assembly of First Nations and the Inuit of Labrador and other aboriginal peoples of northern Canada in calling on the government to oppose use of those lands for NATO-NORAD attack training, to end all NATO-NO-RAD low-level flight training in Canada, to oppose establishment of NATO operations such as the proposed tactical fighter weapons training centre at Goose Bay, and to redirect Canada's NATO-NORAD funding to-wardss enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and their livelihood, and promoting sustainable development for all Canadaians.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my honour and duty on behalf of the citizens of the town of Asquith which happens to be in the constituency of the Minister of National Defence who point out that the government has not addressed the unfair taxation system that is presently in place, rather, it is increasing the unfairness of the system. They call upon the government to reject the current proposal for the goods and services tax and deal with taxation to make taxation of ordinary Canadians more fair than it is today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By consent, the Member for Miramichi.
Routine Proceedings


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I have other petitions to present as well. I have three of them here and they are all from Canadians protesting the unfairness of the goods and services tax. I ask that these petitions be received by the House.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the electors of Kingston and the Islands, many of whom have signed this petition objecting to the government's introduction of a goods and services tax which they claim is unfair and inequitable and wrong. They call on Parliament to reject the tax.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present a petition duly certified on behalf of the constituents of the Western Arctic who fear the imposition of the 9 per cent goods and services tax. '


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in the House today four petitions from residents of Scarborough, Metropolitan Toronto and vicinity. The petitions have been certified as correct. The petitioners call upon the government to withdraw the proposed goods and services tax for the reasons, among others, that the tax will cause higher inflation, higher interest rates and generally higher taxes.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, question No. 132 will be answered today.


Mr. Heap: 1.	Do Refugee Board members and adjudicators work together on the first level hearing and, if so, were training sessions offered separately for members and adjudicators?
2.	Within the Immigration Department (a) what person or persons conducted the training sessions for the adjudicators (b) what procedures were used to conduct these training sessions (c) what person or persons are responsible for updating adjudicators on changing world conditions as they affect refugee claimants at the first stage of the process?

October 27, 1989
Government Orders


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. The adjudicator and the Refugee Board member share, equally, responsibility for determining a person's eligibility to claim refugee status in Canada and for deciding whether there is a credible basis for the claim. As the presiding officer, the adjudicator may, from time to time, consult with the Refugee Board member on matters of a procedural nature, which have a direct bearing on the initial hearing into the refugee claim. Aside from the initial hearing into the eligibility and credible basis of a refugee claim, the adjudicator has sole jurisdiction over the conduct of immigration inquiries and the resultant decisions.
In preparation for the implementation of the new refugee determination system, intensive training sessions were held for adjudicators and Refugee Board members. While these training sessions were held independently of each other, many of the resource persons who participated addressed both groups.
2.(a) Training sessions for adjudicators were designed and delivered by a team of Immigration Adjudication Branch staff, made up of the Acting Senior Analysis and Procedures Officer of Adjudication Headquarters, two Section Heads; one from the Quebec/Atlantic Division and one from the Pacific/Westem Division and several adjudicators from the Toronto, Mississauga and Mirabel offices.
(b) Various techniques were employed in the delivery of training for adjudicators. These included lectures and presentations by resource persons and guest speakers representing various government and non-government agencies. The Legal Officer of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) addressed adjudicators on the definition of a Convention Refugee. They also received a presentation and attended workshops in a session on "The Refugee Experience" given by a Resettlement Counsellor from the UNHCR. A number of presentaions were also given by representatives of the Immigraiton and Refugee board (including the Chairman), the Department of Justice and by various experts and executive heads from within Employment and Immigration Canada itself. Mock hearings were conducted and audio-visual presentations were also made.
(c) The Immigration Adjudication Branch provides adjudicators with ongoing training, including a national training program provided on an annual basis, divisional training on an annual basis, monthly section meetings and any other training deemed appropriate. Adjudication libraries in every office contain an up-to-date index of inquiry and refugee-related jurisprudence and other documentation and material relative to the function of the adjudicator. The Immigration and Refugee Board also provides the Adjudication Branch with copies of papers profiling the current conditions in contries known to be sources of refugee claimants. These papers are distributed to all Adjudication offices across Canada.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-29, an act to establish the Department of Forestry, to amend the Forestry Development and Research Act and to make related amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions nos. 1,2,3 and 5 standing in the name of the Minister of State for Forestry.
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in rising to speak on this bill. My riding of Surrey North is one of the ridings in British Columbia that was founded on the forestry industry. On the north it borders on the Fraser River which has been the highway for the processing of lumber and plywood since the turn of the century. The foreshores of the riding are still the main booming grounds along the Fraser River.
In addition, we have a number of very large mills in the north part of the riding on the Fraser River. These have
October 27, 1989

changed over the years. Initially they were big lumber mills and now they are mainly shake and cedar mills.
The population of my riding Surrey North, of course, is basically a working riding. We have a large population who live in the riding and work in the lumber industry, particularly in the lumber milling and in the plywood. Therefore, the economic health of the riding is very much dependent on the continued success of our forest industry and our lumber industry.
I want to go back and look at the record of the last two governments as it relates to the development of forestry in British Columbia and in all of Canada. In the 1984 election campaign, the Conservatives said that they would bring in legislation to create a ministry of forestry. It has taken them five years to act.
I think that is indicative of the government's understanding of the vital role of forestry in this country, that it is not profound because if it really looked at the economic value that the forestry plays in this country-in fact, it is one of the mainstream industries that keep this country viable-it would have acted on its promise immediately.
There seems to be a lot more rhetoric on that side than there is action. The government talks about trying to look at sustainable development, but even as late as this summer, 55 per cent of Canadians did not believe the government was doing an adequate job when it came to environmental protection and sustainable development.
I think the record of the Conservatives in the forest industry has not been very good, but it probably is one step better than that of the Liberals. The Liberals were even much more blunt about it as their leader said in 1984, while he was in Prince George, which is one of the heartlands of the forestry industry in British Columbia, that they were against a full department of forestry.
The decline in the forest industry over the last number of years is a reflection of the lack of inaction by the two previous governments. I think we have to consider what the forestry industry in fact means to the Canadian economy.
In 1986 the forest products exports were $17.9 billion. Lumber exports were $4.1 billion. Paper and paperboards were $7.5 billion. Other forest products were an additional $1.4 billion. In 1987 the total exports were over $20
Government Orders
billion. This compares with farm products of $1.4 billion, fisheries of $2 billion, energy exports of gas, $5.5 billion, and metals of $6.2 billion. The percentage of export industry that is dependent on forest products is very high. '
Fifteen per cent of all of our export trade merchandise in Canada is dependent upon the forest industry.
Canada supplies 23 per cent of the world's exports of pulp and paper and 23 per cent of the world's manufactured goods. When we are talking about our export market, we should realize we have let a lot of opportunities slip away on us because we have not developed the technologies and the industry around secondary manufacturing. The number of jobs that we sustain in Canada per unit of forest product harvested is not anywhere near what it is in many of other countries. I will talk about that again later.
In addition to the economic value forests have in this country, they of course are a very, very significant part of our ecology. They are the backbone that regulate and moderate temperature. They stop the erosion of soils. They are the habitat for our wildlife. They are part of our world-wide reputation for beauty and nature. Without them, of course, Canada would not only lose a tremendous amount of its economic wealth because of the export of lumber products, it would also lose a tremendous amount of its tourist trade which is dependent upon people coming to this country to see the exceptional beauty of our forests.
One of the things that disturbs me is that the funding for sustaining forestry has been eroding. This year $28 million less has been allocated than in the previous fiscal year. The Conservatives, while they are bringing in a ministry of forestry, are diversifying and confusing the funding for forestry. Instead of having the funding for forestry under the control of a minister of forestry, it is being chopped up all over the place. Some of it is going to the Western Diversification Fund, which means that the minister of forestry will have to go to another cabinet minister to get funds to provide the moneys that are necessary for reforestation. Furthermore, the number of reforestation projects that the provinces can undertake will be diminished.
British Columbia wants $300 million but the funds are not adequate and are not being granted under the Western Diversification Fund. The same thing is happening in the Atlantic region where instead of having it

October 27, 1989
Government Orders
under the ministry of forestry, it is in fact being put under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
Sometimes you begin to wonder if there is a real commitment to forestry to sustain development or whether the government is trying to play political and public relations games using titles like the Western Diversification Fund and the Atlantic Opportunities Agency.
I want to talk briefly about Clause 7(c) which is dealt with in this group of motions, enhancing public awareness of social, economic, environmental benefits derived from Canada's forests. I think we are all believe that this is mandatory. We are concerned that it not become propaganda for the Tory cabinet ministers, but that the government will develop unique programs that are community-based, which will enhance the understanding of the total community, so that we can have the type of forestry programs that are necessary for economic development and for the ecology.
In order to improve on that section, I would like to make an amendment to Clause 7(C). I move:
That Motion No. 5 be amended by adding following the word "forests" the words specifically concerning the value of sustainable development.
That clause would then read:
"(c) enhance public awareness of the social, economic and environmental benefits derived from Canada's forests specifically concerning the value of sustainable development.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
The hon. member for Comox-Albemi on debate.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I just want to deal briefly with the amendment. I am a little bit concerned that when the definition of sustainability appears in this act that it talks in general terms about how development today will preserve our options for the future. That statement with reference to this particular section of the act is far too general.
It is easy to sustain trees. As some foresters tell us, it is like planting a vegetable garden. You can plant the trees, fertilize the trees, cultivate the trees, space and thin the
trees and in 70 years you are able to cut down the trees and start the process all over again.
That is what some people conceive as sustainable development in the forest industry. However, it sounds more like the practice of sustained yield that forest companies, foresters and people involved in the industry have talked about in the past. There is quite a difference between the principle of sustained yield, which we support here as well, and the principle of sustainable forestry. A forest is quite different from a collection of trees. A forest itself is a complex, living organism that is made up of trees, under-storey vegetation, insects and all sorts of animal life; its wildlife habitat, hydrologic resources, streams, waterflow, groundwater and microclimates and humidity. All of those things go to make up the forest as a complex organism itself which is quite a bit greater than the sum of its parts.
We are concerned that in the minister taking advantage of his powers under this section of the act that he is going to be talking strictly about the economic benefits of the forest industry and perhaps joining with some of the advertising programs that have been mounted by the forest companies, such as the "Forest Forever" type of programs which do not educate the public as to the problems that we have in preserving and sustaining our forests. My concern is that the minister be specifically empowered under this section of the legislation to talk about the specific concern of sustainability of our forests.
A few months ago the Brundtland report came down. Madam Brundtland and her committee suggested that something in the neighbourhood of 12 per cent of representative ecosystems be set aside in each country in the world in order to preserve a genetic pool that would be available in the event that we mismanaged our forests completely or we made errors in the way we managed forests. That has taken place in the past and continues to take place. The reason for Madam Brundtland's suggestion was that those areas of old growth forests be allowed to remain in order to repopulate the areas in which we made mistakes.
That is what I see as managing the forests in a sustainable way. It is quite different from managing trees according to the principle of sustained yield or sustained output. That is quite a different principle. We would like to make sure in this clause that the minister recognizes that as his responsibility from the point of view of

sustained yield, because we would all like to see our forest economy continue, and grow and thrive. We would also like to see our employment in the forest industry continue to grow and thrive.
I would like to see communities like mine, Port Albemi, Courtenay and Parksville on Vancouver Island, many of which are forestry based communities, or where people who work in the forest industry live and send their kids to school, continue to grow and thrive. They will do that if we manage our trees on a sustained yield basis.
Managing our forests is quite a different thing. It is absolutely obligatory on the part of this government and this minister in particular and the new ministry of which he will be in charge once this legislation is passed to also talk to the people of Canada and to emphasize to the provinces and to the people across this country the need to manage our forests, that complex organism I talked about before that is made up of trees, animals, hydrologic systems, climatic systems, wildlife habitat, and all of those things that are more than the sum of its parts. The minister has to talk about those as well and has to promote the continuation of those.
There is a problem in the management of our forest lands in this country today. As my colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway pointed out, there appears to be an inadequate process of environmental impact and assessment of forestry operations. There appears to be an inadequate public involvement process. As a result, the public does not feel that they as communities are adequately involved in forest land use decision-making. Other groups with equally important interests in forest management, those who manage wildlife, those who are involved in the tourist industry, those who have an interest in the forests as well, are not represented. As my colleague pointed out, the result of this has been land use conflicts ail across Canada that have grown to be very, very bitter conflicts.
He pointed out one that took place in Clayoquot Sound where it resolved down to the union having to go out and sue in small claims court to recover wages lost from environmentalists who, with the best of intentions, were using civil disobedience to block roads in order to prevent road building taking place which they felt was a threat to the forests in Clayoquot Sound on the west coast of my riding.
Government Orders
I do not question the intentions of either side. The problem was that there was no legitimate public involvement process in land use decision making. There was no legitimate environmental impact or social impact process which would have protected and optimized jobs in the forest industry, jobs in the tourist industry and other interests in forest land use.
In the absence of that process, what could those people do? They felt compelled, desperate and they went in and blocked roads. As a result, they ended up being forced to pay the wages of the loggers who had lost their jobs. I might add, the loggers were equally desperate, their jobs were being threatened by that action. It is hard to blame either the loggers or the environmentalists.
What is to blame in this situation is the fact that this government has not demanded environmental impact assessment procedures from provincial governments even though federal resources are affected.
The other issue involves the native interests in our forest lands. We see the same kind of conflicts taking place in Quebec. For example, the Barrier Lake Algon-quins were attacked by the Quebec riot police, with helicopters overhead. It was almost reminiscent of the situation in Afghanistan a few years ago. Those police, working on behalf and representing the interests of the government and the forest companies, refused any consultation with the Barrier Lake Algonquins. When they expressed their opposition in the only way that remained open to them through civil disobedience, the riot police were brought in. Their Chief was thrown in jail.
Today, as far as I am aware, absolutely no negotiation is taking place. In that case, the lands that are about to be logged are in a wilderness area, an area that was set aside to protect certain species of wildlife on behalf of both the native Indians of the area and the people of Quebec. Those things have been ignored by the Government of Quebec, and as a result native Indians have been thrown in jail. Those kind of conflicts are taking place all across this country.
Let us hope that government members will have had an opportunity to review the amendment, to give it some consideration and respond affirmatively to it because this amendment asks that the minister not only consider promoting the economic and the social benefits of our

Government Orders
forests and the forest industry but also considers sustaining the forest environment in our country which is quite a different thing from sustaining trees.
It is a good amendment. I am very pleased that my colleague moved it and I hope that the House will rise and support it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received the amendment from the Member for Surrey North and neglected to propose it to the House at that time. I will do so now. Mr. Karpoff moved:
That Motion No. 5 be amended by adding the following word:
"forest". The words specifically concerning the value of sustainable
development.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does find the amendment to be in order. At the same time, I was asked by the Member for Victoria to review my ruling concerning motions at the report stage on Bill C-29.
After careful consideration and listening to the convincing arguments for the Member for Victoria the Chair will allow Motion No. 8 to be debated and to be voted on separately.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this bill for the protection of our forests and, particularly, on this amendment, the first part of which originally came from the government to enhance public awareness of the social, economic and environmental benefits derived from Canada's forests, and now with the addition made by my colleague, the specific direction of concern for sustainable development.
This has been a concern of Canadians for a great many years and not only for those who live in the ridings where there are great forests or where people depend on the forests for their livelihood, although that is obviously a very, very major concern for those ridings and for that reason a major concern for all Canada because it is such an important part of our economy.
However, this has been a concern from the very beginning of Canada. In fact, one of the first persons to warn about the possible loss of our forests before Canada was even extended to its present sea to sea extent was Sir
John A. Macdonald who said on June 22, 1871: "The sight of immense masses of timber passing my window every morning-", I suppose he was referring to the timber going down the Ottawa River "-constantly suggests to my mind the absolute necessity there is for looking into the future of this great trade. We are recklessly destroying the timber of Canada and there is scarcely the possibility of replacing it."
That was said 128 years ago by the first Prime Minister of this country. His warning does not seem to have been taken very seriously.
We are rapidly losing our forests as are many other countries in the world. We have been warned now that our forests are not just necessary to the economy, not just necessary for those who like hunting and fishing and camping or canoeing, but they are necessary for air.
We are warned about the dramatic losses of forest in places like the Amazon Valley, Indonesia and other areas not quite so dramatic, such as southern Chile where the Fascist government has sold off forest and mining rights so that the hills are absolutely denuded by strip mining and clear cutting.
We also find that the Soviet Union has now recognized that its forests are not unlimited and it is beginning to take thought for the preservation of them.
But in Canada it seems that in spite of Sir John A. Macdonald and others our forest industries are mainly allowed to be cut without adequate replacement and the government's replacement programs are not adequate.
In the riding I represent, the riding of Trinity-Spadina in Toronto, we do not have forests, certainly not forests for harvesting. We do have many trees and for that we have to thank homeowners of years ago and in our own time who planted trees on their private properties and the parks department that has a policy of trying to replace every tree with two trees. When one tree has to be cut down, the Toronto parks department in the city of Toronto attempts to plant two. That is good, but it is not nearly enough.
Just as one way of measuring it, it takes, so I understand, several healthy sized maple trees to replace in the air the oxygen consumed by one family automobile driven about 20,000 miles in a year. Now the exact figures can be refined one way or another but, in fact,
October 27, 1989

Government Orders
since we have a little more than one automobile per person in the city of Toronto, I believe we do not have enough trees to keep replacing the oxygen used by our automobiles. We depend on the rest of the country to supplement our oxygen. We depend on the forests of Canada to keep Toronto breathing.
As I said, we do not have forests in Toronto and we do not have many people directly dependent on the forest industry for a pay cheque. But my understanding is that every man, every woman and every child in Toronto from the moment of birth, wants to breathe and they want to breathe good air. It is becoming a problem in Toronto partly because of pollution from too many automobiles and partly because of so many heating plants. In most people's experience, the general temperature of Toronto has risen in recent years. There are just so many warm buildings in downtown Toronto.
Some people think we have too many people in Toronto. Some of the people came to Toronto because the trees in their neighbourhoods were all cut down. I lived from 1951 to 1954 in the Gatineau Valley where I was in charge of an Anglican parish. There practically all the white pine had been cut a generation or two before and people were then cutting the second and third growth for pulpwood. It is very difficult to keep the tree growth in balance with the pulpwood growth. When a tree gets to be four inches it is a salable pulpwood log.
Many of the people from the Gatineau Valley left the Gatineau, whether it was to go to Montreal or to Rouyn-Noranda or to Toronto because the saw logs, the lumber logs, were practically all gone and they could not all live off pulpwood cutting or such other small industries as there were in the valley.
So these people came to Toronto looking for work and they all expected to breathe. They have a right to breathe, and they have a right to work as well. But if we are going to destroy the forest they will not work and if we destroy enough of the forests they and we will not breathe.
It has come to the point where the scientists are warning us that we simply cannot continue to survive if we continue to destroy our forests.
This is the most serious concern I have and therefore I am very pleased that the govemmebnt has undertaken to do some enhancing of the public's understanding of this matter. I hope that solid educational material will be put forward and not glossy brochures bragging about how much the government has done.
It can put forward information, for example, on more specific matters. For example, 62 per cent of the sugar maples in Quebec have been damaged by acid rain. At current rates the Canadian maple syrup industry will be dead within a decade. Some of us enjoy maple syrup, Mr. Speaker. No doubt we can live without it and possibly we would be even more healthy without various forms of sugar. But it is a $40 million a year industry. What are those people going to do when the sugar maple trees are gone?
It was reported this spring in British Columbia that cedar, arbutus and Douglas fir trees in some areas were showing signs of damage due to acid precipitation. This morning the Minister of the Environment seemed to say that acid rain was not a problem on the west coast. I am not sure I caught his exact wording but if he does think it is not a problem, perhaps he should talk to some of the people in British Columbia who are concerned about the Douglas fir and these other trees.
I want now to take up a very important related matter which I hope the government will include when it is doing its enhancement program and when it is advertising the need for sustainable development. The forest and the so-called rural areas of Canada in many places are bound up with the sustainable development of our First Nations. In many parts of Canada the forest is an industry that has been operating for, I suppose, 11,000 years by the people who have lived there without destroying it. They gathered what there was from the trees or the rivers or by hunting wild game or sometimes doing agriculture in small clearings.
However, they did not destroy the forests. The forests were there for thousands of years until we Europeans came. I believe one of the ways of preserving the forests so that we in Ottawa, or Toronto or in the other cities in Canada can breathe-I hope the government will take this up seriously-is to grant the land rights that

October 27, 1989
Government Orders
Canada's First Nations are still demanding and of which they have never been lawfully deprived.
In eastern Quebec, for example, the Innu or Montag-nais people living around La Romaine are being harassed by the overflights by NATO. These overflights are bombing training for destroying the Soviet Union. In order to practise flying low under the radar they are destroying the way of life of about 9,000 or 10,000 Innu people in the land the Innu people call Ntasinan and that we call eastern Quebec and Labrador.
They are not only driving the Innu people out of their homeland, they are damaging the soil and the water with fuel pollution. They are damaging the trees, they are using parts of it as a bombing range, sometimes using dummy bombs, but soon if NATO goes in there they will be using live bombs. They are damaging the forests, disturbing the wildlife, polluting the rivers and turning it into a battle zone. This is the most extreme case in Canada. The government should be stopping this so as to protect Canada's forests in that area and the other areas.
There are Indian land rights which the Canadian Council of Churches are helping them to defend all across the northern parts of Canada. If this government is serious in the educating the Canadian public to the need for our forests in many different ways, they will include the need to protect Canada's First Nations in their responsible use of our forests.
There has not been very much education by this government or by any previous government on this matter of the land. Somehow or other the words of our first Prime Minister seem to be buried wherever he wrote them.
This amendment of the government to "enhance public awareness of the social, economic and environmental benefits derived from Canada's forests" with the subamendment to include "sustainable economic development" is certainly a very necessary thing to do. It is much more important than spending $40 million trying to sell the trade deal with the United States or however many millions of dollars the government is still planning to spend selling the goods and services tax. It would be far more useful to acquaint Canadians in our cities and in our rural areas with the fact that we absolutely need our forests. Those who never want to walk in a forest or paddle a canoe down a river in our forest areas need our
forests because our cities will not survive without the oxygen produced by them and the other forests of the world.
This part of the bill I think is very commendable and I hope both the amendment and the subamendment will receive the support of this House.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments about Motion No. 6 which is before the House, and the proposal that the bill should include in the minister's responsibilities the power to enhance public awareness of the social, economic and environmental benefits derived from Canada's forests and specifically, according to the subamendment, to provide sustainable development.
I rise as a member from Saskatchewan, an area where I think it is generally not perceived in the rest of Canada as being a forested region. Yet the House should know that that riding of Mackenzie was virtually all forest originally and the forestry industry is still a very big part of the economic activity that goes on there.
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan is not all prairie. Only about a quarter of the total area is prairie and the rest is a mixture of open land and parkland. After that the topography is solid forest until you get into the Canadian shield. So for northeastern Saskatchewan, which is the area I represent, the farmers who are still there, though they are becoming fewer in number, arrived faced with the prospect of good timber and turning that timber into lumber for shipment out of the region for use in building towns and villages and farm buildings. This was very much a part of the early life of that particular part of the country.
All of us who still live there have parents or grandparents who were involved in the forest industry, particularly in the winter time. There are still two very large plants in the town of Hudson Bay which rely quite heavily on the forest industry, with a plywood plant and a stud mill that are both still operating at this time.
The reason that I wish to speak on this subamendment which refers to the need for sustainable development is just that. In this town with two large mills employing just over 1,000 people directly and indirectly, we have been told that the stud mill will have to close in June next year because the forests are being depleted of large enough timber within a transportable area. That, combined with
October 27, 1989

the agreement to impose an export tax on the product from that mill, as part of the negotiations that led up to the trade agreement, leaves us in the forestry business worse off than we were before. We had free trade in forestry products before the negotiations began. After the negotiations we had a tax on our own products before we could export them. As a result, the decision has been made that the mill will be closed and many of the people employed in that particular comer of the province will be looking for other ways of making a living.
We do have some other options. The stud mill was basically using spruce and pine. There are great stands of poplar which do not have much use, other than to produce local timber. Local people understand the value of poplar wood, but we have not convinced other users of the benefit of it. There have been numerous studies and projects launched to decide what to do with all this poplar. There is now a proposal going through the region, the location of which, by rumour, will be in either Nipawin or Hudson Bay, to utilize some of that standing poplar and aspen by applying a new technology to transform it into pulp and paper.
If it comes to pass, it will provide some of the employment that will be lost by the closure of this stud mill, thanks in part to the decision in the negotiations leading up to the trade agreement. Perhaps the region may be able to save some of its jobs and find another way of utilizing some of the trees that are in that substantially forested area. The total forest is shrinking somewhat because of incursions of farmland, but the area that has been designated to be forest is still there. It needs perhaps better management so that we do not have the boom and bust kind of harvesting, where a large logging and timber milling company will move in to utilize the resource, then disappear for the next 30 or 40 years. That has too often been the case in that region.
I think it is important that the new department of forestry take cognizance of the need for sustainable development, as the amendment that is before the House now suggests. As well, I believe that the new department, as a federal department, should use its powers to enhance public awareness of the social,
Government Orders
economic and environmental benefits to be derived from Canada's forests. I am not completely convinced that this new department will have very much power to do that. When I look at the powers that exist in the bill, as I read it, the new department will simply take over everything that fell through the cracks from existing agencies, boards and departments within the federal government.
We are all aware that most of the big economic decisions with regard to forestry tend to be made at the provincial level because the provinces have the jurisdiction over the production and harvesting of those forests within their own boundaries. Federal jurisdiction only applies when those products leave the provincial boundary. I suppose the main initiative for developing and establishing a department of forestry was probably pushed along most rapidly by the decision of the government in the last Parliament to establish the export tax on forest and lumber materials as they leave the country.
I think the industry had great difficulty finding a focus for their complaints to the government. Their thinking seems to have been that if there was a department of forestry, they would at least have had some place to focus their discontent. They were not happy with the results they obtained by dealing with the Ministers of the Environment, Agriculture, Trade and Commerce and any others who had a peripheral interest in the trade issue having to do with forestry and lumber products. So there was pressure to have a ministry of forestry and the Prime Minister was willing to expand his cabinet yet again.
The benefits that can accrue from this amendment are that the general public and presumably the provincial governments and the industry itself will be made aware of the benefits to be gained from participating in sustainable development. They will co-operate and provide the kind of regulation and management of our forests that will in fact have that result.
The resource that they are working with is extremely important to this country. Some of my colleagues have pointed out the importance of forestry and forests to the ecology and the environment of this country. As they have pointed out, more than half the total land area of Canada is covered in forests. In the 10 provinces alone, almost 80 per cent of the area is forested, approximately

October 27, 1989
Government Orders
four times the acreage that is used in agricultural land. As we drive through or fly over the country we cannot help but notice how large the harvesting process is. As we fly over British Columbia or northern Ontario, even parts of Saskatchewan, we see huge areas that have been laid waste as a result of the clear-cutting system we have in place. We can observe big bare spots on the landscape from one to five miles in the air.
Canadians have to be made aware of what that does when we clear huge areas like that. What happens to the local residents of small towns in the area when the resource that they are relying on for jobs is depleted? It is very difficult to continue strong economic and social units in those towns, to raise families, to establish churches and businesses, when the harvesting is done in such a way that forests are depleted and jobs are no longer sustainable.
I urge the House to support this subamendment and enhance the ability of the government to make people aware of how harmful that kind of development can be and how there are other options that we can adopt.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to support the amendment put forward by my colleague which adds to the motion of the minister to enhance public awareness of the social, economic and environmental benefits derived from Canadian forests, the further requirement or onus upon the new ministry to enhance public awareness of the principles of sustainable development regarding our forest resources.
I am also very pleased to do this within the context of the bill as a whole, which sets up for the first time, I believe, in Canada, a full minister and department of forests.
Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I would like again to congratulate the minister. I know he has had this goal for some time. It has been a long gestation period. We are finally getting there and what we are trying to do by working together, and I believe I speak for all parties in this regard, is to try at this time to set up a full ministry of forestry to ensure that it has the strongest mandate possible in order to preserve and enhance an industry that has both historically and in terms of its
economic contribution done more for Canada and Canadians than probably any other industry.
I am also very pleased to be addressing this particular amendment at this time because just last weekend in the city of Nelson, which is my home town, and one of the centres of my constituency of Kootenay West-Revelstoke, there was a conference called "Getting High on Nature". I think it will turn out to have played a very important part in increasing exactly this public awareness not only of the principles of sustainable development, but also the other mandates that are listed as being important functions of this ministry and department.
The conference "Getting High on Nature" was actually hosted by School District No. 7 which encompasses the city of Nelson and surrounding area. It was the brainchild of a Mr. Bob Harrigan who is a well known communicator, particularly in western Canada, on subjects related to the environment and more recently coupled with the phrase "sustainable development".
This conference included about 120 high school students and some 300 educators, both educational administrators and public school teachers from elementary and high schools throughout British Columbia and other provinces in western Canada. The key participants from across the country, some of them of international renown, dealt with a number of areas of environmental concern. I was able to be present at some of the ceremonial aspects of the conference between other responsibilities in the constituency and noted that regardless of which workshop-at least 20 or 30 workshops at which the educators and the students were working together to get a better grasp of the complexities of all of these issues-whether they were talking about soil, water or air, or any subject related to the environment, forestry always played a role.
There were, of course, particular workshops and a number of keynote speaks who dealt primarily with the principles of sustainable development and with the intricacies of the forest industry and its particular problems, but regardless of the single topic, forestry always played a part.
The minister will know, and anyone acquainted with the forest industry will know, that if you are talking about soil quality, a great deal of attention must be paid
October 27, 1989

to the impact of the forest cover on the build-up and maintenance of those soils.
When it comes to matters of irrigation and water tables, the preservation of a balanced forest is vital to that substance upon which our society depends for its very day-to-day existence. Of course in recent years, anyone with eyes to see and the ears to hear could not ignore the terrific impact that forest cover both in Canada and internationally plays upon the atmospheric environment, particularly in light of recent debates on the greenhouse effect and the dangers of global warming.
Of course many of the other discussions that took place at that conference dealt with the ongoing debate which is taking place between the various users of the forestry resource, whether they be loggers, fallers, sawmill workers, people in the plywood industry, hunters, naturalists, water users and other soil users. Everyone has a vested interest. The growing recognition by conferences such as the one held by Nelson last weekend or in the media generally in recent months, is that the principle of sustainable development means that those resources that we have always held to be renewable must in fact be made renewable. It is vitally important if we are to be able to derive a good living both individually and as a nation from that resource, or to be able to enjoy the recreational time that gives this nation and its people much of their own particular spirit.
Another event that happened within my own constituency recently I think also shows the importance of the coupling of environmental awareness and the economic importance of the forestry resource. The company which operates the pulp operation in Castlegar is now in partnership between certain Canadian economic interests and the Chinese government. The pulp mill in Castlegar recently announced a $630 million expansion program. It was interesting to note that in their public information release they suggested that one of the major reasons for that major investment at this time was the stricter and proper environmental standards that have now been imposed on the industry.
I particularly noted at the time that this release was giving strong credence to what many people have been
Government Orders
saying for years, that a new awareness and concentration on protecting the environment in fact can create jobs. Here you have $630 million being invested, a doubling of production in an area of the province of British Columbia which has the highest proportion of decadent wood of any other part of the province, causing the doubling of pulp capacity in an area in which that wood supply had to be utilized in order to make room for new forest regeneration. We were very happy not only because of the jobs that were being created but because the expansion of that operation allowed us to utilize our resource in a much better way, and, as it turns out, in a much more environmentally sensitive way at the same time.
I was also happy because it allowed me to use that as an example. All of us who are concerned with the economic well-being of those communities and the people dependent on this industry, and I have been one of them for the majority of my working life, can use it to show that we can have a resource that provides jobs, that provides strengthened communities and looks after our environment at the same time, as long as we do it intelligently and with a view to the needs of the future.
I have been involved over many, many years in a number of attempts through public meetings, the use of theatre music, to try to bring groups together, be they be environmentalists or loggers. We have attempted to bring them together in forums in which they can begin to meet on some common ground, and it is not always easy. Any other members who happen to come from constituencies that comprise strong representation both of woodworkers and those with a very strong feeling for the natural aspects of our environment, will realize that being a politician for those kinds of areas is not always the easiest thing to do. You are trying constantly to get them to find common ground, to continue to talk with each other in a reasonable manner and to respect each other's roles. But it can be done. Take, for example, two of my best friends, both who come from my own area. One is Jack Munro, president of IWA Canada. The other is Colleen McCrory, who is president of the Valhalla Wilderness Society and one of the chief, so-called, "hired guns" of the environmental movement in Canada. Many ministers here shudder when they hear her name because she seems to be able to get appointments and get things done in half an hour that other people would take months to do.
October 27, 1989

Government Orders
If those two people and the people who work with them can agree with each other on the needs and principles of sustainable development, working together to build a healthy forest industry and a healthy Canada for the future, then it is possible. I hope that the minister will accept this amendment and we can proceed together to build a stronger industry, a stronger Canada and a healthy environment.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, support of the sub-amendment which specifically supports the principle of sustainable development in relation to the forestry industry of this country.
I will begin first of all by saying one never knows how much one appreciates anything until one has lost it. You would understand that if you came from the Nickel Belt. Unfortunately, I never did have an opportunity to appreciate the luxurious growth which did exist in the Sudbury Basin before the Chicago fire and before the development of smelting nickel. The folks who had lived there for a long time told me of the lush growth on the hills, the streams which ran through the hills, valleys, the streams filled with trout. One old gentleman told me that when he was a boy he would go with his father and fish for trout to bring home for supper, and he had just gone about a mile from where he lived in the small community of Coniston.
If you have been to the Sudbury Basin in the last 15 years, Mr. Speaker, you will know what I mean because we have lost our forests. We lost them because we were greedy-I am talking about the species-and cut down the trees. Everybody attributes that to the Chicago fire because the wood from the trees cut in the Sudbury Basin really went to rebuild Chicago after the Chicago fire. Then along came the smelting of nickel which was done on roaster beds. They would cut the logs down and pile them all up into a huge beds, then they would put eaves on the ends of these piles and then light a fire. The ore would smelt and the nickel would run off into the eaves and be collected.
As a result of that, the SO2 finished off what little growth there was close to the ground. Once the growth was gone the wind removed the soil from the hills so that all we had was simply hills of bedrock.
We miss those forests. I think it really does detract from the quality of life. I know when people talk about the quality of life today we talk about food, the clothing we wear, the kind of houses we live in and the kind of cars we drive. But I think quality of life also speaks to the question of the environment as well because I think there is something very soothing about the forests. It certainly keeps man closer in touch with nature. So, we are attempting now to rebuild the forests. When I began my speech I said that in fact we do not know what it is like. We do not know what we have lost until we have actually lost it. We do not have it, and we want to rebuild it.
Today Canadians, as a nation, are much more aware of the importance of the forests in our country. I get letters from student groups in high schools who are pleading for me to intervene with the ambassador from Brazil, to write letters imploring him to cease the development in the Amazon Basin so that we can maintain the tropical rain forests. There is a heightened consciousness of the need to protect the forests, not only in the world but also in Canada. It is important to know in Canada, in particular, the importance of forestry to our country. Half of the total land area of Canada, 79 per cent of the area within the 10 provinces, is forested. Sixty percent of forest land is productive. Production of forest products in 1987 accounted for $38 billion. Only the food and beverage industry exceeded the forest industry's contribution to manufacturing in Canada.
In 1986 forest product exports were $17.9 billion; lumber exports were $4.1 billion; paper and paperboard, $7.5 billion; and other forest products accounted for $1.4 billion. In 1987 exports were up to $20.9 billion.
They provided Canada with a net balance of trade of $18.3 billion in 1987. Farm products in comparison accounted for $1.4 billion; fishery products, $2 billion; energy products including petroleum, natural gas, and electricity, $5.5 billion; metal ores and non-ferrous metals, $6.2 billion.
The forest product industries in this country account for 15 per cent of Canada's total merchandise trade. Canada supplies 23 per cent of the world's exports of pulp and paper, and 23 per cent of total exports of manufactured forest products. There are 840,000 persons employed directly or indirectly in the forestry industry, representing 7.4 per cent of all working Cana-

dians. The forestry industry provides the economic base for more than 300 single-industry communities across Canada.
Apart from that economic contribution, I think it is important to recognize that forests have a direct impact on the weather, something I think we have ignored in the past. The forests regulate the stream flow. I mentioned what happened in our area. Once the forest disappeared, the streams disappeared. Forests minimize soil erosion. I described what happened in our own area. It protects fish and wildlife habitat, and, of course, improves air quality.
Rain forests, together with oceanic plankton, account for 90 per cent of the world's photosynthetic oxygen. Yet I am absolutely amazed of how we waste our forests. Foresters who work in the bush in northern Ontario tell me I would be amazed at the waste in the bush, the slashing of trees and logs left that could not be hauled out.
You can go through parks just north of my riding where there was inappropriate husbandry of the forest. It was slash and run. There was no reforestation. Provincial governments entered into cosy deals with forestry companies. That was the whole reason for the countervail by the Americans on softwood lumber. The stumpage fees were not high enough, they charged. It was notorious in the province of Ontario that the stumpage fees charged were not sufficient to reforest what was being cut by the private sector. There was absolutely no consideration of the harm being done to the environment.
I want to say to the minister that I am personally pleased that we are finally going to have a department of forestry, promised in 1984, delivered in 1989. The Liberals would not touch it, of course. After 20 years of Liberal rule, the Liberal governments did not even recognize the importance of having a ministry of forestry. We have a ministry of fisheries and a ministry of energy and mines. But here is the most important resource to the economic well-being of this country as well as its aesthetic well-being and yet it had no ministry. I want to say to the minister that we support this bill, we support this subamendment, we are pleased that we will have a ministry. I am sure the trees are happy. I want to tell the government that I am going out to hug a tree.
Government Orders


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend, not only are the trees happy, but if you listen, the wood is happy too. I say that to my good friend from Nickel Belt all in jest.
I support the bill wholeheartedly, without reservation. It is a good idea. The minister was there a minute ago. I am sure he is hanging on to every word I am saying while out there. It is a good idea, I say to him, because one in every ten jobs in Canada is generated by the forestry industry. That is a figure we have heard on a number of occasions in this House and so we should because I submit that part of the problem in terms of the lack of profile that forestry matters have had in government and in attracting the attention of decision-makers is that politicians of all political stripes have not cottoned onto or tuned into the marvellous impact for economic good that the forestry industry has in this country.
A few years ago when the Hon. John Roberts was the minister responsible for forestry, I had the good fortune to be his parliamentary secretary for a couple of years. In that capacity, I got to know some of the people in the forestry industry, right from British Columbia to Newfoundland. The forestry industry, of course, is extremely well served and the country is well served by the calibre of people who are involved in the industry, both in terms of the government bureaucracies federally and provincially and in terms of people who have chosen to invest in the industry and who work in the industry.
I do not want to delay the passage of this legislation. That is not my purpose in rising. It is just to get on the record one or two concerns that I have and then I want to give notice to whoever on the other side is piloting this legislation through the House that I shall be finished speaking in just a very few minutes. Oh, there is the minister. I say to him and his colleagues that it is my intention to get a couple of things on the record and then hopefully assist the administration in getting this good piece of legislation moving through the stages before we rise for the day.
I have the honour to represent a riding called Burin- St. George's. In the center of that riding geographically there is a bit of geography known locally as "Bay Despair". For the francophones among us, you would probably pronounce the it "Baie D'Espoir". It is a tribute to the Newfoundlanders who live there that they are able to take what is a foreign language term and put it into very translatable idiom, particularly given the local

October 27, 1989
Government Orders
situation where the unemployment rate is of the order of 80 per cent.
Why is unemployment that high in that particular area? That is the highest unemployment rate of any geographical pocket in Newfoundland and, indeed, just about the highest anywhere in Canada. The term "Baie D'Espoir" in French means Bay of Elope. The story behind it is that when some people were lost at sea they thought their number was up and then realized that they were up a long bay and hence, they called it Bay D'Espoir. For them, it was exactly a place of hope.
In Bay Despair, as we call it, why is it that the English corruption of the name so accurately reflects the reality in that particular area? The reason has to do with forestry. If you go back over many years, you will find that in Bay Despair on the south coast of Newfoundland, the communities of St. Alban's, St. Joseph's, St. Veronica's, Bay Despair, Milltown, Morrisville and to a degree Conne River, the 6,000 people in those communities came to rely over many years-going back around to the turn of the century and before and until the late 1950s, about 30 years ago-on forestry as a generator of economic activity and a source of employment.
In the later part of that period ending in about 1957 or 1958, these people used to actually harvest wood which was shipped from Bay Despair to England as pit props to prop up the underground mining facilities in Wales and southwest England. Of course, before that, they also used to cut logs which were boomed and taken by boat around into the paper mill at Corner Brook, quite a long voyage by water for those of you who know the geography and the distances involved.
Here is my point. The Bowater Company was the company harvesting the wood for both purposes, the local paper manufacturing purposes and the export of pit props. Once Bowater ceased its operation there, what did you have on your hands? You had literally hundreds of people, mainly men, who had skills in harvesting wood which were no longer marketable because there was no longer any need for harvesting wood. You had a whole generation of people who were quite skilled at harvesting wood, familiar with the technology of the day but had nowhere to market their skills. Those people over time went to Labrador, to other parts of Newfoundland or to
various parts of the Canadian mainland to find jobs where they could.
I come to the early 1980s. The government of the day, the great Liberal government of Mr. Trudeau of which I was pleased to be a supporter introduced a forestry economic stimulation program, FESP for short.


Mr. Thompson:: Festering?


Roger Simmons: I think the member is coming awake. I didn't quite get what he said but-


An Hon. Member:: He's one of your colleagues.


Roger Simmons: No, it was not one of my colleagues. It was one of the rump group that sits up there. They are supporters of the government but reluctant supporters so they sit well up on the far end of the Chamber. We meet here every day at this time, and you should really drop in more often.
I want to conclude on the point I was making, because I would like to leave the minister some time to make his remarks, if that is his wish. I want him in particular, if he would, to consider addressing the issue I just introduced-the issue of the Forestry Economic Stimulation Program, the so-called FESP. I have just spent some minutes describing to the Chamber the situation in Bay D'Espoir, why the unemployment rate is high. In capsule, it is because many people there have forestry skills and nowhere to market them.
For a brief period in the early 1980s they were helped by this government through the special FESP program. They were able to engage in various activities-silviculture, thinning, various functions which were related to their forestry skills. It provided much needed employment, but equally to the point it gave an opportunity for us to regenerate our good forest stands in that particular part of the country.
I see my time is up. I make a plea to the minister to indicate to us whether he has given some thought to restoring that kind of a program for the sake of our forests and at the same time to creating some employment opportunities in that particular area as well as the St. George's area of my riding which also benefited from the FESP initiative.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
October 27, 1989


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the amendment on Motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey North.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the subamendment lost on division.
The next question will be on Motion No. 1. A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, and and 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next motion is Motion No. 7 which will be debated and voted on separately.


John F. Brewin: Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-29 be amended in Clause 10 by adding immediately
after line 31 at page 3 the following:
"(3) The report shall include but not be restricted to information on forest employment, an inventory of Canada's forest lands, a review of new forestry-related products, a survey of environmental standards being applied by the forest industry, trade issues and figures and the integrated use of our forests."
He said: Mr. Speaker, just a quick word on this motion which stands in my name, but in spirit it is the motion of the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley who has been the very effective New Democratic critic in the forestry areas. He has worked very hard with the minister on this bill and is generally in support of it.
This particular amendment comes from that member, and I am very pleased to move it in the House. The amendment has this effect: clause 10 of the bill provides
Government Orders
that the minister is to file annually a report showing the operations of the forestry ministry and is to include an account of the condition of forest resources of Canada and their contribution to the Canadian economy.
The amendment, which I hope and understand will be accepted by the government, is to provide for a further outline of what is to be included in the report. It is to include information on forest employment; an inventory of forest lands, which is very important; a review of new forestry related product; and a survey of environmental standards, trade issues and the integrated use of our forest. On behalf of our party I am very pleased to move this amendment.


M. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I support the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party because I agree that an inventory, integrated use of our forests and new forestry-related products would be desirable. Of course, integrated forest management is imperative, although the amendment is similar to the section that deals with establishing a national data centre. We agree to support this amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Victoria. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 7 agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The last motion at report stage is Motion No. 8.


John F. Brewin: moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-29 be amended in Clause 18 by adding immediately
after line 46 at page 6 the following:
"(g) the use of pesticides and pest control products; and (h) the preservation of culturally altered trees."

October 27, 1989
Government Orders
He said: Mr. Speaker, again the motion really comes from our critic in this area, the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Before I launch into a passionate defence of this addition, I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling earlier today which has permitted us to have this as a separate motion. I appreciate very much your ruling on that point.
I will not take long because we wish to accommodate the minister, at least to some extent, by allowing him a few minutes on third reading.
Let me just say that we believe it would be a very helpful amendment to include in the specific regulations that Cabinet is entitled to pass a provision that the Cabinet may in this area regulate the use of pesticides and pest control products, as well as the preservation of culturally altered trees. The very language speaks for itself. It is an important amendment, and I would hope that the government would feel it can accept the amendment.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I am reluctant to ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, perhaps for the same reason that the Chair had earlier decided not to accept it.
In dealing with pesticides and pest control products, it would be reaching into the mandates, authorities and jurisdictions of other departments of government and the provinces. I really do not think that this particular amendment would do much to strengthen the bill as it is or add to the mandate that has been assigned to the new ministry. I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and would ask for their understanding.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 8 negatived.


Frank Oberle: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Frank Oberle: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes, in concluding the affairs of this bill before the House to re-establish the Department of Forestry, to express my gratitude and that of the government to all those who have contributed to the debate throughout the country, those who have appeared as witnesses before the legislative committee including the Canadian Institute of Forestry, forestry advisory councils and all the various agencies which have an important stake in our forests.
I also want to thank my colleagues and friends in the opposition parties who have approached this debate with a spirit of co-operation and enthusiasm, all of which reminds us of the fact that our forests are an ever-increasingly important component of life in Canada, critically important to our economy.
My colleagues have spoken, on second reading and again in support of the amendments before the House, of the regional importance of forestry and its importance to trade and to jobs. I do not wish to take time to reiterate all that.
We also talked about new dimensions that are be equated with our forests today-the environment, the ecology, and the concept of sustainable development which is so critically important particularly to forestry, not just because it is important to restructure and reconfigure the industry so that it can be less harmful to the environment through the discharge of chemicals and agents into the environment but to the management of the forests themselves, which as we all know now are perhaps the most critical element of our ecological

system. It is said that our forests are the lungs of the globe.
I would anticipate that the new Department of Forestry will not suffer the same fate as predicted by some, as did the mandate that was established back in 1960. Today we are looking at our forests in a much different light.
One of our poets said some time ago that of all of nature's scenes it is the woods where she reveals her deepest secrets and bestows her greatest blessings and riches. How true that is when we look at it in the context of this debate.
Even in Canada there are limits to what the forests can produce for us if we do not take proper care. We will, of course, never run out of trees in Canada. Even in my province where 60 per cent of the economy is dependent upon our forests, we only use less than 30 per cent of the land base for commercial conversion. The rest is perhaps not as accessible economically or is so-called scrub or weed variety. Nevertheless those forests too are critically important to the environment. We are facing some very critical problems and some tough decisions have to be made.
We are engaged in serious conflicts over the use of our land, the need to set aside for environmental purposes certain critical areas that are ecologically sensitive. Of course we are required to respond to new demands for industry.
In the past I can recall reading in Hansard the words of Right Hon. Prime Minister John George Diefenbaker who pointed out in 1960 that it was estimated that industry would double in its capacity and its shipments over the next 15 years. Conservative as the then Prime Minister was, he was even too conservative in making those predictions because we went much further than doubling the output of this important industry. Today we have data and evidence which would indicate that over the next 20 years the industry will double again. Already we are the world's largest shipper of construction lumber, and we are playing the most important role in trade in many of our forestry products.
We are adding 100 million new people to the world's population. All of them will lay a claim to the scarce resources and, of course, the potential for growth in the
Government Orders
forest products industry is increasing at exponential rates. I predict that the present estimates are conservative again and the industry will require more fibre every year if we are to retain the share of our world markets that we have carved out for ourselves and indeed realize the potential we have to enlarge our market share. The countries with which we compete in world markets have very much reached their potential for increased yield and growth in their forests, harvesting second, third and fourth generation forests and having shifted to much more intensive management than we had to in the past many, many decades ago.
It is predicted by our scientists that we can get up to three times the volume of fibre if we shift to more intensive management modes. Really what this bill is all about is helping our industry make this transition, helping our industry improve its market share but helping our industry reshape its attitude toward our forests to the point where important business decisions are made not in accordance with market opportunities or the availability of investment capital but in accordance with the fibre that is available.
That requires us, of course, to equate all of the various concerns and all the various aspects of forestry. It means we will have to shift to more intensive management of those forests we have allocated for commercial conversion. It means that we have to look at other aspects such as tourism which comes to mind.
Tourism is an ever-increasingly important industry in our province of British Columbia, the second largest industry and growing. Our forests are the backdrop of the tourism industry so we have to keep that in mind and manage our commercial forests in a way that they provide an asset to that important sector.
Likewise wildlife, the streams and fresh air have to be considered in all of these equations. There has to be a refocusing of our research efforts, a mobilization of the combined efforts of everyone that has a stake in our forests, indeed, every individual Canadian, because our forests are very much a part of our psyche. They are part of our nature.
When you travel and mention the word "Canada", it is immediately related to forests, to tall trees, to the prairies, and some of the other assets we have.

October 27, 1989
Private Members' Business
As my friends on both sides of the House have repeatedly pointed out, we have a custodial responsibility, not just to future generations of Canadians, but to those throughout the world. It has been said-and I said it in my earlier remarks during second reading-that over the last 10 years the area that was populated with trees has declined on a global scale from 25 per cent to just over 20 per cent. If we allow these trends to continue, our own children would experience a complete depletion of the world's forests. Without forests the planet cannot be sustained and certainly life on the plant could not be sustained.
We have a custodial responsibility to the rest of the world to manage those assets which we claim as ours, claiming sovereignty over an area which is the world's second largest with the assets that we have. We have one-fifth of the world's fresh water, which our forests help to cleanse and replenish.
In conclusion, I would just like to say once again, thank you for the co-operation that we have received and thank you to many of the stakeholders in the forest community throughout the country for allowing us to take this important initial step to redefine the role of the federal government and give me an opportunity to exercise the leadership that the Prime Minister has mandated me to exercise through our country to reaffirm the concept and the spirit of the idea of sustainable development to ensure that our forests are able to meet the needs of the present generation without compromise to the future.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE DRESS CODE
Svend Johannes Robinson: That this House express its support for the decision of the Commissioner of the RCMP to revise the Force's dress code to allow Canadian Officers of Sikh origin to wear turbans, to more fully reflect the multicultural reality of Canadian society.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise at this time to speak on this very important motion at a particularly significant time for the discussion of this question.
I want to just again read out the terms of the motion before the House. The motion reads:
That this House express its support for the decision of the Commissioner of the RCMP to revise the Force's dress code to allow Canadian Officers of Sikh origin to wear turbans, to more fully reflect the multicultural reality of Canadian society.
I want to emphazise that this motion in fact supports a decision that was made many, many months ago, some 18 months ago in fact, by the Commissioner of the RCMP, a decision which has not yet been implemented by the minister responsible, the Solicitor General.
I want to as well take this opportunity to emphasise the hard work of all of my colleagues on this issue and to single out in particular a number of those colleagues who, hopefully, will have an opportunity to participate in this debate and who have asked that their support be acknowledged. They include the member for Surrey North who in fact made a statement in this House some weeks ago urging the minister to act; my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, our spokesperson on multi-culturalism, who I am hoping will participate in the debate; my colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke; my colleague, the spokesperson on the ministry of the Solicitor General, the hon. member for Victoria; and many others. Indeed I speak, I say with confidence, on behalf of all of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in supporting this very important motion.
Earlier today my colleague from Victoria questioned the Minister of Justice as to when he would finally move on this important issue. The Minister of Justice indicated that the Solicitor General was studying the issue, that he would be consulting and that there would be a decision in what he called the very near future. Last June the Solicitor General said that he was "in a consultation process with my caucus and everybody." In September he said he was "still consulting".
October 27, 1989

This minister has abdicated his responsibility and his leadership in this very important area. In fact, I would have to ask with whom is the minister consulting? We know that he is a part-time minister, that he is also responsible for agriculture and that he has political responsibilities in the Quebec area. How much longer must we wait before leadership is shown in this important area? Why is it that despite repeated requests by the Federation of Sikh Societies to meet with the Minister to discuss this important question, he has refused to meet with these representatives?
I have a letter dated June 19 which was sent by Mr. Mohinder Singh Gosal, the President of the Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada, urging that they be given an opportunity to meet with the minister to discuss this question. Despite repeated attempts, the minister has refused to do so.
Who is the minister listening to? With whom is he consulting? It seems, because of the delay, that perhaps he is listening to the voices of some of his colleagues in the Conservative caucus, what I would call the dinosaur wing of the Conservative caucus, certain Alberta members of Parliament; the member for Wild Rose and the member for Calgary Southwest, who have suggested that this very important recommendation by the Commissioner of the RCMP should not in fact be implemented.
I know that there is division, discontent and confusion on that side of the House, but today we have an opportunity to send out a very clear message as a Parliament to the people of Canada who are watching this debate, not just the Sikh community, but all Canadians, as to our view. Will it be the view of the member for Wild Rose and the member for Calgary Southwest? The member for Wildrose is quoted as saying that "in western Canada the RCMP mean a lot to us", and they do of course, "and the uniform does. I want to keep it as it is." She went on to say: "Something must be done if we are to keep it forever as it is now".
Let us look at the history of the RCMP uniform. The Northwest Mounted Police were founded in 1873. If we are to look at the traditions that the hon. member has spoken of, the tradition was a pillbox. Does the hon. member want to go back to the days of the pillbox? It was in 1900 that the stetson was brought in at the urging of prairie members of the RCMP because of concerns about the sun.
Private Members' Business
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, back in 1873 and 1900, there were not too many members of the RCMP who wore skirts, nylons and high heels, at least not on duty. The reality is that the RCMP has changed with the times.
I would have hoped that the minister responsible for multiculturalism might have drawn to the attention of the Solicitor General the fact that the changes have been made. Instead, the minister responsible for multiculturalism has been silent while some of his Conservative colleagues have been fanning the flames of hostility and intolerance. That is shameful.
I suggest that we have again an opportunity in this session this afternoon to speak out and voice our concern about this kind of attitude. It is an attitude which has unquestionably led to a rise in the incidence of violence, hatred, and intolerance directed at the Sikh community, particularly in Alberta, where those members are fanning these flames.
Another Conservative member of Parliament, the member for Calgary North, has said that the tabling of these petitions has given rise to unfortunate incidences of prejudice and racism in Calgary. Ron Chahal of Calgary, the president of the World Sikh Organization, has said the frequency of obscene gestures directed at Sikh motorists by other drivers has gone up. That is the kind of atmosphere which is being promoted, whether deliberately or otherwise, by the attitudes of the hon. members.
We have seen shameful badges which have the head of a Sikh in a turban and say "ban this". That kind of badge has no place in a civilized society, and certainly no place in Canada.
I have asked why the minister responsible for multiculturalism has been silent. Understandably, the Sikh community is raising concerns in a more general sense as well. They are asking if perhaps this is part of a more general lack of understanding and concern about issues affecting this proud community, a community which has contributed so much to our society.
For example, there are deep concerns about the way in which the Air-India disaster has been dealt with and the fact that we are still waiting for a comprehensive inquiry into that terrible disaster which resulted in the loss of 329 lives and which also resulted in the blackening of the reputation of an entire community by certain unforgivable actions of CSIS and others.

October 27, 1989
Private Members' Business
Why has this government and this minister not spoken out on the serious violations of human rights affecting the Sikh community in the Punjab and affecting Canadians of Sikh origin in the Punjab? Why has the Secretary of State for External Affairs been silent on that? Why no effort to improve the very difficult problems of immigration, for example, with an additional consulate in the Punjab? Why no grants to the community for over three years? Why no amendment to the Human Rights Act to include the provision for reasonable accommodation which is so important to make that a reality?
I suggest that instead of listening to the narrowminded and intolerant voices of the minister's Conservative colleagues from Calgary, he should be listening to the Commissioner of the RCMP. The Commissioner of the RCMP, when he was questioned in the justice committee earlier this year, strongly supported this change. He said that the face of Canada is changing and he felt that the RCMP, because it has always had representatives of the country it has served in its ranks, needed to attract people from visible minorities and aboriginal peoples.
We have much work to do in that regard. In fact, of the 14,843 members of the RCMP, 14,418 are Caucasian and only a little over 400 out of 14,843 are non-caucasian, including aboriginal peoples. That is a record which has to be changed. That was one of the reasons why the Commissioner of the RCMP made this important recommendation. The Commissioner of the RCMP went on to say that there are other more pragmatic reasons. He pointed out that when the Air India investigation led to certain questions there were only two members of the RCMP who even spoke Punjabi. Even for those practical reasons the RCMP must welcome into its ranks and encourage the hiring of Sikh Canadians.
The Commissioner says as well that we need members who can bridge the psychological gap that sometimes exists between new Canadians and police and how we view police in this country. We need to be able to help them with their problems, to carry out our investigations in an effective way and to deliver to them a police service to which they are entitled. He goes on to note that to deny Sikhs the right to wear turbans would in fact be in
breach both of the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms and the bona fide occupational provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Why does the minister not listen to the Commissioner of the RCMP who has made this very important recommendation? Why did he not accept that recommendation some time ago, before the flames of intolerance could be fanned by a number of hon. members opposite?
I want to say a couple of words about the significance of the turban in the Sikh religion because some people say this is just a question of tradition. This is not a question of tradition, it is not a question of a particular cultural artefact. This is a fundamental article of faith, an essential element of the Sikh religious faith. Indeed, there are five articles of faith: the kes, the kanga, the kirpan, the kara and the kachha. Each of these is a fundamental article of faith.
One of my correspondents has written to me with some background. He says that the turban is known in the Punjabi language as the pag. He said if we study Punjabi culture and Sikh religion, the folk songs, the proverbs and the sayings, we see that the word "turban" is used as a synonym with the words "honour of a person". So a turban is not just a head cover or protection of the hair and head, it is also regarded as a fundamental part of the honour of the Sikh that he must guard at all times at any cost. In fact, removing the turban from a Sikh's head is seen as dishonouring him. It is a fundamental part of the religious tradition and surely we must recognize that and respect it.
Indeed, I care far more about what is inside the head of a member of the RCMP than what is on top of it. If I am in a situation in which I have to call upon the RCMP for assistance, I do not care if they have a turban on their head or a stetson or anything else. I want someone there who is sensitive and able to do the job, as members are in these circumstances.
We are talking of a turban, in the case of members of the RCMP, of a particular nature. In fact, the RCMP turban is made of navy blue cloth and it has a strip of yellow cloth which is wrapped around it. There is a metal brooch of the RCMP emblem similar to the pin worn in the standard uniform cap which is attached to the front of the turban. It is a dignified and appropriate way to accommodate this very important request.
October 27, 1989

I want to note as well that we would by no means be the only jurisdiction to take this very, very small step because, after all, that is what it really is. The United Kingdom, for some time, has allowed all members of the police force of Sikh origin to wear the turban. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about tradition there are not many traditions longer than the tradition of the London bobby. Yet London police of Sikh origin are permitted to wear the turban and it has not resulted in any difficulties whatever.
The Canadian Armed Forces have changed their regulations to allow a turban which, again, is an appropriate colour and design, to be worn by members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Similarly, the metropolitan Toronto police force and the Edmonton police force have incorporated this important tradition, have incorporated this important element of religious faith, because it is not just a tradition.
I am very pleased that we have a number of representatives of the Sikh community in the House today. As has been pointed out by representatives of that community, any baptized Sikh would not be able to join the RCMP if he is not allowed to wear the turban. There should not be any fear that Sikhs will somehow destroy anyone's heritage, culture or beliefs. Sikhs simply want an opportunity to serve their country, our country, in the best possible manner while their religious faith is being respected. That is what this is all about and that is why it is so important that we take this opportunity this afternoon to send out that message.
I will conclude because I do want my colleagues to have an opportunity to speak on this question. In closing, I think it is important we recognize that we have an obligation to show leadership here. Parliament has an opportunity this Friday afternoon to send out a message of confidence in our country, a message that we celebrate the diversity of our country. We have an important opportunity to send the message to the Solicitor General who has waited far too long to come to a decision. Let us demonstrate leadership in this area.
I appeal to all members of the House this afternoon, those who might think of talking this motion out, to think twice, because those who would talk the motion out are going to have to explain, not just to Sikh Canadians, but to all Canadians why it is that they are not prepared to celebrate the diversity of this country and not prepared
Private Members' Business
to accept this very important recommendation of the commissioner. As the clock approaches three o'clock, we will be watching with great care to see if any member of this House actually insists on blocking this bill. For those who are not familiar with the procedure, if there is a debate continued at three o'clock that means there cannot be a vote of this House, that this House will not have an opportunity to speak.
So once again I appeal to all members of this House to let the House speak this afternoon on this important question. Let us take a decision. Let us accept this fundamental recommendation of tolerance and hope for all Canadians.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Burnaby has presented the House with a question relating to proposed changes to the uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The potential introduction of the turban as part of the red serge Mountie uniform has elicited a very strong reaction from many Canadians across the country, both for and against the idea.
Many of those who are arguing against change are adamant that their position is not reflective of a desire to exclude individuals of Sikh origin or, indeed, any member of a visible minority group from joining the force. Rather, they are interested in preserving the red serge uniform as a symbol of Canada's history and tradition.
The most common question being asked in western Canada is, why surrender our tradition for another tradition? It is common knowledge that the wearing of a turban in the Sikh society is based on tradition and custom and not on religious grounds. The obligatory tokens of the Sikh faith are the five Ks, the Kes, the Kara, the Kirpan, the Kanga and the Kachha. Whenever we read a newspaper or listen to a newscast these days, we hear more and more about our distinct society and the preservation of our Canadian culture. The unity of this country has even been challenged when reflecting cultural desires.
While Commissioner Inkster may have had good intentions, I think this proposal for change was for the worst possible reason. If you make an exception for one group of people, where do you stop? In order to come to a satisfactory resolution of this issue, I believe it is important to understand why some members of the

Private Members' Business
public are so concerned about possible changes to the red serge uniform. To do so, both the history of the force and of the uniform must be examined.
The idea of a mounted police force originated in response to a need to establish law and order in the northwest in advance of any settlement. The solution of Sir John A. Macdonald was the creation of a paramilitary police, trained for the warfare, with preliminary civilian responsibility. Its model was the Royal Irish Constabulary. Accordingly, in 1873, the Dominion Parliament passed legislation for the establishment of a mounted police force for the Northwest Territories to be known as the Northwest Mounted Police.
Three divisions of 50 men each were mobilized at Fort Garry, Manitoba, where training and organization took place during the winter of 1873. Recruitment proceeded and reached a strength of 1,000 by the year 1885.
Once established in the northwest, demands upon the force increased. Members supervised trading practices, provided some relief and medical services to the Indians and they carried out patrols throughout the area. In addition, the force had an economic and cultural impact on the west as many members, upon leaving the force, made the west their home.
Furthermore, by the start of the Klondike gold rush in 1896, the Northwest Mounted Police was already established in the Yukon. From the start, the force carried out almost all the administrative functions of government. Its members acted as land agents, magistrates, police and mail carriers. After the peak of the rush had subsided civil servants had relieved the force of many of its administrative duties. A few years later, the force was also to play a prominent role in opening up the Canadian Arctic frontier.
In 1905, the first contracts were negotiated for the force to act under the direction of the provincial authorities to enforce the criminal laws and local statutes. The force was active in the campaign of the Canadian government to attract settlers to the prairies. By 1914, over a million settlers had arrived. The police became land agents, agriculture experts, welfare officials and immigration officers. By this time, the mounted police had achieved an international reputation for its part in bringing about the orderly development of western
Canada. It is noteworthy to add that the force sent contingents to fight in both World Wars.
In 1920, the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, as it had become in 1904, absorbed the Dominion Police which had been responsible for federal policing in eastern Canada. In keeping with its national role, it was renamed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I have provided only the briefest of overviews of the origins and the history of the force. My intent was simply to illustrate why many Canadians identify with and are protective of the red serge uniform. In fact, the history of the uniform is central to this discussion. In keeping with the para-military role of the force, many of the traditions established in the early days were of military origin. These military traditions were nowhere more apparent than in the style of the uniforms of the force which followed the patterns of the British Army.
In accordance with Sir John A. Macdonald's apparent desire to keep the uniforms of the new police force simple, a jacket made of heavy scarlet serge with a wool lining was issued as the tunic for all ranks; dark blue cavalry pattern overalls, black boots and a pillbox cap or white helmet completed the uniform.
By 1876 officers were pressing for a distinctive uniform in keeping with their social and military status as well as one that would distinguish them from members of other ranks. An elaborate full dress uniform and a simpler everyday uniform were authorized. Scarlet was used for tunics of all ranks, partly because it was the traditional British military colour and also to avoid confusion with the blue-clad U.S. army.
Although the scarlet tunic coupled with the stetson hat is generally reserved for ceremonial occasions, this uniform still represents the image that most Canadians have of the force. This image is continuously being reinforced and promoted both within Canada and abroad through the performances of the RCMP musical ride. Based on traditional cavalry drills, the ride provides audiences with a unique opportunity to experience an exciting part of Canada's past.
Today the RCMP truly has a presence from sea to sea, across all provinces and in the north. In eight of the ten provinces the force is under contract to enforce the Criminal Code and provincial laws. Under comparable arrangements, the force provides policing services to over 190 municipalities across Canada. The RCMP also

has exclusive police jurisdiction in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
It is also important to note that the symbolic importance of the red serge, or the "significant" uniform, is recognized in the current RCMP regulations of 1988. Pursuant to the regulations, the Commissioner of the RCMP can approve changes to all uniforms except to the significant uniform. Any changes to the red serge require ministerial approval.
Today's uniform depicts neutrality, impartiality, tradition, history and heritage. This uniform is a symbol of Canada and should only be changed to benefit the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a whole and only to reflect safety and comfort.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak to this motion. I do not want to derogate from the motion itself because I find myself very favourably disposed to it.
I want to refer to the phrase "officers of Sikh origin". I do not think origin is really at issue here. What we are talking about is a faith and not origin. The reference to origin is perhaps a little unfortunate and slightly distracting. That aside, I also want to refer to the portion of the motion that refers to multiculturalism. It is my view that here multiculturalism is not just a reflection but it is a true manifestation of the community itself. It is a reality for us all that many of our fellow Canadians fervently and proudly subscribe to a faith wherein because of their devotion to God, the creator, they do not cut their hair or kes as it is called, and for reasons of tradition and good grooming, it is bound in a turban. I have, and perhaps we all have, friends and neighbours who are Sikh and they are an integral, real part of our Canadian culture.
My father was a Mountie. All of my growing up years were spent with a man who proudly wore the uniform of that day. I remember trying on his boots more than once, those big high boots and the big stetson hat, which did not fit me at all. I recall one day my father came home with a tuxedo and a small hand gun, a concealed weapon. That became the RCMP uniform for a day or a week in
Private Members' Business
terms of undercover work. The uniform has changed. It has changed to accommodate women most recently.
In Halifax, where I was bom after the last war, I saw many uniforms from the services, as well as the RCMP. Even though I was not alive during the last two wars, I know that men of the Sikh faith have served with distinction and valour in service to our Crown. They did that with or without battle dress, with or without helmet, even though the absence of a helmet might have put them at greater risk to their lives.
In my riding of Scarborough, in metropolitan Toronto, the Metropolitan Toronto Police will shortly have men of the Sikh faith proudly serving in the force. They will do that without cutting their hair, without removing the turban.
The Charter provisions in our Constitution speak for themselves. I do not want to spend a lot of time on that, but I feel it is likely that if the issue is pressed in the courts, if we are truly going to rely on our Charter, then the courts will find almost certainly that men of Sikh faith should not be barred from serving in the RCMP simply because of a uniform requirement.
I have children in my riding playing football, ball hockey, and they have their hair, their kes, properly done up as they play these sports. I am confident, and I think the whole country is-I like to think it is-that these children can grow up and be able to serve as Mounties just as proudly as my father did.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise to speak in support of this private member's bill introduced by the member for Burnaby- Kingsway.
Passage of this bill is vital to Canada's commitment to multiculturalism. It is also vital to Canada's commitment to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is lauded for its promotion of equality and of human dignity, and which recognizes our multicultural heritage.
Multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of Canada. We must embrace and act on the concept of equality and diversity. I ask the question: What is more important, the uniform an officer is wearing or the qualities that officer has on the inside? Does the RCMP tradition consist merely of red serge and brown stetson, or does it consist of the integrity and dedication that

October 27, 1989
Private Members' Business
RCMP officers possess? In the final analysis, what is important is not an officer's headgear, but the quality of the head under the hat or the turban.
I certainly support this bill. It is in keeping with the principle of multiculturalism and it is in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it will ensure that the effectiveness of the RCMP is not obstructed. Equality is based not on popularity; equality for all ought to be a living principle. Support for this bill is support for the principle of equality for all.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, unless I speak for about a minute, I am told that the bill will be talked out.
Very briefly, having worked as a Crown Attorney in three western provinces for many years and in this city with the RCMP, I would yield to nobody in having greater respect for the RCMP and the fact that the members risk their lives, theoretically, every hour of every day they serve. I have many friends in the RCMP.
I would also speak in favour of the motion. There is only time to make one key point: wearing a turban is a requirement, to the best of my understanding, for a baptised Sikh. It is not a cultural or an optional thing. If you are baptised, you have to wear a turban. Therefore, if you are banned from wearing the dress uniform and, therefore, from joining the RCMP, you are being banned, as I understand it, on the basis of religion.
Secondly, I wonder why the people who in good faith defend the present dress code, did not object when women were allowed into the RCMP at first, and when we began to have skirts in the dress code. It has been pointed out by members of the New Democrats and the Liberals that there have been many changes in the dress. The reality is that the RCMP should be accessible to all on the basis of competence.
I believe if the House were to support this motion today and not to talk it out, that we would have a significant impact on recognizing the fact that eight million Canadians are of non-British, non-French origin. I would urge all members here to support it and not to talk the bill out.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, this protest which is challenging the decision of the commissioner of the RCMP to allow turbans to be worn
by RCMP officers is promoting hatred in Canada. I am appalled and sickened by a pin that is being worn in Alberta saying: "Keep the RCMP Canadian", with a picture of a Sikh in a turban and a line drawn across. This is the kind of hatred that is promoted by the actions of some members of Parliament. I deplore this.
I had many things I wanted to say today. In the interests of not talking this out, I just want to say simply that this is contrary, not only to our Charter, but also to the new Multiculturalism Act which requires that federal institutions like the RCMP must enhance the understanding and respect of the diversity of Canadian society.
I call on all members of this House to support the motion before us today.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby has asked the House to consider the question of whether or not the turban should be introduced as part of the uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This issue has clearly evoked a strong response from many Canadians, both for and against the proposal.
I believe it would be helpful to this discussion to examine briefly the policies of police forces in other parts of the country and what they are doing. For example, what is the Department of National Defence doing regarding the turban. In so doing, I hope to provide some information to those individuals who have differing points of view on this topic. Both sides have raised valid concerns in support of their respective positions. This is the reason why a decision in respect to the proposal requires careful consideration and reflection.
It seems to me that the reason the RCMP's proposal to introduce turbans has elicited such a heated response is because it brings into play two long-standing traditions. On the one hand, the red serge "Mountie" uniform has become for many Canadians a symbol of this country's unique heritage and culture. Those familiar with the force's role in the orderly settlement of western Canada have every reason to be proud of the RCMP's enormous contribution to the development of this nation. Consequently, any change to the RCMP dress code represents more than just a simple variation to a police uniform. It represents to some a challenge not only to the policing traditions of the RCMP, but also to the
October 27, 1989

traditions which lie at the foundation of our Canadian identity.
On the other hand, we have welcomed into our country people of various ethnic origins who have come to Canada to establish a better life for themselves and their children. Those of Sikh origin who choose to follow the tenets of the Sikh faith are required to observe a number of religious practices. Part of the Sikh religious tradition includes a series of symbols known as the five Ks, namely, the kes or unshorn hair and beard; the kanga or comb; the kara or steel bracelet; the kirpan or sword; and the kachha or undershorts.
Each of these objects has a religious significance for practising Sikhs. Together with the turban they form part of the Sikh uniform. The question then becomes, can we reconcile the RCMP dress code with the dress code of religious Sikhs?
The need to attract more members from visible minorities is an issue being faced by police forces across Canada, not just the RCMP. It is important to note that a number of these police forces have adopted policies to accommodate religious Sikhs. By the same token, while the experience of other police forces is instructive in looking at the issue of turbans in the RCMP, it is by no means prescriptive. The issue must be decided on its own specific merits in the context of the RCMP's unique role as Canada's national police force.
A number of years ago the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force amended its dress code to permit practising members of the Sikh religion to wear a turban made of issued fabric in place of the standard head-dress issued to other police officers. The unshorn hair must be concealed under the turban and beards and moustaches are to be worn in a neat fashion. In addition, the other religious symbols are allowed.
It is interesting to note that in respect to the kirpan or sword the dress regulations provide for the wearing of a small replica of the sword in the form of a pin. It is to be worn under the police uniform and cannot exceed three and a half inches in length.
The Sikh member is also requested to sign a form acknowledging that he cannot be permitted to perform certain duties where the wearing of a special head-dress
Private Members' Business
or special safety equipment, for example, helmets and hard hats, respiratory equipment is required by statute or is necessary for safety reasons.
I understand that both the Peel Regional Police Force and the Halton Regional Police Force have dress regulations for Sikh officers similar to those of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. Similarly, the Edmonton Police Force has adopted dress regulations which permit adherents of the Sikh religion to wear a police blue turban with a cap badge centred and secured midway on the front of the turban. Hair and beard may remain uncut provided that a member's safety is not put into jeopardy when required to wear operational equipment.
Finally, my understanding is that while the Ottawa Police Force does not have regulations in place on turbans, a statement was issued a few years ago by the force to the effect that the need to wear a turban for religious reasons would not bar an applicant from being considered as a candidate.
My objective in canvassing the policies of the above noted police departments is simply to illustrate the pairing of a police uniform with a turban in Canada is not without precedent.
In fact the Department of National Defence has adopted a dress policy which allows members of the Canadian forces who are adherents to the Sikh religion to wear an issue turban as well as the other required religious symbols. These items must be modified or removed if they interfere with safety or operational requirements. Also, the hair and beard must be worn uncut, provided the member's safety is not jeopardized by the need to wear occupational or operational equipment.
This is not to suggest that the solution for the RCMP will be a straightforward one, or that it should simply follow what a small number of other police forces have done. It goes without saying that there are many more police forces that have not addressed the issue of turbans in their dress code.
Perhaps this question is simply not relevant given the needs of their particular communities. Others may be of the view that changing the dress code to accommodate any religious group is not advisable because the distinction would hinder the assimilation of the member into the force; if one group is accommodated, equal consider-

October 27, 1989
Private Members' Business
ation would have to be accorded to all requests for concessions no matter how valid.
These are important concerns. I do not believe that those who are against changes to the RCMP red serge uniform are against the idea of Sikhs or a member of any minority group joining the force. Quite the contrary. The focus of these arguments is the notion that no matter what a person's ethnic or religious background may be, if that individual wishes to become a member of the RCMP, he or she should accept the established dress code. In other words, membership may have its privileges, but it also entails certain obligations.
In so far as the RCMP uniform is concerned, the view is that we are not dealing with just any uniform but the uniform of Canada's national police force. The significance of the scarlet tunic for those who view the uniform as a symbol of Canada's history and traditions cannot be underestimated.


Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway has presented for the consideration of this House the issue of the proposed changes to the uniform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which would allow members of Sikh origin to wear turbans.
Given the diverse and intense reaction to this proposal, it is clear that this is not a simple cosmetic variation to a police uniform. The issue of modifying the RCMP uniform to allow turbans is a complex one, because it serves to bring into play our respect for Canada's unique history and tradition, and the desire to welcome into the society as full participating members individuals of various ethnic origins.
For this reason, I would like to examine the different points of view expressed in regard to this issue in order to better assess what the proposed changes represent to Canadians. It is imperative that a workable solution be found to this question through serious study and consultation.
Some members of the public have expressed their strong opposition to the introduction of the turban as part of the RCMP uniform. This issue has clearly struck a deep nerve across the country. The gist of many of the opinions expressed centres on the view that the red serge uniform has evolved over the more than 100-year history of the RCMP into a national symbol, one that is instantly
recognized across Canada and indeed throughout the world. And, of course, Canadians have every reason to be proud of the outstanding reputation the force has earned over the years both at home and abroad.
Thus arguments have been advanced that modifying the red serge uniform to accommodate turbans in lieu of the stetson hat would not accord with the traditional image of Canada that many Canadians associate with the Mounties.
Furthermore, it has been contended that introducing this variation would make it more difficult for new members wearing turbans to be assimilated into the police organization both from the point of view of the public and of other RCMP members. If the purpose of any uniform is to identify its wearers as being part of a distinct organization and to create an esprit de corps, at what point does allowing variations to accommodate new members counter the purpose of the uniform as a unifying force?
These are all valid concerns which deserve serious reflection. I do not believe they are directed against the Sikh community or any religious group but are simply indicative of a sincerely expressed desire to maintain a long standing symbol of Canada. Indeed, from the perspective of native Canadians, the preponderant majority of us sitting here today is descendant of immigrants to this country. Multiculturalism is a fact of life in Canada and has been since its inception. The RCMP is made up of Canadians. Their roots represent many cultures and religions. All have been proud to wear the traditional RCMP uniform.
Canada has always welcomed immigrants to her shores. I realize that we have benefited from the contributions of many countries and many cultures. However, in the past Canadian traditions, laws and institutions have been adopted, upheld and strengthened by the people seeking to make their home in Canada. Everyone has always been welcomed and everyone will still be welcomed.
In Canada, people are free to practice their religion and keep their customs. People can make choices about how they choose to live their lives. The face of Canadian society is changing and there is a line of thought that so
October 27, 1989

too must the composition of the police force which serves that society. The need to provide more effective community-based policing is clearly not a concern facing the RCMP alone but must most established Canadian symbols be altered to achieve this goal? I do not deny that the RCMP uniform has changed over the years. However, the change did not interfere with uniformity nor did the change reflect any religious affiliation.
The issue being debated today is not a simple one but one that has far reaching implications. It is clearly a desirable goal to have the RCMP open to all who wish to serve in it. I do not believe anyone involved in this debate would argue to the contrary.
Lately in this country we have been moving in the direction of separating religion from state. Would this not be a step back from this position? At the same time, it is recognized that policing in general is a profession which has a different code of conduct, standards and dress than other disciplines. Coupled with the particular history of the red serge Mountie uniform, there are arguments to be considered against modification.
Somehow a solution must be found. The outcome of a decision on this issue must produce a win-win situation for all concerned, but must Canadian symbols give way? This is why the matter is being reviewed carefully and why further consultation is necessary.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I have a very special and personal reason for entering this debate today. My father was an immigrant to this country. He brought with him a strange language and some different customs and, until his retirement, he was master tailor for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. For over three decades, he dedicated his life and his career to making sure that the Mounted Police was the best dressed national police force in the world. He took great pride in personally measuring every new recruit for his first uniform and even had the honour of making a Mountie suit which was sent back to England with Queen Elizabeth II for Prince Charles. I know because my younger brother was the model for it.
I share the view that I believe my father would have had, that we should be grateful to live in a nation that would not force any Canadian to abandon an important element of his or her religion, and that would not
Private Members' Business
exclude any Canadian from being a member of the RCMP for religious reasons.
The Mounted Police is a symbol of Canada because they uphold the values that make this a great country, values that include respect for the differences that exist among Canadians, and values that include the right we all enjoy to participate fully in Canadian society regardless of differences in religion, race, gender or colour.
I have no doubt that there were also objections when some uniforms first included skirts. There are no doubt some people who feel that oriental skins or black skins or native Canadian skins do not go with-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway on a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the clock and not wanting to stop the hon. member, I would seek consent of the House to extend the debate so that speeches may be finished.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the member for Burnaby-Kingsway asks to extend the debate, I would ask him to what time. The member knows that if we do not see the clock, we could be here until Monday morning. It is not that I object, but I would just like some indication from the member.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I would suggest that we allow the speakers who wish to participate to do so-I understand there are very few who wish to do so-and that the debate be continued no later than 3.30 p.m.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. The member for Ottawa West.


Marlene Catterall: The integrity and excellence of the force does not depend on such superficial considerations as a piece of serge or a piece of brown felt. A multicul-turalism department and policy are travesties if our institutions cannot change to accommodate differences.


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the proposed changes in the uniform of the RCMP which the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Kingsway has asked the House to examine should be considered within the broader context of providing police services in a multicultural society. The RCMP's decision to allow the wearing of turbans by members of the RCMP is a delicate matter that obliges us to strike a balance

October 27, 1989
Private Members' Business
between our respect for the agency's traditions and the desire to improve services.
Mr. Speaker, to give the House a better understanding of what motivated this proposal, I would like to explain today how the RCMP has evolved to respond to the changing needs of the many communities it serves.
I hope to show that the motion before the House today will have important implications, not only for the RCMP but also for other Canadian police forces that are seeking ways of improving their relationship with minority groups.

The RCMP has recognized the need to become more representative of the people it serves. Although the force, as we all know, has its origin in the west, it must be remembered that today it provides policing services across Canada through agreements with various provincial, territorial, and municipal governments.
Accordingly, a national recruiting team was created last year to target and attract personnel from visible
minority groups. As part of this initiative, both posters and brochures designed to attract visible minority youths are being produced in the language of the target audience. I understand that to date over 200 people from these target groups have joined the ranks of the RCMP.

Furthermore, the RCMP is making considerable efforts today to increase representation of women and Francophones. This type of recruitment, Mr. Speaker, is recognized as a very good way to promote co-operation and understanding between police forces and the general public.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being three o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 30,1989